2004-10-20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
JAMES UNDERWOOD
CHARLES ABBATE
ALLAN BRYANT
ROY URRICO
JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
PAUL HAYES
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & CODES- DAVID HATIN
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II, COORDINATED REVIEW, PB LEAD
JAMES W. NEWBURY AGENCY AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S):
JAMES W. NEWBURY ZONING: LC-10A LOCATION: 62 CORMUS ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND SIZE REQUIREMENTS. PART OF THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS IN THE TOWN OF LAKE LUZERNE. CROSS REFERENCE:
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 10, 2004
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE: 4.88 AND 11.16 AC. TAX MAP NO.
307.00-1-46.2 AND 47 SECTION 179-4-030
MR. ABBATE-I thought he withdrew it?
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, that application did not get an approval from the Planning Board
last night. So they’re not ready to come to the Zoning Board yet. They’ve been tabled. They’ll
be back next month.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Then we’re moving on.
NEW BUSINESS:
NOTICE OF APPEAL 7-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED OWNER(S): JOHN, JR. AND
KATHLEEN SALVADOR ZONING: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: DUNHAM’S BAY
APPELLANT IS APPEALING TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING AN
AUGUST 25, 2004 DETERMINATION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RELATIVE
TO THE DOCKS ON THE PROPERTY. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 98-155 LOT SIZE: 6.08
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.00-1-75.3 SECTION: 179-16-050
JOHN SALVADOR, PRESENT
MR. MC NULTY-I can read the Zoning Administrator’s letter.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. STONE-Read September 7.
th
MR. MC NULTY-That one.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We’ll read the letter from Mr. Salvador dated September 7,
th
confirming the receipt of a letter from Mr. Brown relating to his interpretation and subsequent
determination that the boats that they are in the process of fabricating, the hulls of which are
now moored at our waterfront facility, are instead a dock. “In order to meet your challenge, to
avoid a formal enforcement action, we are now attempting to rearrange the boat docking
pattern at our waterfront facility. Providing we are successful, this rearrangement will allow us
to remove the boathouse from their present location. As we understand your challenge, said
removal is the minimum decreed necessary to avoid a formal enforcement action. As there are
but four working days remaining in this holiday week, you can appreciate the difficulties of
trying to schedule heavy equipment in the short term. However, we are at the task of pulling
those stops necessary to meet the September 10 deadline. In the meantime, in order to preclude
any enforcement action in the event we are unable to meet the September 10 date, and in order
to preserve our rights to appeal your determination, we are submitting a Notice of Appeal from
your determination that these boats are docks within the meaning of the Town Code. We
expect to address, under separate cover, your suggested alternative involving a revision to our
Special Use Marina permit to cure this purported violation and will keep you posted as to our
progress.”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal 7-2004, John, Jr. and Kathleen Salvador, Meeting Date:
October 20, 2004 “Project Location: Dunham’s Bay Description of Proposed Project: The
appellant is appealing the determination rendered by the Zoning Administrator regarding the
docks at the site.
Information requested:
Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine whether or not the decision
made by the Zoning Administrator that the floating docks are in fact docks and not “float
boats” is correct.
Staff comments:
The Town Code defines a dock as:
DOCK -- Any structure, whether affixed or floating, placed in or upon a lake, pond, river,
stream or brook and which provides a berth for watercraft and/or a means of pedestrian access
to and from the shoreline. This shall include boathouses, piers, wharfs, crib docks, stake docks,
floating docks and all such similar structures.
As the structures on the site provided both berthing space for watercraft as well as pedestrian
access to and from the shoreline it was determined that the structures were docks.
Please see photographs taken during a site visit prior to the issuance of the determination in
question.”
MR. STONE-Mr. Salvador.
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening, members of the Board. Thank you for the opportunity to
make this presentation tonight. As the public notice reads, Dunham's Resort Corp is appealing
the Zoning Administrator's determination that certain of the Corporation's recently constructed
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
"floating objects" are floating docks rather than vessels. In this regard, the Public Hearing Notice
might better have described this appeal as that of being related to "vessels" on the property
being of Land Tax Parcel 252.00-1-75.3. There can be no question that whether or not these
floating objects are vessels or floating docks, they are moored above our privately owned land
within the boundaries of the Town of Queensbury beyond the mean high-water mark which is
something termed the "foreshore". Privately owned lands under water are sometimes referred
to as drowned lands, or submerged lands or, more specifically, flooded lands. I say specifically
flooded because our lands, a portion of which are now under water, are known to have been
farm lands as early as 1762, many years before a flooding caused by a man-made event; i.e., the
construction of a series of dams at the outlet of Lake George between 1790 and 1820. Under such
circumstances, title to the flooded land is not relinquished and in the case of our submerged
lands, has never been surrendered. Neither have our water and mineral rights ever been
surrendered. Late in July of this year we received a letter notification from the Town Building
Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Hatin, that violations existed because certain structures had
been placed on Land Tax Parcel No. 252.00-1-75.3 without our having obtained building permits
from the Town of Queensbury. The first of these purported Building Code transgressions deals
with a vessel which we designed, built, registered and after sea trials hoisted to a location on
our land for final outfitting. This vessel bears a NYState Vessel Registration No. NY8115FP. Mr.
Hatin lamented in his letter of July 20th that this registered vessel did not appear to have
floatation sufficient to maintain her afloat once in the water and therefore he considered her a
non-vessel. Thus a building permit was required if we were to maintain her in storage. We
decided the easiest way to preclude an enforcement action was to install just enough floatation
to keep her afloat. We have done this and assume that the need for the Town's building permit
for a vessel in storage has accordingly been abated. In this process of dodging Mr. Hatin's
enforcement bullet, we have not overlooked the fact that on several occasions others have
moved vessels into dry-dock or storage because the vessel has lost their ability to float. Mr.
Hatin has never required an application for a building permit to cover this interim period of
negative buoyancy. Even a sunken vessel which has obviously lost her ability to float does not
need a building permit before re- floating and does not lose her identity as a vessel unless
officially abandoned. At the same time that Mr. Hatin was bemoaning that a floating object
without floatation is not a vessel, he insists that floating objects with floatation are also not
vessels. With the corroboration of Mr. Brown, the Zoning Administrator, they are now
attempting to characterize other of our floating objects as "floating docks" within the meaning of
the Town Code because --
1. These floating objects are floating structures
2. These floating objects are structures similar to boathouses, piers, wharfs, crib docks and
staked docks
3. These floating objects provide a berth for watercraft, and
4. These floating objects provide a means of pedestrian access to and from the shoreline
We agree, that as we claim these floating objects to be vessels, they are indeed floating
structures - the same as are all other forms of watercraft but not the same as all other forms of
docks which do not float. Our floating objects are not similar to any boathouse that I know of
constructed on Lake George - our floating objects float and are moveable. In fact, as vessels the
title is transferable and can be relocated on Lake George or elsewhere without a building
permit. Boat houses are permitted only as stationary objects, permitted for one location, and
would be in violation if moved anywhere without a building permit. Our floating objects can
not provide a "berth" for watercraft because the watercraft intermittently moored at them are
not "at a wharf”. They are moored to a vessel - an activity which is sometimes referred to as
"rafting" which is not an unlawful common practice on Lake George. Our floating objects do
not, and will not, provide a means of pedestrian access to and from the shoreline. Dunham's
Bay Boat & Beach Club is a private facility which is not open to a "person traveling on foot; a
walker, especially on city streets" as a pedestrian is defined in "Webster's Dictionary”.
To support our claim that these floating objects are, in fact, vessels we offer the following -
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
1. Every component part necessary to assemble these vessels has been purchased
specifically for use on a vessel. In fact, some design concepts and parts were transferred
from a prototype vessel after the prototype proved seaworthy.
2. These vessels are in the process of being documented by the U.S. Coast Guard which has
recently· been reorganized, becoming a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security rather than under its previous umbrella known as the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
At this point I would like to apprise the Board of the events which have led us to become
involved with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Several years ago, at the time when
we began to build boats in order to facilitate the operations of our Boat & Beach Club, it became
necessary to obtain a New York State Boat Dealer's License. For the record, our Boat Dealer's
Facility Identification Number is 7076513 valid unti1 10/31/06. Consequently, the procedure for
registering our vessels was not foreign to us when in August of 2003 we made application to the
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation for a Hull Identification
Number for the first of these three vessels we had in various stages of assembly. The issuance of
said "HIN" number appeared to be taking an inordinate amount of time, so I called the Albany
office to inquire about its status and learned that our application had been received but had not
yet been "entered". Further delay resulted in a subsequent inquiry and disclosure that now due
to a recent office move, our application for a "HIN" number must have been "misplaced" . We
were then faced with one of two options - either wait for Parks and Recreation to locate and
properly enter our application or resubmit a new application. We resubmitted a new
application now some 9 months after the original application and one week later received a
letter from the NYState Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation which reads in
relevant part -
"At this time we can not approve your application for a HIN Number. "Section
2250 of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Laws defines a vessel as 'every description of
watercraft, other than a seaplane, used or capable of being used as a means of
transportation on water." "It is our opinion that you may be able to transport people on
this floating object but in all practical sense, it is not a reliable or safe means of
transportation on water."
We responded on June 15,2004-
"You have portrayed the boat hull we are assembling as a "floating object". In
very broad terms, all vessels can be termed floating objects. Even submarines which are
well known and recognized as vessels are only intermittently in a state which can be
described as a "floating object". "Section 2250 of the N.Y. State Vehicle and Traffic Law,
would seem to allow our boat hull to be classified as a vessel since it is certainly not
intended to fly. Conversely, are we to understand that after our hull is fully outfitted
and underway on the navigable waters of the State, it will not fall within "every
description of watercraft" thus requiring a HIN number.
"We intend to utilize this partially complete boat in a "recreation" use not necessarily for
the ''transportation of people" for which it would require a registry ~ a "public vessel". We have
previously registered vessels with similar hulls which are used as watercraft to support every
"means of transportation on water", none of which include the ''transportation of people". These
"floating objects" have, for several years, proven to be both safe and reliable in the performance
of their intended use, including handicap access, even though they have never been outfitted to
the higher standards required for the transportation of people. "We ask that you reconsider
your initial determination in this matter as we are now evaluating some of the means of
propulsion we might employ to move our boat around in the 5 MPH speed zone in Dunham's
Bay as well as in the near shore areas around the Lake where due to recreation boat congestion,
special navigational rules apply including 5 MPH no-wake zones."
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
After not receiving even an acknowledgement to our June 15th letter from the NYState·
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, it became clear that there were powerful
forces influencing the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation working to prevent
the NYState Registration of our "floating object" as a vessel. Rather than continuing to knock
heads with OPRHP, we started investigating the registration of our vessel at the Federal level
since Lake George is classified as a Federal Navigable Waterway. On June 24th, 2004 we filed
with the U.S. Coast Guard Form CG-1258 which is an "Application for an Initial Issue of
Certificate of Documentation". Said application could not be accepted by the National
Documentation Center's Office without certification that –
1. Dunham's Resort Corp is a registered NYState Corporation in good standing
2. Dunham's Resort Corp. has a New York State mailing address.
3. Certification as to corporate structure of Dunham's Resort; i.e., citizenship of officers,
directors and managers.
4. Disclosure of the Dunham's Resort Corp Federal Identification Number
5. The hailing port of the vessel being documented
6. Endorsement that the vessel is to be used for recreation purposes only.
7. Endorsement as to location of construction, materials of construction and physical
dimensions of the vessel.
8. Certification that the vessel being documented has not been titled in another state.
9. Certification that all state and local sales taxes have been paid on the construction
materials.
While the U.S. Coast Guard Application was pending and close to one year after we
initiated our efforts to obtain a New York State Registration, it became apparent to Mr. Hatin
that we were constructing "floating docks" for which he said a building permit would be
necessary. Of course, before a building permit could be issued, we would need Site Plan Review
approval from the Planning Board. On August 2,2004 before we responded to Mr. Hatin's
concerns of July 20th, we received from the Coast Guard's Documentation Center an
Identification Number 1159052 for our first vessel. On August 2 we asked the Zoning
Administrator to intercede because we took exception to Mr. Hatin's assessment that we had
constructed two floating docks and insisted that our "floating objects" were indeed vessels. On
August 25, 2004, we received Mr. Brown's interpretation that our "floating objects" were to be
considered floating docks. This interpretation was issued by Mr. Brown knowing that we had in
the meantime received the U.S. Coast Guard's Document Identification No. mentioned above.
This appeal ensued.
The Town Code defines a "dock" to include "floating docks" simply because they are
"any structure". However, that is where it ends. There is no definition of a "floating dock". There
is no prohibition in the Town Code which prohibits a registered vessel from being "rafted" to
another registered vessel. Town Code Chapter 179, Section 179-5-050 A(9) prohibits the
construction of any dock, including floating docks, unless they are designed to withstand the
forces of flowing water and wave washes. Our vessels cannot be considered "floating docks"
because unless our vessels are moored to a wharf, as they have been, or underway "at sea", they
cannot withstand the forces of flowing water and wave washes. For this reason alone they
cannot be permitted as "floating docks". For example, the Harris Bay Yacht Club is known to
have floating docks. However, those floating docks were designed and built to withstand the
forces of flowing water and wave washes. They are not movable and they need not be moored
to another wharf for stability. Although the dock floats, there are some components which do
not. They fit the definition of a "floating dock". As for the requirement that "floating docks" be
designed to withstand the forces of flowing water and wave washes, I have frequently inquired
for a copy of the Town's design criteria only to be told "bring us your application - we'll tell you
if it is complete". Also, does the flowing water include water in its solid state; i.e., ice?? Again,
no answer. Our vessels must be moved from their moorings to a save haven for winter storage,
the same as all other vessels on Lake George. The floating docks at the Harris Bay Yacht Club
are not moved for winter storage. Not only does the Town lack the tools to permit "floating
docks" which our vessels are not, the Town lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Some members of
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
this Board may have heard my comments on this subject during the September 23, 2004 meeting
of the recently formed Planning/Ordinance Review Committee meeting. Because they are
appropriate, I would like to repeat those comments for the record of this hearing.
Section 7 A of State Law precludes a municipality from regulating the navigable waters
of the State. If these registered vessels are indeed determined to be floating docks, then they are
floating on the navigable waters of the State. We can cite several cases where the NYState
Supreme Court has affirmed the limited jurisdiction of local government vis-a-vie navigable
waters of the State and the United States. As noted in People of the State of New York v. The
Hudson River Connecting Railroad Corp. as long ago as 1918 - navigable waters are under the
paramount jurisdiction of the United States 104 Misc. 19,23 (Sup. Ct. Albany Cty, 1918) In 1973
the Appellate Division 2nd Department of NYState Supreme Court in Erbsland v. Rubin
determined that the zoning powers of the City of Rye did not extend into Milton Harbour, a
navigable waterway. When discussing navigable waters, the Court in Mohawk Valley Ski Club,
Inc. v. Town of Duanesburg states "a town's zoning authority does not extend to those waters"
Importantly, "a municipality cannot regulate navigable waters under its zoning powers..."
Rottenberg v. Edwards, 103 AD 2nd 138·(2nd Dept 1984). Also, that navigable waters are within
the sole jurisdiction and control of the State and finally that the paramount authority of the
State to control uses upon navigable waters precludes towns from exercising jurisdiction.
Finally, as recently as 2003 in Higgins v. Douglas, this is a Lake Placid case, the Court
recognized that Section 32 of the NYState Navigation Law governs the "location of structures in
or on navigable waters" including a "wharf, dock, pier, jetty, platform or other structure built on
floats...temporary or permanent." 304A.D.2d 1051, 1056 (3rd Dep't 2003). In that case, the
plaintiffs tried to argue that the Town held jurisdiction over a dock because said dock was
partly on the shore. Id. The Court disagreed and reinforced the Navigation Law as controlling.
Likewise, the Town of Queensbury's zoning powers do not extend into Dunham's Bay - a body
of water known to be burdened with a State and Federal navigational servitude. Incidentally,
the Town has never issued a building permit for the floating docks at the Harris Bay Yacht
Club. In fact, as floating docks they evaded State permits because such floating docks were
considered temporary structures. Furthermore, from a reading of American Jurisprudence, NY
Jurisprudence, Warren Weed's Real Property Law, we conclude that-
"Federal regulatory jurisdiction and powers of improvement for navigation extend
laterally to the entire water surface and bed of a navigable waterbody which includes all the
land and waters below the ordinary high water mark. Jurisdiction thus extends to the edge of
all such water bodies, even though portions of the waterbody may be extremely shallow or
obstructed by shoals, vegetation or other barriers. Marsh lands and similar areas are thus
considered navigable in law but only so far as the area is subject to inundation by the ordinary
high waters.
"Ownership of a river or lake bed or of the lands between high and low water marks will
vary according to state law; however, private ownership of the underlying lands has no bearing
on the existence or extent of the dominate Federal jurisdiction over a navigable waterbody."
As for the zoning jurisdiction of the Town of Queensbury, all members of this Board
should have received a copy of my letter addressed to the Town Assessor which letter was
precipitated in anticipation of the property revaluation recently being undertaken by the Town.
Quote-
"Presumably all of the property; i.e., land tax parcel, included in any property
identification is considered to be within the boundaries of the town's taxing authority; i.e., its
municipal boundaries. The county tax maps have only recently depicted the underwater land in
the Queensbury near shore areas of Lake George as being lands in the Town of Bolton. The 1859
Revised Statutes of the State of New York define the eastern most boundary of the Town of
Bolton as the "east bank of Lake George", whereas the same statute defines the western most
boundary of the Town of Queensbury as that of a line "along the east shore of Lake George... ". I
know of no more recent definition. " In either case, the navigable waters of Lake George as they
near the Town of Queensbury were never intended to be within the boundaries of the Town of
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
Queensbury, rather they are in the Town of Bolton. The Town's zoning jurisdiction is limited to
the land within its jurisdictional boundaries and ends at a line along the East Shore which must
coincide with the east bank of Lake George. This is the second reason why the Town of
Queensbury lacks subject matter jurisdiction - the waters of Lake George are foreign to the
Town of Queensbury. As applicants in this appeal, we are the owners of vessels which have
vessel names and the first a U.S. Coast Guard Identification No. 1159052 evidencing its
registration with the United States Coast Guard and the solicitation by the U.S. Coast Guard, a
military organization protecting the County's maritime communities, to participate in the
Department of Homeland Security "Waterway Watch" Program. I have here a brochure
showing, and a decal we’re to post to be a part of this program. In Miami River Boat Yard v.
60 Houseboat Serial #SC-40-2860-3-62, 390 F.2d 596~ 597 (5th Cir. 1968). "The word vessel
includes every description of water craft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being
used, as a means of transportation on water. " Importantly, in 1973 Misc 2d 680, Supreme Court
rules that ''the fact that a craft...has not motive power and must, as would the most lowly- of
dumb barges, be towed does not deprive her of the status of a vessel." In conclusion, we insist
we have designed vessels, built vessels, are licensing vessels even if only "lowly dumb barges"
or "artificial contrivances" for use on the navigable waters of the State and the United States -
NOT floating docks. Even if these floating objects are determined to be floating docks, which
they are NOT, the Town of Queensbury including this Board lacks subject matter jurisdiction - a
municipality cannot regulate navigable waters under its zoning power! In closing, this Board
should know that there is pending in Warren County Supreme Court before the Honorable
Judge Krogmann a case involving the Town of Horicon having placed a Stop Work Order on
the fabrication of a houseboat which has also been documented by the U.S. Coast Guard for use
on Schroon Lake -- a navigable body of water: Pending Judge Krogmann's decision, I
understand the plaintiff is towing the partially completed boathouse to the navigable waters of
another town - less than 100 ft. away - where he intends to complete the construction. Any
questions the Board has?
MR. STONE-Mr. Salvador, I hope you recognize that the Board, certainly in the guise of the
Chairman, has given you great latitude in this particular very narrow issue. As I always try and
explain, this is an appeal from a determination by the Zoning Administrator that these
constructed items that are on your property are in fact docks, and not boats, and I would
remind you that in your letter of September 7, 2004, you recognized the fact that the Town of
Queensbury has some right in making this determination when you said, in order to preserve
our rights to appeal your determination we are submitting a Notice of Appeal from your
determination that the boats are docks.
MR. SALVADOR-Preserve our rights, not your rights.
MR. STONE-You’re right, but you have appealed to the Town of Queensbury, even though
you’re saying the Town of Queensbury has no right being involved. I just want to remind you
of that. I also want to remind the Board and the public that this is a very narrow issue. Your
presentation was very learned, very erudite, very long, but very informative, but we are here to
determine whether or not the Zoning Administrator’s determination that these are docks and
not boats is correct or incorrect. I would like, at this time, Mr. Brown, would you like to say
anything?
MR. BROWN-If you’re through with Mr. Salvador. I think he’s probably got his presentation.
MR. STONE-You’re through with your presentation, I assume.
MR. SALVADOR-Just a comment on your comment. I did address the issue of floating docks
versus vessels, and I did try to show where the Town Code is seriously lacking, in, Number
One, it’s definition of a floating dock, and, Number Two, has anyone ever applied for a permit
to construct a floating dock, and if they did, what form would you give them, what criteria
would they have to meet? That’s the thing, I’m trying to point out that the Code is woefully
inadequate.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. STONE-And as a member of the PORC, I appreciate your bringing this to our attention,
and as there are two other members sitting here, it will be put into the hopper. It’s very
important, but what we’re talking about right now is Mr. Brown’s determination that these are
docks and not vessels. That’s the only issue on the table.
MR. SALVADOR-Well, maybe what you should do is hold your determination in this regard in
abeyance until that Board can address this issue.
MR. STONE-That’s not the most important thing we’re going to be addressing. I think you’d
like to know and the Town would like to know what the situation is, but we’ll talk about that.
May I hear from Mr. Brown?
MR. SALVADOR-Sure.
MR. BROWN-I guess a brief bit of refocusing. I guess the issue here is my determination that
the structures that are depicted in the photos that I presented for you are docks rather than
boats. Mr. Salvador presented many references to case law, issues that have been raised in
other towns, challenges that have been presented to other zoning ordinances. We’re not here to
talk about where the Town of Queensbury Zoning District boundary lines are, whether or not
the Town can apply zoning outside of the boundaries, whether or not a boat is allowed on
Schroon Lake or on the Mississippi River. We’re here to look at a determination that the
structures that are on the property are docks or boats, and it’s a very specific issue, and my
determination was based on the definition in the Code. As Staff notes say, these structures
provide berthing spaces for boats, provide pedestrian access to and from the boats, and that’s a
clear fit for a definition for a dock.
MR. STONE-Any questions?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. My question is relative to intent. You stated in
your presentation that, you know, vessels, the intent of vessels is transportation on the
waterways. Okay. Is that your intent for this vessel or item, or is it rather as the photographs
depicted, to have boats moored to them and have people getting on and off the boats and so on
and so forth?
MR. SALVADOR-No. A vessel is used for transportation. You transport things in many ways
with a vessel.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m not understanding what your intent is in the transportation area. I
mean, how are you going to use this vessel to transport anything?
MR. SALVADOR-The very fact that they’re saying it’s used for pedestrian access.
MR. BRYANT-That’s not my question. My question is relative to use of the vessel or item to
transport something.
MR. SALVADOR-Transportation on water, yes.
MR. BRYANT-What are you transporting on that item?
MR. SALVADOR-Recreation activities.
MR. BRYANT-So that item is going to basically float around like a boat, and you’re going to do
recreational stuff on it?
MR. SALVADOR-We could fish from it.
MR. BRYANT-Is that the intent of this structure? Because it doesn’t appear. I’m just trying to
make a point here.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. SALVADOR-First of all, we haven’t finished the activity, okay. We’re in the process of
getting it documented as a vessel, okay. One of them has been documented, has received an
identification number, that’s part of the process.
MR. BRYANT-I’m not really looking for the definition of “is”, you know. What I’m looking for,
basically, is your intent of the item. I mean, you’re going to use it, you’re going to transport
people out there on the lake, on this flat, dumb barge.
MR. SALVADOR-Transportation on water. Indeed.
MR. BRYANT-And that’s the total intent of it?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-It’s not going to be moored on the shoreline or attached to the shoreline or
moved to the shoreline.
MR. SALVADOR-At times, yes, at times it must be, it’s a vessel.
MR. BRYANT-From the size of, and the type of construction, it appears to me that that is
probably it’s primary objective, and that is to be able to moor boats at the side of it and have
people get on and off of boats, so forth and so on.
MR. SALVADOR-No, not at all. It’s a vessel for transportation on water.
MR. BRYANT-That’s my question.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions of the Board?
MR. ABBATE-Maybe one. During your presentation, there, intermittently throughout your
argument, there seemed to be an oblique suggestion that the Town of Queensbury lacks
jurisdiction. Am I correct?
MR. SALVADOR-That’s my contention, yes, and has for many years, and has known for many
years. Okay. I can lay a pattern of activity in this Town, the Town has known for years.
MR. STONE-That is not on the agenda.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
MR. STONE-I do notice that another person is in the room who you cited. I would invite him to
come forward, Mr. Hatin, if you would like to make a statement.
MR. HATIN-I’ve asked Bruce Frank to put up some pictures that were taken today of the items
I guess we’ll classify them as right now. Mr. Salvador has done a very colorful presentation to
you tonight, and as he always does, he presents a lot of facts and figures which cloud the issues.
MR. STONE-Would you identify yourself for the record.
MR. HATIN-David Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement. Mr. Salvador and I
have gone around and around on this issue. He knows where I stand on it, and I’m very firm
that these are docks, all right. They’re being used to provide docking space for boats. If you
look at the pictures, you’ll see there’s two boats that have been there all summer long. One of
them has moved and one of them has been there all summer long, since the beginning of
Spring. One question I would have for Mr. Salvador, and this may clear the issue up right away
is do you collect a fee for them to tie to this item?
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. STONE-The people who use these vessels are members of the Dunham’s Bay Boat and
Beach Club. They pay a membership fee to use the facilities. All of the facilities, the parking,
we rent vessels. We rent boats. Everything that’s there is included in their membership fee.
MR. HATIN-So that would mean that every boat that is docked at your boat marina is under
the same condition?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, they’re all.
MR. HATIN-Okay. As you can see, you don’t get a straight answer from a question.
MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. The question was every, ask the question again, please.
MR. HATIN-Do you collect a fee to moor or dock boats to these items?
MR. SALVADOR-We collect a membership fee from every single person who is a member of
the Dunham’s Bay Boat and Beach Club.
MR. HATIN-And is that fee based on the foot of the vessel? Is it charged per foot?
MR. SALVADOR-No.
MR. HATIN-Okay. As you can see from the pictures, this is one of the docks that was broken
apart right after the Labor Day weekend. If you look at it, you’ll see upright stanchions on it
that lights on it. One of the things that is not very clear here is there are stakes that were drive
into the bottom of the lake to hold them in place when they were moored to the shoreline. The
other thing you do not see here is that there were cement concrete anchors thrown at the ends of
these docks to hold them in place for the summer. This would not be typical of a vessel. All
right. I don’t know of any vessels out there that have iron stakes or any other types of stakes
that are driven in to the lake bed to hold them in place. I don’t know of any that are used to
have concrete moorings to hold them in place.
MR. SALVADOR-I can address that.
MR. STONE-Let him finish what he’s saying.
MR. HATIN-Can you show the other picture, Bruce. These are pictures that were taken back in,
I believe, August. If you look on the, at this boat, this boat was moored there all summer long.
The tri haul vessel to the right of the picture is still moored there, to this dock, and if you’ll
notice, the boats are tied up to the dock that has now been split into two. I think it’s very
obvious here that this is an attempt to skirt the law, all right. He says he has Hull registration
numbers, but that is not a registered vehicle, all right.
MR. SALVADOR-Not yet.
MR. HATIN-Not yet, and we also have information that those Hull numbers have no meaning,
so, that Mr. Brown has looked into. The bottom line here is I think the one thing the Board
should consider before they make their decision is that we did not take this lightly when we
pursued this. We expected exactly what was going to happen here tonight. We expected the
challenge. We’re ready for the challenge. The Board should back Mr. Brown in his
determination, in the fact that Mr. Salvador is skirting the law, and if we allow this to happen,
then we’re going to see this proliferate around the lake. The Town has stood the test of time
when it comes to docks on the lake. All right. We have issued permits since I’ve been here in
1988. Permits were issued before 1988. We’ve never been legally challenged by Mr. Salvador or
any other entity of the Town or any citizen of the Town, and therefore I don’t think that’s an
issue. So whether we have jurisdiction, I think we do have jurisdiction, all right, and I think
that my letter that I wrote to Mr. Salvador several months ago stands, that these are docks, and
therefore he must comply with the Zoning Ordinance. That’s where I would end it.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-With regard to the anchoring, these vessels are anchored, just like any other
vessel is anchored, a temporary anchor on the bed of the lake. The steel pipes that he referred
to are not permanent. They are used to guide the vessel as it’s coming in. It’s the only thing,
they can be retracted, and are, and this whole system we have differs from the floating docks, as
I pointed out, at the Harris Bay Yacht Club. The Harris Bay Yacht Club floating docks are
anchored and cannot move. They cannot moves. Our vessels are stable only as they are
moored to a wharf, only. Otherwise they are unstable. They cannot be considered a dock.
They cannot support a vessel, at a wharf. The vessels tied to them are rafted. They are not tied
to a dock. They are not tied to a wharf.
MR. STONE-Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Any other questions from the Board, of
Mr. Hatin or Mr. Brown or Mr. Salvador?
MR. SALVADOR-By the way, Mr. Hatin said something about this numbering has no meaning.
It’s clear in the law that a documented vessel must be registered by the State of New York, and
that’s what we will do when we get the document number. We will register them. There’s no
question that with that registration we’ll have to get a Park Commission sticker on them, no
question at all, and we intend to do that, and we intend to go out on the navigable waters when
we’re permitted to. In the meantime, these are vessels under construction.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MRS. HUNT-I have a question of Mr. Salvador, just as a matter of curiosity, what is the width
and length of this structure?
MR. SALVADOR-Eight feet. One is eight feet. The other is six feet.
MRS. HUNT-And the length?
MR. SALVADOR-One is 76 feet. The other two are something in the order of 50 feet.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? You’re happy?
MR. BROWN-I’m happy.
MR. STONE-Let me open the public hearing and remind anybody who wants to speak that
we’re dealing with the very narrow issue, is the Zoning Administrator correct in his
determination that these structures are, in fact, docks, no more, no less. We’ve all heard a great
deal of information tonight, most of it, I would consider, background, but we’re talking is there
docks or not. So I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
FRANK PARILLO
MR. PARILLO-Good evening. My name is Frank Parillo. I have a summer residence on Lake
George, on 9L. Also the owner of Dunham’s Bay Docks and Launch, and Bolton Landing
Marina. I’m not quite as knowledgeable as Mr. Salvador is in the marina business, but we do
dock 300 boats. Been in it for 15 years. I can tell you this, that along with the Town, we also
have pictures of boats being tied up there. I did supply the Park Commission with the name
and address of an individual that did rent a boat slip for the weekend. I don’t believe he joined
the Dunham’s Bay Boat and Beach Club. I think he just docked his boat there for the weekend.
As far as the concrete anchors, most vessels do have anchors. I don’t know of any boat that
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
carries around a slab of concrete and throws it in the lake and says there’s my anchor, because I
don’t know how you would get it out of the lake when you unhook your boat, and the other
thing that I might mention is that the size of these vessels, eight feet by seventy-six feet, I
believe, is just a little bit shorter than the Mohican. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on the subject? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-Well, let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Do you wish to make a comment on what you heard, Mr. Salvador?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Everyone that we rent to is required to agree to the terms and conditions
of the, the rules and regulations of the Boat and Beach Club. It involves our beach. It involves
everything. Use of the restrooms. They have to understand the special navigational rules we
have, and that’s something we do. As far as anchors, we’ve used concrete anchors, I can show
you, in other places in our marina where we have them, we use them, and they’re not very
difficult to remove when the time comes, when we have to lift the anchor, we have a way of
doing it, no big deal at all.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any further questions? Let’s start talking about it. Allan, we’ll start with
you.
MR. BRYANT-I get back to the issue of intent. If the structure was square, like a platform, you
know, and it could conceivably go out into the lake, and it could be used for recreational
purposes, that’s one thing, but it’s clear from the photographs that the primary objective of the
unit is to tie boats to and use it for that purpose. I think the Code is clear when it talks about the
docks as being a fixed or floating, and in my view this is nothing more than a floating type
dock. Whether it’s comparable to the other clubs or not is of no consequence. It’s still, the
purpose of, the main purpose of it to be used as a dock. So I’m going to have to side with the
Administrator.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with Al on this as well. I believe the Zoning
Administrator made the correct determination on this, and I have no reason to believe
otherwise.
MR. STONE-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I think it would be a real stretch of the imagination to consider these
structures, 50 and 76 feet long, as recreational use for fishing and transportation. It seems pretty
clear that, semantics aside, that these are floating docks, and I agree with the Administrator.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I basically come down the same way, you know, it quacks like a dock. It sure
looks like a dock, I think, kidding aside, it meets the definition that the Town has for a floating
dock, no question about it, and all the other issues that Mr. Salvador raised may well have point
in fact, but they’re beyond the jurisdiction of this decision. They belong in a court. So I, too,
will support the Zoning Administrator.
MR. STONE-Jim?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that there’s a historic perspective for these floating objects, as what
Mr. Salvador has described his present facilities that he’s constructed here. I think that there
probably is an outside chance that he could obtain an actual vehicle number for these boats, you
know, and they could possibly be used for that purpose, but it would be a bit of a stretch of the
imagination, to me, to imagine that these vehicles would be zooming around the lake, or even
attempting to go out at Dunham’s Bay, from the near shore areas, and, you know, given the fact
that the waves on the lake and things like that. I think that we have to be a little bit realistic
here, that there are floating objects on the lake up there. I think they’re work barges that are
moored to shore while they’re working, an I think they probably drive pipes into the bottom,
too, but I think in this instance here it would be a stretch for me to believe that these were
intended for anything other than docks, as it has been described by the Zoning Administrator in
this case. While something larger might be construed as a vehicle that could be moved around
the lake for those recreational purposes, I don’t think, at this point in time, that I could approve
them as they are presently found.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Jim has raised an interesting point. I think Mr. Salvador made some
interesting points this evening, with New York State registration number, or Hull identification
number, but I do believe that the Zoning Administrator merely relied on a statement that any
structure, whether affixed or floating, placed in or upon a lake, pond, river, stream, or brook,
and which provides a berth for watercraft and/or a means of pedestrian access to and from the
shoreline, this shall include boathouses, piers, wharfs, crib docks, stock docks, floating docks
and all such similar structures, this all such similar structures is all encompassing, in my mind,
and again, I do agree with Jim. There may very well be an outside chance that Mr. Salvador, in
the future, may make his point, but at this point, I’m going to have to side with the Zoning
Administrator, based on the fact that the Town Code defines this as a dock.
MR. STONE-Well, I certainly agree with the rest of the Board. Mr. McNulty stole my line, but I
was going to say the old paraphrase if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims
like a duck, it’s a duck, and I drive by these docks every day, and every day I go by them I say,
boy they’re good looking docks sitting on the land, they don’t look like vessels to me, and the
Zoning Administrator, forgetting all of the other jurisdictional points that Mr. Salvador raises,
and I think someone said, it’s a matter for the courts. It’s not a matter for this Board. Our
Appeal is a very simple one. Is the Zoning Administrator correct in saying these are docks, and
I agree he is correct in saying they are docks. So, I need a motion to deny the Appeal, I guess
that’s how we do it. Yes.
MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 7-2004 DUNHAM’S BAY RESORT
CORPORATION THE APPELLANT’S APPEALING THE DETERMINATION RENDERED
BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REGARDING THE DOCKS AT HIS SITE AND I
THINK THE ENTIRE BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT, AS THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR MAINTAINS, THE STRUCTURES AT MR. SALVADOR’S SITE MEET
THE DEFINITION THAT IS IN THE TOWN CODE FOR A DOCK, AND THAT BEING
THE CASE, I MOVE THAT WE SUPPORT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND DENY
THIS APPEAL, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Joyce Hunt:
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.
Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 78-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED OWNER(S): T. HOFFMAN
DEVELOPMENT CORP. ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 265 QUAKER ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF 8 WALL SIGNS AND A 96 SQ. FT.
FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR 7 ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS
(TOTAL OF 168 SQ. FT. OF ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE), AND FROM THE SETBACK AND
SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FREESTANDING SIGN. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2003-
543 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: OCTOBER 13, 2004 LOT SIZE: 4.92 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 296.20-1-2 SECTION: 140-6 B1, B2A, B3A
BILL SIMPSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TOM HOFFMAN, JR., PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Sign Variance No. 78-2004, T. Hoffman Development Corp., Meeting Date: October
20, 2004 “Project Location: 265 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes placement of 8 wall signs totaling 214 sq. ft. and a 96 sq. ft. freestanding sign.
Relief Required:
Freestanding sign:
1) 7 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum front setback requirement, per
§140-6(B1).
2) 46 sq. ft. of relief from the 50 sq. ft. maximum size requirement, per
§140-6(B2a).
Wall signs:
1) Relief for 7 additional wall signs with a total area of 168 sq. ft., per §140-6(B2b1).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2004-744: 09/30/04, 46 sq. ft. wall sign
“Hoffman Car Wash”.
BP 2003-543: 11/04/03, 16,032 sq. ft. commercial building.
SP 14-2003: 03/25/03, 16,032 sq. ft car wash, oil change, and auto repair shop.
FWW 1-2003: 03/25/03, Freshwater Wetland permit associated with SP 14-2003.
AV 19-2003: 03/19/03, relief from the minimum road frontage requirements, and the minimum
driveway spacing requirements.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to place a 96 sq. ft. freestanding sign 8 feet from the shared property line
with that of National Grid. However, the setback to the Quaker Road right-of-way is
approximately 118 feet. The applicant claims the increased size of the sign is necessary because
of the large setback to the road. Additionally, the applicant proposes to place 8 wall signs on
the structure totaling 214 sq. ft. Four of the signs are proposed to face south towards Quaker
Road, and the other four are proposed to face north (potentially viewable from the Lowe’s and
Applebee’s properties). The largest sign proposed to face Quaker Road is that permitted in BP
2004-744 (“Hoffman Car Wash”, 46 sq. ft.). The 3 additional signs proposed to face Quaker
Road have a total area of 54 sq. ft. (100 sq. ft. total area of signage proposed to face Quaker
Road). The four signs proposed to face north on the rear of the building have a total area of 114
sq. ft. Because these signs are potentially viewable from other properties, they are not allowed
without a permit, per §140-3(J), and require relief from section §140-6(B2b1).”
MR. STONE-All right, gentlemen, you’re on.
MR. HOFFMAN-Good evening. My name is Bill Simpson. I’m Project Engineer for Hoffman
Development Corporation. Also with me is Tom Hoffman, Jr., President of Hoffman
Development Corporation. I have a short presentation. Then I’ll answer your questions. We’re
looking for relief in three areas. The first area would be the signage that’s on the Quaker Road
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
side of the building. That would be Signs One, Two, and Three. The second area of relief
would be the signs on the rear portion of the building that face north. Those are Signs Four
through Seven, and then the last area would be the freestanding logo sign. A quick review of
the project, we have an approximately five acre parcel on Quaker Road, Quaker Road being
down here, north being that way. We’re using approximately one-third of the five acre parcel.
The project consists of a 200 foot car wash tunnel, a three bay touch free car wash, a six bay Jiffy
Lube facility and a six bay self-service facility. Our purposes here tonight is to seek relief in
three basic areas. One for the wall signs we would like to apply to the building, and secondly
for the logo sign on Quaker Road. The three areas that I described before are, One, the signs
that are on the front of the building, which would be this area. The second set of signs will be
the signs on the back of the building where the customers enter our facility, and the third will
be for the logo sign on the front of the building down here where we originally planned on
Quaker Road, but now we’re moving it back to this area on our property, off the National Grid
right of way. Now, as we stated already, the Code allows for 100 square feet of signage for one
sign. Now if this was just a single facility, a single car wash, we would have no problem with
just a single sign, or if it was just the Hoffman Car Wash with the Jiffy Lube, we’d have no
problem with just the single sign that had the two names on, as we do in our proposed logo
sign for the front of the building. If this was just going to be the Hoffman Car Wash and Jiffy
Lube, a single sign on the building would suffice our needs, but in as much as this facility has
the touch free car wash and the self-service car wash attached, which in and amongst
themselves are major investments, the touch free car wash is an approximately $600,000
investment, and the six bay self-service is another approximately $500,000 investment. You
won’t find any other facilities in the State that offer all this at one facility. Our purpose tonight
is, like I said, to request our Hoffman Car Wash sign, which is going on the exterior of the car
wash, will say Hoffman Car Wash, 46 square feet. We would like, additionally to add, in front
of each portion of the building, in front of the Jiffy Lube, a 23 square foot, 26 square foot of
additional signing to denote the Jiffy Lube in front of the touch free and the self-service car
wash bays, 14 additional square feet in front of each one of those portions of the building to
denote that those portions of the building, as visible from the road, are the touch free car wash
and the self-service car wash. Prior to the meeting, at any of our other locations, we normally
have in front of the Jiffy Lube a Penzoil logo sign and some other wordage, either America’s
Favorite Oil Change, or Free Car Wash with Lube on the front of the Jiffy Lube facility. To
make this facility meet the Code’s standard, we’ve eliminated those two portions of the signage
from our building. So the Jiffy Lube sign facing Quaker Road will only have the Jiffy Lube
name on the front of the building. So the front of the building, like I said, what we’re looking
for is, instead of one sign that has everything combined, four signs, the Hoffman Car Wash sign,
which is a permitted sign, and then the three additional signs on the front of the building, the
Self-Service Car Wash sign, the Jiffy Lube sign, and the Touch Free Car Wash sign, for a total of
100 square feet, which is an allowed square footage. Now is our request unique or is it common
to the character of the neighborhood? If you look at Applebee’s, there’s 65 of frontage, and they
have three signs. We have 198 feet of frontage, approximately. Additionally, Applebee’s has
three signs on the second side of their building. Lowe’s has three signs on the front of their
building, and here we have 150 feet of strip mall with four signs. So what we’re requesting, is it
different from anything else in the neighborhood? By what we’ve seen here, I’d submit, no, it
isn’t. It’s a common sight in the neighborhood. The next area would be the signage on the rear
of the property. Like I said, the signage on the building is for people driving down the road to
see what we’re offering. Some people look at buildings to find what buildings are alongside of
the road, as opposed to logo sign out front. The signage on the rear of the building will be
identical to the signage on the front of the building, but this signage is more directional in
nature. As the customers enter the property and come around to the back, the signage on the
faces of the building, which will be Self-Service, Jiffy Lube, and Touch Free Car Wash, will be
just like when you pull into the New York State Thru Way toll booth. Where’s EZ Pass? It’s
over here or it’s over here. These are directional signs in nature and help the customer
determine which portion of the building to go to. Additionally we have signs on the property
that also indicate for the customer where to go there, but from our experience at previous
locations, many people will come around the corner and they don’t look at these signs. They
look at the building to see where they need to go. Now, signs allowed without a permit. On
premise signs which are not visible from any public street or adjoining and abutting property.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
Now originally we were sort of lead to believe that the signs on the back of the building
wouldn’t need a permit because of this Code. Now what exactly is the intent of the Code? Is it
to restrict a business from letting the customers know where they have to go? Or is it to restrict
signs that might be offensive to a neighboring property, especially if it’s residential property. In
our case, like I said, we have five acres, and if you look at the panorama shot we have here, of
the back of the property, behind us is Halfway Brook, and it’s highly wooded behind Halfway
Brook. Additionally that area really can’t be built because of the 100 foot wetland issue back
there. So those trees are always going to be there. So, does the intent of this Code fall into our
category or can the Board grant us relief so that we can adequately site our building with the
appropriate wordage on the building for the customers to get in, and lastly is our logo sign.
When we originally entered into talks with Niagara Mohawk, we proposed a logo sign on the
front of the property out here. The sign would have been 50 square feet if we had a 15 foot
setback, or 64 square feet if we had the 25 foot setback. After the two years of bringing this
project to a groundbreaking, Niagara Mohawk, as you know, is now run by National Grid.
National Grid has taken a much more firm stance on any structures on their project. Originally,
we were lead to believe that we would be able to get an agreement, a lease agreement to have
our sign out there. They’ve sort of flipflopped on that, and now they don’t want any structures
on our project. Additionally, we have to remove two of our lights, and they were supposed to
be 15 foot light poles that are on the driveway. We had six of them on the driveway, and those
two in the center that are under the lights are going to have to be lowered, so that they don’t
want any high structures on the property. So that lead us to, what do we do? Where do we put
our logo sign. The only area for our logo sign then becomes this grass area right on the
entrance. It’s as close as we can get to the center of the property. This goes, and I have to jump
back one thing. This is example of another business in the area that has signs on the back of
their property, as we do, but in the case of Wal-Mart, they’re about 50 feet, I think, from a
residential area. Okay. Now, the definition for front property line is a line separating the
property from the boundary of the highway or right of way upon which the property abuts.
Now, in as much as our property is here, and we have 110 feet between us and Quaker Road,
where, in fact, is our front property line? Is it here, or is it the line that separates us from the
highway or right of way? If it is, in fact, the line out here that separates us from the highway,
our sign will be 107 feet back from the road. Now if you use your formula, for every 10 feet you
go back from the road, you’re allowed to increase your signage by 14 square feet. If you used
this and you went all the way down to the 108 feet we’re back, the sign that we, according to
this formula, might be requesting would be in the neighborhood of 180 square feet, but in fact
we are only requesting a sign of 96 square feet. The sign will be 18 feet tall, which is, I think 25
feet is the maximum sign allowed. It’ll be back lit, plastic. It’ll denote the Hoffman Car Wash
and the Jiffy Lube. That’s a new logo sign, and it’ll also denote that we have two other services
on the property, the Self-Service wash and the Touch Free wash, which are open 24 hours a day.
In as much as the sign is back at the 107 or 8 feet, we’re requesting the larger sign. Now 64
square feet is only eight by eight. The main portion of our sign is eight by ten. So the main
portion of our sign is only two feet bigger, and then with the four by four foot addition to
denote the other services on our property. That pretty much sums it up. We’re looking for
relief from the areas, our front signs, and a determination as to whether or not the signs on the
back of our property fit into the category of signs that need a permit, and thirdly our logo sign.
Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are the back signs going to be lit up, or are they just?
MR. SIMPSON-The signs on the building?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. SIMPSON-The signs on the building are backlit awning signs. It’s back lit awning. You
can see Jiffy Lube here, and this is interior cleaning and hand waxing, if I’m not mistaken. This
is our Saratoga location.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You made several interesting comments. One of the questions that you
raised, what is the intent of the Code. You also indicated that, you referred to Applebee’s and
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
you stated something like, this is a common sight in the neighborhood. Now, you’re right. It is
a common sight in the neighborhood. Now we go back to the intent of the Code. Do we want
another Wolfe Road? There has been recently some hue and cry about holding down on
businesses and signs. You’re right. Applebee’s does have a number of signs, and you’re right,
several other businesses have additional signs, but that in itself doesn’t guarantee that
Hoffman’s Car Wash is going to be granted nine signs. It’s my opinion, quite frankly, unless
you can convince me otherwise, that you, sir, are requesting too many signs, and I certainly
would not go along with that.
MR. SIMPSON-I respect your opinion on that, but like I said, Applebee’s is a single business,
and they have three signs, where this facility is, without a doubt, four separate type of
businesses, and the signs are there on the front of the building only to denote those four
separate businesses. The signs on the rear of the building have an entirely different function.
They’re directional and instructional to help the person get into that portion of the building.
We don’t have the, like I said, if you go into Lowe’s or Home Depot, you park out in the lot and
you walk in and you see the sign that tells you were to go for painting or hardware or electrical.
The signs on the back of our building are that in nature for us.
MR. ABBATE-You’re requesting eight wall signs, four of them face south towards Quaker
Road, correct?
MR. SIMPSON-One is allowed and the other three are the additional signs we’re requesting.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, right, and then four faces north.
MR. SIMPSON-Those are the signs that are at the back of the building that help the customer
coming from this, our lobby area more or less, into those portions of the building.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and then you have the one large sign on Quaker Road, for a total of nine.
MR. SIMPSON-The logo sign, correct.
MR. STONE-Yes, we call it a freestanding sign.
MR. SIMPSON-Freestanding sign.
MR. ABBATE-Freestanding sign, let me put it that way. So are you suggesting that unless you
have authorization for these nine signs that it would adversely affect your business?
MR. SIMPSON-Yes. The logo sign is allowed. Where we had a problem with our logo sign
was in as much as National Grid restricted us from putting it out front. If they allowed us to
put it out front, it would have fallen into your category of either 50 square feet or 64 square feet.
In as much as the only grass area we had to put it in was right here, and we couldn’t push it
back 25 feet or it would have been in the paved area. So to put this sign in the center of this 25
foot grass area only sets the sign back eight feet from our property line or 108 feet from the
boundary of Quaker Road.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, at the risk of sounding hardhearted, that’s self-created.
MR. SIMPSON-Well, it wasn’t self-created, in as much as Niagara Mohawk, when we originally
entered into talks, and put it on this plan, told us that we would be able to have a sign out there.
Niagara Mohawk then had a change of ownership to National Grid, and it went south.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, let me go back to what I said, you know, the intent of the Code.
You are absolutely correct. You’re referring to Applebee’s and referring to other businesses, all
kinds of signs, and what is the intent of the Code? What is our responsibility? We have a
responsibility to the Town, what’s in the best interest of the Town? Do we want to change the
name of Quaker Road to Wolfe Road? That’s the end of my questions.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. BRYANT-I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-That’s your Saratoga site, and I know this is the area where customers would
drive up and decide where they want to go.
MR. SIMPSON-This is facing Lowe’s drive, if you’re looking that way.
MR. BRYANT-Facing Lowe’s, right. Unfortunately, I’ve been there a million times, but when
you drive out, I don’t remember if there are signs, similar signs on the other side of the
building.
MR. SIMPSON-On the other side of the building, facing Route 50, that says Jiffy Lube and
Hoffman’s, or Hoffman’s Jiffy Lube. It says Car Wash also.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So all the signs that you have on this side are the same that you have on
the other side?
MR. SIMPSON-Yes. On the other side of the building, you’ll see Hoffman Car Wash and Jiffy
Lube. On this side of the building, Jiffy Lube and the different services that are offered at those
bays, which are hand waxing and the interior cleaning, and the Car Wash, which is under the
clock tower.
MR. BRYANT-But you don’t have those identical signs on the front of the building, is what I’m
saying. You do? Okay. I’d like to see that. That was my question. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-I have a question. The example of the sign here is different than the sign you just
had up there.
MR. SIMPSON-Correct. That is a sign that is a strictly self-service location. The one I showed
you, which is right here.
MR. URRICO-That’s the actual sign?
MR. SIMPSON-This will be the sign, eight by ten.
MR. URRICO-And everything that’s identified on there would be identified on the freestanding
sign?
MR. STONE-That is the freestanding sign.
MR. SIMPSON-That is the freestanding sign.
MR. URRICO-That is the freestanding sign. I guess my question is, if that’s all identified on the
freestanding sign, and that’s for people to see on Quaker Road.
MR. SIMPSON-Correct.
MR. URRICO-Then why do they need the additional signs on the building?
MR. SIMPSON-Just as the Code allows. A business is allowed a freestanding sign, and a sign
on the building. As I’ve stated, some people when they’re driving, they look at the buildings to
find out what businesses are along, and some people look at the freestanding sign.
MR. URRICO-You said that those other four signs that are on both sides to help customers
decide where they’re pulling into are there to help them, directional wise, but presumably,
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
they’ve already pulled in there and now they’re going around the back. So why do you need
the directional signs in the front of the building? Maybe they’re just needed on the back of the
building.
MR. SIMPSON-The signs on the front of the building are there to denote what type of a service
is offered. If we just had car wash, what type of car wash?
MR. URRICO-But you have that on the freestanding sign.
MR. SIMPSON-Like I said, though, the freestanding and the wall sign is allowed. Some people
shop by looking at the building to see what the service is. Some people shop by looking at the
freestanding sign. If you’re right in front of the property here, you can’t read the freestanding
sign.
MR. URRICO-You keep saying that it’s allowed, but we allow one freestanding sign and one
wall sign.
MR. SIMPSON-Correct.
MR. URRICO-So, it’s not allowed. You’re asking for the variance.
MR. SIMPSON-You are allowed, if I’m not mistaken, a wall sign and a freestanding sign.
MR. URRICO-One wall sign.
MR. STONE-Yes, one wall sign.
MR. URRICO-You’re asking for seven.
MR. SIMPSON-Well, one wall sign is 100 square feet, and that’s all we’re requesting on the
front of our building facing Quaker Road. The signs in the rear of our building are totally
different. There they are not to advertise our business. They’re there as directional and
instructional, so that people can find their way into the right portion of the building.
MR. URRICO-And what I’m suggesting is that maybe a compromise would be to eliminate half
those signs.
MR. SIMPSON-How do you label what the service is then?
MR. BRYANT-Let me address that. Supposing on the front of the building, which is on Quaker
Road, where they don’t need to know where they’re driving, you can have one wall sign that’s
100 feet, listing all the services. Do you know what I’m saying, instead of the four.
MR. SIMPSON-Well, our problem with that is, if we just had one sign that said what was there,
someone may construe this as a Hoffman Car Wash and a nine bay Jiffy Lube. By having the
signage over the different portions of the building, it would look just like a strip mall, and you’ll
see that there’s four different portions of the building and four different services are offered.
MR. URRICO-But in a strip mall we don’t allow signs, each business to have a sign in the front
of the building and the back of the building. So it does differ from a strip mall. We would not
allow it on both sides of the building.
MR. HOFFMAN-Would you allow two entrances, though, where customers can enter from
either?
MR. STONE-There’s no sign. Let me just ask a couple of questions. I see you have vacuum
stations out in the front of the property?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. SIMPSON-Correct.
MR. STONE-Are they going to have any words on them?
MR. SIMPSON-Yes, they’ll say “vacuums”. There’s a freestanding vacuum, a stainless steel
base, and there’s a lighted canopy over the vacuums, as is at some of our other locations.
MR. STONE-But it’s just going to say “vacuums”?
MR. SIMPSON-Vacuum and/or carpet, shampoo.
MR. HOFFMAN-It would identify the services.
MR. SIMPSON-Yes. Some of the vacuum stations, additionally, have carpet shampooers built
into the vacuum, and some of them are strictly just vacuum.
MR. STONE-Okay. The other building on what Mr. Urrico said, somebody coming into this
building is going to, if he wants service, he’s going to the back of the building, that’s where the
service is.
MR. SIMPSON-Correct.
MR. STONE-And you’re going to lead him back that way with some kind of directional signs, I
assume, in addition to what we’re talking about.
MR. SIMPSON-Correct.
MR. STONE-Which are permitted.
MR. SIMPSON-Correct.
MR. STONE-All right. They’re going to come around to the back, and they’re going to see that
they can get the long tunnel wash, they can get the touch free wash, they can get Jiffy Lube, or
they can get self-service. That’s where they’re going to enter the building, is that correct?
MR. SIMPSON-Yes.
MR. STONE-So that’s where you need signs to direct people to go. If you have a freestanding
sign out in front, listing all of the things you provide, I’m not sure I see the need for all of the
signs on the Quaker Road side. It’s important to get the people to the right place when they
come around the back of the building. That’s where you want them to be. You can’t drive in
the other way, right, in the front of the building?
MR. SIMPSON-Correct. There’s only one entrance.
MR. STONE-Right, but I mean, you don’t drive into the car wash?
MR. SIMPSON-No. It’s laid out so that you’ll want to follow the entrance along the side of the
building.
MR. STONE-Right. Now what are those parking spaces for, that you show?
MR. SIMPSON-The right here?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. SIMPSON-If there’s a Jiffy Lube customer that isn’t ready to leave the facility, we can park
those cars here until they’re ready to leave.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. STONE-Okay. So those will be for your employee’s use?
MR. SIMPSON-For the customer’s use. After they go through the Jiffy Lube. An exiting Jiffy
Lube customer would park there for additional service. Say to change a light bulb or something
of that nature, or they’re cashing out.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Then the important thing to me is that, if I’m going to go to your
facility, and I want to get my car washed or I want to get my oil changed, and I have to go
around to the back of the building and that’s where I need to know where to go.
MR. SIMPSON-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. I also want to make the point, you made a comment that people can’t see
the signs on the north side, and I submit to you, certainly from Lowe’s, they can see those signs,
and I’m only talking in terms of the Code. They are visible from an adjoining property.
MR. HOFFMAN-No, they’re not. It’s totally wooded. You can’t see.
MR. STONE-No, no, no. You’re talking to the direct north. I’m talking to the northwest. If
you’re standing in the lumber area of Lowe’s, you will see those signs.
MR. HOFFMAN-What I didn’t do is I didn’t stand out and pan around the side of the building.
MR. STONE-I drove there today, and I could see Lowe’s as clearly.
MR. HOFFMAN-Really?
MR. STONE-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-And Applebee’s.
MR. STONE-And Applebee’s. Not as easily, but when you go around to the very back, to line
up with the long car wash, Lowe’s is right there.
MR. SIMPSON-You may be able to see the Hoffman Car Wash on this end of the building, but
to be able to see the Touch Free, the Jiffy Lube.
MR. STONE-Agreed. Agreed. My comment was, that I wrote down, was for the one over the.
MR. SIMPSON-We’ll lose that one, if we can keep these three. Those three are the most
important for us, for the customer, when they come around, to know which service they have to
pull into.
MR. STONE-Okay. So, we just got rid of one. I heard you.
MR. SIMPSON-We can lose the Hoffman Car Wash on the entrance to the, the one that is closest
to Lowe’s.
MR. STONE-We’ll keep working.
MR. HOFFMAN-We were just trying to make it easier for the customers, because, again, we’re a
very unique business where, you know, when you pull on our property, you stay in the car and
you deliver your vehicle yourself. Just like you’re pushing the cart down the aisle at Lowe’s.
MR. STONE-And I submit that most people getting their car washed know what an automatic
car wash looks like.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. HOFFMAN-You would be surprised.
MR. STONE-I’m sure I’d be surprised. I said I assume, but let me just say something before I
forget it, from my old life. If I drive up to your car wash, and it says free car wash, with a Jiffy
Lube, but I can’t get that thing free unless I buy Jiffy Lube. Right? Then according to the
definitions that I used to work under, for national advertising, that’s complimentary. It’s not
free. You have to spend money to get it. Therefore, it’s not free. Just as an aside, it’s freebie.
I’ll just leave it at that.
MR. ABBATE-Can I go back to my old life? The other issue that I have, too, is that you folks are
requesting a plus or minus 47% increase on Freestanding Sign Number One, and also you’re
requesting a plus or minus 81% increase in setbacks in your freestanding sign in Paragraph One
and Two. That’s a lot of relief.
MR. SIMPSON-Well, here again, it’s your definition of where is the front property line? Is it the
line that defines the right of way of Quaker Road?
MR. ABBATE-That’s up to you to determine that.
MR. SIMPSON-Well, that’s what we think it is.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s technically not. You’re asking us to accept the fact that there is a big area
in front of you that’s not yours and therefore you’re trying to get as close to your property line,
closer than the Code allows, and I appreciate that. I think we appreciate that, but that in front
of you is not your property. Your property line is that line right there, and you want to be
closer to the property line than the Code allows, and we may very well grant you that. That’s
not a, don’t go too far with that, because you’ve got me on that one. I don’t have a problem on
that one, but the point is, that’s the line we’re talking about. The fact that there’s this huge
buffer, and we have faced this, how many times on various Quaker Road properties. It is a
problem. Your neighbors down the road have come to us for automobile signs and everything
else. So it’s nothing we haven’t seen before. Anybody else?
MR. BRYANT-How far is the front of the building to Quaker Road, just out of curiosity?
MR. SIMPSON-The front of the car wash is 183 feet, 190 for the laser wash, 210 for the lube, and
226 for the self-service.
MR. STONE-Anybody else?
MR. HOFFMAN-We’re not trying to litter the building with signage, and I think you would
agree that, you know, the buildings that we build.
MR. STONE-Sir, identify yourself, though. I don’t think you ever did.
MR. HOFFMAN-I’m sorry. Tom Hoffman, Jr.
MR. STONE-He did identify you, but you didn’t.
MR. HOFFMAN-I was just going to say, we’re not trying to create an eyesore to the community
and create a littered building with a bunch of signage. We’re just trying to help, you know, the
majority of our customers, you know, identify what we’re trying to offer and, you know, I think
most people would agree, you know, we build beautiful facilities. We litter the facility with
green space and flowers, you know.
MR. ABBATE-And that’s all well and good, but you see, when he referred to Applebee’s and
the rest as having numerous signs, if we were to grant you your signs, you, too, would be
littering Quaker Road with signs, and one of our responsibilities is to determine whether there’s
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
going to be an adverse impact on the physical conditions of Quaker Road, and as I said, and I
was serious, I mean, if we keep this up, change the name of Quaker Road to Wolfe Road.
MR. HOFFMAN-I understand your concern, but it’s also similar to a strip mall, because we do
have distinct businesses that we provide, or services we provide to our customers, and we’re
just trying to help our customers out.
MR. ABBATE-I understand. I understand all of that. I truly do. I mean, if I were in your
position, I would ask for the same thing, but I’m not in your position.
MR. HOFFMAN-Right, but I would also comment that I think Wolfe Road is a beautiful road
that has a lot of green area and trees.
MR. ABBATE-In the eyes of the beholder. It stinks, as far as I’m concerned.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask another question? Just a hypothetical question. On your freestanding
sign, would you be willing to compromise a little bit as far as maybe exchanging that lower sign
for the front wall signs? Do you follow what I’m saying? Because your argument is that you
need those signs in the front because some people look at the building to see what you offer,
and that’s exactly what that square component on the bottom of the freestanding sign does. So
my question to you, hypothetically of course, would you be willing to maybe give up that sign
in exchange for wall sign? Personally, I think the building would look pretty bare without the
signs.
MR. HOFFMAN-It would.
MR. BRYANT-But just a hypothetical, because I know they’re going to look for compromise. So
I’m just saying, if you could eliminate that portion of it, maybe it might be more palatable to
allow the additional wall signs, just a suggestion.
MR. HOFFMAN-Yes. Okay.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else?
MR. BRYANT-That’s it, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this
subject? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Unless you have anything to add?
MR. SIMPSON-There was one, the Warren County Planning Board, we made this presentation
to them last week, and they were in favor of our signs. They didn’t find it detrimental.
MR. STONE-Okay. Do we have that there?
MR. ABBATE-Do we have that somewhere? They probably said no impact.
MR. HOFFMAN-Well, they also were giving us a favorable definition regarding the
freestanding sign, as far as, for practical.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. STONE-Well, that’s the one that they would have more, normally they say we bow to
Queensbury Sign Ordinance, but freestanding does impact views and traffic and things like
that.
MR. SIMPSON-They gave us a favorable recommendation as to our interpretation of the
setback.
MR. STONE-Can you, and I should know this, but our Planning Board, did they make many
changes in your original plan?
MR. SIMPSON-I don’t think so, because this plan in front of you is a culmination of our, how
many years of experience?
MR. HOFFMAN-Since 1965.
MR. SIMPSON-We’ve been, you know, and this is, everything that we’ve learned in those years
as to how to put a facility together is accented in this location.
MR. STONE-It took you that long to get to Queensbury. Okay, but they didn’t make many
changes. We have a member of the Planning Board at the time here, and he hasn’t shaken his
head yes or no. I’m just curious, but you’re saying this was well received, is what you’re
saying?
MR. SIMPSON-To the best of my recollection.
MR. STONE-I know the sign. I meant the property.
MR. ABBATE-It has nothing to do with the signs, whether it was well presented. What
difference does that make?
MR. STONE-Just in terms of what modifications might have been made. All right. Let’s talk
about it. Let’s start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Well, as far as the freestanding sign, I really don’t have much of a problem
with that. I think the realization is that it’s going to be something in the area of, what, 125 feet
back from Quaker Road? And when you think about some of the signs that are actually sitting
in the right of way, I think that’s a dramatic improvement over what’s there. However, the wall
signs are a different story. I think we have a responsibility to the Town of Queensbury to limit
the signs, as per the Code, so that the glut of signs does not become prevalent on that road.
There’s a real danger there that’s been referred to, and I’m really not going to be favorable, in
terms of the amount of signage that’s asked for right now. There’s been some compromises
suggested. I would suggest that you think about those, but one sign, one wall sign, one
freestanding sign are allowed, and that’s what I’m going to start with.
MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I, too, have no problem with the freestanding sign setback. I really
think that, whereas you need the signage on the back of the building, to direct people, I think
you could do away with some or all of the signage on the building in the front. I think seven
additional wall signs is too many.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m torn some with some of this. I think like the others that have
spoken. I have no real problem with the freestanding sign. Larger than what’s normally
allowed is reasonable here because you’re quite a distance from the main road. So that’s
understandable. My initial reaction is, yes, it’s too many signs, thinking of the wall signs. I’m
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
not sure where I’m at on the wall signs on the front, because as the applicant’s pointed out, he’s
entitled to a wall sign on the front of the building that’s at least as large in area as the total
square footage that he’s asking for on the front of the building, yet it strikes me that there’s too
many signs on the front of the building. On the other hand, I think, as the applicant says, that
people are going to look at the freestanding sign, then they’re going to look at the building for
confirmation that, yes, indeed, that’s what that building is. They’re going to want to see some
kind of a sign on the front of the building. So, I don’t know what to suggest. I’d like to see
something different for the front of the building. The rear of the building, I don’t really have
any big problem with that. Those signs on the rear of the building has a logical need to be there
for direction, and I don’t think they’re going to be glaring or obnoxious to any of the neighbors,
even if somebody does see it from over by the Lowe’s parking lot. So I guess that’s where I’m
at. I’d vote for the freestanding sign. I have no problem with the rear of the building. I’d like
to see less signage on the front.
MR. STONE-Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll make some suggestions here as to what I think is appropriate for on the
front of the building. Again, I would ditto what everybody else said on that freestanding sign
out front. I think there’s no question that being 180 foot setback from the road there that you
need something bigger to be able to be seen, and find out what your services are there. I think
familiarity is an important thing, and, you know, as people become accustomed to Hoffman’s,
unless you lived in the Capital District and you knew what their stores, you know, they’re all
very similar in operation. What I would suggest on the front of the building is a Hoffman’s Car
Wash sign, you know, as you had proposed, and the Jiffy Lube sign there also, I think that, you
know, you reflected the fact that there’s 190 feet of building out there, and I don’t think that’s
pushing the limits having one extra sign on the front of the building. On the back side of the
building, I think your directional signs are probably going to make, it’s all one way traffic,
basically, going around the back and then passing through the service bays, and I think that on
the back side there, I can live with all those signs. I don’t think any of them are going to be a
problem, even that one that faces over towards Lowe’s there, on the farthest bay, and so at this
point in time, I think with the two on the front, that would give you enough exposure with Jiffy
Lube and your, you know, all your car wash services already noted on that big sign out front
there, I think that people are going to, once they get around to the back side to the directional
signage on those bays, they’re going to be directed to where they need to go to get their service.
So I think that would be adequate.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. The freestanding sign I have no problems with, but I would
only go along with one wall sign facing Quaker Road.
MR. STONE-Al?
MR. BRYANT-I don’t know. I was taken aback. Mr. Abbate was so abrupt.
MR. STONE-Succinct.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with the majority of the Board relative to the freestanding sign. I think
you’re, you know, 150 feet or so back, and that’s far enough away from the road that it probably
is not going to have an impact, and as to the signs on the north side, I also agree that it’s really
important for your customers to know where they’re going. Whether you’re going into the car
wash or into one of the car bays or whatever you call them. So I would go along with those. I
do disagree with the other Board members relative to the signs on the south side. I have been to
your Saratoga location hundreds of times, and I’m familiar with your operation, the way you
maintain your properties. Even though it has nothing to do, the flowers, the trees and the
bushes have nothing to do with the signage whatsoever, but the point that I’m trying to make is
that you take pride in your facilities, and in your design, and I think by removing those signs,
it’s going to make the front look like a hodgepodge, and various sized buildings with one sign
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
on it, and I think it’s going to detract from the overall design, in my view. I know it’s a stretch.
The Town Code is very clear on it. It should only be one wall sign, but this is a unique
situation, and the fact that the building itself is so far away from the road, I would go along
with the additional signs. We’ve got Home Depot with 18,000 signs. So, the four signs in the
front are not going to be that offensive 200 feet from the road. So I would have to disagree with
the other Board members. I’d be in favor of the application as it is.
MR. STONE-Well, that brings us to my statement, and then an impasse, it seems to me.
Certainly, the freestanding sign, I would concur with the rest of the Board. It is way back, and,
property line notwithstanding, it’s where you have to put it, and if it’s going to be a little larger,
it’s a perfectly valid place to put that size sign, and I have no problem with it. However, as I
listen to my fellow Board members, I don’t think we have consensus, and that’s where the
problem is. I don’t know what motion to ask for. I feel that I did hear you getting rid of one on
the automatic car wash, and I appreciate that. I also agree that you do need signage on the
north side. There’s no question that if I drive in there, if I’m attracted by your sign that says
Hoffman Car Wash and Jiffy Lube and I want to get my car washed and get it lubed, I have to
know where to go, and that’s, you’re going to tell me that with, you’re going to direct me to the
back and that’s where I’m going to go, and I’m going to see at least three signs, and I think those
three are necessary. The front, and I’m not sure. I’m listening to my Board, and I have some
person says, one sign only on the front. Another one says one sign only on the front. What I
would like you to do, if you can make the decision, is we can adjourn until later in the meeting,
and if you want to go out and talk about what you might propose, because right now I don’t see
consensus, and maybe, the way I’m counting it, I don’t see that we can get.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t you do a straw, poll vote and put out the different signs and
then see what we can come up with for a compromise.
MR. URRICO-I’d like to see what alternatives they might have.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s what I’d like to see is what alternatives you might have. I mean,
you’ve heard, Plan B, whatever Plan B is. One of the things that, I think it’s important, I heard
two very strong people who said, one sign only on the south side. I didn’t hear any
compromise or anything like that at all. I hear one person, and I appreciate that he’s
comfortable with what you ask for, but I don’t hear that from everybody, and I think, I would
just like you to, that we adjourn this for a couple of other applications and come back with
whatever you, unless you can do it now.
MR. HOFFMAN-We can do it. Just a couple of comments I would like to make, though. Mr.
Bryant hadn’t even noticed our signs in Saratoga. So I would characterize them as not being
offensive at all, but I understand that’s also just his opinion, and then I.
MR. STONE-But he also said he’s been there a couple of hundred times. He must be by far your
best customer.
MR. HOFFMAN-The other thing I think about, as I’m driving down Wolfe Road, that sign code
is, I feel, kind of restrictive, and there’s so many large trees out front that for public safety
reasons, you know, you’re rubbernecking into businesses wondering, where the heck is it.
MR. ABBATE-That’s right.
MR. HOFFMAN-And it almost creates a danger not having enough signage, especially in some
communities where they limit the signage to, you know, miniscule size, and they also limit
lighting. You’re driving around at night going, I have no idea where I’m going. I’m doing U-
turns in the middle of the street, but, you know, as we were listening, we were thinking about
having, again, just the car wash sign and the Jiffy Lube sign only on the front of the building as
maybe a compromise that we could all live with, which I believe was Mr. Underwood’s
recommendation. It kind of feels like it’s halfway between the Board’s comments.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. ABBATE-Is that Penzoil sign?
MR. HOFFMAN-Well, there was never a Penzoil.
MR. STONE-That’s gone.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and America’s Favorite Oil Change? That’s gone as well.
MR. STONE-So you’re suggesting two on the front and three on the back?
MR. HOFFMAN-Well, it would be four on the back.
MR. STONE-Well, I already heard you’re willing to give up one on the back.
MR. HOFFMAN-You were the only one that, I think, suggested that one, regarding seeing it,
but we could live without that one, because I think most of our customers have already
committed to that service.
MR. STONE-Well, the only reason I bring up the one on the back is the Code is specific in that
not seeing too many signs from other properties.
MR. HOFFMAN-Sure.
MR. STONE-And I would agree that that’s the only one of those three, of those four, that can be
seen, and it’s also the most obvious to have a directional sign, you could put car wash and
direct people there, because that’s the farthest they have to go, and they’ll find it.
MR. HOFFMAN-Okay.
MR. STONE-So you’re saying two on the front and three on the rear.
MR. HOFFMAN-Correct.
MR. STONE-Is what you would like to propose, of the same size as you put in your application?
MR. HOFFMAN-As described.
MR. URRICO-The three signs in the back are the self-service wash, the Jiffy Lube, free car wash
with lube, and then the touch free wash?
MR. HOFFMAN-Correct.
MR. STONE-And they’re all on the shorter building so that they’re basically seen only from the
parking lot.
MR. ABBATE-For Mr. Bryant’s edification, what will the front two signs say?
MR. HOFFMAN-That would be the Hoffman Car Wash sign and the Jiffy Lube sign.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Jim, can you live with that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Al?
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. BRYANT-Of course.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m not sure if I would rather have the Hoffman Car Wash on the back,
rather than the free car wash with lube, but I can live with it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I can live with that.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes.
MR. STONE-So can I.
MR. ABBATE-There you go.
MR. STONE-Okay. Now, before we make a motion to do that. We have to go through the
Short Environmental Impact SEQRA.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SHOWS THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS
PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles
McNulty:
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-All right. Now, I need a motion, very specific, to grant the position and size of the
freestanding sign where they want it to be, and three signs on the north facing side over the,
and two on the front.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 78-2004 T. HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT
CORP., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
265 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes placement of wall signs totaling 214 square feet, but
I guess that will be minus whatever that one sign is off of that, and a 96 square foot freestanding
sign. In regards to the freestanding sign, they’re asking for seven feet of relief from the 15 foot
minimum front setback requirement per Section 140-6B(1), and again that’s due to the fact that
National Grid reneged on their initial agreement with them to put it out closer to the road. Due
to the fact that it’s located 180 feet back from Quaker Road’s edge, we feel that this sign would
be reasonable in this location at the following. We’re going to grant them 46 square feet of relief
from the 50 square foot maximum size requirement per Section 140-6B(2)a. In regards to the
wall signs on the front, the façade, the 196 feet facing Quaker Road, Sign Number One, the one
that we’re granting the relief for, will be the Jiffy Lube sign, in addition to the permitted sign,
that would be the Hoffman Car Wash sign on the side of the building. In regards to the back of
the building, where the entrance to the serve bays is, we’ll be granting three signs on that side.
The general feeling is that because they do not face any business or any residential area, that
they could be approved by the Board. Those signs would reflect the Touch Free Car Wash, the
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
Self-Service Car Wash, and also the Jiffy Lube on the back side. I’m not sure what the exact
square footage would be. It would be minus that one sign that was, whatever they applied for
for those three signs on the back, relief for four, five and six on the north side of the building,
and one on the front side of the building, on the south side facing Quaker Road.
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
th
MR. FRANK-I can give you that square footage. Number One was, I believe, 26 square feet. So
you’re actually granting them 26 square feet of relief for the wall sign facing Quaker Road on
the south side. I can total up the square footage for the other ones if you’d like.
MR. STONE-It’s as in the application. I think we can add that, with your permission.
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico,
Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen.
MR. HOFFMAN-Thank you.
MR. SIMPSON-Thank you.
MR. STONE-We thank you. We’re sorry we were tough on you, but we’re pretty tough with
our Sign Ordinance.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II OWNER(S): SLACK PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 48 DINEEN ROAD, GLEN LAKE
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,064 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2004-375,
SEPTIC ALTERATION LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-26 SECTION 179-
4-090A
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT, ROB SLACK, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 80-2004, Slack Property Management, Meeting Date:
October 20, 2004 “Project Location: 48 Dineen Road, Glen Lake Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 4,064 sq. ft. single-family dwelling on a parcel
without 40 feet of frontage on a town road.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum road frontage
requirement, per §179-4-090(A).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2004-579: 07/30/04, demolition of
dwelling.
BP 2004-375: 06/02/04, septic alteration.
Staff comments:
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
The applicant claims access to the property from the end of Dineen Road is provided for in the
deed. The site plan submitted for this application shows the pavement of Dineen Road ending
just east of the property line. Therefore, it appears 40 feet of relief is needed from the 40-foot
minimum road frontage requirement.”
MR. STONE-County?
MR. FRANK-I don’t believe there was a County review.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Welcome, Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Rob Slack. Before we get started, a couple of
comments. This is really somewhat of a technicality, because the property is pre-existing. It
does have access. It just doesn’t, the road, somehow the Town road ends a few feet east of the
property, but in terms of all the reasons why you’d want to have 40 feet of access, emergency
services being the biggest one that comes to mind. The road continues, as a dirt road, right
across this property, and the Town does plow it, right across this property.
MR. STONE-That grassy strip gets plowed?
MR. LAPPER-Well, to get to the neighbor. Didn’t you say that?
MR. SLACK-He sometimes plows.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. So the neighbor plows it.
MR. SLACK-But they do stop on my property. They plow across my property.
MR. LAPPER-They plow across the property line, across Rob’s property. What he mentioned in
the application, this is the rare lake rebuild that doesn’t require any variances whatsoever on
the house, the septic or the house, will be completely complying. He got a demolition permit
from the Town, and when Bruce was out there looking at the silt fences, that’s when he figured
out that there was a problem with the road. So, it’s really a pre-existing situation.
MR. STONE-Has the septic been built?
MR. LAPPER-It’s been designed.
MR. SLACK-Tom Nace designed it.
MR. STONE-Okay, because I thought it said it had been built, and I’m looking for it.
MR. SLACK-We put the leach field in already, up above, because I own the LaCabana property.
MR. STONE-Yes, I know you do.
MR. SLACK-So the leach field’s in, and we just haven’t put the pump outs in yet.
MR. LAPPER-So, technically it doesn’t have frontage, but it does have access, and the
property’s certainly been there since before there was zoning. Rob, as he said, owns the
adjacent property to the north, but it doesn’t make sense to bring a driveway in down a steep
hill just for this technicality when there’s a road five feet away, and he maintains that he has
deeded access to this, but also certainly there would be access by adverse possession because
it’s been used continuously for 50 years and certainly more than 10. So we view this as a pretty
simple application, and hope that you do, too.
MR. STONE-Bruce, has fire people said all right to this thing?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. FRANK-I don’t believe they even reviewed it, for the simple fact that the Town maintains
the road to where you see the end of the pavement in the photo. It definitely is accessible by
any firefighting apparatus.
MR. STONE-Yes, but that’s the end of the road right there, and there is grass beyond that.
MR. FRANK-Well, I think Mr. Lapper stated it’s been used for 50 some years. So it wasn’t
something that.
MR. STONE-It looked like nice regular grass to me. I didn’t see much evidence of traffic.
MR. FRANK-Well, the applicant’s proposing to build a driveway to go to that, I believe.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. SLACK-Right. The Cochrans who live next door use that road, it’s called Spring Road, to
bring their boats in and things. So they use it quite a bit, and the driveway that we’re going to
propose, the house is going to be built at a spot where, basically from the end of that pavement
into the garage is only going to be about 28 feet. So it’s going to be a pretty straight shot right
into the garage.
MR. ABBATE-Basically what you’re doing is replacing this with a house that’s, as you said,
poorly constructed, beat up, antiquated septic system. So you’re going to be upgrading, is what
you’re saying?
MR. SLACK-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. SLACK-We were originally going to re-model, but the foundation was so badly cracked, it
didn’t make sense.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-Are you going to be able to, in my own experience, are you going to be able to turn
around on your property, or are you going to have to back into that?
MR. SLACK-No. I should be able to turn around.
MR. STONE-Okay, because I know I had to back into the other person’s driveway there.
MR. LAPPER-He included a copy of the new plan that shows a pretty big paved area.
MR. STONE-Yes, I see that. Two docks allowed on that property, Bruce?
MR. FRANK-Under today’s Code, it’s 124 feet wide at the shoreline.
MR. SLACK-There were two existing docks on the property when I purchased it, and one of
them, the property owner up above has lake and dock rights to the left.
MR. STONE-Okay. Is that really a restaurant up there?
MR. SLACK-No. I turned it into a single family residence.
MR. STONE-That’s what I thought. Because I went down that road. I had not been down that
one before, and it was interesting.
MR. STONE-All right. Any questions anybody?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I do have a question. Would I be correct in the assumption that you, in fact,
if this application was to be approved, would be improving the property?
MR. SLACK-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s good. Thank you.
MR. STONE-All lake property new building improves the property. They may be large, but
they improve the property. Anybody else have any questions? Okay. Hearing none, let me
open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RONALD KUHL
MR. KUHL-My name is Ron Kuhl. I live at 31 Dineen. What I don’t understand is this
application is talking about a single family residence. Now they’re putting a kitchen on the first
floor, with bedroom, living room, they’re putting a kitchen on the second floor, with living
room, bedroom. It doesn’t sound like a one family single family residence to me. Also, when I
came in front of this Board in 1997, there was a 24 foot height restriction on buildings. This
building is 28 feet.
MR. STONE-Twenty-eight is the current Code.
MR. KUHL-It is the current Code. Okay, but when I was up it was 24.
MR. STONE-Times change.
MR. KUHL-Things grow, right, but I don’t see how this gets to be a single family residence with
two kitchens on separate floors. The LaCabana, as he calls it, is a single family residence up
there, is a rental property. A lot of people go in and out. This is not the wide normal street that
we have in a lot of our other communities. This is narrower road. If this single family house
ends up being rented out, and having people zip in and out, they’re going to bring their boats
and all that stuff. It’s not a wide road. It, to me, going through the drawings, it does not
represent a single family residence, okay, and as far as the septic, I didn’t think we were
allowing tanks anymore, but that could be current now.
MR. STONE-It’s not our call. I’m not sure what they’re trying to, we’ll ask them. I mean, what
we’ll do is we’ll ask to answer your question when you’re done.
MR. KUHL-That’s about it. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have one piece of correspondence. It’s a letter from Mary Beth Casey
and John B. Corcoran, at 46 Nacy Road. “This is a letter of support for the Slack Property
Management application 80-2004, regarding 48 Dineen Rd. Glen Lake. As immediate neighbors
of the property we look forward to this new construction as the previous dwelling was not in
good condition and concerned us. We are pleased that this application defines the Spring Road
easement, as it is a vital link for multiple uses for our property maintenance. We hope that the
Zoning Board approves this application, as it will be a great enhancement to our Glen Lake
community. Sincerely, Mary Beth Casey John Corcoran, Jr. That’s all.
MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. STONE-Do you know where the Caseys live?
MR. SLACK-Yes.
MR. STONE-They’re up on the road where LaCabana is?
MR. SLACK-Right. Their driveway’s right next to ours.
MR. STONE-Okay. Do you want to respond to?
MR. SLACK-Yes, absolutely. The way that the architect had laid it out, the upstairs is supposed
to be like a coffee bar, and my wife and I have kids that are all off to college. So when the kids
are away, we’re going to be on the top floor, you know, basically shutting off the rest of the
house, and when they’re home, you know, we’re going to be using the whole house. So the
upstairs, even though it was labeled a kitchen, it’s really more of a kitchenette. It’s a coffee bar.
MR. STONE-So you would have no problem with a stipulation that this will be used only as a
one family house?
MR. SLACK-Absolutely not, and it’s not going to be a rental. It’s going to be our private
residence.
MR. STONE-Okay, and you will agree to that, too.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, that has nothing to do with the application. Nothing whatsoever.
We’re talking about road frontage, and not whether he’s got two kitchens or what.
MR. STONE-Yes, it does. If he’s going to build a house.
MR. BRYANT-They’ve applied, they’ve provided drawings to the Town and they were granted
a permit, you know, that has nothing to do with this application.
MR. FRANK-The house is proposed to be completely compliant to New York State Building
Code and the Town Code for a single family dwelling.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, so I mean, you know, basically they’re building a building in place of
another building that didn’t have road frontage, and that’s what we’re supposed to be
discussing here.
MR. STONE-We had a gentleman who took the time to come before us and he deserves an
answer.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that and I appreciate that, but I just want to point out that it has no
bearing on this application.
MR. SLACK-And to respond to the septic issue, Tom Nace had designed, it was called an Elgin
System, and the Elgin was put in up on our other property and it’s just going to be basically a
pump up to that.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Go ahead. Joyce, let’s start with you.
MRS. HUNT-Well, this seems pretty straightforward to me, replacement of a single family
dwelling on the parcel without frontage, which now is going to be replaced. (Lost words) the
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
property. There hasn’t been a problem in 50 years due to lack of frontage on a Town road. I
don’t think there would be a problem now. So I would approve.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I can basically say the same thing. I don’t see any real problem with it.
There’s going to be adequate access to the home, and we’ve got a lot of places on both Glen
Lake and Lake George in a similar situation. So I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I live on Glen Lake. So I’ve been watching the whole operation as it’s
unfolded. I was a little bit chagrined because you took down all those beautiful trees. I figured
you should have left a couple of them at least, just to keep the ambience of the Adirondacks
there, but I guess that’s your choice to do that. As far as the road access goes, I don’t really have
a problem with it. I mean, I think it’s logical what you’ve proposed, and to build anything
down the hill would be ridiculous, and I think that the septic issues are going to be a definite
improvement over what was there prior. I would make the recommendation to you that down
on the frontage there, I know that as you get down along the lake there, I think it’s important
for everyone on the lake to contemplate what their grand effect is, and rather than having, you
know, straight grass down to the lake, I think it would be important to consult the Lake
Association as to putting in some kind of a vegetative buffer, a couple of trees in front, just to
give it a little ambience, but that’s something you’re going to do when you’re all done anyway.
MR. SLACK-Right, and the reason I had to take those trees down behind was because the way
they sat into the hill and they hung over the house, when we started excavating into the hill, we
were afraid the trees were going to going to come down anyway.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I saw the one that fell on the house. That was interesting.
MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. The application is an improvement, which delighted me. Here an
applicant is taking an old decrepit home, in my words, and a septic system that may probably
be seeping into the lake, and is now building a new home and a new septic system. I think
that’s an improvement, and I think that shows that the applicant is concerned, not only with the
area, but wants to do things right, and I am in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, this is an existing condition. They’re really not changing
anything. It’s really a no-brainer and I’m in favor of it, and I do apologize for being short-
tempered, but these microphones are really annoying me because I don’t think they’re working
right. You may be able to hear it there, but you don’t hear it on the system, and I don’t think the
audience is hearing what some of these guys are saying, and we went from ticking to now
nobody can hear.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Well, I really don’t have anything much to add to anybody’s comments. I agree
that it’s pretty straightforward and an improvement on the property, and that you’re just
extending what was there before. The only thing is I don’t agree with Mr. Bryant on the
microphones, at least the way he stated it.
MR. STONE-I guess my only, I certainly agree. My only thought is that I would have liked to
have heard from the neighbor to the east.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. SLACK-It’s Mrs. Orsini. She’s actually in a nursing home and her kids use the property
sparingly, and we actually take care of the property for her when she’s away.
MR. STONE-Okay. I would have liked to have heard that they didn’t have a problem, but they
didn’t come so they don’t have a problem.
MR. LAPPER-People only come when they have a problem. No news is good news.
MR. STONE-But I think this is fine. I think the, well, as I think somebody said, or everybody
said, it’s been this way for a long time, why shouldn’t it be that way when you put a better
house on it and a better septic system. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve. Go
ahead.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-2004 SLACK PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles
Abbate:
48 Dineen Road, Glen Lake. The applicant proposes construction of 4,064 sq. ft. single-family
dwelling on a parcel without 40 feet of frontage on a town road. The relief required, the
applicant requests 40-feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum road frontage requirement, per
Section 179-4-090(A). I move that we approve this Area Variance.
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr.
Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. SLACK-Thank you very much.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 81-2004 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID DUPONT FOR
BUSINESS: MR. SUBB AGENT(S): MARSHALL SIGN CORPORATION OWNER(S):
NIGRO CORPORATION ZONING: HC-MOD LOCATION: 751 GLEN STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF TWO 30 SQ. FT. WALL SIGNS. RELIEF
REQUESTED FOR AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED PER
BUSINESS IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. CROSS REFERENCE: MULTIPLE LISTINGS FOR
ENTIRE PARCEL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: OCTOBER 13, 2004 LOT SIZE: 6.33
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-25 SECTION 140-6-B3d4b
RICK MARSHALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVE DU PONT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 81-2004, David Dupont for Business: Mr. Subb, Meeting
Date: October 20, 2004 “Project Location: 751 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to place a 30 sq. ft. wall sign on the north façade and an additional 30 sq. ft.
wall sign on the east façade of the northeast corner unit of the main plaza building.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for an additional wall sign where only one is
allowed per occupant of a business complex, per §140-6(B3d4b).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
Numerous BP’s, AV’s, SV’s, and SP’s for Price Rite Plaza (formerly known as Glen Square
Plaza).
Staff comments:
The applicant desires to place an additional sign on the east façade being the business is
proposed to operate from the northeast corner unit of the main plaza building. The applicant is
entitled to one wall sign up to 100 sq. ft. Should the relief for an additional sign be granted, the
total area for both signs would be 60 sq. ft. (40 sq. ft. less area than the maximum allowed).
However, historically the Board has been extremely restrictive with tenant requests for multiple
signs in a business complex (Panera Bread, Staples, etc.)”
MR. MC NULTY-I have a note that they sent it to County.
MR. STONE-Did you gentlemen go to the County Planning Board?
MR. MARSHALL-Yes, we did.
MR. DU PONT-Yes, we did.
MR. MARSHALL-And they had a no impact, I think.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. You’re on. Introduce yourselves.
MR. MARSHALL-Okay. I’m Rick Marshall with Marshall Sign. This is Dave DuPont, the
franchise owner of the Mr. Subb, and what we’re asking for, now don’t beat the sign guys up. I
know it’s been a long day. This strip mall has got some unique characteristics to it. If you look
at the site plan, Dave has, he’s leasing the corner property, and there’s no good sight angle from
either direction from Route 9. It’s very poor. It’s got all sorts of obstructions. You’ve got the
Taco Bell blocking, you’ve got the bank blocking it, the Hollywood Video blocking it. It’s real
poor. It’s 450 feet away for the one sign, and 420 foot away from the sign we’re looking to get a
variance on. So, I mean, we’re miles away. I mean, it’s very poor visibility, and I don’t want to
create a Wolfe Road. I mean, in reality, we get an extra quarter square foot for every foot of
lineal setback. So we can literally put up a 212 square foot wall sign, which for me as a sign
manufacturer would be great, but it would be horrible for the Town, because you don’t need a
billboard on that building. So what we did, and I think you see the color renderings that we put
together, my Art Department. We tried to strike what they call a balance of positive negative
space, the amount of wall area being the negative space and the sign being the positive space.
So we’re not trying to overwhelm that wall, but we’re trying to get enough relief so that people
know that Dave’s business is operating there. As I said, the second wall sign of 30 square foot is
a good balance. We have, you have a net gain of 40 square foot less signage than, actually more
than that, but off the initial 100 square feet. We’re not going to be on the tenant pylon sign, is
another disadvantage.
MR. DU PONT-Yes, there is. That is on there, but that has already been allocated before.
MR. MARSHALL-But the pylon sign by the front of the mall, you’re not on that.
MR. STONE-The freestanding sign on Glen Street.
MR. BRYANT-You’re not going to be on that freestanding sign?
MR. DU PONT-We are going to be on it.
MR. STONE-Yes, I thought that’s what he left a space for, because we granted relief for that.
MR. MARSHALL-I stand corrected.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. DU PONT-I’m sorry. There is like a nameplate on there. It’s not very big. It’s like a one by
three sign. I didn’t measure it. It’s like a one by three.
MR. STONE-If you don’t want it, he’ll give it to somebody else.
MR. DU PONT-No. We are on there. I did talk with Todd Curley on there, and he did say that
that sign allotment is within the Plaza. Not really sure what that meant.
MR. STONE-Well, when we approved that sign we did with the understanding that it would be
another name at the bottom, the blank one that you’re going to take. That was part of our relief.
MR. MARSHALL-As far as impulse buying and destination shoppers, I think you’d get both
with this Mr. Subb. I think people are driving around looking for something to eat, and they
say, look, a Mr. Subb, I’ll pop in and get a sandwich, or people who eventually work in the area
and say, well, let’s go to Mr. Subb to get lunch. So I think he’s got both of those situations going
on there.
MR. STONE-Again, do you have a rendering of the sign which I assume, the one that you’re
saying is allowed, that faces Toys R Us? Is that where the one is going to be?
MR. MARSHALL-Yes. I thought that was part of the packet I put together with Craig.
MR. STONE-I didn’t see it.
MR. MARSHALL-Yes. They’re both the same size, and the same.
MR. URRICO-We have this one sign. This is what we have.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. DU PONT-It doesn’t really face Toys R Us. It just faces straight out on Route 9.
MR. MARSHALL-This is on the main portion of the building.
MR. DU PONT-Toys R Us is to the left.
MR. STONE-It’s going to be on that overhang?
MR. MARSHALL-On the blue.
MR. STONE-It’s going to be on the blue.
MR. MARSHALL-Yes.
MR. STONE-Well, that faces Toys R Us, though.
MR. MARSHALL-The sign we’re looking to get relief on is the side of the building here.
MR. STONE-Can you explain to me, and it’s nothing to do with the sign, but your layout of the
floor, the freezer and the cooler, is this just a generic layout? Because you don’t have that space
that goes into Price Rite.
MR. DU PONT-Yes. It is not a rectangle space.
MR. STONE-It’s not?
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. DU PONT-That is actually my space, yes, and that’s why we designed it, because of that
abnormal. It’s not just a box. Because of that abnormal shape, that’s why we customized the
coolers.
MR. STONE-So Price Rite goes around on the back side there, too.
MR. DU PONT-That is actually, it’s like a sports medicine or health.
MR. STONE-That’s the medical building.
MR. DU PONT-Yes. They just downsized their space.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. That explains this. All right. Any questions from anybody?
So you’re talking, at this point you’re talking two 30 square foot signs that are relatively self-
contained, in the sense that they don’t stretch out. They’re not three by one hundred.
MR. DU PONT-No.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Any other questions, anybody? Well, I’ll open the public
hearing, which I have to do. Anybody wishing to speak on the subject? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. Chuck, let’s start with you.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, frankly, when I first looked at this, my first reaction well, no, we
just turned down a very similar request for Panera Bread, which we indeed did do. They
wanted a sign on the front facing their Plaza and a sign on the side. However, I think this
situation is a bit different in that it is tucked back, and having the small sign on the pylon
certainly is going to be a help, but it’s not a substitute, and with the other fast food places right
out on Route 9, I could see where the applicant’s going to be at a disadvantage in this situation.
Given that, I’m inclined to grant the variance in this particular case. Because of the location, for
me, it’s significant, and it’s enough different than the Panera Bread situation to make me go the
other way. So I’ll be in favor.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think in the case of the Panera Bread store, when we discussed that
one last month, I think that, you know, that was located much closer to the road and I think that
you would have a difficult time with just a sign on that one side, or just the front there with
patrons identifying where your services are located. So for much of the same reasons that
Chuck discussed, I would go along with the two signs, and I think the other thing is it’s a
minimal sign. There’s only six letters in it. It’s not like it’s a long drawn out affair across the
whole façade of the building.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-I think that to grant two signs for Mr. Subb could be perceived by this Board as
being inconsistent. We did indeed, and I only mention it because the Staff comments are here,
and they indicate historically the Board has been extremely restrictive with tenants requests for
multiple signs in a business complex, Panera Bread, Staples, and I congratulate them, because I
think that they’re correct. In view of the fact that we have determined that one organization,
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
Panera Bread in particular, can operate, then I feel that, at this time, I have to state that Mr. Subb
can operate with one 30 square foot sign, and I would not be in favor of two 30 square foot
signs.
MR. STONE-Al?
MR. BRYANT-I think I would agree with Mr. Underwood and Mr. McNulty, if you were not
going to be on the freestanding sign. The fact that the building is so far back, once somebody
sees the freestanding sign, looking for food or whatever they’re looking for, they’re going to
pull into the driveway and then see the names of all the businesses in the Plaza. So I don’t think
that the, that side sign is really going to be relevant. It’s not going to attract anymore business
than what you have on the freestanding sign. So, I’m going to have to agree with Mr. Abbate.
I’m not in favor of this application.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think we have to be careful. I think every business has a case to make for
the second sign, and in the places where it’s been allowed in the Town, it really strikes me as
overkill, when we agree to do it, and I’m happy that we didn’t for Panera Bread, even though, I
mean, I think they did a nice job there. I believe that a second sign here would not be consistent
with, not only our policy, but the way we’ve been heading recently, especially given the Town
Code, sign code. I think a sign has a cumulative effect. I see it, there’s a lot of traffic that goes
back and forth on Route 9, and I think they’ll see it. They’ll see the business. They’ll know it’s
there, and I think you’ll do well there, but I don’t think it’s the province of this Board to make
sure that every business has a sign that can be seen from every direction. I think it’s up to the
business to decide where to place the sign so it can be viewed. You have one out by the pylon.
You have one on the building. I really think that would be enough.
MR. STONE-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I’m torn. In thinking about it, the only way to enter that strip is to go through by
the light. I don’t think people could enter as they pass the light and make a right or make a left
turn, so that I don’t know that the second sign on that south side would really make a big
difference. I would not be in favor of the two signs.
MR. STONE-Well, I agree with the majority of the Board. It is not our job to fix bad business
decisions. I think your agent made the comment that you’re a long way from the road. You’re
trying to start a business there. You are going to have two signs like every other business.
You’re going to have one on the pylon, on the freestanding sign, and you’re going to have a
very attractive sign on the side of the building, and as we said to Panera Bread, at least we
intimated it, you can put a wall, a window sign, a neon sign or something, that would identify
who you are, and I’m sure there’s a classic Mr. Subb logo that could be used there. So, as I
wrote down when I looked at the property, and I see nothing to change my mind, I said, why
couldn’t we just put some window signs in. So I’m afraid I’m going to have to vote to deny the
application, and I need a motion to do so. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-Wait a minute. It’s a Sign Variance. We’ve got to do a SEQRA.
MR. STONE-We’ve got to do a SEQRA.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Even though we’re denying it, we’ve got to do it.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SHOWS THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS
PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 81-2004 DAVID DUPONT FOR BUSINESS:
MR. SUBB, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan
Bryant:
751 Glen Street. The applicant has proposed to place a 30 square foot wall sign on the north
façade and on the additional 30 square foot wall sign on the east façade of the northeast corner
unit of the main Plaza building. He is requesting relief for an additional wall sign where only
one is allowed for occupant of a business complex per Section 140-6(B3d4b). One of the
responsibilities that we have on the Zoning Board of Appeals is to determine whether or not a
proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district. There has been, as I said earlier, a hue and cry that
too many signs are beginning to show up on too many places. We have according to Staff
comments again, historically, been extremely restrictive with tenant’s requests for multiple
signs in a business complex, and they stated, as an example, Panera Bread and Staples, and we
were very restrictive. I think, as the Chairman said earlier, it’s not our responsibility to shore
up a business which has made a decision to place itself in a physical area. Once that decision is
made to place their business in a physical area, then it is the responsibility of that business, not
the Zoning Board of Appeals, to do what it can to attract business. In particular, it’s quite clear
that only one sign, per Section 140-6(B3d4b) is allowed per occupant of a business complex, and
based upon that, Mr. Chairman, I think a decision to disapprove would not be irrational, nor
would it be unreasonable, and as such, I move that we disapprove Sign Variance No. 81-2004.
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-Sorry, gentlemen.
MR. MARSHALL-Thank you for your consideration.
MR. DU PONT-Thank you for your time.
MR. URRICO-One thing I would suggest is you talk to the Plaza owners. If they do something
about the way that the traffic flows in that parking lot. It really is hard to navigate in and out of
there, especially across that section going in towards where you are going to be. I don’t know if
they can do anything with it, but it’s just, it would help.
MR. DU PONT-I’ll certainly give them your feedback.
MR. URRICO-When are you opening?
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. DU PONT-Hopefully, six weeks. Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II THOMAS AND TERI KUBRICKY
AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): THOMAS AND TERI KUBRICKY
ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 80 OAK VALLEY WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
EXTEND THE EXISTING WALL (26 FT. LONG BY 8 FT. HIGH) BY 17 FEET AT THE SAME
HEIGHT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR A
RESIDENTIAL FENCE.
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TOM KUBRICKY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 82-2004, Thomas and Teri Kubricky, Meeting Date:
October 20, 2004 “Project Location: 80 Oak Valley Way Description of Proposed Project: The
applicant proposes to extend the existing wall (26 feet long by 8 feet high) on the north side of
the dwelling by 17 feet at the same height.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 2 feet of height relief from the 6-foot maximum height
requirement for fences, per §179-5-060(C3).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 69-2004: denied 09/15/04, height
relief for an 8-foot tall privacy wall extension.
BP 2004-249: 08/30/04, 1,680 sq. ft. residential addition.
BP 2001-020: 01/22/01, septic alteration.
AV 79-1999: 08/25/04, height relief for the construction of an 8-foot tall privacy wall.
BP 98-773: 01/04/99, 4600 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 3-car attached garage.
Staff comments:
The applicant desires to extend the existing 26-foot long wall at the same height by an
additional 17 feet. The applicant has a building permit to construct an addition to the north side
of the dwelling. The applicant desires the new wall height to match that of the existing wall,
which received a variance from the maximum height requirement in August of 1999. The
proposed section of wall would extend just past the new addition. Should the board grant the
relief requested, the applicant would agree to no further extensions of the wall. Additionally,
the applicant is offering to consolidate the neighboring two lots with that of the dwelling,
creating a lot of approximately 20 acres.”
MR. MC NULTY-And no County.
MR. STONE-Okay. Now.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Kubricky. When Tom came in here
last time, he’s really good at building water and sewer lines, but he doesn’t spend a lot of time
before Planning and Zoning Boards, and some things, he assumed that you knew the
applications that he had, that were granted by the Building Department, that didn’t require site
plan or Zoning Board approval. So he just thought that you knew that he was doing an
addition, which is a pretty important part of this, and I knew from sitting in the audience and
not representing him that that was something that wasn’t brought to your attention. So there
was no way that you would have known that, and I think that that’s an important material fact.
The addition, because it’s going to include an indoor pool on the first floor, has to have
mechanicals, and so part of the whole plan is to hide the mechanical room from his neighbor,
Dave Kruczlnicki, and I’ve got a letter from Dave which I’ll give you for the public hearing
supporting this. So part of that is just being polite to the neighborhood, to buffer that. The
other issues are just that because the house is being expanded, in that to have part of the house,
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
to not have the wall go out that way so that you have house at the end where you have wall the
other way is just really visually not going to look good, and again, I know that this was talked
about last time, but the idea of having an eight foot wall on most of it and dropping it down to
six, while perhaps self-created, is certainly going to be a visual problem. It’s just not going to
make sense, but if I could just take a step back, when you look at the fence code, most of the
time what it contemplates is that people are going to build fences on the perimeter of their
property, and the reason that you have all these protections, like the nice part of a wooden fence
has to be facing your neighbor rather than you, limiting height, is because usually you’re right
up in somebody’s face because it’s on the property line. So what provides your privacy may be
an eyesore for your neighbor. In this case, because Tom has this vast parcel, it’s really a very
different story because it’s creating a walled in back yard, but it’s not in anybody’s face because
you’ve got all this incredible green lawn, and just in terms of the perspective, I mean, his house
is like 300 feet from the road. So if you’re looking from the road, you know, sort of on this
perspective looking on the side, the perspective of eight feet versus six feet, when you’re
looking from 300 feet away is pretty small, and I think that also is an important consideration in
terms of the impact on the neighborhood. That said, when Tom came in to me the next day
after the denial and asked me to look at this, and after he was denied, the smartest and best way
to approach this, again, was to try and ask for minimum relief. So what we came up with was
that, instead of the 26 feet, that if it just came to the edge of the house, so that we could avoid
the house without the fence, without the wall, and also the mechanical room, and I can just
show you that this is a drawing that Tom did of what the addition would look like, and just
have the wall go out, to get it to 17 feet, just gets you right to the edge of the house and come
around the corner, and so that’s a proposed compromise to ask for the minimum relief which is
always what this Board has to and wants to grant. However, in the haste to get this in one day
of the deadline, after we looked into it, he can’t combine the parcels because even though
there’s an estate planning plan that the lot in front of him will ultimately be conveyed to him,
it’s still in title in his mom at this point, as part of her property. So that part of what we had
proposed we’ll have to unfortunately take off the table, but I would still argue that because of
the vast size lawn and the distance of the house from the property line, it’s not going to make a
difference to any of the neighbors. Some of Tom’s neighbors, after he was denied, said that they
were going to send you letters, and I’m going to hand you a couple of copies of the letter that I
got from, that Dave Kruczlnicki sent me, and I guess just in general because this is a, one of the
issues the Board mentioned, because it’s coming back, you know, for a second request for relief,
the issue there is just that, you know, now that they have a bigger family and they’re building
an addition, it’s just something that certainly wasn’t contemplated when they built, you know,
what obviously is a big house to begin with, but certainly because of the design, if you’re going
to extend the house, it’s really visually important to extend the wall, just so it doesn’t look like a
cob job, and that’s really what this is about, just an aesthetic issue, instead of dropping an eight
foot wall down to six, it’s just not going to look good for the neighbors. So we really think, in
this case, keeping it consistent is better for the neighborhood than complying with the Code,
and Tom’s available for any questions.
MR. STONE-I have a question of Bruce. You wrote here Area Variance 79-1999, granted
8/25/04.
MR. FRANK-Obviously that’s not correct, and in the Staff notes it said in August of 1999, in the
Staff comments.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-So obviously it’s not correct.
MR. STONE-Because I remember we granted, that was for the garage area, wasn’t it, for the
driveway area, the one on the left side as we’re looking at it?
MR. LAPPER-You mean the ’99 variance?
MR. STONE-Yes. That was for just to shield the parking area inside, as I remember.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that whole backyard area, for privacy.
MR. KUBRICKY-The right and the left, when I came back.
MR. STONE-Okay. I didn’t remember the, I remember the one. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Part of this, too, is that when, that picture really tells a good story, that because
this was a field, and it’s a horse farm, you don’t have any trees, so you don’t have any privacy,
other than what you create.
MR. STONE-And it’s a permitted horse farm.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, yes it is.
MR. STONE-Okay. Because I saw the horses, and it was a question I asked.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That was subject to previous approvals.
MR. STONE-Can you put up the neighboring properties, so that when we read these letters,
which we’ve got a few, you’re saying.
MR. MC NULTY-We’ve got a total of 12.
MR. STONE-Twelve.
MR. URRICO-Could I ask a procedural question?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. URRICO-If this was denied 9/15, how is it we’re hearing it again?
MR. LAPPER-That was 26 feet of relief and this is 17 feet of relief.
MR. STONE-That’s significantly different, and they can come back with significantly different.
MR. URRICO-I wasn’t here. I just wanted to make sure.
MR. STONE-I assume that’s what you people ruled, that it was significantly different. Bruce?
MR. FRANK-I believe so.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-I mean, again, I know some of the Board members commented, the Zoning
Administrator was here earlier, why was the Board not making that determination. We were
advised by Town Counsel that’s not necessary. So I don’t think we need to go under there, but
just to let you know, maybe it’s something you have done in the past. It’s not something that’s
needed now.
MR. LAPPER-It’s about 40% less relief.
MR. FRANK-It’s a different application. That’s the bottom line.
MR. ABBATE-Right. It is a different application.
MR. STONE-Okay. So who’s where and how? You mentioned David Kruczlnicki. Where’s he?
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. LAPPER-Right there.
MR. STONE-That’s he right there. Okay. All right. Well, when we hear these letters, we’ll, I’d
like to have them pointed out to me, if you would.
MR. LAPPER-Tom can just show you on the map.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen, lady?
MR. KUBRICKY-Can I say something?
MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead.
MR. KUBRICKY-I know when I was here last time, when I came here, I thought you guys all
knew that I was putting an addition on. I thought you guys knew that. That’s why when you
were asking me why I needed this wall, it’s like I was kind of like, I didn’t know whether to
make heads or tails of what you guys were telling me.
MR. STONE-Since I wasn’t here.
MR. KUBRICKY-What this is, what I’m doing, you see, this right here is what I’m putting up
right now. I already got the permit to put this up right here, and that’s where that arrow is
right now. You see right now the wall comes to right here. You see where I’m pointing?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. KUBRICKY-The wall comes to right here, right. Now, you see this right here, this is a
mechanical room that’s going to be sticking out like 10 feet. The mechanical room is going to be
sticking out past the wall, because the house is, I’m going back. Do you follow what I’m
saying?
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. That’s, I thought you guys knew all that when I was here the last time,
and you guys said no.
MR. STONE-We only know what we’re told.
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. Maybe I was to blame, because you’re saying why are you doing it, and
the reason I was is because the height, I want, instead of looking like that, I want it to look like
this.
MR. BRYANT-Where does the 17 feet come in? Where does it end up?
MR. LAPPER-At the edge of the new addition.
MR. KUBRICKY-Right here. You can see it on this one here. This is where the old wall comes
to right here, and this is why.
MR. BRYANT-Well, it goes beyond the building.
MR. KUBRICKY-What I want to do, I want to extend the wall out so it’s uniform. Okay, and
then, go over to the other side.
MR. LAPPER-Allan just asked how far does the wall go beyond the building in front. Three
feet.
MR. KUBRICKY-Like three feet, maybe, three feet beyond the building. Now go to the other.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. BRYANT-What’s going to happen to the wall going the other way?
MR. KUBRICKY-Nothing. There is no wall going the other way.
MR. LAPPER-Because that’s where you have windows that you want to have.
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, because on the other side, that’s where the pool is going to be. You’re
going to have like 12 foot windows going down the other side, that’s going to be at Kruczlnicki,
but the only reason I’m hiding this here is because this is what it’s going to look like, you know,
and just to give you an idea what the big picture’s going to look like, move your arrow over to
the other side of the house, go back just a little bit, go back a little more. Right there. You see
that roof right there? Can everybody see that roof?
MR. LAPPER-It’s hard for them to tell it’s a roof.
MR. KUBRICKY-Well, there’s a three car storage building right there, and that roof there is
coming off. So that part’s going to go up now.
MR. LAPPER-So it’ll match the addition.
MR. KUBRICKY-That part’s going up, and that part’s behind the wall. So just to kind of let you
know where I’m.
MR. LAPPER-It’ll be balanced with an addition on one side, and on the other side.
MR. KUBRICKY-Because if we didn’t go with the wall, it’s not going to look right. I thought
you guys already knew all this up front when I came here the last time. That’s why I was kind
of shocked that you were asking why I need it, and I thought it kind of spelled it out.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, the building permit that Mr. Kubricky’s referring to was not on my
previous Staff notes, was not provided to me at the time, and I can’t blame our support staff,
Sue Hemingway, because she was not there at the time. She had a medical leave. So it was not
referenced in the last Staff notes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-Question. You’ve started work on this piece of wall that you’re asking for the
variance on.
MR. KUBRICKY-Not yet I haven’t.
MR. MC NULTY-You’ve got forms in place.
MR. KUBRICKY-I’ve got forms. I’ve got the footings poured.
MR. LAPPER-For the wall or for the house?
MR. KUBRICKY-Well, the house and the wall.
MR. MC NULTY-For the wall. You can see the lower range, the wall and the column for the,
end column’s in place.
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. I’ve got to go at least six. If you’re not going to let me go to match the
rest of the house, I’ve got to go at least that, at the minimum.
MR. STONE-He can build six without.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, well, he’s got an eight, well, he doesn’t have wall there yet. He’s got the
forms in place for the lower part of the wall, and he’s got the column in place.
MR. KUBRICKY-I’m ready to go with it.
MR. LAPPER-I guess Tom’s answer is, he can build six, it just isn’t preferable.
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. I’m going to go six, if I can’t get eight, but all I’m trying to say, it’s not
going to look right if we don’t do it.
MR. STONE-Any other questions anybody? All right. Let me open the public hearing. We’ve
got a lot of letters to read. Anybody wishing to speak on the subject? Obviously no. What do
we have?
MR. MC NULTY-We’ve got 12 letters. I can read them or I can tell you that they all say they
either have no problem with it or they’re in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Why don’t you just read the names.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. The first one we had was the David Kruczlnicki.
MR. STONE-And that’s that one there. Okay, and he’s in favor of it.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We’ve got Joan Kubricky.
MR. LAPPER-That’s mom.
MR. STONE-That’s mom. That doesn’t count.
MR. KUBRICKY-No, that doesn’t count. Go across the road. The other one, right there.
MR. MC NULTY-Dan and Donna Davies?
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. Right there.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-Tom McDermott. William Sheldon. Bruce Mandalare. Elio Cerrone.
MR. STONE-He’s the one who has the head on view of it?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. MC NULTY-Kurt Jaeger. Frank & Stephanie Rollo. Keith Harris. Jean & Leona Petramale.
MR. STONE-Is the big lot to the northwest yours?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-And the last one’s Kelly Sullivan.
MR. STONE-Okay. So they basically surround the property.
MR. KUBRICKY-Everybody in my whole neighborhood.
MR. LAPPER-They were supportive.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. They’re for it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else?
MR. MC NULTY-No.
MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Just a question. Did you solicit these, or did they, when they heard about it, did
they volunteer?
MR. KUBRICKY-Well, actually I came back from the first meeting, and they asked me how I
made out and I said, they shot it down, and they couldn’t believe it. What I did, before I put the
addition on the house, I went and presented it all to them. I said, look it, this is what I’m
planning on doing.
MR. STONE-One of the things that we say, nobody’s going to hear it, but obviously, is that, if
somebody likes a project, we like to see them, too. We always hear the people who object. It’s
nice to get somebody who says I like it to come out. Okay. Any other questions anybody has?
All right. Let’s start with Jim. What do you think?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I was favorably impressed by your proposal last time. I didn’t have any
problems with it, and I think it made sense from the viewpoint of, you know, if we’d already
granted an eight foot fence there, why would we suddenly change it, put up a stop sign for the
next part. So, you know, seeing as this is going to be the end of that fence, it’s not going to be
continued around the back side, as was wondered by some of the Board members last meeting,
I don’t have a problem with it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-The applicant is quite fortunate to have a very capable counsel. I have to tell you
that, because he brought to our attention, particularly when I read and I was so impressed with
the information that we didn’t have before, and so with that information I have to say I’m
impressed. I would support the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Al?
MR. BRYANT-Unfortunately, I don’t agree with Mr. Abbate. The last meeting I was clear. I
said that I couldn’t, in conscience, vote for an eight foot fence, and basically something you said,
Mr. Lapper, convinced me even further, and that is it’s 300 feet from the road, and you’re not
going to tell between eight foot or six foot. Frankly, you’d be creative with the design. I can’t
really support the application. I can’t understand, it’s only a personal opinion, how in 1999 they
ever let it go through, but I wasn’t here.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I really think the plan makes sense to me. I was not here for the last meeting, but
I also believe, as Mr. Abbate and Mr. Underwood, that to me there’s a certain aesthetic quality
to having things balance, and I think that this is not ostentatious. It’s not something that’s over
the, way over the line. It’s slightly over the line. So I’d be in favor of it.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. KUBRICKY-I thank you, Roy.
MR. STONE-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I was against it last time. I thought it was just an arbitrary thing, extending it, but
we did not have that information about the addition, and looking at the plans, it would look
funny not to finish it architecturally. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, to tell you the truth, I don’t remember which way I voted this last time,
but I think I was against it. I end up being torn on this one, too. If I could go way back, I think
I’d be more inclined to say, take your saw and cut two feet off that thing to begin with, but
that’s done, and while I jabbed you about the forms being in place, frankly, that’s what’s helped
me more than anything else is seeing where that column form is over the right let me really
picture what it was going to look like, and given what we have there now, addition or no
addition, I’ll agree that it’s going to look better to maintain the same height for that last leg of
the wall. So, that being the case, I’ll be in favor.
MR. STONE-Well, we do our job. I was here in 1999, and I remember, as I said earlier, we
granted that wall, one, because of the size of the property, the size of the house, that it wasn’t
going to be, it wasn’t a spite fence by any stretch of the imagination. It was designed to protect
the neighbors from a cluttered driveway, as I remember it, and this is not a small piece of
property, and I don’t think that the eight foot wall, given where it’s going to go, even though I
wasn’t here when it was denied the last time, certainly, with the information at hand, as
everybody has said, I certainly would go along with it. So I need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-2004 THOMAS AND TERI
KUBRICKY, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles
Abbate:
80 Oak Valley Way. The applicant is proposing to extend the existing wall, which is 26 feet long
by 8 feet high on the north side of the dwelling by 17 feet at the same height. The applicant, in
doing so, requests two feet of height relief from the six-foot maximum height requirement for
fences per 179-5-060C(3). The applicant, in making this motion, we consider the test, which is
that the benefit can be achieved by the applicant by other feasible means. While I guess it’s
been determined it could be, but at a cost of an aesthetic view. The change in the neighborhood
would not be undesirable. In fact, the neighbors have come out in support, the surrounding
neighbors specifically have seen no problem with the fence. The request is on the borderline
between being substantial and not substantial. I think 33% is a lot, but it’s mitigated by the fact
that it’s so far from the road that you probably won’t be able to tell the height difference from
that distance. There won’t be any physical or environmental affects and I guess the difficulty
can be termed self-created, but I move that we approve this variance.
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-Just one thought. I know you said right now, since your mother is alive and not
willing to give you the land, but you did state an intent.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. After we talked about it, Tom really thought that it’s not necessary, and
those are valuable, big lots, and so he’d rather not go there now.
MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, we’re not asking for that. If you were willing to put it in, we’d put
it in.
MR. LAPPER-Back when he was thinking anything it took to get it done, but then after he
talked to his mom, we thought better about it, after I had written the letter. So that’s why we’re
withdrawing that.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MR. STONE-Okay.
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
]
NOES: Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. STONE-All right . We have one item left on the agenda, folks. As many of you are aware,
back in September, there was a recording problem. They were recorded, I believe. They just
weren’t finished. Anyway, 30 days more having passed since the meeting, and I understand,
Sue, that the summary was entered in a timely fashion?
MS. HEMINGWAY-Yes, it was. The summary was recorded the day after the meeting to the
Town Clerk.
MR. STONE-Okay. So the 30 days have, in fact, elapsed, and there is no recourse to the
decisions that were made.
MS. HEMINGWAY-Correct.
MR. STONE-So just to clean this thing up, we have a resolution that I asked the lawyers to
write, just to make sure that we are all buttoned up, because unfortunately, the stuff wasn’t.
MR. BRYANT-Wouldn’t it be prudent, I mean, I don’t understand how somebody who wasn’t
here at the September 15 meeting can even vote on this.
th
MR. STONE-We can’t.
MR. BRYANT-So how are you going to enter a motion that you don’t have the.
MR. STONE-That’s a good point. Thank you for reminding me. Who was here?
MR. BRYANT-I was here.
MRS. HUNT-I was here.
MR. STONE-Four. So we’ve got at least four. Okay. So if you guys want to read it. Go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-So we have four. Well, that’s a majority. So if we’re all in favor of it.
MR. STONE-All this is saying, this is what the Board did. We’re affirming what the Board. As
the language is, and she wanted to say something different, or she wrote it differently, it reflects
the actions taken, which were basically denial , approval, tabling, two denials, and approval
and a tabling. That’s all that this resolution says.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. It doesn’t talk about the actual transactions.
MR. STONE-No. We have what they tried to put together, but we’re not asking, because 30
days have passed, nobody has challenged it, but just to get on the record that we, as a Board. I
want you to read it in.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/04)
MOTION TO APPROVE RE-DO MOTIONS FROM QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2004, Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2004, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)
th
convened for the purpose of hearing and deciding certain appeals, and
WHEREAS, it is the custom and practice of the ZBA to record proceedings before it and in
addition, staff members take notes regarding the appeals presented and the determinations
thereof, and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 2004 Resolutions were made regarding the following appeals:
th
1. Motion To Table Area Variance No.: 45-2004 Robert & Janice Grillo;
2. Motion to Deny Area Variance No.: 68-2004 David & Lynda Johnson;
3. Motion to Deny Area Variance No.: 69-2004 Tom Kubricky;
4. Motion to Approve Area Variance No.: 67-2004 Nasreen Khurshid;
WHEREAS, subsequent to the meeting it was discovered that due to an equipment malfunction,
the tape which would normally be transcribed to create verbatim minutes was inaudible, and
WHEREAS, staff prepared Resolutions based upon the notes they took during the meeting, and
WHEREAS, the ZBA has had an opportunity to review these Resolutions and the ZBA is
satisfied that they truly and accurately reflect the actions taken on September 15, 2004,
th
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
In order to ratify and memorialize the decisions made on September 15, 2004, the ZBA hereby
th
adopts the following Resolutions:
1. Motion To Table Area Variance No.: 45-2004 Robert & Janice Grillo;
2. Motion to Deny Area Variance No.: 68-2004 David & Lynda Johnson;
3. Motion to Deny Area Variance No.: 69-2004 Tom Kubricky;
4. Motion to Approve Area Variance No.: 67-2004 Nasreen Khurshid;
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes
MR. STONE-Okay. Meeting is adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
50