04-22-2015 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 22, 2015
INDEX
Area Variance No. 36-2014 Angela & Robert Kladis 1.
EXTENSION OF APPROVAL Tax Map No. 252.-1-36.7
Area Variance No. 11-2015 Maurice Combs 2.
Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1
Area Variance No. 12-2015 Teudy Nuesi 3.
Tax Map No. 302.13-1-16
Area Variance No. 13-2015 John Weber, Sr./Heidelberg Inn 9.
Tax Map No. 303.5-1-87
Area Variance No. 14-2015 Kimberly Polunci Tails Wag Inn 17.
Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 22, 2015
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
MICHAEL MC CABE
KYLE NOONAN
RICHARD GARRAND
ANDREW ALLISON, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome everyone. I'd like to open the meeting this evening for the
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Our process here is quite simple. We'll do some basic
housekeeping, and then we'll call each item to the table as it appears on the agendas. For
those of you who haven't been here before, there is a sheet out on the back table that explains
the process. There's also an agenda and some general information, Staff Notes, etc. Like I
said, we do have some housekeeping matters to take care of first here. Again, welcome, and
I'll start with the approval of the meeting minutes of March 18tH
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 18, 2015
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Allison, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. HENKEL-I was absent.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The next item on the agenda is an Administrative Item.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
Area Variance No. 36-2014 Kladis-Request for extension of approval.
MR. JACKOSKI-And, Staff, what are we going to do here?
MRS. MOORE-We're going to table them to May 25, 2016. They've asked for a one year
extension.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any further discussion by Board members? May I have a motion please?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received a request for extension
of approval on a previously approved application from Adirondack Mechanical - Kladis for a
variance from Section(s): 179-5-020D of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. The
applicant proposes construction of a 2,910 sq. ft. (footprint) single-family dwelling. Project
involves (3) garages - 264 sq. ft. attached garage, 1,200 sq. ft. detached garage, 380 sq. ft.
Porte cochere. Relief requested from number of allowable accessory structures is two. Project
includes construction of a single-family dwelling and associated site work.
MOTION TO: Approve Request for Extension of Approval for one-year; until May 25, 2016;
Area Variance No. 36-2014, Adirondack Mechanical - Bob Kladis, Tax Map No. 252.00-1-36.7;
Lot 7 Lockhart Mt. Road, Granger Subdivision, Introduced by: Michael McCabe, Seconded by:
Kyle Noonan:
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
Duly adopted this 22nd day of April 2015 by the following vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, we're going to confirm again, until 2016 and May twenty?
MRS. MOORE-Twenty-sixth.
MR. JACKOSKI-Twenty-sixth. Thank you.
MRS. MOORE-Sorry, it's May 25tH
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Allison, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-One more item this evening is we are going to, Staff, because we had a public
hearing scheduled for the Combs project, do we need to actually open it?
MRS. MOORE-You should open your public hearing and keep it open.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2015 SEQRA TYPE I MAURICE H. COMBS AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) MAURICE
H. COMBS ZONING MDR LOCATION 636 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
REMOVAL OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND DEVELOPMENT OF A 7-LOT
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH LOT SIZES RANGING FROM 1.01 ACRES TO 1.45
ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
MDR DISTRICT. CROSS REF SB 6-2015; UV 71-1996 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
APRIL 2015 LOT SIZE 9.09 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-2015, Maurice H. Combs, Meeting Date: April 22, 2015
"Project Location: 636 Corinth Road "Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
removal of existing single-family dwelling and development of a 7-lot residential subdivision with
lot sizes ranging from 1.01 acres to 1.45 acres.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum lot size
requirements for the MDR district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts Moderate
Density Residential lot size requirements.
Lot size-MDR
Required 2.0 acres
Proposed 1.45, 1.18, 1.21, 1.14, 1.04, 1.01, 1.02
Relief .55, .82, .79, .86, .96, .99, .98
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to actually move the agenda a bit. The Combs project, I am going
to open the public hearing and it will stay open. Is there anyone here this evening who wants to
address the Board on this particular application, the Combs matter, Area Variance No. 11-2015?
Not seeing anyone, it'll go pretty fast. Okay. It has been read into the record. I have opened
the public hearing officially. There is no one here in the audience who'd like to address the
Board. Is there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment and no discussion at this time from the Board, 1,
again, leave the public hearing open. Can I have a motion to table this matter to May 27, 2015?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Maurice H. Combs. Applicant proposes removal of existing single-family dwelling and
development of a 7-lot residential subdivision with lot sizes ranging from 1.01 acres to 1.45
acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the MDR district.
SEAR Type 1;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 22, 2015 and left open;
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2015, MAURICE COMBS, TAX MAP NO.
308.18-1-1, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle
Noonan:
The application has been tabled to the May 27, 2015 meeting.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Allison, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. New Business.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2015 SEQRA TYPE II TEUDY NUESI OWNER(S) TEUDY NUESI
ZONING MDR LOCATION 00 HIDDEN HILLS DRIVE APPLICATION PROPOSES
INSTALLATION OF A 6-FOOT FENCE TO BE BUILT AROUND THE RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR
PLACEMENT OF A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARDS. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
RESTRICTIONS ON TYPE OF FENCE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE FRONT YARD.
CROSS REF BP 2014-006 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2015 LOT SIZE
0.58 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.13-1-16 SECTION 179-5-070
TEUDY NUESI, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-2015, Teudy Nuesi, Meeting Date: April 22, 2015
"Project Location: 60 Hidden Hills Drive Description of Proposed Project: Application
proposes installation of a 6-foot fence to be built around the residential property.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from maximum height restrictions
for placement of a fence in the front yards. Also, relief requested from restrictions on type of
fence to be constructed in the front yard.
Height in front yard Type of fence
Required 4 ft. Non opaque fence
Proposed 6 ft. 112 ft. of 6 ft. in height privacy fencing.
Relief 2 ft. Greater than 50% of fencing is opaque in the front yard
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The parcel is at the corner of Hidden Hills
and Dixon Road, aerial imagery indicates a handful of parcel have fencing.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available
to lower the fence along each of the frontages. The plans show the 6 ft. front fence is
greater than 30 ft. from the front property lines.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
moderate as a four foot fence as an open fence or non-stockade would be allowed.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The variance may have minimal
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
physical or environmental impact on the site. The fence is to be located on a parcel that is a
corner lot where the entire fence will be at 6 ft. and align with the home
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes installing a 112 ft. length of fence at 6 ft. in height along the front yards
of the property where a 4 ft. height maximum is allowed. The applicant intends to fence in the
entire yard with a 6 ft. high cedar dog ear wood fence. The plans show the location of the
portion of the fence requiring relief to be 30 ft. from the front property lines."
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, and if you noticed I aptly avoided saying your last name. So if you
could identify yourselves for the record, that would be great.
MR. NUESI-Teudy Nuesi.
MRS. NUESI-Kayla Nuesi.
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Is there anything you'd like to add at this time for the Board or
would you like the Board just to ask you questions? Just questions?
MRS. NUESI-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Board members?
MR. NOONAN-If I may. Obviously the four foot height is what's maximum height allowed there.
Is there a reason why you can't do a four foot fence on that 112 foot section?
MRS. NUESI-Dixon Road is a pretty busy area and we're trying to have a little bit more privacy,
and our main concern is pretty much, you know, we have two younger kids who are running
around and we're just trying to have as much privacy as we can. Since it is a corner lot and
everybody can see everything.
MR. NOONAN-Because my thought on it is I can understand the six foot all the way around the
back for the privacy, but that view that you would get of Dixon Road over to Hidden Hills Road, if
it had, not the view of your yard, necessarily, but if it had a six foot fence there, it wouldn't
necessarily fit with what else is going around that area, but I can understand the other part being
more of a privacy fence.
MR. JACKOSKI-Could you possibly get the same level of privacy if you planted Canadian
Hemlock or cedar trees or something like that?
MRS. NUESI-We thought about it but the cost would be a little bit more, and we're trying to keep
the cost down. .
MR. MC CABE-Have you checked out the cost of what each section of wood would be? Were
you thinking about wooden fence?
MRS. NUESI-Yes. Wood is a little bit more.
MR. MC CABE-You're talking about $32, and then plus posts plus cement, and that's if you're
doing it yourself without labor.
MRS. NUESI-Yes, it is cheaper if we do it ourselves. We have a friend who's willing to help us
as opposed to having somebody come in and actually do a whole project.
MR. MC CABE-1 rode around the Hidden Hills area and there was a few homes that were on
corners that did have six foot fences pretty close to the property line, but you're not really per se
on a corner. It's kind of weird, your property definitely is, and I understand that electrical box is
there and you'd like to kind of hide that. It's kind of ugly.
MRS. NUESI-Which makes it pretty much, put the fence over it so we get that out of it.
MR. MC CABE-1 understand. You have one or two children that ride the dirt bikes?
MR. NUESI-Yes.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MRS. NUESI-Yes, two.
MR. MC CABE-You might want to join a club like Cathern or something. There's a nice club
called Cathern. Yes, I could see, but I don't think I'd be in favor of a six foot fence coming out
that far. I think more at an angle away from the road there.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is it possible for you, on the screen, to just with your finger, show where you
plan to put the fence on that lot?
MR. NUESI-To be honest I'm more interested on the Dixon side road, instead of Hidden Hills
Road. That's my main concern is the Dixon Road.
MR. MC CABE-You've only got roughly 25 feet on the other side here?
MR. NUESI-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-Are you going to fence in the Verizon cross box that's in there?
MR. NUESI-If you guys allowed us to.
MRS. NUESI-No, we're not going to, we're going to keep it, it's not going to be inside the fence.
We'll keep it out.
MR. GARRAND-Okay, because Verizon has an easement where that cross box is and they
need access to that on a daily basis.
MRS. NUESI-Yes.
MR. NUESI-If 1, the house sits around here. The Verizon box is here. So I'm pretty much
bringing the fence in this much, and so all this area there is going to be open out on the road.
The Verizon box is actually on the side of the house. So I'm putting, if the fence is allowed, I'm
going to put it behind the Verizon box.
MRS. NUESI-So they'll still have their access. It's not going to interfere. So the box is right
here, and the fence pretty much will.
MR. GARRAND-To keep people from working on the box and looking in your property, and all
that stuff.
MRS. NUESI-Yes, pretty much.
MR. GARRAND-That, I think, is a pretty good idea.
MR. NUESI-I don't know who's working there. I know they work for Verizon, but that's about it.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, they're there every single day.
MRS. NUESI-Yes, they are, often.
MR. GARRAND-And it will provide you with a little bit of privacy from that.
MR. NUESI-I actually caught the kids playing with that box a couple of times, and I've called
them.
MRS. NUESI-They put a padlock on it and everything.
MR. HENKEL-I'm surprised they didn't put a covered one in the ground. They usually do that.
You saw it. It's kind of a weird box. It's not the typical box.
MR. NUESI-It's not a typical one. No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Other Board member questions at this time?
MR. URRICO-So you would be willing to compromise on the Dixon, the, which side?
MR. NUESI-The Hidden Hills.
MRS. NUESI-The Hidden Hills side. Yes. We can put like what's required on the Hidden Hills
side.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. GARRAND-Four feet.
MR. NUESI-Yes.
MRS. NUESI-We don't have a problem with that. Our issue is just mainly to try to have some
privacy from the Verizon box and the Dixon Road. That's our main concern pretty much.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? Okay.
We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll open the public hearing now. Is there
any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to
address this Board concerning this particular application? Yes, sir.
RON BALL
MR. BALL-I just have a quick question.
MR. JACKOSKI-Can you identify yourself for the record, please.
MR. BALL-Ron Ball. From what I see, your house isn't actually in here, right?
MR. NUESI-Yes.
MR. BALL-This is just a diagram of your property, and there's another newer house that's
probably right here?
MRS. NUESI-Yes, that's correct.
MR. BALL-Okay. So your garage would be right here?
MR. NUESI-A little bit more this way.
MR. BALL-A little bit more this way.
MRS. NUESI-Yes.
MR. BALL-So in order to get into your garage, you come down this street and then pull in?
MR. NUESI-That's correct.
MR. BALL-How do you plan on bringing the fence across the front of your garage? It's not
coming to the front of the house?
MR. NUESI-No.
MR. BALL-I'm sorry. Okay. That's all I wanted to know.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other public comment, please? Thank you, Mr. Ball. Okay. I'm going to
leave the public hearing open at this time and I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with Mike.
MR. MC CABE-When I first looked at this, I wasn't real happy with a six foot high fence, but
when I patrolled the neighborhood, I was alarmed at how many properties did have a
nonconforming fence. So you certainly wouldn't be the first one, and then the other thing I
started thinking about is that it actually would be a boost for the neighborhood because isolating
Dixon Road from the neighborhood is going to cut down on that traffic noise, and in the front
there you have the Northway noise. So the more I thought about it, I thought that the fence
would be a boost to the neighborhood and not really a detrimental or an unfriendly attribute for
the neighborhood. So I would be in favor of the project as proposed.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I'm not in favor of six feet on the Hidden Hills side because I've gone through
Hidden Hills every single day for the last 15 years, and there are no fences in the front yards, six
foot stockade fences in the front yards there. I would support a four foot fence as the applicant
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
has said that they'd accommodate us with, but also I agree that a six foot fence on the Dixon
Road side it's going to be set back far enough so that it's really not going to make a big
difference. They are a corner lot. They do have two front yards. So there is a little ambiguity
here. So I'd be in favor of four foot on Hidden Hills, facing Hidden Hills, six foot facing Dixon.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-Similar to what Rick said it's a nice compromise leaving six foot along Dixon
Road and the four foot along Hidden Hills Road. I would be in favor of that as opposed to the
project as it is right now.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I would agree with that proposal, six on the Dixon side and the Hidden Hills. Are
we talking about the opaque monolithic kind of fence?
MR. JACKOSKI-We should be.
MRS. MOORE-1 was going to ask that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thoughts, comments?
MR. URRICO-Well, obviously you would want what the Code calls for.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, can you reiterate what the Code calls for so that all the Board
members are aware and the public is aware as well?
MRS. MOORE-The four foot fence in the front should be of an open manner such as a split rail
fence or it cannot be opaque.
MR. MC CABE-It can be a picket but space in between it.
MRS. MOORE-It has to be spaced in between, but it cannot be stockade.
MR. MC CABE-And solid.
MRS. MOORE-It cannot be solid, correct. Do you want to know about the distance?
MR. JACKOSKI-Is that okay with you folks, too? I don't care about the distance.
MRS. NUESI-Yes, that's fine.
MR. JACKOSKI-So again, the fence would be Code compliant as it runs parallel with Hidden
Hills, but it will be a six foot opaque structure as it runs parallel with Dixon Road and follow the.
MR. HENKEL-Is it going to be like they show here?
MR. JACKOSKI-That's what I'm hearing.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. Now we're not bringing it back to the corner of the house. We're bringing
it right to here?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it looks to me like the fence joins the house right about the center of the
house, on that end.
MRS. NUESI-I'm sorry, could you repeat that again?
MR. JACKOSKI-The fence joins the house at about the center of the house in width at that end.
That's what it's drawn on here as.
MR. HENKEL-How many feet is that away from that box, did you measure that?
MR. JACKOSKI-It's right close to it.
MR. NUESI-It's close, yes.
MR. HENKEL-Isn't there a certain amount of space that has to be there for that?
MR. GARRAND-They have to get the doors open, yes.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. NUESI-There's back doors behind that lot. It's going to have to be right off the corner of
the back of the house.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, they need access to that.
MR. HENKEL-It's kind of vague. Really shouldn't we have dimensions of exact kind of?
MR. GARRAND-No, not really. It's not dimensional relief. It's height. It's just height and
opaque, that's it.
MR. HENKEL-Right, true, but.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, you know, you have to have this fence far enough away from that box
order for Verizon to maintain its structure.
MRS. NUESI-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's our biggest concern. Okay. Andy?
MR. ALLISON-I'd be in favor of the changes they're talking about, going to the four foot tall
fence along the front, and I do think that the 50% open would be good to see along there.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'd also go along with it. As I said, I've ridden around Hidden Hills and some
of the corner lots actually did have six foot fences right up, 10 feet away from the road. So I'd
go along with this. It's back far enough. So long as we go with the 25 feet of open picket
fencing on the Hidden Hills side.
MR. JACKOSKI-So my only concern would be is would you consider any landscaping on the
stockade fence side that runs parallel with Dixon Road so that just doesn't look like a big blank
structure right there? Would you be willing to put some landscaping of some sort?
MR. NUESI-We are planning on doing some of that.
MR. NUESI-Yes, we are.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion for approval.
MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Teudy Nuesi. Applicant proposes installation of a 6-foot fence to be built around the residential
property. The applicant has agreed to have a 4-foot non-opaque fence on the Hidden Hills side.
We're giving him relief for the 6-foot stockade style fence on the Dixon Road side. Relief
requested from maximum height restrictions for placement of a fence in the front yards. Also,
relief requested from restrictions on type of fence to be constructed in the front yard.
SEAR Type II - no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 22, 2015;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
Will this change produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties? We don't believe it will produce any detriment to nearby
properties or change the character of the neighborhood in any way, shape, or form.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other feasible means. The
applicant has done that. They've agreed to have a non-opaque 4-foot high fence on the Hidden
Hills side; the side facing Hidden Hills to maintain the character of the neighborhood.
I agree with the Staff Notes here that the requested relief is moderate.
Will this proposed variance have an adverse on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district? I don't think it will have any what-so-ever. I think it might be a visual
improvement on the neighborhood. And so, therefore I move that we approve Area Variance
No. 12-2015.
1 just want to reiterate, that the 4-foot section is non-opaque.
The applicant has agreed that they will do some plantings on the 6 foot side of the fence. I also
want to remind the applicant when you do set the fence posts; call Dig Safe: 1-800-Dig Safe
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE
NO. 12-2015 TEUDY NUESI, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2015 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Verify that it's non-opaque for the four feet.
MR. GARRAND-1 just want to reiterate that the four foot section is non-opaque.
MRS. MOORE-And do you wish to suggest plantings?
MR. GARRAND-The applicant has agreed that they will do some plantings on the 6 foot side of
the fence. I also want to remind the applicant, when you do set the fence posts, call dig safe.
1-800 Dig Safe. Please call them. It will save you a lot of money.
MRS. MOORE-They do have a, just, if you're asking for plantings, could you suggest what you
wish to see?
MR. GARRAND-No, I don't think we should specify any types of plantings.
MRS. MOORE-It's for enforcement issues or for site plan compliance. You say plantings, it
could be different things.
MR. JACKOSKI-If they don't, let's face it, if they die and nobody replaces them, nobody is going
out there to enforce it anyway. So
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Hopefully you want your property to look nice anyway. Laura, thank you.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Allison, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. NUESI-Thank you guys.
MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED JOHN WEBER,
SR./HEIDELBERG INN OWNER(S) KINDRED GROUP LLC ZONING CI LOCATION
352 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT 900 SQ. FT. OF THE
EXISTING PARKING LOT INTO AN OUTDOOR EATING AREA (8 TABLES) DURING THE
SUMMER MONTHS OF THE YEAR. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PARKING
AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RESTAURANT IN THE CI ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS
REF BP 2003-899 C/O ONLY; BP 92-731 STORAGE SHED; BP 6645 YR. 1980 SEPTIC
ALT.; BP 1801 YR. 1972 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2015 LOT
SIZE 0.37 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-87 SECTION 179-4-090; 179-3-040
JOHN WEBER, SR. & JOHN WEBER, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2015, John Weber, Sr./Heidelberg Inn, Meeting Date:
April 22, 2015 "Project Location: 352 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to convert 900 sq. ft. of the existing parking lot into an outdoor eating area (8
tables) during the summer months of the year.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum parking area
requirements for the restaurant in the Cl zoning district. Section 179-4-090 Parking -food service
Minimum parking
Required 25
Proposed/ Existing 15
Relief 8
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The plans show an existing paved area is
to be converted to the 900 sq. ft. outdoor eating area.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be
considered limited due to the size of the parcel. The applicant as supplied a letter from the
County indicating an agreement is in the works for the already paved parking spaces in the
county row-11 spaces.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code with 15 existing on site and 8 additional are needed for the
number of seats existing on the interior and the proposed seats for the outdoor area.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The variance may have minimal
physical or environmental impact on the site. The site is an existing paved area where the
parking was not defined with the new proposal the parking spaces are specified with some
outlining the new outdoor eating area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to install a temporary seasonal outdoor eating area that is approximately
900 sq. ft. The number of seats indoor is 51 requiring 13 parking spaces and the proposed
exterior seating is 40 seats requiring 10 spaces with the remaining spaces to meet the employee
spaces requirements. The applicant has indicated the outdoor eating area will be using an
existing door on that side of the building. There is to be temporary planting and lattices
surrounding the space and parking will only be on two sides of the area. The applicant has
indicated that the space is seasonal only and will be removed during fall and set up again in the
spring of each year. Staff would encourage the applicant to obtain an agreement with the
neighboring business plaza to allow shared parking during off hours for customers of the
restaurant. This would then be an alternative if the County were to need the parking area within
the ROW. The waste containers would be relocated to not interfere with parking or traffic."
MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board met last night and based on its limited
review they didn't identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the
current project proposal. They adopted that unanimously. That's it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record,
please, and feel free to add to the record.
MR. WEBER, SR.-John Weber, Sr.
MR. WEBER-And I'm John Weber.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anything that you'd like to add at this time? I think there are some
questions about how the County right of way is going to pan out and if there really are 26 spaces
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
on site or 25, and what the aisle spaces are between the parking spaces. Because it all looks
very tight.
MR. WEBER-I'll just address that. I talked to Martin Auffredou, Warren County lawyer. On a
conference call we got a hold of the Supervisor for the Highway Department. It was kind of like,
well they've always used that since '72. We have them all along Saratoga Road. So we've
always just had it and this is the first time it's come up where they're, in our situation that it's
come up, can I use them, and they said yes, we'll write you a letter, certainly we can do that.
They have to go through the meetings just to say, yes, I can have it, I guess, but they're already
using it up and down Quaker Road anyway. It's the same front area that they're using. There's
11 lots there. So that gives you a total under the survey that you have copies of if a total of 26
lots.
MR. JACKOSKI-So if the County ever needed that space, would you be willing to go back to the
Planning Board to, you know, re-look at the entire site and the use of the site if they took away
the spots?
MR. WEBER-Yes, I mean, if it came down where they took those away, we're still about 30 feet
away from the road even with those parking spots because there's a big ditch there, and it's,
from the center it's about 30 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand it's not likely, but in case they did?
MR. WEBER-Yes, certainly, and also since this is temporary we're thinking that we could also
minimize the amount of seating that, if it were to come to that point, to accommodate the amount
of necessary parking.
MR. HENKEL-You mean by temporary, seasonal?
MR. WEBER-The seasonal part of it, yes, because really during the off season time we're
adhering to what we need.
MR. MC CABE-Now are you going to need another Sign Variance for that?
MR. WEBER-We're not really putting a sign up.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. That was just for the picture, the looks, whatever?
MR. WEBER-Yes. You mean, sorry, over the entryway?
MR. MC CABE-Yes, the beer garden.
MR. WEBER-It would be just a small one right over the gate itself.
MR. MC CABE-Is he going to need one for that?
MRS. MOORE-It's less than four square feet.
MR. WEBER-It would be smaller than four square feet.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. According to this it looks bigger.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments from Board members? Do you know what the aisle
space is in the front of the building from when a car, when cars are parked, one facing Quaker
Road and one facing the building, how much distance there is between them?
MR. WEBER-Well, in the drawing, and I had the lawyers here on Hiland Avenue. On the map it
shows exactly where they put the parking because we wanted to make sure that it was within
Code. So we paid to have them put the parking spaces in there. It was done by VanDusen
and Steves over here and this was recently done just as we started the paperwork for this about
a couple of months ago, and the plans that are in there are of the parking spaces, and his
comment was, too, I'm probably being a little conservative when I do this, because there was
some room over on the other side here where we could put, along the west side of the property,
he said you could probably put two or three more in there because that's grass that grows there.
It's not the entranceway, and I said just leave it the way it is because we have enough.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right. That still doesn't answer my question as to how much distance is
between vehicles.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MRS. MOORE-Between those, between the right of way or the property line to his.
MR. WEBER-To the first row.
MR. MC CABE-The property line would be the end of a car length here, basically. You've got 15
feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, 15 feet, is that what we're scaling?
MRS. MOORE-Where is it? Because I have 30.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, you have 60 feet from the face of the building to the property line.
MR. WEBER-1 think it's 30 feet an inch on this scale.
MR. JACKOSKI-You see that, Laura, 58.89?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-It looks to us like there's concrete or some kind of surface there that's got to be
at least 12 feet wide. If the spot is nine, it's bigger than nine.
MR. HENKEL-Down to 46 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-It's great to have a survey map, but if you don't have any dimensions on it, it's
not easy to read.
MRS. MOORE-I have 15 feet from that, in front of the planter, to the beginning of that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So it is 15.
MRS. MOORE-And then you want to go between the edge of the parking to the.
MR. MC CABE-So now we're down to 43. Now you take 18 feet roughly for a car.
MR. JACKOSKI-So if you take 58.89 and subtract the 15, you're 33, subtract 18 for a car, you're
down to 15.
MRS. MOORE-I have 25 feet from the property line to the end of that parking space.
MR. JACKOSKI-So you're about 25 feet, is that what you said?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is that Code?
MRS. MOORE-I believe it's 20 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Because it's certainly tight. Well when we look at a restaurant like the
Harvest, we spent a lot of time understanding how the site is going to be utilized, and with the
entranceways and backing out and it's tight.
MR. HENKEL-I was there Saturday night at 6:45 and there were 19 cars in the parking lot. So
it's a typical, probably typical Saturday night.
MR. WEBER-Yes, and that was kind of the conservative.
MR. HENKEL- That's without the beer garden going on. So there's 19 cars taking spots. How
many employees, roughly, do you have on a daily night?
MR. WEBER-Four, on each shift it would be about four.
MR. HENKEL-And if you have the beer garden, you're probably going to add one or two more,
right?
MR. WEBER-Well, it would be part time, and probably two at the most maybe.
MR. HENKEL-They'd still have a car.
MR. JACKOSKI-You only have four employees running the facility at all times?
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. WEBER-Yes. We have.
MR. WEBER.-We also have two employees that walk.
MR. JACKOSKI-But unfortunately the Code doesn't address that.
MR. WEBER, SR.-We have a couple of waitresses on and we have the bartender, the cook, and
we have, on weekends, maybe Friday and Saturday, a barmaid.
MR. HENKEL-A barmaid, two waitresses and two people in the kitchen. There's five people.
Right?
MR. WEBER-For when the beer garden is.
MR. WEBER-Yes, for now we have four.
MR. URRICO-What are you going to do if you fill up that parking lot? I mean, there's going to
be times that you're going to need extra space.
MR. WEBER-Well, it probably isn't any different than when we fill up the Heidelberg itself now.
You have to wait. If you fill up with parking then they're not going to go in there. So at that point
we probably couldn't serve.
MR. URRICO-They don't park next door?
MR. HENKEL-Have you talked to the plaza at all?
MR. WEBER-Yes, that's probably not anything that.
MR. HENKEL-Because at night time, they're really not open, that plaza.
MR. WEBER-They're not.
MR. HENKEL-That's a day plaza.
MR. WEBER-WE really haven't gotten an answer yet.
MR. HENKEL-They probably don't want to give it to you for liability reasons.
MR. WEBER-Yes. There would be that issue.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there parking allowed on the side street?
MR. WEBER-On Meadowbrook? I don't know.
MR. HENKEL-I don't think so. That's pretty narrow.
MR. WEBER, SRA mean, I've seen cars parked there because I drive down it every day.
MR. WEBER-Technically, back to the earlier comment about Meadowbrook, we have, you could
fit in a few extra cars, employees cars, along Meadowbrook side. Right now it's a full open
space that, you know, part of it's just grass and the other part, it's actually a lot wider of an
entryway than the Quaker side road. So if we were to maybe let's say grass off or close off that
area and then create two additional parking spots right there that could be utilized for
employees, in addition to what's already on the drawing.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions?
MR. MC CABE- If this is all temporary, what happens to it during the winter? Is it stored on site,
or do you take it all off site?
MR. WEBER-We'll take it off site.
MR. JACKOSKI-And the entrance sign that you have, entering the beer garden sign, that's only
four square feet?
MR. WEBER-Yes, we, right now, don't see it because the entryway to it would probably be
about two feet wide. It's just a small sign just to kind of, you know, won't compete with our main
sign of our restaurant. It's really just as a welcoming sign.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. HENKEL-No lights on it or anything?
MR. WEBER-Well, we might have, we're thinking of having like string lights that might go across
the top of the fence, and then under the umbrellas, but other than that, there's not going to be
any.
MR. WEBER, SR.-Well, we close at nine o'clock during the summer. That shouldn't be an
issue.
MR. WEBER-Yes, nine o'clock is pretty much it
MR. JACKOSKI-Not when you have that beer garden open.
MR. WEBER-We're going to have to yell last call.
MR. NOONAN-Mr. Chairman, if I may. I know we've talked a lot about the parking. That's
what you're here for, but the spots that go, if you can, so right now, if people were to pull up,
they could park along the building right here, but instead they do park the long way against the
building right there. Correct? So these are almost, wouldn't these almost be like additions of
parking that you don't normally have right now anyway?
MR. WEBER-That's correct.
MR. NOONAN-Because they can, the parking lot is, you know, I kind of feel like you park, you
pull up there and you park where everyone's already started parking for the night, and I know
we've talked a lot about it. Again, like I said, that's why you're here, but I see with the addition of
these extra spots here, which they are not there now, and they would be utilized, you know, the
parking lot would be utilized differently than it is now. I'm not seeing maybe some of the issue
with overcrowding of spaces that, you know, we are worried about, but I don't see, if we're using
the parking lot a different way, how it would fill up and possibly give us some of the concern or
the worry that we have right now.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are you limiting seating to outside only in good weather?
MR. WEBER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-You won't be seating inside?
MR. WEBER, SR.-We're going to have umbrellas up, but that's only for the sun. If it's raining
we're going to shut it down.
MR. JACKOSKI-But will you also seat inside during good weather?
MR. WEBER-Correct. The inside will be open, yes.
MR. WEBER, SR.-We do have, and I just mentioned, right now on the west side of the
restaurant, there's three rows of parking in there. They have three rows. It's not on here, but
they have that, and that's why I'm saying when the engineer did it he was conservative in the
number that I needed.
MR. HENKEL-There's really no lines in the parking lot right now per se.
MR. WEBER-Well, yes, it kind of gives them a little balance, they can go wherever they want to
go.
MR. WEBER-People randomly park there. So that's why it tends to be a little bit disorganized.
MR. JACKOSKI-All of us have experienced the Heidelberg parking.
MR. WEBER-We're hoping to sort of organize it a little bit better.
MR. JACKOSKI-And we're never advocating for more pavement, but this is one of those
situations where it's a tight space. Any further discussion from Board members? We do have a
public hearing scheduled and we still do have to do SEAR.
MRS. MOORE-It's 24 feet that's required for two way traffic.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. JACKOSKI-Perfect. Thank you. All right. We have a public hearing scheduled for this
evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this
particular application as I open the public hearing? Yes. Could you please come to the table
please, Harrison.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
HARRISON FREER
MR. FREER-Since nobody discussed it yet, and I reference Code 179-4-090, that if you give
them a waiver for less than 25 parking spots, I urge you. My name is Harrison Freer. I'm part
of the Warren County Safety Quality Bike organization, and I would urge you to demand that
they put a bike facility rack per Code. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else like to address the Board? Mr. Ball, would you come to the table,
please?
RON BALL
MR. BALL-Ron Ball. The only request I would have is that they use cloth napkins instead of
paper napkins.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Ball. Any further discussion? Is there any other written
comment?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-No written comments. Board member comments. I'll poll the Board. Andy,
I'll start with you.
MR. ALLISON-1 don't have any problem with the layout as it's proposed. I think the parking can
be resolved if they are creative about how they stripe that. It might help it. Rather than just
leaving it as a free for all parking lot, and I do support the idea of having a bike rack there. I
think it would be a great idea.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-1 like the bike rack idea, also. I mean, it would cut down on the number of cars
in the lot. It would be a great solution to the parking problem here, but also this is a temporary
structure and the time when they need that parking lot for snow removal, this stuff will be gone,
and that's a big factor for me in this. So I'd be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree. I think should the ROW become an issue, I think they would be
forced to come back anyway at that point, but judging from previous applications the ROW is
probably not a reality, at least from what we heard. So I would be okay with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I'll support the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I also support the project also.
MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm going to do a SEAR. Rick?
MR. GARRAND-Sure.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MOTION FOR A SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe:
After review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form, this Board finds that based on the
information provided in an analysis of the supporting documentation that this proposed action
will not result in any potentially larger significant adverse environmental impacts; therefore I give
it a Negative Declaration.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Allison, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-And I now seek a motion for approval of the project as presented with a bike
rack, and I emphasize what I believe we have for conditions was that they would come back with
a right of way issue to the Planning Board, that they would install a bike rack, and that they
would formally stripe or mark the parking spaces on the property. Can I have a motion,
please?
MR. NOONAN-Mr. Chairman, what was the second condition? I had install the bike rack.
MR. JACKOSKI-The right of way issue, that they'd come back to the Planning Board should the
parking spots no longer be available, from the County.
MR. NOONAN-All right. I'll make the motion.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. NOONAN-Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John
Weber, Sr. /Heidelberg Inn. The applicant proposes to convert 900 sq. ft. of the existing parking
lot into an outdoor eating area (8 tables) during the summer months of the year. Relief
requested from minimum parking area requirements for the restaurant in the Cl zoning district.
SEAR Type Unlisted
MOTION FOR A SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION: After review of the Short Environmental
Assessment Form, this Board finds that based on the information provided in an analysis of the
supporting documentation that this proposed action will not result in any potentially larger
significant adverse environmental impacts; therefore I give it a Negative Declaration. Introduced
by Richard Garrand, Seconded by Michael McCabe
Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Allison, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 22, 2015;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, nor a detriment
to nearby properties.
2. Feasible alternatives were discussed and were found to be unnecessary at this time.
The applicant has discussed and will be obtaining an agreement with the County.
3. The requested variance is not substantial.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district?
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
5. This alleged difficulty may be considered to be self-created as you change the plan that's
there.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community.
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) To install a bike rack;
b) Formally stripe the parking lot to organize the parking spaces better;
c) To come back to the Planning Board and Zoning Board as applicable for review if the
Town Right-Of-Way is no longer available for use.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
13-2015, John Weber, Sr. / Heidelberg Inn, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Mr. McCabe:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2015 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-1 would suggest, under feasible alternatives, you did hear the applicant has
discussed and will be obtaining an agreement with the County. So I would suggest you add
that language to that, and then in regard to the conditions, you mentioned it should come back to
the Planning Board. I would add the Planning Board or Zoning Board.
MR. JACKOSKI-As applicable.
MRS. MOORE-As applicable.
MR. NOONAN-So I should amend that right now?
MR. JACKOSKI-You can just say amended and Maria will use her language.
MR. NOONAN-And I would amend point number two, and the condition number eight, as per
Laura.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any further discussion? Thank you, Laura.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Allison, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations.
MR. WEBER-Thank you very much.
MR. WEBER, SR.-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2015 SEQRA TYPE II KIMBERLY POLUNCI TAILS WAG INN
AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) KIMBERLY POLUNCI ZONING RR-
3A LOCATION 21 BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE EXPANSION OF
THE FACILITY TO INCLUDE TWO NEW BUILDINGS, OUTDOOR, FENCED-IN KENNEL
AREAS AND A SCREEN-ROOM ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING. AN EXPANSION
TO THE PARKING AREA AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ARE ALSO
PROPOSED. ONE OF THE NEW BUILDINGS IS PROPOSED TO BE LEASED BY THE
WARREN COUNTY SPCA AS A KENNEL FACILITY AND WILL BE A SEPARATE
OPERATION FROM TAILS WAG INN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE REQUIRED 200
FT. PROPERTY LINE SETBACK TO A KENNEL FACILITY. CROSS REF SP 17-2015; SUP
18-2015; SUP 15-09; FW 1-09; AV 48-2008; SUP 30-08; SP 18-05; SP 4-98; SP 11-97; SP 73-
96; SP 36-96; SP 67-95 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2015 LOT SIZE 20.13
ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-1.1 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-10-070
JON LAPPER, JIM FITZGERALD & TOM HUTCHINS, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-2015, Kimberly Polunci Tails Wag Inn, Meeting Date:
April 22, 2015 "Project Location: 21 Blind Rock Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes the expansion of the facility to include two new buildings, outdoor, fenced-in
kennel areas and a screen-room addition to the existing building. An expansion to the parking
area and stormwater management facilities are also proposed. One of the new buildings is
proposed to be leased by the Warren County SPCA as a kennel facility and will be a separate
operation from Tails Wag Inn.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from the required 200 ft.
property line setback to a kennel facility. Section 179-10-070-Kennels
SPCA building Outdoor training/play area
Required 200 ft. 200 ft.
Proposed 135 ft. 178 ft.
Relief 85 ft. 22 ft.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The site currently houses two buildings
for kennel operations that received approvals with conditions, mainly that all operations
occur internal to the buildings. The proposal includes new outdoor uses -dog kennel runs,
outdoor cat area, and outdoor training area.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible
and would be dependent on removal and grading within the allowable area for kennel use.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request maybe considered
moderate relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project will have minimal to no
adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental impacts. The applicant has
provided a detailed grading and drainage plan that has been forwarded to the Town
Designated Engineer for review and comment.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to expand an existing kennel facility with the following: a 40 x 65 sq. ft.
building that is to be a holding facility for the SPCA, the facility will have an enclosed outdoor
area for their use only, an enclosed entrance area for safely handling animals, the SPCA facility
is not open to the general public; a second building for dog training will be constructed at 40 ft.
by 60 ft., will have an outdoor play area with 8 ft. fence 40 x 75; the existing kennel will be
added to with 8 outdoor runs; the existing cat building will be added to with a 23 ft. x 26 ft.
screen room; the site will have 8 additional parking spaces.
The applicant has also provided a general working schedule for a typical day with the new
additions. Daily activities include animal care -feeding, cleaning cages, exercise indoor and
outdoor. Training/day care will primarily occur inside between the existing building and the new
building. Outside uses are weather dependent and could occur with classes or daycare. The
applicant has indicated classes may occur in the evenings on weekdays and late morning on
weekends. Information was also provided for the new screen addition to the cat boarding
building. The new addition will have an interior fencing to provide a secure area and will have
the screening to keep bugs and pest from entering the structure.
The SPCA building operations were also provided where the use if for seized animals including
sick abused abandoned and surrendered. The building includes security fencing, cameras and
is closed to the public. The animals will be provided rehab and training then they may be given
to a shelter for adoption, another rehab facility or a private person. The representative has
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
explained only law enforcement, animal control, humane officers and town officials will have
access during the day.
The pre v/ous s/te plan and special use perm/t for the kennel included conditions
1) Application for special use,Hermit to occur e very 4 years
2) Notification to neighbors within 30 days i(property is to be sold
3) All kennel activities to occur inside
4) Kennel Operations to be comol/ant with standards of Pet Care Services Association or
other like organization.
5) Time frame for arrival and departure of animals from the kennel
6) Another condition limited the number of dogs to 30
The applicant is requesting the plann/ng board to have a permanent special use ,Hermit for
kennel operations, to allow external activities limited to the fence in areas only, removal of the
requirement Pet Care Services Association -the organization no longer exists and nothing
compatible has been found, change of hours to 7-10am for arrivals and 4-6pm for departures,
and the applicant requests to remove the limit of 30 dogs and allow the owner to determine the
capacity based on the kennels and services."
MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board, based on its limited review, has
identified the following areas of concern: the amount of expansion exceeds the current permit,
and that was voted on, AYES were six and the NOES were one. And that's all I have.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record,
please.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. Kim Polunci is sitting behind us. John Polunci is
with us. Tom Hutchins, project engineer, and Jim Fitzgerald is the President of the SPCA,
which would be the tenant, and also the Queensbury Animal Control Officer. I think Laura did a
really good job of summing up what we're requesting. The Planning Board was generally in
favor of last night. Obviously we have requested and need to have the Special Use Permit
conditions changed or at least have the Planning Board consider that. The variance itself is
interesting because there is a conforming location on the site where it would be 200 feet from
the property line. The problem is that because of the topography, this is sort of built into a bowl
on purpose where it is, which minimizes and mitigates the impacts on the neighborhood
because there's this large, I'm sure you were all there. There's a large hill behind the parking
area. So if this building were to be built on top of that hill, it would be within the two, there's a
location where it's in the area that's 200 feet from the property line, but it would be, you know,
more noticeable, more visual, and if there was a noise issue it would be louder up there rather
than built into the hill where it's proposed. So the reason for the variance isn't because it's
impossible to build it somewhere else. It just makes more sense, in terms of the neighborhood,
to put it where it is now. It would be compatible with how it's been operated, how it's been
constructed now, and this use itself is very compatible because the employees of Tails Wag Inn
would be there to service the dogs, the animals, dogs and cats, that are impounded at the SPCA
facility. So we're not talking about additional employees. It would be the same employees that
just walk across the parking area to the SPCA facility, and as was mentioned, it's important in
the notes, in the application, this isn't open to the public. This is an impoundment facility. So
when Jim goes out at night, when he gets a call, typically someone has a health emergency and
goes to the hospital and they have a, an ambulance takes them but there's a pet at home that's
alone, so that pet has to be cared for. It's just a typical reason he would go out and impound an
animal. Obviously a stray would be the same thing. The reason for this proposal is that it's
really compatible. He's located at Tails Wag Inn. He services the County but most of the calls
are Queensbury, and this is a good central location in Queensbury. It just makes a lot of sense
to have this located next to Tails Wag Inn. When this was first approved four years ago, there
were neighbors that opposed it. Over the course of the four years they've proven that they're
very good operators. It's very well maintained. I'm there frequently with my dog and my wife
and there's never more than a couple of cars. I mean, just the times that you can drop off and
pick up are limited by the Planning Board Special Use Permit. So, you know, we always know,
we're coming back from vacation, if we make it, we have to pick them up between four and five,
that's okay. Otherwise it's the next day, and even though that time is so limited, there's never
more than another car or two of any other customers. So it just, it seems quiet and well run. I
know that personally, but just in terms of why we're here tonight, there's issues obviously
discussed with the Planning Board, request to modify the Special Use Permit, but the issue for
tonight is just about that issue of 200 feet. We really feel this is the best location, and what
really proves that, Tom did a map that shows the distance to the neighbors, and there's a lot of
forever wild land around, outside of the property line, because of wetlands or because of Surrey
Field and Cedar Court, that can't be developed. Do you have that in front? So what that
shows is 850 feet to the nearest house in Cedar Court, and the three homes that are closest, the
single family residence, one by Glen Lake and the other two, 1220 feet, 1565 feet and 1,060
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
feet. So in terms of the intent of that 200 foot, we know it's not 200 foot to the property line, but
there's, you know, 850 feet, 1200, 1500, 1,000, 1100 feet to any receptacle . So that's why this
is really a good location for this facility. It's really protected, and I think that's why there haven't
been issues over the four years, and because this isn't open to the general public and people
aren't going to be coming to, you know, adopt pets like some other kind of facility. It's going to
be Jim and a police officer that comes with them if they're bringing somebody in and they call to
schedule to pick up a pet later. So it's not going to create much traffic and it's not going to have
employees. In terms of the training facility, which is within the area that's not part of the
variance, in terms of the training facility, that would be scheduled as the application said so
there would be different off hours from when people are coming and dropping off and picking up
so that it wouldn't create any situation where there'd be both uses going on at the same time.
So we think it's pretty simple. It's just that it requires a variance because that's the best place to
put the building. Tom, would you like to?
MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. I'll just, what I'm showing blue here is the location of the proposed
SPCA building, and the variance we're requesting is from this property line, which you can also
see is the northerly property line. It's a vacant area. Up here there is a large bank, probably 15
to 20 vertical feet from here to where this drive is, and it drops right off again. That's the
reason, we're trying to keep the activity down in this bowl area, to keep it low, to keep it
sheltered, to keep it together, and that's the reason for the variance is the 200 foot setback line
is this dashed line right here. The existing building is at that 200 foot setback line from this
northern property line. Alternatively, yes, there's an area up here, as John mentioned, that is
compliant within the 200 foot setback lines, but it's up high. It would be more noticeable noise,
if noise were an issue it would be more of an issue. So this is the variance we're requesting
from 200 to 135 feet, and that's all I really have.
MR. LAPPER-Could you just show the audience that.
MR. JACKOSKI-And, Tom, while you're putting it up on the easel, is there a reason you just
couldn't connect the two buildings and build them all right at the diagonal of where the parking
turns there and just have it all one lump sum? Go to your right. Right there.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the bank really starts there, and we're working it into that bowl area.
MR. JACKOSKI-So it would still be in the bowl, right? The back of the bowl there would be, if
you drew the building right, if you drew it in that area there, why couldn't it be connected?
MR. HENKEL-Won't it cut the bank down a little bit? Still have the bank there, the top of the
bank.
MR. JACKOSKI-You could build into the bank, correct?
JOHN POLUNCI
MR. POLUNCI-One reason we don't want the buildings connecting is because of operation.
We want to keep that SPCA building completely separate from that, because it is a holding
station. We have people's pets that are coming that, you know, some dogs in there are not so
friendly in the other facility and this is going to be more.
MR. JACKOSKI-Couldn't there be a dividing wall, a concrete wall or something to separate the
two buildings?
MR. POLUNCI-You always could have a concrete wall. We're just trying to keep it separate so
it's a separate entity from that operational standpoint.
MR. JACKOSKI-Just keep in mind, we have to grant the minimum relief required, and that's
what we're going to struggle with. Okay. Could you put it on the easel so the public can see it?
MR. HENKEL-So is there any possibility of having one big building and having it cut in half
somehow with a walkway in between the two buildings?
MR. LAPPER-It's preferable not to just because of the character of the different operations, the
open to the public protecting the pets versus the strays or whatever also. I mean, we
understand about minimizing the variance, but we really think that building it into that bowl
minimizes the impact.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think we agree with the bowl. I mean, that looks like an alternative solution
because it keeps it within the bowl, but anyway, I mean, keep talking with us.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. LAPPER-Yes, just that it's not a very practical site for that reason, because of that hill, the
grading there. So Jim needs to get in with a vehicle to let stray dogs, you know, get into his
facility and we'd be pretty tight. You'd sort of be unnaturally putting everything in one small
space just to avoid the variance, where the better design is probably to have more room.
MR. URRICO-When you say Jim, you mean the Animal Control Officer?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, the Animal Control Officer.
MR. URRICO-And there needs to be some room. I should have revealed earlier, I had exparte
communication with the applicant earlier today. So I had a chance to talk. So there needs to
be some room for the van to get in and out?
MR. FITZGERALD-Correct. Yes, when I pull in, I don't want any risk and I like to open a gate,
pull the van in, and close the gate, and then do my operation getting the animal out.
MR. URRICO-The gate and then the building as well?
MR. FITZGERALD-Correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is that all automated?
MR. FITZGERALD-It's going to be, and it's going to have, we're going to have full security,
everything, literally from our cell phones we can watch every camera that's there.
MR. HENKEL-And case around back and front of the building, or I guess I should say facing the
north? It makes sense, and those animals are not going to be there very long, right?
MR. FITZGERALD-No, we have a five day turnaround. Any animals, obviously that we're
going to have a medical area. We do get animals hit by cars, beaten, frozen, half frozen to
death, and we bring them in as quickly as we can. We have a vet come in, and we make that
determination there. The strays, the residents have five days to pick their dogs up, or they head
out to a shelter and then they go for adoption.
MR. URRICO-Where do those animals go now?
MR. FITZGERALD-Right now they're going to Glens Falls Animal Hospital, and we're paying a
pretty penny for that. It costs me, just to have one cat there, it's $1440 a month.
MR. JACKOSKI-And the Polunci's are giving you this building for free?
MR. FITZGERALD-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-I tried.
MR. FITZGERALD-Thank you. I appreciate that. The other issue though is, as well, my
building, I have to be audited and inspected by the State once a year. All my paperwork, all the
animals, the stalls, the holding facility. Beth Holmes, who is the investigator and auditor from
the State, we've already discussed this, that from Day One she's going to be in there, and
watching the operation.
MR. JACKOSKI-So Mr. Lapper mentioned cats and dogs. Do you get involved with any other
animals?
MR. FITZGERALD-I get involved with everything. When I get a horse case, what I do,
something new, I seize, actually seize the property that the horses are on, and then I put a
restraining order on the people that own the horses, and that way we don't have to move big
animals or large animals. It's a new thing that we've been doing with animal cruelty to save
money. One animal cruelty case with two horses going over a year cost over $20,000. That's
in impoundment. So it's better off to seize the actual property these large animals are on, and
have the owner pay for everything right there. That's how we handle that. We don't have much
cattle or any problems like that in Queensbury or even Warren County. It's basically the larger
animals are the horses, and like I said, we have alternate facilities for horses. I'm not, I know
how to investigate horses, but, you know, I don't ride them or anything. We have stables, the Kit
N' Kin in Warrensburg is one of our facilities for the SPCA we bring the horses to.
MR. JACKOSKI-So is this facility only limited to cats and dogs?
MR. FITZGERALD-Yes.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. ALLISON-Now you'd be paying a rent, too?
MR. FITZGERALD-Yes, it's a lease.
MR. ALLISON-It's a lease. Because this is the taxpayer's money, per se.
MR. FITZGERALD-No. This is, we were left an endowment at the SPCA to do this.
MR. LAPPER-A not for profit Corp, SPCA.
MR. FITZGERALD-I don't get paid at all. This is all volunteer.
MR. ALLISON-God bless you.
MR. FITZGERALD-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-I should note, Staff, that in the write up we have noted on our paperwork that
the relief is 85 feet, but it's really 65. Correct? This paper right here. Two hundred minus one
thirty five is sixty five. I hope. I don't know how it was advertised, but it is 65 feet of relief that
we're requesting, correct?
MR. HUTCH INS-Correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm glad it's not the other way because we'd have to re-advertise. We're having
a banner night tonight. Board members, any other questions?
MR. ALLISON-I'd want to know how you plan to construct the building and if you're going to be
within that setback to make sure that the building is done in a way that it looks to mitigate as
much noise coming out of the building on that side of the building. I happen to live next to a vet
who built a shelter next to my house and a variance and he did not take care of, he actually put
the doors that open up into that thing that face my property, and if he would have switched it
around it would have made a world of difference. So I'd make some strong recommendations
that you don't have any openings on that north side, whether it be doors or windows of that
building. Because any, if you build that one wall's going to reflect all the sound toward your
property and away from your neighbors. It would go a long way.
MR. POLUNCI-If you notice the other building doesn't even have any windows. There are only
skylights in it. It's to reduce noise much better.
MR. ALLISON-Yes, that's, once you have a solid wall, you can contain the noise.
MR. FITZGERALD-That'll be a solid wall.
MR. ALLISON-And build it out of block or something like that. I don't know what your
construction methodologies are, but.
MR. POLUNCI-We're going to follow the pattern of the other building which we actually have a
large decibel drop. We build, we insulate it, we sheet rock it, and then what we do is we go
through we sheet rock it again with an air space in between it. It's the same thing they do with
sound studios. It was designed by a sound engineer.
MR. ALLISON-Do you know what dba you have in the wall?
MR. POLUNCI-I believe it's a 70 decibel drop from inside to outside.
MR. ALLISON-Yes. It would be good to know that.
MR. HENKEL-I've been there numerous times. You never hear anything. You don't hear a
peep out of the animals you have there. It's very quiet, very clean. Nice job.
MR. FITZGERALD-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-But let's talk about the outdoor areas, because, I mean, now that is something
you've added to this project that wasn't there previously. From what I recall previously there
was a lot of concern about the time that the animals left the vehicle to get into the building, and
now you've got outdoor areas for the animals. So could you kind of address that for the Board,
please, for the record?
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. LAPPER-That requires the Planning Board to grant that relief for the Special Use Permit.
So that's something that, after the Zoning Board we'll have to talk to the Planning Board about.
Did you want to address that?
MR. POLUNCI-Yes. Basically what we were trying to do, we did want to add, in the very back of
the one building we're going to be indoor training, an indoor play area. That's where we control
most of the activities for the dogs. We want to put, on the back of the building, a fenced in area
that you see there, and the outdoor runs, that's mainly for operation. What it's for is when the
girls come in, they clean, they can let the dogs that don't get along with other dogs out to that
space, let them clean the stalls or whatever the situation is, let them back in while other dogs are
out in play group that are in the inside facility. The majority of all those add ons on the side of it,
where you see the eight stalls, that's for cleaning purposes. Let them out and stretch their legs
quick and get them back in.
MR. LAPPER-So that's temporary.
MR. POLUNCI-It's temporary. It's not where they're going to be stuck there for eight hours and
just hanging out there. They do their business. The process, how they operate the kennel in
the morning and then they go back in and then if they're to come out they go out in small groups
with the other dogs into the other indoor facility there, that other building in that location.
MR. JACKOSKI-Because I recall, as I've driven into the facility on County Line Road, when the
animals are outside, when you pull in, they just bark and bark and bark and bark, and they're so
happy to see you you can't help, but that's what they're there for.
MR. FITZGERALD-This is the biggest, I think, sticking point of its, and it's the misconception of
what an SPCA is. Everybody points to this warehouse over on Queensbury Ave, and they're
worried. That facility has over 100 dogs at any time in it, triple stacked cages. These dogs are
brought in by the truckload out of state. They are sold for $400 apiece, 40 dogs in one
truckload. It's a $400,000 a year business. That SPCA does zero enforcement. All of my
officers are humane officers and animal control officers, trained to the National Animal Control
and Control Academy and the Warren County Peace Officer Academy. We go out and we
enforce Town Code, Ag & Markets law. We do not ship in anything. Everything that comes in
there will be impounded by a municipal Code violation or surrendered or an animal cruelty case,
and we don't have animal cruelty cases every day or every week, or, you know, I have maybe
six of them a year, and I think there's a huge misconception of my SPCA, which is complete
enforcement. We don't sell dogs. I don't have a contract with PETCO, like the other SPCA,
and I will never, ever truck in anything from anywhere but Warren County, and I think that
everybody misunderstands what my mission is, compared to that SPCA.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I don't disagree. I understand that.
MR. FITZGERALD-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-But animals are animals, and when you drive in and they're outside, they're
going to bark.
MR. POLUNCI-Right. That's why, if you noticed, as you have gone out, we try to keep it so that
the only dogs that are out there now are going to be our personal dogs. The thing that we
emphasize and it's made us successful and why we haven't had a complaint in the last four
years is because we control the situation. If you notice when you come off that little four foot
fence and we're talking in the center is not anything other than to, if a dog gets out of its collar
while we're trying to bring it into the kennel, we can contain it, catch it quicker. It's not to keep
them there and let them play. The majority of our activity's still going to be all inside, other than
on a nice day we might have a couple small groups, small dogs running around and it's all done
in the back. It's not done in the front. So when you pull up you're going to be coming up to the
SPCA building, checking into the kennel and then the other building. All the other stuff is on the
back side of the building, and it would be all away from the road. Yes, they're going to make a
little bit of noise. Usually within a few minutes they quiet down, and the other thing is, is we
don't have dogs out typically during pick up and drop off. We try to have everybody in their little
rooms. It's all about controlling the situation with dogs because they're very, they're animals
and they're unpredictable at times. So it's all about the control, and that's one thing that's made
us successful in this is controlling the situation. When someone pulls up, the dogs all should be
locked up in their rooms by then. Granted you might have a stray person coming and going, but
it's not one person after another. That's why we have the designated pick up and designated
drop off times, to control.
MR. JACKOSKI-But when Jim is there, he's going to be going in and out freewill. He doesn't
have set hours, right?
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. POLUNCI-Right. He doesn't.
MR. FITZGERALD-No, I do not.
MR. LAPPER-You said most of your activity is at night.
MR. FITZGERALD-Most of my activity is at night from Thursday to Sunday, especially when the
tourist season hits, but I get called out to suicides, domestic violence, DUI's, when there's
animals in the car, or a car accident, anything that you can imagine that the police respond to
animal control responds to. A lot of that activity does not happen eight to four.
MR. JACKOSKI-So who in Warren County does handle the stray animals like coy dogs or bear
or geese or turkey?
MR. FITZGERALD-That's DEC. I will respond if it's a public safety issue. Myself and the
sheriff's department have had to take the brunt of wildlife calls because of the inactivity of the
DEC, but we've increased their presence since the 200 bear calls I had two years ago, and
they've started to increase their presence around here, but as a public safety issue, myself and
the sheriff's department almost have to respond, just to make sure nobody's in danger because
you're not going to get a DEC officer coming with red lights.
MR. LAPPER-No bears are coming to Blind Rock.
MR. FITZGERALD-No bears.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well it's interesting about Jim's line of work, so to speak. How close is the
facility actually to the Schermerhorn complex? I know the 850 notes, but I see we've left the
dimension off as to how close are those apartments and to the house that's actually down the
road with the pond.
MR. LAPPER-And the only reason for that was because nobody's been objecting from the
Schermerhorn apartments.
MR. HUTCHINS-Six hundred and sixty feet, I mean, these are plus or minus.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is it 400 or is it 600?
MR. LAPPER-Six hundred and fifty feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-And how about the little house that's by the pond?
MR. POLUNCI-That's my mother-in-law's house. It may not be there.
MR. JACKOSKI-It may not be there always, I know you're hoping.
MR. LAPPER-Four hundred and fifty feet. So all of those are so far in excess of the 200.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? We do have a public hearing
scheduled for this evening.
MR. ALLISON-Are we not reviewing the part with the fence and the other proposed building?
MR. JACKOSKI-Absolutely, no, we should absolutely. That's all part of the outdoor runs, the
200 feet.
MR. ALLISON-Yes, that's my only other thing, the outdoor runs. I would say you have room to
redesign this to make those outdoor runs within compliance.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we do, and we intend to do that.
MR. LAPPER-We should have mentioned that right up front, that we're going to withdraw that
request and that will be, that can get fixed.
MR. ALLISON-So we're down to just one?
MR. JACKOSKI-One variance. Sixty-five feet of relief for the SPCA building on the north line.
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. HUTCHINS-To the northern property line.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are members okay? I'll open the public comment period. We have a public
hearing scheduled for this evening. I guess you guys know the drill. So obviously we have
some folks here this evening who do want to address this Board concerning this particular
application. I am opening the public hearing and I'd like to remind the public that our process is
quite simple. We ask that you limit your comments to three minutes. We ask that you limit
your comments to new information that has not already been addressed to the Board for the
sake of efficiency. We do take your comment. We will not respond directly to you as you make
your comments, and we'll try to do this in an orderly fashion and first I'll ask Roy if there's any
written comment.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to voice our concern
regarding the area variance for the Tails Wag Inn establishment located at 21 Blind Rock Road.
I am a proponent of growth and development of our town, communities and region. I believe a
property owner should be allowed to build and do what he wants on his land unless it negatively
impacts the residents and surrounding neighborhoods. I believe the proposed changes to the
Tails Wag Inn facility will do just that. In 2009, 1 was approached by Mrs. Marylee Gosline the
land owner at that time and Mrs. Kimberlee Polund's mother, regarding the kennel project. I
also had several length discussions with Mr. John Polunci specifically relating to noise issues
and dogs barking. He went on to say this was an indoor kennel. All the dogs would remain
inside the building as to not be a nuisance to the neighborhoods that surround the property site.
He stated they hired a sound engineer to help design the building's wall and roof assemblies to
trap the dogs barking sound waves instead of transmitting through the building for neighbors to
tolerate. Mr. Polunci was doing the right thing by thinking of the neighborhood and designing a
space that didn't compromise the surrounding community, so I supported their project. Since
the Tails Wag Inn opened for business, I believe their compliance with the conditions set forth in
the original variance has been set aside. They do not keep their dogs inside. We hear dogs
barking all the time. Oftentimes, it sounds like a large pack of dogs fighting. On many
occasions, dogs are roaming about on adjacent property owners' yards and doing their
"business". We have had the Polund's kids come over to our house to catch the roaming dogs.
On another occasion at night, an assumed Tails Wag Inn female employee came to our house
searching for a lost dog and wanted to borrow a flashlight. Last winter, I was walking down
Blackberry Lane to get my boys from playing at a neighbor's home. One of the Polund's large
dogs was in the road in front of 4 Blackberry Lane. Living next to the Polunci's, we have
learned to proceed with caution in the presence of strange dogs. On this particular occasion it
served me well. This large bloodhound type dog sprinted from across the street and lunged with
a biting force towards my head. I threw up my elbow for protection. As its open mouth hit my
elbow, it startled the dog so he retreated whimpering away. I immediately called 911 and
instructed my neighbor to keep all the kids inside her home until this dog was caught. I gave a
report to the police officer responding to my call. He said the Queensbury Animal Control
Officer will be following up with me. To this day, no one has contacted me further. As a
professional dog sitter, this shouldn't be happening. The neighborhood residents should feel
safe to go for a walk without worrying about strange dogs. With the proposed application, I
have several issues that are disturbing to me. The applicant is proposing two exterior play
areas as well as outdoor kennels and runs. The applicant will also conduct outside classes and
walking. We hear dogs barking with the current "indoor" facility now. With the proposed
exterior activities happening in the evening as well as weekends, as the application states, WILL
WE EVER GET ANY PEACE AND QUIET? The dogs being outside will further disturb the
neighborhood. Please don't allow this. The application claims the existing indoor capacity is
30 dogs and the applicant is asking for the limit to be removed. There is entirely too much
barking with the 30 dogs now. Why would anyone vote to repeal this limit? Just as any building
or room has a maximum occupancy for humans in a particular space, why are dogs going to be
any different? Whether we're discussing an indoor space or in an exterior kennel, there are
safety concerns that need to be met. I think you can agree, there is a big difference if housing
30 dogs versus 100 dogs. What about 500 dogs? The Building Code of New York State has
clearly defined limitations for humans occupying spaces. There must be a limit for dogs as well.
On most proposed projects, eventually everyone gets around to discussing setbacks and
buffers. I don't necessarily have an issue with the setbacks for this project. I do have an issue
with the buffer and sound travel. The applicant's dogs bark and it travels. Far. In the summer,
we hear the dogs. While trying to enjoy outdoor activities with family and friends, we hear dogs.
In the winter, the leaves are off the trees and we hear the dogs even more. The dog barking
has turned into a community nuisance. There are many households which are affected by this
unwanted barking. The adjacent neighborhoods of Blackberry Lane, Surrey Fields, Cedar
Court, and even homes on Fitzgerald Road have voiced their dislike for this project. Prior to the
original kennel being altered to an indoor facility, Mr. Polunci and I also discussed ambient
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
noise. He spoke about acceptable decibel levels with respect to everyday tasks such as lawn
mowers and chainsaws. He said dogs barking fit that criteria. After living next to a designated
"indoor" kennel facility for years now, dogs barking are far worse than a neighbor mowing his
grass once twice a week. I'm sure you hear the resale argument all the time. However,
imagine you lived in one of these communities of Blackberry Lane, Surrey Fields, Cedar Court,
or Fitzgerald Road and your house was for sale. At a planned open house, the potential buyers
heard not a peaceful quiet neighborhood, but many, many dogs barking in the distance. I don't
wish that negativity upon anyone trying to sell a home. It will most definitely have an adverse
effect on homes' values to have outdoor kennels nearby. I have discussed this issue with most
of my neighbors on Blackberry Lane. We all agree, we don't mind the Tails Wag Inn expansion.
We actually applaud it. The outdoor activities that create excess unwanted noise and the lack
of safety are major concerns. We don't want to see this project moving in this direction.
Sincerely, Dan Williams"
MR. JACKOSKI-Is that all? Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone here this evening who would
like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Ma'am, if you could, from the
back. If you could come up to the microphone, that would be great. If you could state your
name and address for the record, please.
DOROTHY SEHLMEYER
MRS. SEHLMEYER-Right.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MRS. SEHLMEYER-My name is Dorothy Sehlmeyer, and I live at 71 Cedar Court, and I'm also
here to speak for my friend, Cheryl Wolfe, who lives on 49 Cedar Court who received a notice
from the Town because her property directly abuts the property for the kennel. In the past, I
have heard the dogs barking on and off. I finally called, I think it was last fall, to speak to the
animal warden, and I wound up not making a formal complaint because he told me that I had to
sign, sign something and it would go to court, and I didn't want to do that. I just wanted him to
know that we could, in fact, hear the dogs. The reason the dogs haven't been a big problem in
the neighborhood so far is because of the requirements of the permit that they have now, that
they have to be kept indoors. I am really afraid, in view of the fact that they're going to enlarge
the capacity and the facilities to have dogs outside, that we're going to have a problem with the
dogs because in the past when I've heard them, even, actually the time I called it was in the late
fall when my windows were shut, and I was reading a book and I could hear these dogs barking.
That's my main concern is the noise from these dogs if they're allowed to have outside facilities.
Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. And so the public knows, this evening we are simply addressing
the location of the main building for the SPCA. We are not able to address, it's not in front of
us, the discussion about the outdoor kennel areas, or outdoor run areas, I should say. Mrs.
Sonnabend, if you could. Welcome.
KATHLEEN SONNABEND
MRS. SONNABEND-Thank you. Kathleen Sonnabend, 55 Cedar Court. Could I ask you, Roy,
to repeat what the Planning Board motion was last night, the recommendation that they gave
you?
MR. URRICO-The Planning Board, based on its limited review, has identified the following area
of concern: the amount of expansion exceeds the current permit. That's what they voted on.
MRS. SONNABEND-Okay.
MR. URRICO-That's a motion to us.
MRS. SONNABEND-Yes. I was there last night and it was very confusing. I appreciate very
much what Steven Traver had to say. I think he was right on. He said that the existing
operation was based on a Special Use Permit that had conditions that had been agreed to by
the Polunci's, and it had been a very extensive process that the Planning Board had gone
through, and to change this now, to expand it so drastically and throw out all the conditions was
very alarming, and really should be someplace else. It shouldn't be sited at that location. The
other comment that was very clear to me was from Tom Ford, and his point was, when they
were discussing whether they should recommend this variance or not, you really need to look at
the fact that the variance allows them to make this very substantial expansion. So if you just
segment it and say, well, is the variance okay, you really need to look at what that makes
possible at this location, that such a big expansion occurs and that this project will have a
dramatic impact on the community. I do hear dogs from my backyard. It hasn't been a
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
problem because I assumed they were pets, and I didn't realize the Polunci's have 17 pets, but I
am very worried that if this goes through we're going to have a lot more noise, and the noise,
even though I may be several hundred feet away, the noise gets funneled down over those
ponds, because you know noise carries over water very easily, and there's not much of a buffer
between me and them. There's trees, but half the year there's no leaves on the trees. So this
is a real issue, and if you guys say, well, I don't have a problem with the variance, then the next
step is it goes to the Planning Board and it's already been partially approved. I've seen this
happen over and over again, and I think you really need to take a look at the impact of the whole
project that this variance will make possible because they can't have three buildings. They tell
me they can't. Now there's a big play area outside. There's several play areas that they've put
down concrete and gravel. So it's not just the area where the dogs go out and relieve
themselves. It's clearly intended, it's labeled as play area. So there's going to be a lot of
outside activity that is changing this project completely. I don't have a problem with what they
operate right now. If I hear occasional pet barking, it's okay as long as they then, you know,
clearly get the pets under control, but I don't want to be in a situation where there's a number of
dogs that suddenly start barking, because that will impact on me.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the
Board? So for the public and for the record, we've been handed the agreed conditions of
approval by Mr. O'Connor. Mr. O'Connor and Mr. O'Connor, welcome. If you could state your
name for the record and we'll begin your three minutes.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little &
O'Connor. I represent Michael O'Connor the second who's also at the table, and Heather
O'Connor. So maybe I might steal six minutes from you.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll let you know.
MR. O'CONNOR-1 think the application is premature. I'm not sure who made the mistake, but
it's labeled as a Type 11 SEAR project, and I don't believe it is. If you look at the application, it
says that they're going to build 5800 square feet of facility, and if you look at the SEAR rules,
617.5, sub paragraph seven, if you're constructing nonresidential facility less than 4,000 square
feet of gross floor area, it is a Type 11, but if you're above the 4,000 square feet, it is either an
Unlisted or a Type 1, and because there are two Boards that are involved in this project, I think
that you've got to determine first who's going to be the Lead Agent, and then proceed to do a
Full SEAR or have the Lead Agent do a Full SEAR. I don't think you can just parcel it or
segment one little thing and say it's not really the main project. So we're only going to look at
just that one little thing. I think under SEAR you've got to look at the entire thing. I know that
the first application, or the application that was in 2008 and the application that was in 2009 was
for a nonresidential building less than 4,000 square feet, and they were a Type 11 application. I
think somebody just copied over, presumed the same would apply, and if you also look back in
your records when you look at different applications here, you see that in 2008 where they were
talking about outside use, the Planning Board found that the proposal does not comply with the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code and criterias in Article 10 of the Special Use Permit.
Specifically this project is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the noise
related to the proposed use and that use would have significant and adverse impacts on
community character and dramatically impact quality of life for area property owners. There's
nothing that has changed as to the facts. You've still got residences on all sides of this
particular project. So I don't know, I think this is going to have a serious SEAR problem when
they still propose that they're going to use outside use, and I also wonder whether or not, if they
didn't have all that outside use, they would have a place to put the buildings that they wish that
would be compliant. I think they admitted themselves that they have an alternative, and I think
that's one of your guideposts for even an area variance. They have an alternative site where
they can put this without a variance, and I think the Board kind of even suggested a second
alternative that they might consider where they wouldn't need the variance. So I think there's a
lot of reasons as to the variance. The other thing I'd make a point of, if you look at that
agreement of conditions of approval that were agreed to in 2009, this was put in as a mom and
pop kennel, and it was going to have 30 dogs. This is an expansion, I think of 68% in square
footage. If you used the same square footage calculation that they used back in 2009, they
could have 90 to 100 some odd dogs. I don't think they're going to be able to manage them,
even if they're taking them out only on a temporary basis. This is a commercial project. They
also have filed a number of dbas for different businesses that they are conducting in here,
separate, apparently, from the kennel. It's like kennel operations, but they now operate a
grooming service. They now, before we're talking mostly about overnight stays, and now
apparently they're doing daycare stays. It's completely different than what was agreed to in
2009. You haven't heard a lot of complaints because I think the neighbors, and I was the one
that drew most of this agreement. Matt Fuller represented the applicant at that time. Most of
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
the neighbors were very reluctant to even agree to these terms, but it was a compromise, and it
was a compromise made from both sides, and they've lived with that compromise for four years.
They've all heard noise. I've stood in the back of Michael's backyard, I can hear the dogs
barking. I don't know whether they're, I almost thought they were outside but they're inside,
your noise is carrying even more. Michael lives on the top of Fitzgerald Road. He is an
elevated site from this place so maybe he gets more noise than somebody else, but they're very
noticeable. So we oppose any expansion. We will oppose any expansion. I am going to file
for an interpretation, this is going to be back before you, as to whether or not this is still a kennel
operation that they're proposing, and as far as the SPCA coming in there, I'm totally opposed to
that. They came in and said that the dogs would all be licensed. They would all have their
shots, they would screen people, and now we're picking up strays, we're picking up diseased
animals that we don't know what's going to happen to them. We've had a dog from their
property up on Michael's property. In fact he reported it to Mr. Fitzgerald because the dog bit
one of Michael's kids, and he was told, he talked to the Polunci's, and it's the fellow who's
representing the SPCA here who I think works for the Polunci's as well, I may be wrong on that,
but it's not a good situation, and to think about expanding it in this residential neighborhood is
not a good idea. I have a lot more detail, and I will file a follow up with it. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-You've got your six minutes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address
the Board? The gentleman way in the back I promised before. So come on up. I mean,
Michael, is there anything else you really have to add?
MICHAEL O'CONNOR, II
MR. O'CONNOR-Right here, this figure, the 1220 is to the existing building, not to where their
proposed building is going to be, and the entire bank is a mowed field. So the buffer really is
nothing. Anyway.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you. All right, sir, now you can. I promise.
JERRY ARGAY
MR. ARGAY-Okay. Gentlemen, ladies. Jerry Argay, 27 Surrey Field Drive, Queensbury. I've
lived in Queensbury since 1999 when the development first was established, and in 2009, when
we were approached about the kennels, I believe 98% of our residents in Surrey Fields opposed
the kennel. Over a period of time things went kind of smooth and calmed down, and on
occasion, I live on this end of Surrey Field, toward Bay Road. On occasion I can hear a dog or
so barking on and off at times, but this expansion that we're speaking of, I think you're opening a
real kettle. I think you're going overboard if you want to open that expansion, because we're
talking about the SPCA. We're talking about tripling your density of the animals that you have
in there, and I think it's going to cause some major issues. Speaking for the residents of Surrey
Field, or for most of them right now, they're all against this expansion. So thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, sir, thank you. There was another gentleman who, yes, sir. I guess I
should have reminded folks that we don't normally take handouts during the meeting, but we
started so we'll keep going. Thank you.
FRANK HARDICK
MR. HARDICK-Well, I want you to be able to see what we're doing here. You might find it
interesting. You fellows spend a lot of time on your work. I'm trying to make it easier for you.
Okay. My name is Frank C. Hardick. I live at 51 Cedar Court, and I've practiced as a
professional engineer for 50 years, and I retired eight years ago. My recollection about the
information from the original application for the Tails Wag Inn project, about six years ago,
shows on a site proposed septic system as being a septic tank arrangement and a leach field.
Upon inspection of Hutchins' Engineering plan number 29364A-01-S2 with revision 0 dated
3/15/15, it shows three tanks, two identified as 1250 gallon septic tanks and one100 gallon
pump station. The revision does not show any connections from the new buildings to the septic
system. No information on the leach field such as the diameter of the pipe, the length of the
pipes, distance between pipes and filtration media cannot be found on any of the drawings in the
new application. Suggestion: any expansion of the facility which includes an increase of flow of
effluent for the septic and leach field system should show the amount of flow in gallons per day
from each building. Now on the site plan review application, I find the following statements,
Page Five K, the water supply and sewage disposal will be adequate and will meet all applicable
and current requirements set forth by DOH regulations in Chapter 136 of the Town Code.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
Comment: Because chemicals are used in cleaning the cages and the cat facility, plus the
excretions are collected and flushed down the toilets twice a day, this procedure is combined
with other chemicals used in the dog pens which also ends up collecting in the septic tanks, and
then proceeding to the leach field. The effluent in the leach field is percolated into the
groundwater and the soil surrounding and beneath the leach field. This mounding of water
forces the water to follow a lower path through the soil to a lowered groundwater area which in
this case ends up in the pond at the lower level on the site. From here two pipes between the
first pond and the second pond allow water to flow into the second pond. The second pond
flows south into a stream which terminates about two miles into Halfway Brook, which is
classified by DEC as a trout stream. Suggestion: chemical data sheets from the manufacturer
should be obtained. Dosages of these chemicals in the amounts of water involved on a daily
basis using the actual number of animals contributing to the total gallons of discharge to the
septic system every 24 hours for peak conditions should be established. If the combined
accumulation of chemicals tested in the first pond is below the toxic levels allowed by DEC or
EPA, then no EAF is needed. That's for the specific chemicals as listed in the data sheets may
be costly and the only verification that you should have is from the certified laboratory which is
necessary. The DEC and EAP regulations on groundwater take priority over DOH and Town
Codes to determine toxic levels. Summary: details and data on the expansion of the septic
system should be added and the chemical testing be done, unless it is shown to be non-toxic or
below threshold levels for the flows and dosages involved. These two items should be
addressed in this application. Otherwise the application is flawed. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here this evening?
MR. HARDICK-Any questions?
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. HARDICK-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to leave the public hearing open. If I could have the applicant
re-join us at the table. So there were several areas that were brought up, Mr. Lapper, if you
could. I think the most important at this point is the discussion concerning SEAR and whether
or not we can move forward this evening because of that matter, but also if you could talk about
the things that were brought up in the public comment.
MR. LAPPER-Of course. This is not a Type I action so coordinated review is not required.
That's only if it was a Type I action. Laura, you characterized it as a Type II.
MRS. MOORE-Because the request was for an area variance, and then on the site plan issue it
was considered Unlisted.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. So that's Laura's explanation. The Area Variance is a Type II.
MR. JACKOSKI-Even though it's over the 4,000 square feet?
MRS. MOORE-Because that's being handled by the Planning Board. Your variance, my
understanding is the variance you're looking at is specifically the setback issue, and the
Planning Board will be looking at, and it's not required to have a coordinated review. The
Planning Board will be looking at their, the 4,000 square feet, and we consider it Unlisted for that
type of project.
MR. URRICO-So their motion last night I think is confusing matters, because what we're dealing
with is not what they're dealing with. They're questioning their own.
MRS. MOORE-No, can I clarify that?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-They wanted to make sure the Zoning Board was aware that they were
concerned about the expansion of those, the use.
MR. URRICO-But they're addressing us and they're addressing us about an issue that they
have to deal with.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. ALLISON-Shouldn't they deal with their issue first before it comes to us?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. LAPPER-They can't, because until the variance is granted, it can't go to the Planning
Board. The Zoning Board has to act first so it's conforming, but we've asked for, and part of
what the comments were, just to sort of talk in general, we've asked to modify the conditions.
So that's the Planning Board issue, the Special Use Permit conditions. The reason why that
request is made is because it's been four years. The neighbors were all up in arms four years
ago anticipating this was going to be a big problem. It hasn't been a problem at all. It's been
very well run. So for that reason, the Polunci's are requesting that the Planning Board amend
the conditions to say these aren't necessary because what everyone feared didn't come about.
That's a Planning Board issue in terms of those conditions. Whether they're modified, whether
they're attacked, I don't think they're going to be thrown out. I think they're going to be
modified. That's a Planning Board issue on the Special Use Permit, but we can't get there until
we look at the Area Variance, and the Area Variance issue is just, again, it's just about the
location of this building, that we think that it's the best location, even though it requires a
variance, because it best protects the neighbors because of that hill.
MR. HENKEL-But you probably could eliminate that, really.
MR. LAPPER-It would make it a worse project to do that. We've got 22 acres and we'd be sort
of artificially, you know, it's when you let zoning do your architecture. Sometimes it's not a good
thing. Here, in terms of the site plan, you have everything squished into that one area just to
avoid the variance and our argument that we hope you'll accept is that because it's so many
hundreds or thousand feet to the neighbors that, you know, 65 feet of variance relief, it just
makes it a better project. It keeps it down in that bowl.
MR. JACKOSKI-May I ask? What would happen if you didn't request the variance at this time
and you went through the process with SEAR, through the Special Use Permit process, and if
the Planning Board couldn't mitigate or couldn't come up with a best plan for the community and
for the neighborhood, without a variance, then you would come back to us.
MR. LAPPER-The Planning Board liked the variance location. I mean, the majority of the Board
last night sent this to you with a recommendation. They thought this was the right location.
They were talking about the conditions and saying, hey, we still have to look at whether or not
we're going to release the conditions, but in terms of the location.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So why would they want us to approve the location if they're not even
going to approve the project?
MR. LAPPER-Well, I think they are going to approve the project. I think there's a majority on
that Board that are going to approve the project, you know, I'm sure with conditions.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, is there a way for us to get the language that was, during the public
comment period, quoted to us on the 4,000 square feet thing? Can we see that or can you get
that to us? Because I'd like to understand what it means. I don't want to go through an action
and then have this Board not have followed the proper procedure in not addressing SEAR.
MRS. MOORE-So Type II, I have this list here, it's under 617.5 and Number 12 says granting of
individual setback and lot line variance, that's Type II.
MR. LAPPER-So what Laura is saying is that she wasn't referring to the, there were a number of
exceptions on the 4,000 square feet or under that Mike was talking about is not the one that
Laura relied on to characterize this as a Type II action.
MR. JACKOSKI-I just want to understand where the 4,000 comes in.
MR. LAPPER-That's a different on the list of options for a Type II action. That's another criteria.
MR. JACKOSKI-You've got to understand, I just don't want to get into a situation where we took
action and we didn't follow what we were supposed to follow because somebody may have
simply missed that.
MR. LAPPER-Of course.
MR. HENKEL-We're basically just working with one building right now. The only variance we're
looking for, right, is one building.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-But it's an overall project of over 4,000 square feet.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. LAPPER-But you can be exempt from SEAR for one reason because it's under 4,000
square feet. Another is what Laura quoted about the individual area, area or setback variance.
So those are totally separate independent criteria.
MR. JACKOSKI-So we'll let Laura keep looking.
MRS. MOORE-Type, under Unlisted Actions, the following actions are, it says construction or
expansion of primary or nonresidential facility involving less than 4,000 square feet and not
involving a change in zoning or use variance consistent with local land use controls but not radio
communication or microwave transmissions.
MR. JACKOSKI-So it seems to me that we have a conflict, because it seems like that's what
we're doing. This is a nonresidential.
MRS. MOORE-You're not looking at the use. You're looking at the setback.
MR. JACKOSKI-Did that specifically say we were only looking at use?
MRS. MOORE-You're looking at the lot line, you're looking at the area variance, and the area
variance is the setback, setback only.
MR. JACKOSKI-We'll let the Board members decide what they want to do. Continue on.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. To address some of the other issues, the gentleman who spoke last, the
retired engineer, the animal waste does not go into the septic system. So the septic system and
the design for that, the animal waste leaves the site. The way this is proposed. The expansion
will not, there's one bathroom that's being added in the new SPCA building, and that's going on
to the existing septic system.
MR. JACKOSKI-Where does the animal waste go?
MR. LAPPER-Off site.
MR. POLUNCI-It gets taken to the Glens Falls Animal Hospital. It gets picked up and put in a
dumpster and removed from the property.
MR. LAPPER-So that's not a concern. What I heard from a number of the speakers was that
they were very concerned last time and now they're concerned because it's going to be an
expansion, and what John said is that the outdoors areas, which again will be the Planning
Board determining whether they'll agree to grant that, but these are not where the animals are
going to be outdoors. It's going to be for a few minutes outside while they're cleaning their
pens. Let's see. The Special Use Permit conditions, I think they were agreed to because there
was so much opposition at the time they wanted to say, look, we're going to run a good facility
and you're not going to, we're willing to live with this but they always have the right to come in
and say, this isn't a problem, it's in the middle of the woods, it's not near anybody and we'd like
you to relax them, but that's a decision that, you know, we're asking for and we'll see how it
goes. Certainly they ran this under those conditions for the last four years and it's been fine,
and even the speakers who are concerned, a number of people said that, you know, the rest of
this was just, in terms of barking dogs, I know from being there that it's a very quiet facility.
Obviously if you live there you might hear something once and a while, but I think the buildings
are well insulated. We just don't see this as that big a deal because of where it's located and
it's a heavily wooded area and it's so well run, and finally, in terms of the SPCA, somebody, I
think it was Mike who said he doesn't agree with that at all. The SPCA performs a service that's
important to the community. There are stray animals. The stuff that Jim Fitzgerald mentioned,
things happen in the middle of the night and animals have to be brought in. That's a service
that has to happen. It's a not for profit that's running this. Somebody called it a commercial
operation. It's a not for profit that's taking care of a need in a community, and it's a good central
location. It has to happen somewhere. It's happening down on Glenwood now at Glens Falls
Animal Hospital. This is nearby. This is, you know, arguably better buffered than that is
because it's in the middle of the woods, and the way Jim explains it, where it's just going to be
him coming in, possibly with a police officer. It just doesn't seem that this is going to be a big
impact.
MR. JACKOSKI-Can you talk a little bit about the multiple dba's? I didn't understand all that.
MR. LAPPER-As I understand it, if your pet is in there, somebody will come in and groom your
pet or wash your pet, which are just typical kennel services while the pet's being boarded.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. POLUNCI-That's correct, and we have one girl there that's, she does grooming for us. So
she works for Tails Wag Inn, but she's a subcontractor to and from us. That's what it is.
MR. LAPPER-And that's like any other kennel.
MR. HENKEL-Now over the period of the three years that you've been in business, a little over
three years, how many, as far as records, how many people have been bit from your dogs?
Because it seems like there's a little bit of a concern there.
MR. POLUNCI-Yes, the one point from Dan Williams, it was more personal. That was back in
the high school wrestling days. There's a little bit of a challenge in there.
MR. HENKEL-But did that happen, though?
MR. POLUNCI-The dog never bit him. One of our dogs did get out, but his dog got out over on
our property and the dog came over.
MR. LAPPER-This was one of your personal dogs.
MR. POLUNCI-Yes, this isn't the kennel. This is mine over on 5 Blackberry Lane. It's not even
over at the kennel, and it's, you know, it's just, you know, it's a neighbor type thing. It's a little bit
deeper than that.
MR. JACKOSKI-And the O'Connors did mention also that they had an issue.
MR. POLUNCI-Well, he has issues with his dog, too. So, I mean, it's.
MR. JACKOSKI-But are they kennel dogs?
MR. POLUNCI-Not one of these issues, all these dogs are, they live at 5 Blackberry Lane.
None of the dogs that live at the kennel, it's never been a kennel dog.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anything else you want to add about the public comment period before I
open it up to the Board? Okay. The public hearing is still open. The Board needs to have
some discussion about some of the stuff brought up at the public hearing. I'll poll the Board.
I'll start with Rick.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think a facility like this SPCA thing is necessary,
but I also think, in the grand scheme of things, the Town has allowed this use in this area for
quite some time. A way for the Town to have a handle on this is to keep certain conditions in
the site plan review and the special use permit that allow us to have some leverage every four
years, otherwise this could get out of control and quite possibly disrupt the neighborhood, but I
do think the project itself is a good proposal. I think the Planning Board should, as a
recommendation, we should make to the Planning Board they should not alleviate the conditions
previously imposed. Maybe the kennel operations be compliant with standards of pet care
services, which according to the paperwork is now defunct. I mean, maybe we could do away
with that, but some of these other conditions I think should remain. I think our primary concern
for the neighbors' quality of life, though, should be the noise issue, is, is the increase in
population there going to increase the noise to the neighbors.
MR. JACKOSKI-How would we keep the conditions of the 30 dogs? I don't see how that's
possible.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, I don't think they could keep the condition of having 30 dogs, especially
with the in and out nature of the SPCA at any given time. I mean, they don't know how many
they're going to get. They could get 30 dogs at once for all I know, but, you know, maybe we
could modify that, but also, I think the Planning Board also has the capability to impose other
conditions, as far as trying to limit the noise that escapes this site. I mean, they could, you
know, mandate fences or anything else that could alleviate the neighbors' concerns about the
noise.
MR. URRICO-Excuse me. Are we making recommendations to the Planning Board about the
Special Use Permit? Or are we just talking about?
MR. JACKOSKI-No, we're just focusing on our 200 foot issue.
MR. URRICO-Because it seems like we're creeping into areas that are not under our
jurisdiction.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. GARRAND-It's not quite under our jurisdiction, but I think we can make a suggestion to
them that it's one of our concerns.
MR. URRICO-I think you're treading in dangerous territory.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So, Rick, you're in favor of granting the relief requested?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Andy?
MR. ALLISON-1 actually would have to say no based on the public input. I know Jon indicated
that everything's going well, but from what I'm hearing it's not. So I would urge my other Board
members to consider the public's comment, even though they're limited to just three minutes,
and there's a bigger floor for others, you know, those are real comments. They're saying it's not
working well. That's what I heard. So I would say no, and I think I would go back to what was
in the original agreement, that it was agreed upon to be indoor and at 30 dogs, and I would like
to say yes because I think that the owners of the facility are trying to do the right thing, and I
think it is necessary, but I think the fact that we're trying to squeeze it into a lot that has some
geometries that prevent it to be expanded in the way it should be, and because it's in the middle
of a residential, sometimes you just can't make a round peg fit in a square hole.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the variance that we're dealing with here tonight. I think that's, to
me, that's the only issue that we can actually give logical input to. In terms of the other issues, I
mean, I have my opinions, too, but I don't know if they're relevant to what we're discussing here
tonight.
MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-1 would not be in favor at this time, and the reason why, well, I guess I could say I
could possibly say yes to this project, however, if you were to come back, maybe, could you re-
engineer that property, could you dig, I mean, rather than give a lot of suggestions, could you
move that proposed building to a spot that's within the 200, not even necessarily up on top,
excavate more of that hill. I'm not 100% sure, again, if you could do that, but with
neighborhood, the noise issue, I'd rather keep the quality of life in the neighborhood the way it is
now. I think it, the building could be moved to where the 200 foot or beyond the 200 foot
requirement. It would be a different idea, you know, thought for me. If you had come to the
Town, approached the Town with a project not requiring the variance, then go to the Planning
Board for approval and come back to us, I think it might be different, how I feel about this. So
I'd say no right now.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I'm concerned that if we grant this relief, that we allow the expansion of the
facility to a lot more dogs. That area is kind of a natural little amphitheater with the pond to
reflect the noise and I believe that noise is definitely going to be a factor here. So I'm not in
favor of granting the variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I'm kind of feeling like with Roy. Just dealing with the variance itself, I mean, I
think it's a great facility. I've been there numerous times. I don't hear what the other concerns
are, but I'm not there 24/7. 1 think with just the variance that we're looking at, the 65 feet, I think
it's, I would be in favor of the project at this time.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thanks, John. Okay. So we have three and three. I'm struggling with the
SEAR issue, not having a full comfort level and not making sure I'm dotting my I's and crossing
my T's. I would request that we try to get this tabled until I can get that, I mean, I can't make
you do that, but I would probably have to vote no on this right now. Procedurally, Number One,
but Number Two, I'm struggling with this massive expansion. Minimal relief required to do what
you want to do on the project. So I look at it that way and then I look at the fact that if I say yes,
it gives the Planning Board the opportunity to mitigate the site as best they can. It is not going
to affect the outdoor runs. It's not going to affect whether or not you get more animals to board.
So I'm completely torn.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. LAPPER-Well, what if we table it and make sure the SEAR issue is completely flat, and
we'll come back next month and hopefully, you know, have some mitigation that makes you
more comfortable, as the seventh vote, in terms of the impact on the neighborhood.
MR. JACKOSKI-Again, I know the building can be built. It can be built on that property and you
don't need a variance, and so by voting yes, I give the Planning Board an opportunity to do
whatever they're going to do with this site to possibly mitigate any problems with the project.
MR. LAPPER-And I think they will mitigate.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm just having a really hard time right now whether or not we're following, just
because the issue was raised of SEAR and I don't know the answer, and I would normally call
our counsel and make sure that. So Mr. O'Connor, I mean, I haven't closed the public hearing,
but would you mind, counsel, if we let Mr. O'Connor come up again?
MR. LAPPER-Listening to Mike? Of course I mind, but.
MR. O'CONNOR-Jon hasn't answered the question of segmentation, which I think is an
important part if we have a conflict in the SEAR regulations, but you have the authority, on any
variance, to refer it to the Planning Board and ask the Planning Board to do SEAR on any
application, and if you have a more comfort level, maybe that's a course that you could do is
simply refer the application to the Planning Board and let them do the SEAR.
MR. HENKEL-The SEQR's already done, though.
MRS. MOORE-No. The SEAR hasn't been performed yet.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, SEAR hasn't been touched.
MR. JACKOSKI-But how could they possibly do SEAR and they don't even know what the
plan's going to be?
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, they would.
MRS. MOORE-It would be a coordinated, you're asking for a coordinated review. Again, I
agree with Jon that we would go back to the Staff level and clarify that for you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do any other Board members have a concern that the SEAR matter is of
concern?
MR. ALLISON-1 do. I think as far as the severability of it is concerned.
MR. LAPPER-Unless you have a Type I action, it doesn't require a coordinated review. It's
always an option, but you can have an independent review. A Type 11 wouldn't require SEAR
and an Unlisted action, you can have an independent, each Board because it's not the level of a
Type 1, each Board does an independent SEAR review if it's an Unlisted action. Laura has
determined that this action is a Type 11, which doesn't require SEAR, as a setback variance, but
the Planning Board is actually, is an Unlisted action and does require SEAR.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I don't want to delay the project.
MRS. MOORE-You've done that before with other Planning Board referrals.
MR. JACKOSKI-What?
MRS. MOORE-That at the Planning Board level, if a project is Unlisted and you are charged
with an area variance for a single family dwelling. That, a single family dwelling is a Type 11. At
the Planning Board level if a project is within 50 feet of a 15% slope, it actually becomes, I
believe, an Unlisted, but.
MR. LAPPER-1 guess I would say that because Mike's son lives there, the smart thing is to, I
only jumped into this. I didn't do the application. So probably getting a determination of Town
Counsel before you act is a smart move. We can come back next month.
MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, if we act and we find out that we should have gone through and done
some form of Unlisted or Type I SEAR, what happens?
MRS. MOORE-You would re-refer it, it would come back to you and you would complete the
SEAR and then, and all notices would be given again.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Board members, do we have a SEAR issue or not. Andy?
MR. ALLISON-Mine resolves more with trying to pull the project apart with two different items
that we're looking at.
MR. JACKOSKI-So you would like to see a coordinated SEAR review?
MR. ALLISON-I'd like to have the Planning Board or Staff sort this out first.
MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-1 would like to see a coordinated SEAR review.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I'd like to hear from Town Counsel first.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-1 would like to hear from Town Counsel and find out where this should be. I also
would like to let the Planning Board rule on the Special Use Permit first before we act on
anything. That would be my preference.
MR. JACKOSKI-So have them go forward to see if they could even do a project, regardless of a
variance.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 feel the same.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Same here.
MR. LAPPER-1 just don't think under the Queensbury Zoning Code the Planning Board can
review the project without the variance, but I do think you could get an answer on the SEAR.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I mean, we could vote no, and then you'd go back to the Planning Board
and see if they'd give you a project, and then if it doesn't happen, you come back for the
variance.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I would argue with you that it's a better project with the variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's where I'm struggling. I don't disagree with you that if that location
mitigates any potential for any kind of noises that are currently being experienced there, by
having that building where you're proposing it, I agree, giving the Planning Board the opportunity
to do whatever they're going to do with that site, because you don't have to have it right there.
You've got your 65 feet of relief, I understand, that gives them a better opportunity to figure out
the site plan.
MR. LAPPER-1 guess I'd have a suggestion that if we can get the SEAR answered, we can go
back to the Planning Board and have them, you know, conceptually review the request to modify
the Special Use Permit which would mean that they would consider that you would grant this for
the sake of argument, for the sake of analysis, let's say. They couldn't act on that, but they
might be able to do a much more thorough review of those conditions before we come back and
ask you to vote. It would still be conceptual because they couldn't actually take a formal vote
until you vote, but maybe we could go back to them and have a full meeting to go through the
Special Use Permit conditions as to what, you know, it's likely going to end up and you get a
memo from them with a list of A through Z.
MR. JACKOSKI-It's your call.
MR. LAPPER-We'd be willing to do that. I mean, we'd like to get the variance because we think
it's a better project, but we don't want to step on anybody's toes. I hear you, what you're
saying. You want to make sure that SEQR's done right. I have no problem having Town
Counsel weigh in on that. I know this is the way the Town has handled it. I have no problem
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
having Town Counsel look at that, and we could go to the Planning Board if you'd like and have
them look at the Special Use Permit and talk about what the conditions might be.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I think if they do a SEAR review, Staff, I mean, they're going to address
the changes in the quality of the neighborhood and all that other stuff.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, and that is their charge. That is part of their review, to review site plan and
Special Use Permit.
MR. JACKOSKI-So if we grant the variance, they're still going to do a SEAR. They're still going
to address all the issues that we have concerns with.
MR. GARRAND-Also if you can think of any conditions.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know what kind of conditions to put on a project like this with a granting
of this, because there's so much to deal with. I mean, it's a fundamental change from where we
originally thought we were going to have 30 dogs contained in an engineered building to be
practically soundproof that would not affect the neighborhood with all the.
MR. ALLISON-I'd offer some conditions that would make me sway the other way, and that would
be you'd have to get an acoustics person involved because there's a lot of he said, she said
about whether there is or there isn't a noise issue, and it's measurable stuff. We've been
measuring acoustics for 150 years. I think that we should get somebody involved, that the
applicant should get somebody involved in that to set, there are standards that are put out there.
I think that they should propose a standard to us, show some testing, and I think the testing
should involve, you know, going into the neighborhoods and I think it should be done thoroughly.
I also, you know, this is kind of a sidebar, but that should be part of our regulations on these
things to begin with, because we say we'll make it soundproof. Well, it's very confusing for an
applicant to know what that means.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim, have you gotten phone calls from anybody?
MR. FITZGERALD-From noise complaints?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
MR. FITZGERALD-Yes. I did get a, I talked to a woman who was in here and I talked with her.
I explained that when you do a barking complaint, you have to prove it. In the Town of
Queensbury, a complaint is a signed complaint from a resident and the burden of proof is on
them, and we will take any complaint that is signed to court.
MR. JACKOSKI-So what happens when it's your animals that are being complained about?
MR. ALLISON-The problem with taking it to court is that the way the Town Code is written right
now is that if you're not the owner of the dog, it's not your responsibility. Like I went through this
issue with my neighbor who built a kennel. He spent a lot of money doing it and tried to make it
as soundproof as he could, and it didn't work and it's a nightmare for us personally, and we took
them to court. In fact, you were involved with that, and Jon was on that, and Jon smartly got
them out of that because they're not the owners of the dog. Most other towns right it to the
owner or the custody. So there really is no leverage.
MR. LAPPER-This is being built to a different standard.
MR. ALLISON-1 know, and my issue he actually tried. I feel bad for that person as well. He
actually spent a lot of money and tried to do it the right way, but because there's no measurable
standards in our Codes to meet that are definitive, and those things are easily attainable. I think
you could put some of those conditions on here. At least for me that would give me some
assurances.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right now we're just Board comment. I'm sorry. I have not closed the public
hearing yet. So if we move forward with an action, with conditions, and we fail because we
should have done a SEAR review, what happens again, Staff?
MRS. MOORE-It comes back right through the review process. Everything gets re-advertised,
you go through the review process again.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I think the big issue here simply is the Planning Board has a lot of work to
do. The Planning Board has to determine whether or not this is compatible with the
neighborhood, this is an operation, and if we grant a variance with conditions, the project can
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
get built without this variance. It can, and if that location of that building is a betterment, what I
don't want to do is not do the variance and then find out that they put the building in that
alternative location and it's actually not the best location, that it didn't mitigate anything. I've got
to trust the engineers that this is the right location for the building. I'm just worried about the
SEAR.
MRS. MOORE-Is the Board looking for additional information from the engineer in that capacity?
MR. JACKOSKI-We're only dealing with the dimensional relief, and that's what we've got to
keep our blinders on. We're dealing with the dimensional relief. We're not dealing with the site
use.
MRS. MOORE-But if you're looking for the setback information, is there something that,
elevation wise, that you need additional information about a cross section? Right now you're
looking at a grading plan. Do you need a cross section to show that elevation?
MR. JACKOSKI-Tom, can you tell us, again, why it's the best location?
MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. May I? Okay. The topography, the lighter contours are existing
contours, and darker is graded out. In order, as you drive in, I'm sure you've been there, you
see the small building, and then behind that is the existing Tails Wag Inn building and the
parking area, and the right in front of you is a bank, a vegetative bank, and it is from elevation
380 at the base to elevation 415 at the top. So you've got 35 feet of bank here. It's lower over
here. The top level here is about 405. So we're going from back here, we've built this building
into that bank slightly. We're at elevation, I'm sorry, 381 here to 405. So we're 24 feet here.
So there's 24 feet of earth to the north in the direction where we're asking for the variance, and
consequently there are no residents on the other side of that property line. It is Surrey Fields
Homeowners Association, and it's wet. It's a wetland.
MR. JACKOSKI-So Mrs. Sonnabend had said they hear. So obviously the sound is traveling
out of the bowl.
MR. HUTCHINS-It can travel. Yes, if they hear it, it's traveling. The alternative, the alternative,
in order to meet that, and again, I'm going to write on this, that 200 foot setback line is right here
because I know it's where the existing building is and it's parallel with this line. So, and you can
see we do have an area here before the bank starts that's a relatively level area. It's, this is
staked out right now, Jon, where the building, there's corner stakes. Now, once you get back
here, the tow of this slope kind of runs in this direction, okay, and so in order, the alternative, the
problem with this location over here is it's not easy to get to with a vehicle because we have,
there's a low area here which is just stormwater infrastructure. So the alternative is up on the
high ground. This is a rather steep bank. It's a one on three slope, plus or minus. It's rather
steep. It's fill material. So the realistic alternative is up higher on the bank, and we're just
concerned that it'll more visible. Noise will be more likely to travel in all directions and that's the
logical reason for this location. It makes sense logistically, in terms of the operation, and it
makes sense from a site perspective in terms of minimizing the impact.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to, do you have any more you'd like to add at this time?
MR. LAPPER-Only, Jim wants to make a comment.
MR. FITZGERALD-I'd just like to mention something. In the Town of Queensbury at any time
we have 5,000 registered dogs, and I am getting the feeling that people are kind of saying I'm
shirking my responsibility here. I have taken people on Cedar Court to court. I've addressed
their barking complaints, and the ones that I did, it was one neighbor against another neighbor.
So to say I didn't address complaints, that neighbor filled out the forms and we went to court and
it was neighbor on neighbor. So there's dogs on Cedar Court. There's dogs across the street.
Dogs run at large that I've impounded.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think anybody's suggesting you're shirking your duties in any way, shape
or form. I mean, I think there's some conflicting information.
MR. FITZGERALD-Absolutely.
MR. JACKOSKI-We had gotten information from Town officials today that there were absolutely
no complaints at all, and then public comment period here we're actually hearing that there are,
but neighbors are trying to be friendly neighbors. So we're trying to balance all of these things
as it relates to the quality of life in the Town of Queensbury in this particular area. We have a
large concentration of residences to these. So we've just got to figure out how this is all going
to work.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MR. GARRAND-How could we not increase one dba noise for these neighborhoods? These
people expect quiet enjoyment, and we don't want any more noise in those neighborhoods.
MR. FITZGERALD-Sure, and I can't control the dog barking within their neighborhood either,
and that was a major problem in Cedar Court, and we had a court case.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Look, this is not about the SPCA in any way, shape or form. This is
purely about a building being built on a parcel of property, and then this is the Planning Board
having to do their job. They're two separate Boards. Anything else, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-1 don't think so.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Board members, I asked my Vice Chairman, this may be irregular, but
I think there might be an opportunity here, if the application got tabled, we'd continue the public
hearing, people would have a chance to talk again. I actually think with all the discussion that
we had just now that I'd continue the public hearing for a little bit and give people two minutes
each to just address the Board concerning what has been talked about for the last hour, to try to
see what we can figure out here, to try to talk about conditions, try to talk about whatever we're
dealing with. Jon, would that be okay with you?
MR. LAPPER-Of course.
MR. JACKOSKI-Versus tabling and doing the whole thing. All right. It's a little unorthodox, but
I'm trying to give everybody an opportunity. So public comment period is still open. Is there
anyone here this evening, and the nice lady there in the green has been raising her hand for a
long time. So I'll let you talk first.
SARA HUSSA
MRS. HUSSA-Hi, I'm Sara Hussa from 16 Cedar Court. I had a father-in-law at The Landing,
and we would sit on the front porch a lot, and we could hear the dogs that are presently boarded
at Dr. O'Connor's very well from there, and I think it's similar distances, except that when you try
to amplify sound you build a symphony like the bowl they're describing which funnels the noise,
and as you have run against, if you open up that these are dogs who don't belong to anyone,
there isn't anything you can do about the complaint of noise. You are introducing a huge facility
and distressed animals who will be noisier, and there isn't, as you're saying you can't sue a dog
that doesn't belong to anybody, and I think it goes back to that this whole project greatly violates
the spirit of the agreement that was so carefully hashed out in 2010. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Thank you. Ma'am.
MRS. SEHLMEYER-Dorothy Sehlmeyer again, 71 Cedar Court. Actually I forgot to mention
this the first time I spoke. This issue of the bowl that they're talking about. A bowl, to me, is all
sides. What they're actually talking about is a bank, one bank. You drive up that road, you
reach a level area, and then there's a bank to the north, with a level area above that. We,
Surrey Fields and Cedar Court, are to the west. The prevailing wind is from the west, and the
noise just funnels down to our neighborhood. There is no bank between the kennel and us.
The bank is to the north, and it's not a bowl. It's one bank. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mike O'Connor again. So far I think tonight you've considered three different
locations, one where they propose, two where their engineer says that it could go if you didn't
grant the variance and three, the third one that was suggested by a couple of your Board
members. I would pick up on what has been suggested by the Board members. If there is a
bank there and they were going to dig that wall in on the north side, that bank would be further
sound attenuation and make it even better for the neighborhood, particularly the neighborhood
to the north. So I think they're asking for more of a variance than is necessary, and I think
you're charged with granting only the minimum variance that's required, and we haven't heard
anything about even the difference in cost. I heard the comment that well it would be more
expensive to dig out the bank. You're talking about a building that is, what, 20 something by 40
or 30 by 40. Forty feet of bank excavation with probably very good soils that would come out
and could be used on other parts of the site. It can't be that expensive. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-The gentleman way in the back.
TOM GARVEY
MR. GARVEY-My name is Tom Garvey. I'm at 45 Cedar Court. I'm a relatively new resident,
been there since last November. So I don't have any neighbor on neighbor issues. I was out
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
Sunday, as you all know it was a nice day. I spent the day cleaning up my gardens and what
not, and the entire time I was outside, which was I guess somewhere between one and a half
and two hours, there was a continuous barking coming from the west, and contrary to the
previous speaker, we are actually east of that . The other point I wanted to make about the
building is it's clearly for the proposal to that solution because it's probably the least expensive
solution. Moving the building, whatever the cost is, is more expensive, and any time you put a
project together, you like to be able to do it for the least amount of expense. So I would say it's
not absolutely a requirement to have that building where they want it. It's the least expensive
alternative.
MRS. SONNABEND-Kathleen Sonnabend. One thing that bothers me is I keep hearing them
say, there haven't been any problems and this isn't going to be a problem. You can't lose sight
of the fact that the reason that the problems have been minimal so far is because of the Special
Use Permit conditions. What they're talking about doing more than doubles the amount of
space. It provides, if you look at the maps, the outdoor spaces are going to add in use is about
the same amount of space as all the buildings. So we're talking about a significant amount of
outdoor space. If they aren't going to use it as a play area, I don't know why it was labeled play
area, and if they're not going to use it very much, why would they possibly want to create that
much outside space. You can't just accept the fact that well there haven't been significant
complaints in the past because that was under different conditions. We're talking about a
completely different project, completely getting rid of the conditions. If you'd read what they ask
for, and this is going to be a problem for us, especially if the permit's made permanent, we don't
have any recourse. I just want to make that clear.
MR. JACKOSKI-And we understand, but the permit is not something that we have control over.
MRS. SONNABEND-1 understand, but this drives me crazy in Queensbury when things get
segmented. I think it's much better, because of so much controversy and questions about this
project, have the Planning Board deal with whether they should be getting rid of those conditions
on that Special Use Permit first, and if they agree with it and they can't figure out a way to do it
without a variance, then they can come back to you guys for the variance. That makes a lot
more sense. Otherwise what you end up doing is you approve the variance based on, just on
the variance terms. Now you've already got half the project approved. It's this creep where
you've got, draw a line and suddenly you've got the whole project approved that probably should
have never been approved in the beginning. So it's like putting the cart before the horse, as far
as I'm concerned, and the neighbors are really upset. We're not going to give up on this.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Two more and that's it.
MR. HARDICK-I'm going to try to help you out a little bit more here. The environmental impact
statement is incorrect. That's what I tried to imply to you. Whoever filled that out just needs a
few modifications, because there is an environmental impact in the soil and the water and I
outlined that in my message. The other thing is that the drawings are incomplete on what the
pipes go and all that, but you people just have the thing about the distance here or there on
where they should put stuff. Now, I'm going to tell you, I was there this afternoon, and I'm
surprised that this thing is built like a Roman amphitheater. They're down below here with the
buildings and the animals, and you've got these huge areas above which act as an
amphitheater. Now maybe they can do some noise mitigation along the sides, like more
bushes or something like that, but I think that is what is getting a problem with the dog noise,
because if you get on one side of the area, you won't hear them, but if you're out here near the
pond you can hear all kinds of noises. Besides the dogs, I can hear the woodpeckers in the
woods. So I think you guys have got a little more homework to do, but if somebody, whoever
made the EAF statement, go back to them and say fix that, and then we'll go back to your job.
That's how I look at it. I've got over 400 permits in the State of New York, all kinds, and I always
try to just get to the main thing about fixing whatever it's about, not get all wound up on these
other things. You guys have got more things to do then just listen to a lot of people, you know,
telling you other stuff, and which I'm not. I try to overtake these guys and tell you some of the
real feelings that I've got through my experience. So if you have any questions, just give me a
call.
RUTH FRANK
MRS. FRANK-Now four years ago we were here. I don't believe any of you were here, and we
fought this, and all it was packed with people, and all the neighbors were against it, but we gave
in to them because we felt well maybe they needed a chance for a small business, we would go
for it. So I moved here, and right now I came from a nice quiet retirement. My husband and I
are 92. Are children are baby boomers, probably very much like all of you, and when we
agreed to all of them four years ago, that they would stick to the contract. Now from what I
understand, I just heard about this yesterday, so I don't know all the details, but the woman that
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
has all the details is now in Arizona or she'll be home in May. She has evidence that they have
broken the contract that we all agreed to give them four years ago. Therefore I'm asking do not
consider anything they have until evidence has been proven, and if they have broken all these
contracts, they blew it. We gave them a chance, and I figure with all the nice businesses we
have around here, Stewarts, Harvest Restaurant, the doctors, gas stations, they are a nice
business that lend quietness. Their type of business is a nuisance business, and it's making
neighbors uneasy, and we come here for quietness and we feel that lowers the value of our
home. They have other places to go. We gave them a chance. I would like to have this
tabled until we can prove evidence that they should not have their contract renewed. They
should be out of here and find another place.
MR. JACKOSKI-Could you state you're name for the record, please.
MRS. FRANK-Ruth Frank of Cedar Court.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you very much. I have one more gentleman and that's it. Okay?
ED BRODERICK
MR. BRODERICK-I'm Ed Broderick, 73 Cedar Court. When we came here four years ago,
there was a problem over on West Mountain Road with dogs and so forth, and I contacted the
guy and did a little bit of research as to what he went through in a similar situation, and what he
said to me is he said, you know, he said, don't, whatever you do you're going to hear the decibel
dance. You're going to hear that, and he said disregard it. If there's dogs, you're going to hear
it, and my point is, I remember one of the women who was on the Board at the time, I remember
at the end, these people wanted more at that time, as well, but they didn't get it, and the point is
that what she said in the end was what we're talking about here is a quality of life, and I think we
deserve that as citizens to have good quality of life and a nice peaceful quiet neighborhood.
Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The public hearing's going to stay open. Again, I'm going to poll
the Board real quickly on one last time of what we want to do and how we want to move forward.
If you could join us at the table. Jon, is there anything you want to mention regarding public
comment?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-I didn't think so. I'll try to go in the same order as before. I'll start with Rick.
MR. GARRAND-Hear from counsel.
MR. JACKOSKI-Still the deal with the SEAR issue?
MR. GARRAND-I'd like a definitive answer from them.
MR. JACKOSKI-Very good. Andy?
MR. ALLISON-I'd like to hear from counsel on SEAR as well, specific about severability.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I guess I would go in that direction as well.
MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-I'd like to hear about SEAR first.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I'll echo that.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Same here.
MR. LAPPER-Table until next month.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the applicant has requested a tabling of the application until next
month.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
MRS. MOORE-We have a very full agenda for next month, for both Boards and both dates for
the Zoning Board.
MR. JACKOSKI-How many do we have for next month on the first available? I'm sorry, but I
feel that we have to put in the time to take care of this one early next month. We're holding
them up and the process up. So would the Board be willing to add this to the first meeting?
And, Staff, have we officially published that agenda yet?
MRS. MOORE-Next month's meeting starts on May 20th, and the second one is on May 27tH
MR. URRICO-I'm okay with adding it on to it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I'll tell you what, if the Board is okay, we may add to what we've got now
for this one, and I'll work with Staff, we may have to bump one of the new ones into June.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion.
MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Kimberly Polunci -Tails Wag Inn. Applicant proposes the expansion of the facility to include two
new buildings, outdoor, fenced-in kennel areas and a screen-room addition to the existing
building. An expansion to the parking area and stormwater management facilities are also
proposed. One of the new buildings is proposed to be leased by the Warren County SPCA as a
kennel facility and will be a separate operation from Tails Wag Inn. Relief requested from the
required 200 ft. property line setback to a kennel facility.
SEAR Type II;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 22, 2015 and left open;
RESOLUTION TO TABLE Area Variance No. 14-2015, Kimberly Polunci - Tails Wag Inn,
Introduced by Richard Garrand, Seconded by Michael McCabe:
Tabled to the May 20, 2015 meeting agenda.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of April 2015
AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Allison, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody. We appreciate it.
MR. JACKOSKI-There's a process and procedure. It has nothing to do with the SPCA, I
promise. We've just got to get through what we've got to get through.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
APRIL 22, 2015, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Henkel:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Allison, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/22/2015)
43