2005-10-26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 26, 2005
INDEX
Area Variance No. 75-2005 Randy Rivette 1.
Tax Map No. 289.9-1-63
Area Variance No. 76-2005 Todd Smith d/b/a Mandy S.F. Nursery, Inc. 7.
Tax Map No. 289.10-1-16
Area Variance No. 71-2005 Chris Germain & Diane Beatrice 14.
Tax Map No. 279.17-2-7
Area Variance No. 73-2005 Case Prime 19.
Tax Map No. 290.10-1-5
Sign Variance No. 70-2005 Great Escape Theme Park, LLC
32.
Tax Map No. 295.8-1-5 and 4
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.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 26, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
ALLAN BRYANT
CHARLES MC NULTY
JOYCE HUNT
LEWIS STONE
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2005 SEQRA TYPE II RANDY RIVETTE OWNER(S):
RANDY RIVETTE ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 57 SULLIVAN PLACE APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. 2-CAR GARAGE WITH ABOVE STORAGE
AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK AND HEIGHT
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 98-519 SEPTIC ALT., BP 93-477 2-STORY ADD.
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.36 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-63
SECTION 179-4-030
RANDY RIVETTE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 75-2005, Randy Rivette, Meeting Date: October 26,
2005 “Project Location: 57 Sullivan Place Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes a 900 sq. ft. detached 2-car garage with above storage area. Relief Required: The
applicant requests 7-feet of front setback relief from the 30-foot minimum, and 10-feet of
relief from the maximum building height for a garage of 16-feet. All relief required per § 179-
4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 98-519:
Septic alteration. BP 93-477: Issued 2/25/95, for a 24 x 24, two-story addition to existing
SFD. Staff comments: The existing house is located on the property line, with no setback
from Sullivan Place. The garage is proposed to be setback 23-feet from this same property
line. No additional gravel area/driveway is proposed. The existing house totals 1,018 sq. ft.,
which is the applicant’s justification of need for the additional storage space. What is the
height of the single-family dwelling? The applicant should identify any potential visual
impacts of the proposed garage relative to the 26-foot height. What will the interior look like,
roof tiles?”
MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 75-2005 please come to the table,
speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and place of residence, please.
MR. RIVETTE-My name is Randy Rivette at 57 Sullivan Place.
MR. ABBATE-Proceed.
MR. RIVETTE-What’s the question?
MR. ABBATE-Well, here’s what I’d like you to do. You’re coming before the Board this
evening, and in your own words, just explain to the Board why you feel that we should
approve your request for a variance, and if you have any questions during the course of this
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
meeting or there’s some system or procedure you don’t understand, stop us and I’ll be more
than happy to explain it to you.
MR. RIVETTE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So continue, and then we’ll go to the next phase.
MR. RIVETTE-It’s a two car garage that I want to put my truck and her car in, my yard
tools, my four-wheeler, my boat, and the above 600 square feet is going to be for just normal
storage for stuff we can’t put in the house. Stuff that’s in the basement now is just clutter.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is there anything, at this time, you’d like to add, anything else?
MR. RIVETTE-There’s going to be 30 year shingles on it. I heard something about the, and
it’s going to be sided to match my house. It’s gray, vinyl siding.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and if you can think of anything else during the course of this hearing,
just raise your hand, stop us, and we will allow you to introduce that type of information.
Okay?
MR. RIVETTE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, do the members of the Board have any questions concerning
Area Variance No. 75-2005?
MR. URRICO-Explain to me the need for the height. Well, because it’s going to be set into
the bank, the upper level is going to be the only thing actually exposed from the height. So
that’s where the actual height is, because the A-Frame of the top is going to be the only
exposed. The actual garage is going to be set into the bank.
MR. URRICO-You realize that you need the variance on the height as well.
MR. RIVETTE-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Sixteen feet is what’s required, what’s allowed, I should say.
MR. RIVETTE-Yes, I understand that. Just the way, it’s going to match my existing house,
you know, and the way it’s going to be set into the bank, the lower part’s not even going to be
exposed. The only thing that’s going to be exposed is that top.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions from the Board?
MR. BRYANT-One of the questions that they asked you in your application was whether or
not you had any feasible alternatives, and my question, and you responded something, I have
no storage or closet space, and you need space to store stuff in. My question is, wouldn’t a
feasible alternative be to build a normal garage, and then possibly a shed?
MR. RIVETTE-Well, I want my back yard to go all the way around and encompass it, you
know. So I don’t really have any place to put a shed. I just want it to be flat in the back all
the way around, and then it will line up with the neighbor’s garage and it will look nice in a
row.
MR. BRYANT-So what you’re saying is you don’t want a shed under any circumstances?
MR. RIVETTE-Not really. I want to be able to, because it’s just more places for clutter. I
want to clean up the area.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but a lot of the things that you described you can’t put upstairs anyway.
You can’t put your boat upstairs.
MR. RIVETTE-No, that’s going to be downstairs in the garage.
MR. BRYANT-You can’t, you’re going to be hauling tools up and down the stairs all day?
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. RIVETTE-No, that’s going to be, the top is going to be level with the back yard. My
back door is going to open right up to my back yard. It will be all the same level. I can show
you a picture of the grade.
MR. BRYANT-Is this the same thing we have?
MR. RIVETTE-I think so. That’s going to be the grade of the ground.
MR. BRYANT-That’s in the back?
MR. RIVETTE-Yes that’s in the back.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. How tall is your house?
MR. RIVETTE-My house is quite a bit taller than that. I’m not sure of the exact height of
my house. I think I have a picture of it in the plan. I can’t really remember off the top of my
head. No, I don’t have the exact height. It’s just a two story cape with cathedral ceilings.
MR. STONE-I was going to ask you, the back of the house with the peaked roof, that’s a
cathedral ceiling? There’s no storage up there?
MR. RIVETTE-No. Well, she’s got a closet, but, you know, that’s it.
MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s basically not storage space?
MR. RIVETTE-No.
MR. STONE-Because it’s very high.
MR. RIVETTE-Yes, it’s a 17 by 24 loft upstairs with her closet and that’s the bedroom.
MR. STONE-So it is occupied?
MR. RIVETTE-Yes, that’s our bedroom.
MR. STONE-Okay, because I was on the front side. Are there windows on the back?
MR. RIVETTE-Yes. There’s two windows on the back, or one window on the back.
MR. STONE-Because it was pouring, unfortunately, I did not get out yesterday as well as I
could have.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board?
MR. STONE-I think the question that Roy asked, and it’s one that I wrote down, I mean,
the current zoning in the Town of Queensbury, maximum is a 900 square foot garage, and
that’s what you’re talking about, 16 feet high. You want to go to 26 feet. Now, that to me,
on the face of it, is very excessive, or a tremendous amount of variance required, because
what you have stated about what you want to store in there is no different than a lot of
people who have appeared before us. They all have things they want to store, and most
people have, if they’ve gotten any relief, it’s certainly not 10 feet of relief. So I have a
concern.
MR. RIVETTE-Well, I was hoping, because of the way it was going to be set into the bank,
that it wouldn’t be that big of a problem, because the height is really only going to be the
roof, you know. The roof line is going to come right to the grade of the ground.
MR. STONE-So you’re not proposing any excavation or?
MR. RIVETTE-Yes, the hill’s got to be taken out, and my yard’s going to be leveled so my
yard goes all the way around. There’s a big knoll.
MR. STONE-So you’re going to take the hill out?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. RIVETTE-Well, the big knob, and then, well, it’s going to be flattened off, but it’s not
going to change what it looks like from Glen Lake Road. Because there’s 97 feet from the
back of the line to Glen Lake Road. There’s a lot of room back there.
MR. STONE-Well, I understand, but the hill is not going to be there anymore.
MR. RIVETTE-Yes, it is.
MR. STONE-Well, you’ve confused me now. Right now, when I went out there, there is a big
mound, more than a mound, between Sullivan Place and Glen Lake Road.
MR. RIVETTE-Yes, the garage is going to be set into that embankment right there, to be
level with the neighbor’s garage on the right, the one with the gambrel roof on the right.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. RIVETTE-It’s going to be the same ground level as that.
MR. STONE-Okay, but that’s basically the level of Sullivan Place, isn’t it?
MR. RIVETTE-Well, yes, it’s going to be up like two feet from that because he’s got water
drainage issues.
MR. STONE-Yes, okay, but I mean basically the same.
MR. RIVETTE-Yes.
MR. STONE-All right.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board?
MR. MC NULTY-One for the record, more than anything. Your house is on a double lot
right now.
MR. RIVETTE-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-And the garage that you’re proposing is on what was a separate lot.
MR. RIVETTE-Yes, I had the lots consolidated.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So the lot’s been consolidated. So we don’t have that problem.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. STONE-Yes, you mentioned this truck. What kind of truck are we talking about?
MR. RIVETTE-A Chevy Pick-up truck, ’98 Chevy Pick-up truck.
MR. STONE-Just a mode of transportation, or is it a business?
MR. RIVETTE-No, it’s just my every day truck.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to be sure, that’s all.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area
Variance No. 75-2005, and would those wishing to be heard please come up to the table, speak
into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and your place of residence. If we
have anyone in the public this evening who would like to address this particular variance,
would you raise your hand and I will recognize you.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-I don’t see any hands raised, so I will move on. I’ll ask members, at the
present time, if they would be kind enough to please offer their comments in regards to Area
Variance 75-2005, but before I do, may I again respectfully remind the members that
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the
record to support our conclusions. And the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated.
This is necessary for an intelligent Judicial review. Additionally, any position you may take
must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective
preferences of not liking a project. May I please start out with Mr. Underwood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to be concerned with what the Code book says about
the height of garages in Town, but at the same time I think that the applicant has proposed a
structure here that is going to be built into a hill, which somewhat mitigates what we
wouldn’t want to see, which would be a large building, over height. I’m somewhat
sympathetic. I mean, he has combined two lots together here. It’s not something that’s
going to be seen from the lake, which I think is part of the WR-1A zone that we’re in here, in
this instance. We’re not really on the fore shore of the water. At the same time, I think we
need to look at the size of the home that is existing on the lot, and it’s a modest home. It’s a
little over 1,000 square feet, so I think I’m going to sit on the fence on this, and I’m mildly in
favor of it at this time.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-I understand, although there were no questions about the setback relief, and
I understand the need for the setback relief, and I would be in favor of that portion of it.
However, on the height relief, the relief requested is substantial, and as a general rule, as it
pertains to garages, it’s been my view that the Code is sufficient for most garages. So I would
be opposed to that portion of the application as to the height.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I think Mr. Bryant said exactly what I was going to say. The setback is, given
the neighborhood, I don’t think is a problem. I, too, share Mr. Bryant’s concern that the
height relief is too much. I mean, certainly this, going by what we’re talking about, the
difficulty is certainly self-created. The request is substantial. I mean, 10 on 16 is
approximately 60% relief, a tremendous amount. I don’t necessarily think that it’s an
undesirable change, although the reason we have the height is because it is deemed to be
undesirable to be that high. Therefore, I can support the setback, but I cannot support the
garage.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-This is a fence sitter. It’s a tough one. Like everyone else, I don’t see any
real problem with the setback, because I think it’s appropriate for the neighborhood. The
height does concern me some. The height to the rear doesn’t concern me, because obviously
it’s going to be set into the ground and it isn’t going to be that obtrusive. The height on the
front, I’m not quite so sure but what maybe it’s going to look a little more extreme, yet I
think, considering the neighborhood, considering the fact that this is not on the shoreline, and
does not appear that it’s going to block anybody’s view from anything, I think that only
leaves the concern of what the front really is going to look like when it’s actually built. I can
see the benefit for the applicant, and I think like Mr. Underwood. I think I’m going to be
inclined to come down slightly on the positive side, that I think maybe the benefit to the
applicant is going to slightly outweigh any detriment to the neighborhood. So put me down
as in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m sorry to say that I’m going to come down on the negative side on
this. I don’t have a problem with the front setback relief, but I do have a problem with the
height. I think 10 feet is a lot, and I’d like to see that brought down somewhat before we can
proceed. So, I mean, I would be against it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I have no problem either with the seven foot front setback
relief, and the garage with the top floor having an entrance from the back, that mitigates that
problem, and I think, in my mind, it would be better to have this garage than to have a
garage and a shed on a piece of property, and so I would be in favor of it.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, can I just make a comment relative to Mrs. Hunt just said? I
just want to remind her that if you approve the variance tonight relative to the height, this
doesn’t preclude the applicant from coming, actually he doesn’t have to come back. He can
put a shed that’s 120 square feet without even visiting this Board again. So, you know,
you’re going to give him storage, 600 square feet of storage, that ultimately could become 720
without even another variance. So I just want to bring that to your attention.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood, you had a question mark there. You were slightly in favor.
Have you changed your position?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-You would be in favor of it.
MR. RIVETTE-My adjacent neighbor who lives right across the street from my household,
Mr. Harris, he sent me here with a letter saying how he saw the plans and had no problem
with the height. I’ve got his letter here, and a majority of my other surrounding neighbors
also, I showed them the plans in detail, and they signed this for me to say that they had no
problem with it, also.
MR. ABBATE-Would you like to enter that into the record, if you would.
MR. RIVETTE-Yes, I would.
MR. ABBATE-Would you please pass that on to the Secretary, please, and then come back
to the table, please. It appears, at the present time, the Board is split without my vote. I
would suggest that perhaps you might want to consider tabling your appeal and perhaps
coming to some sort of a feasible alternative, because if I had to vote this evening, I would
have no problems with the setback, but I would be a little concerned with the height, that
you were going to 26 feet, and you’re asking for 10 feet of variance, which is, could be
considered rather dramatic. Granted, I heard some of the other Board members mention this
is a unique set of circumstances. Would you consider a feasible alternative, that is, i.e.,
lowering the height of that?
MR. RIVETTE-I could change the 12/12 to a 10/12. It doesn’t have to be so high. I could
bring it down, you know. It would lessen my height inside upstairs, but if that’s what you
want, I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. ABBATE-Well, no, that’s not what I want. We’re just trying to, so what you are
suggesting, then.
MR. RIVETTE-It’s a 12/12 to match my house, because I wanted it to match the peak of my
house, you know. So I could bring it to a 10/12.
MR. ABBATE-Ten by twelve. Let me go back to Mr. Bryant. How would you respond if he
reduced it to 10 by 12?
MR. BRYANT-Well, I don’t understand what would be the outcome.
MR. RIVETTE-Two feet. It would bring it down two feet.
MR. BRYANT-I think that, what I would go with is a 900 square foot garage that has a 16
foot height. That’s what I would go with.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Stone, would you change your position on a two foot reduction?
MR. STONE-No.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Urrico, would you?
MR. URRICO-It wouldn’t change my position.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. ABBATE-Then I’m going to have to go with my gut feeling on this and I would
probably not vote in favor of your request for a variance. So here are your options. You
have three options, basically. You could request this Board to table your appeal for the next
available date and come back with a feasible alternative, which you feel may meet the
requirements or concerns of the Board members. You could withdraw your appeal, or you
could request that we continue to hear your appeal this evening. Now, the choice is yours.
You have the right to reject any suggestions, without prejudice, that were made by any of the
Board members, including myself. So, those are your three options, and I’m going to ask you
to make a decision whether you’d like to table your appeal for the next available date and
perhaps come to a feasible alternative that you feel may meet the concerns, as you know what
the concerns are, the height, of this Board, or your can withdraw your appeal, or you can
request that we continue to hear your appeal, and then what I will do is then eventually go on
for a motion.
MR. RIVETTE-I guess I’ve got to table it. I guess I’ve got to get new plans. I don’t even
know where to go from here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would make the suggestion that it looks like we’re probably going to
approve the building of a garage as proposed, size wise, but the only difference would be you
would have to come back with a compliant height. It appears at this time 16 feet would be
the max you could build.
MR. RIVETTE-See, set into the bank like that, it doesn’t make any sense. Because the only
thing that’s going to be is just the upstairs. It’s going to be level with the ground. The
garage, the basement part is not going to be exposed. The grade’s going to come right around
the front of it. The only thing that’s going to be is the peak.
MR. ABBATE-I understand exactly what you’re saying, but we have certain guidelines that
we have to go by, and this is a democratic forum that we have here. At this time, there’s
nothing prejudice about this. At this time it does appear you may not have sufficient votes,
only for the height. The setback doesn’t appear to be a problem. Why don’t you do this, a
suggestion. You can let it go in one ear and out the other. Why don’t you request that it be
tabled. You know your concern is going to be the height. Take some time. Talk it over with
your wife, and request that we come back at the next available meeting.
MR. RIVETTE-That’s fine. I appreciate that.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Okay. Now, let me, your decision, then, is this. You’re requesting
this Board to table your appeal for the next available date. Is that correct?
MR. RIVETTE-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, that is correct. Okay. How much time do you think you will need, 30
days, 60 days? 30 days?
MR. RIVETTE-Thirty days, yes. It’s winter, now, so I don’t know what I’m going to do.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2005 RANDY RIVETTE, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
57 Sullivan Place. Tabled for a period up to 30 days.
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 75-2005 is seven in favor, zero against. If
there’s no challenge to the tally, than the motion is carried. Area Variance No. 75-2005 is
tabled for a period of 30 days.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-2005 SEQRA TYPE II TODD SMITH d/b/a MANDY SPRING
FARM NURSERY, INC. AGENT(S): TODD SMITH OWNER(S): DAN REALI & SUSAN
RAYESKI ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 24 JAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
REMOVE EXISTING 580 SQ. FT. DECK AND REPLACE WITH A 644 SQ. FT. DECK.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP
2003-688 SEPTIC ALT., BP 94-084 COVERED PORCH & CANOPY, BP 7259 DORMER
ADDED WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.67 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-6
SECTION 179-4-070
TODD SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 76-2005, Todd Smith d/b/a Mandy Spring Farm
Nursery, Inc., Meeting Date: October 26, 2005 “Project Location: 24 Jay Road Description
of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to remove an existing 580 sq. ft. deck and replace
with a 644 sq. ft. deck, resulting in a net increase of 64 sq. ft.
Relief Required:
Shoreline setback relief of 16-feet is requested, from the minimum 50-foot requirement of the
WR-1A, per § 179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2003-668: Issued 8/14/03, for septic alteration.
Staff comments:
Although the proposed deck and stairs will be moderately larger than the existing, it will be
setback an additional 2-feet; the existing is 32-feet from the shoreline, while the proposed
would be 34-feet.
The proposed deck and stairs, because of the new configuration, would extend out further in
the front than the existing, but not as far on the side, which is the shortest distance to the
shoreline.
Will the proposed deck be compatible with the existing exterior of the house? This would
limit any potential visual impacts from the lake.”
MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 76-2005 please come to the table,
speak into the microphone, and for the record please identify yourself and your place of
residence.
MR. SMITH-My name is Todd Smith. I’m with Mandy Spring Nursery. I live in Granville,
NY. I’m here tonight on behalf of Dean Reali and Susan Rayeski. They’re residents at 24
Jay Road on Glen Lake.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Before you proceed any further, do you have the authority to
authorize feasible alternatives, and any kind of conditions that may be a part of this?
MR. SMITH-I believe so. I believe my client is here as well.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Please continue.
MR. SMITH-We’re requesting an Area Variance for, I believe, lakefront relief and side relief
for a replacement deck at this property, and as you mentioned, you read off our proposal, our
application, the deck is slightly larger, but it is actually farther away from both the side and
the lakefront. So we feel it is not substantial relief because I think we’re asking for seven feet
total from the lakefront, and we’re really reducing the total encroachment on the lake by
several feet. Furthermore, we’re also dropping the deck down eight inches from its current
level. So as far as, I think you all have a copy of the proposed artist conception, and the
layout. We really feel like the proposed project will be aesthetically much more pleasing. The
current deck is in poor repair. The boards are decaying, and it’s very busy. As you can see
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
from the picture, I believe, it’s got heavy lattice work, lots of awkward stairways. So it’s sort
of an architectural, a big architectural upgrade in our estimation. The actual trim and the
finish of the deck is a little bit artist conceptual there currently, but it would be, there would
be stone pillars holding the deck up, and it would be finished in an Adirondack stain, I
believe. I guess it’s not totally firm how it would be finished, but an Adirondack stain, a
fairly rustic railing system around the deck. Part of a larger, the deck would be built into a
fully landscaped final picture when it’s all complete.
MR. ABBATE-Now, you used the words a few feet. I’d like you to be a little more specific.
In effect what you are requesting is a net increase of 64 square feet, and you’re requesting 16
feet from the minimum 50 foot requirement, rather than using the words a few feet. I’d like
to be more specific.
MR. SMITH-I think the proposed deck will be two feet farther from the lake than the current
one. I believe. I believe that’s accurate.
MRS. BARDEN-He’s correct.
MR. SMITH-Thanks, Susan.
MR. ABBATE-Anything else you’d like to add?
MR. SMITH-Not at this time, I think, unless there’s questions.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Do members of the Board have any questions concerning
Area Variance No. 76-2005?
MR. URRICO-I guess I will ask a question. You said the setback’s an additional two feet, or
two feet less? I’m confused.
MR. SMITH-Roy, the deck will be actually two feet, because the deck has been designed in a
radius fashion, we’ll actually be pulling, there was a point on the deck that was part of the
stair system. We’ll actually be gaining, we’ll actually be two feet farther away the lakefront
than we were originally with the current, existing deck.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Because in the notes that you supplied, you said, under amount of
relief substantial to the Ordinance, you said no because seven feet is not substantial. I’m not
sure where the seven feet comes in.
MR. SMITH-I think the seven feet is the, where it’s 50 feet is the setback requirement. I
believe we’re 43 feet. So I’m asking for seven feet of relief.
MR. BRYANT-Not according to your sketch. You’re 34 feet, which is 16 feet.
MR. SMITH-Somehow I had that. Give me a moment.
MR. BRYANT-While you’re looking at that, it’s nice that you have the new deck is set back
an additional two feet from the shore. However, when we start from scratch, we try to get as
close to the required setback as possible. After all, we’re charged with granting the least
amount of relief.
MR. SMITH-Right.
MR. BRYANT-So my question to you is, relative to the stairs on the right hand side, as part
of the design, I mean, you’ve brought the thing back two feet. If you eliminated those stairs,
what would we talk about? I mean, you’ve got stairs on the left hand side. Are those stairs
on the right hand side? Because that seems to be the vulnerable part. So my question is, if
we eliminated those stairs, could we pick up another five feet or so?
MR. SMITH-We could pick up four. Allan, just to your answer, I don’t know where the
seven feet, I guess I’m not sure where the seven feet came from at this moment. It does look
like it’s 16 feet.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So, 16 feet, you pick up another four. Then you’d only be 12 feet, and
you’d make a marvelous improvement on that, on the structure.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. SMITH-Yes, except it would be A-symmetrical, and we’re really looking for sort of a
symmetry, easy flow between, and I know it’s, so we are looking for a symmetrical.
MR. BRYANT-A-symmetrical could be nice. Picasso made a living out of it.
MR. SMITH-Well, the deck is A-symmetrical, and when we did our design analysis, we really
felt that that was one of the problems. I think we have about nine feet off of that deck to get
down to the grade. There’s a lot of large trees we’re going to preserve that we need to. We
can’t raise the grade on those large, those grand old oaks. So we really feel like the long deck,
or long set of stairs sweeping down in front of the deck really was, currently is quite awkward
and would continue to be awkward if we propagated that. So we really feel, as an aesthetic
approach, it won’t harm anyone. It would certainly give a real, a very nice architectural
touch to the property. Certainly by taking those four feet off I don’t think will help the
neighborhood out at all, from an encroachment standpoint.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Any other Board members have any questions concerning 76-2005?
MR. STONE-I have a question, yes. You give us a dimension that is totally not germane to
the discussion. From the new steps on the left, as we look at the house, you say it’s 75 feet,
and that doesn’t mean anything. I would have preferred that there were a dimension
perpendicular to the shore from the bottom corner of the left steps. I assume it’s conforming,
but I don’t know that it’s conforming.
MR. SMITH-I’m sorry, yes, I don’t have that for you at the moment. It would seem, because
the lake bumps out there, that it would be significantly less than the right hand side, yes.
MR. STONE-It would seem.
MR. ABBATE-Any other members have questions, concerns?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Who prepared this drawing here that
shows the setback? Did you prepare it?
MR. SMITH-Yes, our staff did.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Here’s my concern. You notice the wording here that says
approximate 50 foot setback from Glen Lake. We’ve been plagued, in the last few months, by
a number of situations where property hasn’t been surveyed, and then all of a sudden they
realize they’ve built something and it’s way closer to the lake than they expected it to be, and
problems arise, and second and third trips to the Board. So my question is, I mean, how can
we be sure that this is not an approximate figure and this is a very accurate figure, so that if
we grant anything, we don’t see you three months from now asking for another four feet
because you underestimated the setback.
MR. SMITH-Right. I’m not sure if I have it tonight with me. I believe I do, actually, if I can
find it. The drawing was developed from a licensed surveyor’s drawing. So I believe the
shoreline, I don’t know for sure, I’m more familiar with some of these other lakes that
shoreline does fluctuate some. I’m used to drawing that in our landscape drawings. So that
the shoreline does fluctuate. I think there is a shoreline, maybe they use a mean water mark.
I think Glen Lake doesn’t fluctuate. Is that correct? But normally there’s a, on this survey
that I was given, by Dean Reali, I do have an edge of shoreline, and this drawing is derived
directly from that. So this is a copy from that. So would you give me a minute I could find
that survey?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. In the meantime, I’m going to ask Staff about that question. We know
we have Lake George all the time and they measure the shoreline from the mean water mark.
What do you do on Glen Lake?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Glen Lake fluctuates because each year they put in, they raise the level
of the Lake in the summertime and lower it down again in the wintertime. So there is no
mean water mark, as far as I know.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. BRYANT-And the determining factor on the shoreline?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think in this instance here what you need to concern yourself with is
that there is currently a deck on this house. They’re proposing to change the deck and
upgrade the deck, and the only difference would be the two wraparound stairs as you had
already pointed out, and those two stairways will come down slightly closer, but the deck
itself will be setback further from the lake than at present.
MR. SMITH-Allan, I have a survey in my hand by Joseph Fuerst. I can’t read the date. It
shows three lines for the edge of the lake. So I think that’s why I used approximate, the
wording there. I think we have gone from the property line, which would be the farthest line,
if I’m not mistaken.
MR. STONE-Except you show four decimal points. Nobody measures in four decimal points.
MR. SMITH-That’s the computer.
MR. STONE-Well, I suggest that maybe we round a little bit.
MR. BRYANT-Can I see the survey, please.
MR. SMITH-Yes, sir.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you. I’ll give it back to you.
MRS. BARDEN-The definition for shoreline is the mean high water mark at which land
adjoins the waters of lakes, ponds, wetlands, rivers, and streams within the Town. I know
that when we do Lake George we call the Park Commission and they give us that figure.
Honestly, I don’t really know how it’s done on Glen Lake, if it’s a constant figure.
MR. ABBATE-We could, based on personal experience, it’s not unusual to take into
consideration personal experiences of members of this Board, and in particular Mr.
Underwood who resides on Glen Lake. I think he gave an explanation. I’m willing to accept
that. Let’s go down some basics here. We’ve been using words, I believe it might be
necessary. You are, in effect, proposing to remove an existing 580 square foot deck. Yes,
correct?
MR. SMITH-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, and you want to replace that with a 644 square foot deck. Correct?
MR. SMITH-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-And if we approve that, that will result in a net increase of 64 square feet.
MR. SMITH-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Now, in addition, you need shoreline setback relief of 16 feet from the
minimum 50 foot requirement for the WR-1. Correct?
MR. SMITH-That is correct.
MR. ABBATE-Correct. Okay. Now, the stairs, how much closer will those stairs be to the
water?
MR. SMITH-If you’d give me a moment, I’d like to just review before I answer that, than the
deck, than the number we’re using as the deck distance? The dimension I had given in the
plans is to the stairs. It’s to the nearest point of the stairs.
MR. ABBATE-And that distance is?
MR. SMITH-Thirty-four foot six inches, eight inches, let’s say. Thirty-four foot, eight
inches.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So it’s 34 feet, 8 inches. Do any of the Board members have any other
questions concerning Area Variance 76-2005?
MR. MC NULTY-Just, I guess, comments and concerns that I don’t know what to suggest
with them, but a couple of points anyway. One, the common practice which has been used
here, and is used in several other applications, of taking a surveyor’s drawing and then
changing it, or adapting it to the current thing. If you look at most surveyor’s drawings,
there’s a thing on it somewhere that says it’s illegal to change this drawing, and the reason for
that is because whoever’s changing it is not going to be as accurate as the surveyor. So
there’s a bit of risk here in taking figures shown based on modifying a surveyor’s drawing.
The other thing that concerns me, and I don’t know what the answer is, is we seem to be
talking about fairly tight tolerances here of, okay, granting 16 feet relief, and yet we’re a bit
fuzzy, it sounds like, on what is the shoreline, and the thing that worries me, as has been
mentioned before, is this thing coming back to re-visit it in a half a year or a year when it’s
built, and then all of a sudden someone determines, oops, it’s not 16 feet of relief that was
needed. It was 18 feet or something, and short of us granting an extra couple, three feet, as a
safety margin, I don’t know what the answer is, but it’s a concern to me, and I think it’s also
a concern thinking of the applicant, because I think we’re getting close to the point on this
Board where someday somebody’s going to come back with one of these, and we’re going to
be inclined, as a Board, to say, sorry, tear it down, because what we granted is this, and this is
all we’re going to grant, and that’s going to be very expensive. So I don’t know where we’d
go from this, but I’m worried.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. McNulty, your comments are noted. Yes, Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-To speak to that, this survey that the applicant has provided, there are no
real dimensions on it, you know, that show distances from the houses, if you want to take a
look at it. So, yes, I concur with what Mr. McNulty says, and when I see the word
“approximate”, I get nervous.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me continue here, and I’ll come up with some sort of a solution.
Any other members have any questions? If not, then I’m going to open up the public hearing
for Area Variance No. 76-2005, and would those wishing to be heard please come to the table,
speak into the microphone, and for the record, identify yourself. Would those wishing to
comment on Area Variance No. 76-2005. Mr. Salvador, please?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I think you’ll find that the terms mean high
water mark and mean low water mark pertain to navigable bodies of water, and Glen Lake is
not a navigable body of water. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Do we have any other members of the public who
wish to comment on Area Variance No. 76-2005? I see no other hands raised. Okay. If that’s
the case, then, I’m going to ask members to please offer their comments regarding this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have to two letters to read.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. SMITH-I’m sorry. All I wanted to add was that we did not alter the survey drawing.
We did raster scan it into our software, and we did our own measurements as well. So our
measurements are, were effectively, what we’ve presented is not a surveyor’s document. It’s
an accurate drawing, as a landscape plan would be, but it’s not a stamped drawing, but we
did do our own site measurements as well and I believe they’re very accurate. So I believe if
you granted us the variance, as we requested, we would be able to build within that and not
be re-appearing here at the Board. So, thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much for your comments. I do believe we have some
correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We have two letters from adjacent neighbors. The first one’s from
Richard and Susan Rourke at 19 Jay Road. “We have no objections and think it should be
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
granted. Thank you.” And the second one, “We went out and looked at the Reali’s deck and
can see no reason why they cannot be allowed to build the new deck as to their specifications.
It would certainly enhance the property and would not affect the shoreline.”, and that’s
signed by Marilyn and Don Higley at 23 Jay Road.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
MRS. BARDEN-I just got my scale, and this is for Mr. Stone. That’s exactly 50 feet from
the front of the deck, the proposed, to the shoreline.
MR. STONE-You mean the other deck, the left side?
MRS. HUNT-The left side.
MR. STONE-As you face it, the left stairs.
MRS. BARDEN-Fifty-one.
MR. STONE-But I mean, it’s the closest point on the left stairs. Okay. So that part of the
stairs are fine. That’s all. Okay. We would like to have had that on the drawing. Because
that’s 74 feet, 72 feet to some point that I’m not even sure is on the water. I don’t know what
it means. Because the shoreline kind of disappears at the bottom of this.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-So I just want to understand what Mrs. Barden was saying. What dimension
are you talking about is 50 feet?
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Stone was asking about, you see on the left hand side of the deck, it says
the closest is 75 feet, 74 feet, and I think that he wanted to know the closest on the left side of
the stairs to the shoreline.
MR. STONE-And Susan is saying that’s 50 feet.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me continue here. I’m going to ask members of the Board to
please offer their comments regarding Area Variance No. 76-2005, and may I please start with
Mr. Urrico.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m comfortable with the application as presented. I believe the setback,
whether it’s two feet, one foot, or the same, would be an improvement over what is there now.
I think the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant only if the steps
are brought back, but I really think that would only create a minimal change to what is being
presented, and I don’t think that tradeoff is worth it myself. I don’t think it’ll change the
character of the neighborhood. The relief can be considered, I guess, moderate, but it’s an
improvement over the setback that’s there now, with the current deck. I don’t see it having
any adverse physical or environmental effects, and the difficulty is self-created, and these
terms that I’m using are based on criteria that we have to base every variance application on,
just in case anybody’s curious. So the alleged difficulty is self-created, in a sense, but they are
also preparing to replace a deck that needs to be replaced. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Thank you. I concur. I mean, obviously, if it were a perfect world, we would
be at 50 feet from the shoreline. Right now the house or the deck is at 34 feet. I’m sorry, it’s
32 feet from the shoreline and it should be 50, but the applicant is saying they can make it 34
or 34.7648, whatever the number is. Certainly it is technically an improvement. There is no
reason that they shouldn’t be able to do what they want to do.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-I agree somewhat with what the other Board members have said. Replacing
the dock would be an improvement to what you have, and it is a very attractive design.
However, I think that we should, I don’t know that you can ever build a dock that’s totally
compliant in that location, because of the way the shoreline travels, but I think we could
have done a little bit better in the design to get closer to the required setback, not 50 feet, but
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
I think either by moving the deck over a little bit to the left or removing those stairs, you
could make it just as attractive and a little bit closer to compliant. That being said, I will
vote in favor of the application.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-In many ways I think I can agree with Mr. Bryant. On the one hand, the
zoning says 50 feet and we ought to be trying to get to that point at some point in time
because that’s what would be best for the lake in total. On the other hand, that clearly is not
what currently exists in that section of the lake, and we’re charged with making a rational
decision not based on what we personally prefer, or even what our gut feeling is, but based on
what’s there and what the benefit to the applicant is, and the applicant’s at least making a
slight improvement with what he’s proposing, as well as improving the existing structure by
replacing it with something that’s going to be built better. Also, one thing that helps me with
this is this is a deck, not an enclosed an addition on the house. If it were an enclosed room on
a house, I think my attitude would be entirely different, but given that it’s a deck, and as I’ve
indicated in some other instances like this, at times a deck can be better than nothing at all,
because if you’re going to use that area, if there’s no deck there, you can cause erosion just by
walking around on the ground. Whereas a deck can protect the ground in that manner. So I
think when we take everything into consideration, there is a clear benefit to the applicant.
There is very likely a clear benefit to the environment in protecting it from erosion and such.
So I think in the long term, the benefit to the applicant and everything comes down being
greater than possible detriment. So I’ll be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I pass by this house many times on the Lake. It’s a thoughtfully
conceived design as proposed here this evening, and I think that the fact that the slope tiers
down to the waterfront, there’s really no real concern that I have as far as the environmental
factors on the lake or anything like that. I think it’s a good design, and I’d be all for it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I agree with my fellow Board members. I think it’s a very
handsome design and the 32 feet that exists will be increased to almost 34 feet, and I think
that’s an improvement. I don’t see any adverse physical or environmental effects in this. I
would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I, too, would be in favor of the application. I kind of side with
the comments made by Mr. McNulty and Mr. Urrico, and I have no problems with the
application in terms of approval. At this point, I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion, and before I ask for a motion, again, may I
respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the
variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that State statutes spell out five
statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in deciding whether to grant an area
variance. Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 76-2005?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-2005 TODD SMITH D/B/A/ MANDY
SPRING FARM NURSERY, INC., Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Roy Urrico:
24 Jay Road. The applicant proposes to remove an existing 580 square foot deck and replace
it with a 644 square foot deck, resulting in a net increase of 64 square feet. Relief required.
Shoreline setback relief of 16 feet is requested from the minimum 50 foot requirement of the
WR-1A zone per Section 179-4-030. Parcel History: There was a building permit 2003-688
issued 8/14/03 for septic alteration. The benefits might be achieved by a feasible alternative,
but I think this is a good project and a handsome one. I don’t think there’ll be any
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. I don’t think it’s a
substantial request. In fact, it’s almost two feet further from the lake than the old deck. I
don’t think there will be any adverse physical or environmental effects and it’s only self-
created because the owners wish to replace their deck. So I would move that we approve Area
Variance No. 76-2005.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 76-2005 is seven in favor, zero against. If
there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 76-2005 is approved.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, relative to this approval, I just want to make sure that the
applicant understand that, don’t build it, and it be approximate and come back and ask for
two more feet.
MR. SMITH-Yes, we won’t come back.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-This is a short message for members of the Board. A couple of members may
have heard me whispering to several people on the Board, and there’s a reason for that. We
have two things we have to do after the meeting tonight, Board members. One is we’re going
to have to approve a couple of meeting minutes, and then we’re going to go into Executive
Session.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2005 SEQRA TYPE II CHRIS GERMAIN & DIANE BEATRICE
OWNER(S): CHRIS GERMAINE & DIANE BEATRICE ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 128
LAKE SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 390 SQ. FT.
DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2002-476 DECK, BP 89-050 ADDITION WARREN CO.
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.17-2-7 SECTION 179-4-030
CHRIS GERMAIN & DIANE BEATRICE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-2005, Chris Germain & Diane Beatrice, Meeting Date:
October 26, 2005 “Project Location: 128 Lake Sunnyside North Description of Proposed
Project: The applicant proposes to removed the existing 215 sq. ft. deck and replace with a
390 sq. ft. deck on the lakeside of the property.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 28-feet of shoreline setback relief, where the minimum is 50-feet, and
14.3-feet of relief from the side setback, relief is per § 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone.
Additional relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure is required per, § 179-13-010.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2002-476: Issued 6/11/02, for a 214 sq. ft. deck addition.
Staff comments:
The existing deck is located 5.7-feet from the side property line, and is an existing condition.
The existing shoreline setback is 32-feet, and the proposed is 22-feet. The proposal is for the
deck to be open construction (wood slats), earth toned, and landscaped.
A similar proposal was denied by the Board on 4/22/02, (see resolution and minutes for AV 19-
2002, Charles and Patricia Mouzalas).”
MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 71-2005 please come to the table,
speak into the microphone, and for the record, please identify yourself and your place of
residence.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MS. GERMAIN-My name is Christine Germain. This is Diane Beatrice. We reside at 514
Glen Street, Glens Falls and have a business there as well. We are also the owners of this
Sunnyside property that we’re coming in for the variance. It just came to our attention last
week. We didn’t know about this situation with the previous deck being built and then as an
after effect being denied. We purchased this property three years ago from the Mouzalas
couple, and there was this existing deck at that time, this five foot wide deck, which we are
now applying to expand. As I say, we didn’t have knowledge of this other deck. So I met last
week with Bruce Frank and Sue Barden and they explained the situation and we decided
anyway to go forward with it. It looks to me like the deck that Mouzalas had put on was over
500 square foot.
MR. ABBATE-441.5 square foot.
MS. GERMAIN-Okay, 441, still larger than what we are proposing. We’re proposing a total
of 390 square feet, and certainly would be open to compromise, if that’s what it takes, and we
do have some pictures that we took from the lake of nearby decks, what our neighbors have.
We thought that might be helpful. We’ve also included in your packet letters from our
neighbors on either side of us supporting our hopes to go forward with this.
MR. ABBATE-You may take those letters and present them to the Secretary and he will read
that into the record for you.
MS. GERMAIN-Okay. They are in your packets as well.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got it.
MR. ABBATE-You have it. Okay. Fine.
MS. GERMAIN-Yes, everybody should have one. So I think that’s basically where we’re at
right now.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and during the course, again, if you feel that there’s something that
might be advantageous that you may have forgotten to mention, feel free to raise your hand
and we’ll acknowledge you and you can present at any time during the meeting, additional
information if you wish, or you certainly may ask any questions, if there’s something you
don’t understand.
MS. GERMAIN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Now having said I’m going to ask the members of the Board
if they have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 71-2005?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-Are you saying that the Mouzalas deck was completely removed?
MS. GERMAIN-It was completely removed when we purchased the property. We purchased
it in September of 2002, and what is there currently was there then. We were told that, the
folks were from Long Island. They would vacation at Sunnyside, but we were told that their
children had grown, were finished college, and that they didn’t use it anymore.
MR. STONE-In these two pictures, which is the subject house, because you show one twice.
You show one once.
MS. GERMAIN-There are two copies of each photo. Those are the neighboring decks.
MR. STONE-Okay. These are not your property?
MS. GERMAIN-No, but we do have photos of our property as well, if that would be helpful.
MR. STONE-Yes, it would be very helpful, because these are not before us, these two pieces
of property.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MS. GERMAIN-Those photos are just to show the proximity of the neighbors decks to the
lake.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Now what you’re going to present are pictures of your deck?
MS. GERMAIN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. While Mr. Stone is looking at the pictures, do we have any other
members that have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 71-2005?
MR. STONE-So you’re saying you were not aware that we denied a variance for a deck this
close to the lake?
MS. GERMAIN-We didn’t know anything about it until last week, when we had submitted
this. It came from the Staff notes. We had submitted this, I think at the end of August, I
had put all the paperwork in for this meeting. So, no, we didn’t know about it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MS. BEATRICE-When we bought the property, it only had the deck that it has on there
now. I didn’t have a large deck, and we had no idea that at one point it did have a deck, and
now it is gone.
MR. STONE-Well, because it was made to be taken down. Is that correct, Susan?
MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-This is rather unique, because normally what I would say, if it has something
to do with the deed, I would make it quite clear that the burden of responsibility falls directly
on the shoulders of the purchaser to determine whether there are any restrictions, etc., but
this is a different set of circumstances. There would be, I suspect, no way of you really
knowing, unless you were searching out, that a variance was denied. It’s a completely
different venue, if you will.
MS. GERMAIN-I agree.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board? We’re awfully quiet.
MR. BRYANT-What is the dimension of the existing deck now? Is that 10 foot 5 or?
MS. GERMAIN-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re going to add another 10 feet onto that?
MS. GERMAIN-Yes. We’re hoping to. Five foot is really pretty narrow when you get little,
put chairs there and sit people in chairs. You’re sort of lining them up like ducks in a row.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re saying it’s only five feet, is what you’re saying?
MS. GERMAIN-It’s five foot wide.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions? If there are no other questions, I’m going to open up
the public hearing for Area Variance No. 71-2005, and those wishing to be heard, please come
up to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and your place
of residence. Do we have any folks in the audience this evening who would like to speak
regarding Area Variance No. 71-2005?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised, so I will move on. I’ll ask, now, members of the Board
to offer their comments concerning Area Variance No. 71-2005, and again, I respectfully
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
remind the members about precedence mandating we concern ourselves with the evidence,
and not subjective preferences. So if I may start, please, with Mrs. Hunt.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got three letters to read.
MR. ABBATE-Excuse me, we do have correspondence. Would you be kind enough to read
them into the record, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“I have been apprised by my neighbors at 128 North Sunnyside of their
intent to enlarge the deck by building toward the lake. I have no objection to this, as they
have assured me that the project will be done tastefully. Thank you for your consideration.”
And that’s signed by the Goldsmith’s next door. “I have been apprised by my neighbors at
128 North Sunnyside of their intent to enlarge their deck by building toward the lake. I have
no objection to this, as they have assured me that the project will be done tastefully. Thank
you for your consideration.” And that’s signed by Karen Riccio at 126 North Sunnyside.
And the last one, “We are very supportive of this project. No objections whatsoever.” And
that’s signed by Larry and Joanne King at 112 Sunnyside North.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I do have a question.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, go ahead, Mr. Stone.
MR. STONE-Looking at the drawing, which I believe is what is requested, it says that the
edge of the deck is going to be 16 feet from the lake. Is that correct? Because that equates to
34 feet of relief. Susan, am I reading this correctly?
MR. BRYANT-He’s right. It says 16 foot, 2.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, he’s right.
MR. STONE-Yes, it says 16. I mean, I just want to be sure what we’re talking about.
MRS. BARDEN-I would ask the applicant where she came up with 22 feet.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m just looking at the drawing that was presented, and it says 16.2 feet
from the edge of the deck. Do you agree with that number?
MS. GERMAIN-This map was sent to us by Charles Mouzalas, the gentleman from whom we
purchased the property. I got in touch with him and asked him if he had a survey. He then
forwarded to us, and this is what I’ve submitted.
MR. STONE-But this is the new wood deck.
MR. URRICO-Is that your deck, or is that the one that Mouzalas’ built?
MS. GERMAIN-No, this was what Mouzalas had built, the one that was taken down.
MR. URRICO-So this was the offending deck.
MS. GERMAIN-Right.
MR. STONE-So you’re talking about something smaller, but you say larger.
MS. GERMAIN-Right. His was 440 square foot. We’re requesting a total of 390.
MR. STONE-390, and that would be pulled back from the lake a little bit?
MS. GERMAIN-Exactly.
MR. STONE-Okay. Then what you’ve presented is not the project that we’re really looking
at.
MS. GERMAIN-Right. I’m sorry, I should have mentioned that to you.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. BRYANT-Do you have a sketch of your deck?
MS. GERMAIN-Well, we have a little homemade deal here.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-And then you’re saying that the edge of this deck is 28, is 22 feet from the lake?
Is that correct?
MS. GERMAIN-No, I believe it’s further from the lake than that.
MR. STONE-Well, 22 and 28 is 50. At least the way I add and subtract.
MR. BRYANT-I’m not understanding this at all. What is this four foot five, or four to five
feet?
MS. BEATRICE-That’s the existing size now. It’s about five feet wide.
MR. BRYANT-So the dotted line is what you’re going to add on? What’s the size of the
dotted line.
MS. GERMAIN-This is not to scale. This is something that we put together. The solid line
we drew as the existing structure. What we’re proposing is the dotted line, and then we want
to discuss, we put in something as a compromise, if we needed to go there.
MS. BEATRICE-The total deck that we’re proposing is what we have now plus, it would
make 390 square feet.
MS. GERMAIN-We’re talking about adding a total of 175 square feet to bring it up to the
390.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. How far is it going to go from the house to the edge of the new deck?
What’s that dimension?
MS. GERMAIN-I believe it’s 22. Just give me a second.
MR. BRYANT-It can’t be 22 because at 20 feet this thing was 16 feet from the lake. So it
can’t be 22. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I have a problem ruling.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It was proposed to be 10 feet from the edge of the house to the front of
the deck.
MR. BRYANT-How do you know that when the applicant doesn’t know that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, that’s how it was on the plot that was presented to us.
MR. BRYANT-What plot?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right there.
MR. BRYANT-That plot is not the accurate, this the Mouzalas deck. This is not their deck.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I’m saying the one that they just handed to us.
MR. BRYANT-Where do you see any dimension? I don’t see any dimension.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Take 10 feet then, 10 feet is reasonable. They want to double what
they had.
MR. URRICO-Do you have any dimension on that deck?
MR. BRYANT-I can’t make a decision on something that I don’t know what it’s going to
look like.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MS. BEATRICE-We figured 390 square feet. So if it’s 24 feet going this way already, we’re
not changing that. So then it would just be 390 divided by 24 feet would be going that way.
MR. URRICO-Twenty-four feet’s the existing?
MS. BEATRICE-Going one way.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MS. GERMAIN-The width.
MR. URRICO-And then how do you know you’re adding up to 390 for the other one?
MS. GERMAIN-We’re asking to add the total of 175.
MR. STONE-So you’re going from 120, approximately?
MS. GERMAIN-We’re going from.
MR. STONE-Well, if you tell me the current deck is 24 by 5, that’s 120, and you want to go
to 390 which is 270 more.
MRS. BARDEN-Well, they have that little bit on the side, that 10 by 7, and that’s included
as well. So you’re right, it’s 24 by 5 in front.
MR. STONE-Right.
MRS. BARDEN-And then there’s that little bit on the side that’s 10 by 7. It’s considered
deck.
MR. STONE-You mean that little thing?
MS. GERMAIN-It’s an entrance to the house.
MR. URRICO-What we’re trying to figure out is actually how close to the lake you’re going
to be. That’s what we’re trying to determine.
MR. ABBATE-Well, why don’t I ask the question. How close to the lake will you be?
MS. GERMAIN-I don’t think we have that figure.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Ladies, this is what I would suggest, unless I have strong objections
from the members of the Board. I would suggest that perhaps you may want to consider
tabling this and perhaps get together with folks who have perhaps a little more expertise at
measurements and what have you and could present it to us without any kind of guesswork in
terms of how far is this and how far as that. I would suggest you consult, perhaps, with
individuals that have a little more expertise to you who may present to you specifics. So,
now, let’s go through the procedure here. So, you can ignore my recommendations and we
can go on and continue this thing, and I don’t have any problems with it, but if you request
to table your appeal until the next available date, I don’t have any problems with that, with
the stipulation that you will have more accurate supporting documentation to convince this
Board that one foot equals one foot, so to speak. May I suggest that perhaps you request this
Board to table your application until the next available date?
MS. GERMAIN-That sounds good, yes.
MR. ABBATE-So, for the record, you’re asking this Board to table your request for a period
of up to 30 days? Would that be okay with you? Or I can make it 60 days. It’s up to you.
MS. GERMAIN-Why don’t we take 60.
MR. ABBATE-You want 60? Okay. I can do that. Okay.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2005 CHRIS GERMAINE & DIANE
BEATRICE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis
Stone:
128 Lake Sunnyside North. Tabled for up to 60 days.
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. BRYANT-Before we vote on it, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to be a little bit more specific so
that the applicant understands. If we had a sketch with dimensions, something that shows
the shoreline and the various distances to the deck and so forth and so on, that would be
lovely. I mean, that is really what we’re looking for. So there’s no question in our mind this
is the dimension. You heard the previous deck applicant, and we went through the discussion
about the accuracy and the dimensions, and if you could give us something of that nature, I
think it would be a lot more helpful.
MS. GERMAIN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 71-2005 is seven in favor, zero against,
and he motion is carried, if there is no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 71-2005
is tabled for a period of up to 60 days. Thank you, ladies.
MS. GERMAIN-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2005 SEQRA TYPE II CASE PRIME AGENT(S): CHAZEN
COMPANIES OWNER(S): CASE PRIME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION ROCKWELL RD. &
HILAND DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSEA 4-LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO OF THE LOTS. CROSS
REF. SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 16.43 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-5 SECTION 179-4-090
STUART MESINGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CASE PRIME,
PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-2005, Case Prime, Meeting Date: October 26, 2005
“Project Location: Rockwell Rd. & Hiland Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to subdivide a 16.4-acre parcel into four lots. The parcel is zoned SR-1A. The
subdivision would result in lots sized; 5.4-acres (lot 1), 5.2-acres (lot 2), 2.7-acres (lot 3), and
2.5-acres (lot 4).
Relief Required:
Lots 2, 3 and 4 are proposed to share a common driveway. Lot 2 is developed, lots 3 and 4
require relief from the required 40-feet of road frontage upon a public street, per § 179-4-090.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SB 16-2005: Sketch plan review, 8/16/05, for a 5-lot subdivision.
Staff comments:
This project was originally proposed to the Planning Board at sketch as a 5-lot subdivision
(see staff notes and PB minutes, 8/16/05).
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
This proposal is for a 4-lot subdivision; one residence is currently on the project site, resulting
in 3 new house sites. As proposed, lot 1 will have direct access off of Rockwell Drive, and lots
2, 3, and 4 will share one common driveway off of Hiland Drive.
It appears that because of topographic restraints of the site, a stream and wetland areas on
lots 1, 2, and 3, the layout of the subdivision seems reasonable.
The Town Fire Marshal should provide his opinion on whether lot 3 should incorporate a cul-
de-sac or hammerhead turn for emergency vehicle access.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know if you want me to read in the letter that was sent as a
memorandum to the Planning Board?
MR. ABBATE-Please
MR. UNDERWOOD-This was from Susan Barden, Land Use Planner, and this was sent on
August 16, regarding the Sketch Plan for the Prime Subdivision. “The zoning designation
th
for this 16.4-acre parcel is SR-1A, Suburban Residential-1-Acre.
This is a proposal for a 5-lot subdivision, resulting in lots ranging from 1.4-acres to 5.4-acres.
One residence is currently on the project site (lot 2), the plan would result in 4 new house
sites. Four of the lots will have access from Hiland Drive, and one lot will have direct access
from Rockwell Road.
Within the submission, either as part of the application or on the site plan, the applicant
should show a density calculation. This figure would be the result of subtracting the wetland
area, stream, and road ROW from the total acreage, divided by the minimum lot size of SR-
1A, per §183-22.
The applicant’s existing driveway is 1,275 feet in length, this is the distance from the
intersection of Rockwell Road to the end of the turnaround area. The actual length of the
dead end road would be approximately 1,475 feet in length, from the intersection of Rockwell
Road to the end of the road at lot 3. In §183-23 it reads, “Dead-end streets shall not be longer
than 1,000 feet and shall be provided with a turnaround at the closed end.” An alternative
may be to have a shared driveway to lots 4 and 5, coming off the East side of the turnaround
(along the two property lines), and eliminating lot 3.
In the application cover letter it is indicated that all development is proposed to be located at
least 100-feet from the wetland area. It does not appear that the proposed house site on lot 3
is 100-feet from the wetlands.”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 73-
2005 please come to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the identify yourself and
place of residence.
MR. MESINGER-Thanks. Members of the Zoning Board, my name is Stuart Mesinger. I’m
a Planner with the Chazen Companies. This is Case Prime, the applicant. Can I give you an
overview? Would that be helpful?
MR. ABBATE-You may present whatever you feel is appropriate.
MR. MESINGER-Okay. Mr. Prime owns a little over 16 acres with frontage on Rockwell
Road, and 50 feet of frontage on Hiland Drive. His existing residence is accessed by a
driveway along the edge of Hiland Drive. What Mr. Prime would like to do is to subdivide
the property to create a couple of additional lots. We went to the Planning Board, at the end
of the summer, with a five lot subdivision proposal. One lot on Rockwell, a 5.4 acre lot, and
then three lots on the eastern side of the property, and as you just heard from the Staff notes,
Staff suggested to us that we lose a lot here and access these two lots by a common driveway,
and so that’s what we’ve done. The relief that we need is this part of the property has 50 feet
of frontage on Hiland Drive. There’s no other frontage for the property. So there’s no
practical way of doing any kind of subdivision of this property, other than the Rockwell Road
frontage, without a variance of some sort, or of this sort. Now, we could, I think, probably
split Rockwell Road, if we wanted to. We would rather not. If you know this piece of
property, it’s a really pretty meadow there, and it’s a nice spot, and it probably is best
conducive to a single house. There are also wetlands on this property, and we’ve colored them
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
in here, and there’s some wetlands down here as well, and so we’re trying to be respectful of
that. The net result of this proposal would be to take a 16 acre parcel of property that
currently has one residence on it, and is zoned one acre, so theoretically it could support 16
units, and I’m well aware that the natural resources of this property wouldn’t take 16 lots,
but it would certainly take more than four, if I didn’t have to worry about driveway issues,
and come up with three additional lots, for a total of four lots, and Mr. Prime has indicated
that that’s all he wants to do, and if that becomes a condition of an approval somewhere
along the line, he’s fine with that. So we’d have an additional lot of 5.4 acres on Rockwell.
He’d like to keep five acres for his existing home site, 5.2 acres and then he would have here
two lots, one of 2.7 acres and one of 2 and a half acres, and if you look at the size of the
parcels adjoining to the rear, and I’m sure some neighbors are here with those parcels.
They’re of roughly the same size as those folks. These houses, as we’ve sited them, are
between 250 feet and 300 feet from the stream that runs in back of the property. So there’s
quite a bit of separation between the development that’s along Ridge Road and these
properties in the back. So that’s sort of the overview. To the test for the variance, it’s
obvious that it’s not a self-created problem. This is the layout of the lot that he has, and he
hasn’t done anything to make it this way. So it’s a matter of practical difficulty. There is a
practical problem, given the limitation on the lot size. We think it’s a minimal relief. The net
result of this is to allow two additional lots in a place that we could have quite a few
additional lots. So it’s not as though he’s asking for a whole lot, and we think it’s consistent
with the character of the neighborhood, which is generally developed with lots over an acre in
size. These two lots, the smallest lot that we’re looking at is two and a half acres, and a lot
that would support development that’s considerably removed from the nearest house. We’re
cognizant of Town Planning Staff’s comment with respect to whether the Highway
Department would prefer the turnaround for the driveway that we’ve shown here, or whether
they would prefer some sort of hammerhead. We expect to work that out with the Planning
Board in the site plan review stage. So that’s our introduction. Case, did I leave anything
out?
MR. PRIME-No. I would just say this. I’m Case Prime, the applicant, and I’ve lived there a
long time and I’ve seen this all develop around me and what I’m trying to do here is to
preserve the character of the area with these large lots and also to minimize the impact on the
lots with the private driveways. It really is the only way to access the other lots, and the
private driveway would have a covenant of mutual use and maintenance, and that way I feel
that we are protecting the character of the area, and that it’s consistent with everything else
that’s already built there. So I’m hopeful that’s the way this thing will progress.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, gentlemen. Do any members of the Board have any questions
concerning 73-2005?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I was just curious as to why, after holding it for this long, you’re
suddenly going to develop it?
MR. PRIME-Well, I’m not sure that I can live there forever. I’m reaching an age where
maintenance of the property is getting more burdensome. I really want to preserve the
character of it before I have to leave or we do leave. I don’t like the idea of one acre zoning.
That’s what the Zoning Board, what the Queensbury zoning is, is one acre. I’m trying to
avoid that. I think that there’s 16 acres there, and that if it got in the hands of a developer,
for example, we’ve been told that probably our house would come down, and that the
developer would start from scratch and re-develop it. That’s the kind of thing I want to
avoid, and I think what I’m doing here is not only preserving the character of the area, but I
think it is also beneficial to all my neighbors. There are quite a few neighbors here tonight,
and they all have something to say, probably, but I believe that what I’m proposing to do is
beneficial to the area and I wanted to have it done before we have to depart or have to
abandon the property, that kind of thing.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do members of the Board have any other questions concerning 73-
2005?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. One initial alternative might be to build a Town compliant road into
some of these lots, and avoid the frontage problem. Have you done any thinking about that,
cost wise, how many lots would have to be developed to support something like that?
MR. MESINGER-We did present that alternative to the Planning Board initially. The
problem that we run into is the Town’s 1200 foot cul de sac rule. So that road is not
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
compliant either. It doesn’t make sense to me to put a Town road in here and give the Town
the expense maintaining the road for essentially two lots worth of ratables. I think that this
is a better deal for the Town, and as Mr. Prime says, it’s not his desire to subdivide the
property at a higher density. I mean, he’s quite right. If Mr. Prime sold this land to a
developer, and the developer came in to me and said, what do I do with this, I would take this
piece of land here, this is driveway, and make a compliant cul de sac to here and then I’d start
radiating lots off of it. I could probably get six or eight lots pretty easily.
MR. STONE-The property to the immediate south, that’s obviously not owned by Mr. Prime.
MR. PRIME-You mean on the south side of Hiland?
MR. STONE-No, the north side.
MR. PRIME-No, there’s a lot there that I do not own. That’s right, along Hiland Drive.
MR. STONE-Obviously, therefore, you can’t use it to help you. I just want to be sure.
You’re talking, you’re looking to limit this 16 acre parcel to four lots, in perpetuity?
MR. PRIME-That’s it exactly. There would be covenants that restrict the further
subdivision of these lots.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-I just have a question for Staff. I notice there was a comment that the Town
Fire Marshal should provide his opinion on whether Lot Three should incorporate a cul de sac
or hammerhead turn for emergency vehicle access. Has the Town Fire Marshal provided such
an opinion?
MRS. BARDEN-He has not, but as the applicant’s agent stated, that that will be resolved
and fleshed out at the subdivision review by the Planning Board.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Staff.
MR. URRICO-What about Staff’s comment that the house on Lot Three doesn’t appear to be
100 feet from the wetlands?
MR. MESINGER-That was in the five lot version, just to point fingers. What we did is,
picture, if you will, a property line here and a property line here, and so this lot was closer to
the wetland, and we had not, at that time, surveyed the wetland. So it was an approximate
wetland. We can’t locate it closer than 100 feet because your Code doesn’t allow it, but by
losing that lot, the issue is no longer present.
MR. STONE-So you were going to have three north to south, east of Mr. Prime’s driveway at
the moment. Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions concerning 73-2005 from members of the ZBA? If there
are no other questions, then what I will do is open the public hearing, and would those
wishing to be heard, please come up to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the
record identify yourself and your place of residence, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
FRED UNKAUF
MR. UNKAUF-Fred Unkauf and Joan McGrath. We’re at 38 Hiland Drive. So we’re
immediately below this property to the right, and basically we’re against issuing this variance
for a number of reasons, and what I’ve done is basically we’d like to go down your five issues
or questions. First of all, in terms of how the applicant gains from this variance. Basically,
when we moved here five years ago, the first lecture I got was from the Primes on how we
should never be able to, would not be allowed to subdivide our property under any means,
and we’re sort of taken aback by this sudden change. We only were aware as of last week of
the fact that they want to subdivide, but there’s an alternative way to gain. The fact that all
of a sudden there’s an issue with subdivision means that, to me anyway, that Mr. Prime is
looking for financial gain from this property, and we can certainly all use more money, but
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
there’s another way to solve this problem. I’m willing to buy the two parcels of land at
market price, or whatever land is above my land, and the other abutters are willing to buy
the other piece of land that abuts Rockwell. In that case, no variance is needed because we
have no intent of subdividing and developing. I can incorporate that land into my deed, my
ten acres and make it fifteen. So that’s one alternative. What effect would this variance have
on the character of the neighborhood and health safety and welfare. We believe it has a
negative effect on all of those. In terms of the character of the neighborhood, having several
houses access one driveway starts to look more like the cottage community along the lakeside,
most of which were built before there were any zoning regulations, but it’s inconsistent with
the look and feel of the neighborhood that we have. We have a number of upscale houses.
Nothing’s been done on the cheap in this neighborhood yet, and we don’t agree with starting
to do this sort of cheap approach of having several houses on a driveway. There are feasible
alternatives to this variance certainly. Putting in a public accessway with a cul de sac, I
think, is the right solution, if in fact, this subdivision goes ahead. Right now, we have a great
deal of difficulty with vehicles turning around on this road. I lost my mailbox this year with
the snow plow. The snow plow has no place to turn around, because the existing turnaround
is marked a Private Road, and vehicles that come down this road looking for a short cut to
Ridge basically can’t go down the Private Road, so they have to turn around in one of our
driveways, and our driveways, at least mine, is angled completely north. Mine is the first
driveway you’d want to turn around in. It makes it very difficult for people. Is this amount
of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Certainly. There’s only 50 foot of frontage
right now on Hiland, as opposed to the four pieces of 40 foot frontage that are needed, and we
believe that that’s a significant issue, and will this variance have an adverse impact on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. We believe there are a number of
substantial environmental impacts that have to be looked at. For one, my well is showing
signs of running dry. It’s (lost words) and so is my next door neighbor’s at 21 Hiland Drive.
It’s not clear why this is happening, but there’s been a lot of development already in this area
over on Ridge Road, and before we put in three additional wells, in close proximity to ours,
we’d like to understand what impact all of these wells are having on the groundwater because
this looks like it’s a serious problem. Another issue that we have basically is the wetness of
the land all around us. The land on the side of my property, which abuts Mr. Prime’s
property, and the land on the side of my property which abuts the (lost word) Ridge Road
area, is soggy all year long. I’ve been losing a number of trees every year since I’ve been
there, and these are not old trees. These are trees that are five to twenty and thirty years old
that are rotting at the roots. You can, in many cases, just go over and push them down. So
this land is not drying out. Having three or so additional leaching beds in this area I don’t
think is going to be anything useful or good to this environment, and before we allow an
additional subdivision, I think there needs to be a serious environmental impact study on the
drainage of these various properties. All of these septic systems would be located relatively
close to either a wetland area or a stream, and I noticed in the minutes, in the August meeting
that was held, the August 16 review, there was an issue of whether or not the septic pits
th
could be evaluated this November as opposed to in the Spring. Given the proximity to the
wetland and given the sogginess of that soil, I think you absolutely should not allow anyone
to evaluate the system except in the Spring, and the fact that Chazen personnel were offered
to evaluate this seems to me is a conflict of interest. You should have an independent
evaluator look at these septic systems before you grant approval for them. That’s all I had.
Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other comments from the public
concerning 73-2005?
MARY JANE SOTANSKI
MRS. SOTANSKI-I’m Mary Jane Sotanski, and this is my husband Thomas Sotanski. We
live at 21 Hiland Drive, and this is our property right here. We have several concerns about
the way this whole process has started and what has happened and transpired during the
course of August until this point in time. There was, according to the notes, there was
supposed to be a sign posted that there was a proposal going forward for a proposed
subdivision site, and I believe that Mr. Metivier specifically asked Mr. Prime if that sign was
posted, and he replied that it was up, and then there was a discussion about a larger sign that
was supposed to be up. Well, as of August 16, and as of this date now, there are no proposed
th
signs for subdivision up, all right. This gives us a very period of time of five days to prepare
for this type of hearing, and I really, I’m very disappointed in Mr. Prime for allowing that to
happen to us, that we are his neighbors. I also have a concern with the Chazen Companies
doing the pit test and the septic test. I believe Mr. Chazen’s company does a lot of work for
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
the Town of Queensbury, and I believe that this is a conflict of interest. I think I would fully
support an independent concern coming in and taking care, giving some more accurate and
less biased opinion of the testing and what the results of that testing are. I also agree with
what the gentleman said, that this testing needs to be done in the Spring. At this point in
time, you really are not going to have an accurate appraisal of the effects of the Spring rains,
the snow melt, or any local flood patterns in this area. This area of our property, there is a
stream that comes through this area that goes under Rockwell Road. This whole area that is
designated in here, and even further up into this area here, is all extremely wet, extremely
wet. That area is all extremely wet. We have a lot of very nice wildlife that we have
encouraged to come into that area. We have a Pilated Woodpecker, which just came off the
endangered species list. We have a Great Horned Owl. We have the Snowy Owl that comes
down every once in a while from Canada. We see it maybe every three to five years, and the
impact of removing these wetlands or altering this property would have a significant
environmental effect on the habitats for those animals. We also have a Wakefield Robin, a
Trillium, which is a Red Trillium, and a (lost word) Marigold that grow specifically in this
stream bed area, and I’m certainly concerned about how the leaching and the well water and
septic systems are all going to have an effect on that stream. Mr. Prime really made it very
clear to us a couple of years ago, as he did with this gentleman, Fred, that we were putting an
addition on our house and he came, he insisted that we were going to subdivide our property,
and he did become a little bit rude, and he did let us know that if we had any intentions of
subdividing our property at any point in time, that he was going to make sure that it was
stopped. We had a hard time convincing him that we have no intentions of ever subdividing.
We want to maintain our property the way it is now, and just keep it going as a wildlife
habitat, and as natural, nice an environment as we could possibly have. As to the driveway,
we have a 50 foot right of way granted to us to use that 50 foot right of way entrance that he
has on this property, and I believe that Fred and Joan also have a right of way on their
property. So when you’re talking about the three lots having access to that turnaround and
that right of way, you’re actually talking about five, because Fred and Joan and Tom and I
also have right of ways to that property. As to that turnaround itself, and this is the most
important point, I think. When we moved here about 10 years ago, 12 years ago, Mr. Prime
decided that, for I don’t know what reason, all of a sudden he put up a Private Road sign.
From that point on, nobody has been allowed access to that turnaround, and I believe in the
Board minutes he said that people do have that right. We see from our front window,
because he doesn’t see it from his window, the kinds of things that go on, on that street. We
have an average of three to five cars a day that come up Hiland Drive trying to use that road
because it begins with an “H”, and it’s not Haviland, as a cut off to Ridge. In one of these
cars someone threw out a cigarette, according to the fire department, and they started a fire
in our front yard, in the woods in our front yard. The fire truck couldn’t even turn around.
They had to back down into Summit Lane and then turn around to access, to go out the right
way out of Hiland Drive. We’ve had tractor trailers inadvertently come up the road. The
snow plow hit the mailman, trying to get in and out of there. The snow plow does not go up
into that turnaround, and it hasn’t gone up into that turnaround for at least 10 years.
MR. BRYANT-Excuse me. Can I ask you a question? How big is your lot?
MRS. SOTANSKI-4.9 acres.
MR. BRYANT-And that’s that whole area underneath?
MRS. SOTANSKI-This whole area. This whole area. Our home is right here.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MRS. SOTANSKI-Our home is right here. This is the 50 foot right of way that we have, but
our home is right here, and it faces this road. It faces Joan and Fred’s and it faces Annette.
MR. STONE-You go on his, on the driveway to get to your house?
MRS. SOTANSKI-No. Our driveway, our original driveway was here, and now it goes from
here around in front of the house and back down into here.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. SOTANSKI-We do not use that 50 foot right of way, but we do have access.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. STONE-I didn’t think there was anything in that piece when I drove in the rain
yesterday.
MR. ABBATE-Your time is up. Thank you very much, folks.
MRS. SOTANSKI-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Yes? We have additional comments.
MARCY BALLARD
MRS. BALLARD-Scott and Marcy Ballard.
SCOTT BALLARD
MR. BALLARD-Scott and Marcy Ballard, at 20 Howe Drive. We bought the property to the
north.
MRS. BALLARD-I just wanted to say this originally was property that my parents had
owned, and we were neighbors of the Primes for 40 years, and, I don’t know, I’m very
disturbed at the fact that within the last four years, I have asked Mr. and Mrs. Prime, you
know, if they’re ever going to subdivide this property, please let us know because we are very
interested in buying that lot that’s right on Rockwell Road, and every time I see something
happen out there, I always call them and they know, they know I’ve talked to all their kids.
So they know that we’re very interested in that property because we don’t want to see
anything developed down there. We just want it to leave it as it is and not develop it in any
way. So to hear him, you know, go ahead and make this subdivision and then one of the
things that the Secretary read about the topographic restraints of this site, as stated, he could
not put in 16 lots on this property. So to make him look like he’s the good guy in only doing,
breaking it up into the four lots, I think he’s got something to think about on there, because
of all the wetlands that you actually have there, and I just have a concern with sharing a
private road. As Mr. Prime stated, he’s not going to be living there forever, and that private
road has to be attached to one of those three lots up there, his lot or the two that he proposes,
and that could lead to future problems, regardless of the language that is put into the deed
that is there, you know, of maintenance, you know, snow plowing and so on on that road, and
I just don’t think that the neighbors here really want to have to deal with any kind of
disturbances or anything like that going on up in there in that area.
MR. BALLARD-The only thing I would add, as some of the other speakers have mentioned,
too, that there was no notice of the subdivision. Apparently, I spoke with Craig Brown, there
was not required to be for the sketch plan review at the Planning Board meeting, but we have
not seen anything further, and I was fortunate to come across this through the Town minutes
and the agenda that’s posted on line, but I also address concerns that we have made offers
and we have never named a price but asked for a fair market price to purchase the one parcel
abutting Rockwell Road, as a maintenance or preservation to create more of a buffer from
that main road to our property. We also expressed concerns, too, there are some gray shaded
areas marked Army Corps wetlands areas, and I don’t know as though they actually cover all
the area that’s wet, so I’m not sure if that’s an old map or an old delineation or something on
there. So I know there’s a lot more wetland to be concerned with. The last thing I would
add, too, is I have some of the other concerns as wells. Everybody is on Town well. There is a
hydrant that’s down on the corner of Hiland and Rockwell now, but there’s been no
indication that Town water would become available. If everybody’s well failed, we do not
know what three more additional wells will take us over the threshold which would cause
failure for many people, perhaps it would, perhaps it would not, but if there’s anything that
can mitigate that, if that is deemed to be a problem in the future.
MR. URRICO-Where is your lot on that?
MR. BALLARD-Across this stream, this funny shaped thing here.
MR. STONE-You come in from the road north?
MR. BALLARD-We enter on.
MRS. BALLARD-From Rockwell Road.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. BALLARD-Yes, onto Howe Drive, which is a dead end street that was originally owned
by my wife’s father, and he deeded it to the Town, so they would have access to the Town
cemetery that’s there.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other questions of the Board? Do you have any other
comments?
MR. BALLARD-That’s all that I had.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other folks in the public this evening
who would like to address Area Variance 73-2005?
ANNETTE DELAHOYD
MRS. DELAHOYD-My name’s Annette Delahoyd, and my residence is 30 Hiland Drive, and
it’s this piece right here. My driveway is not here. My driveway is here, and it’s a hill. So I
have a very, very, very wide entrance. It’s kind of like a blind drive going up to my drive. I
have snow plow issues and vehicle issues. So when we talk about how this is going to benefit
somebody, I just have to look at myself and say it’s not going to benefit me in the least,
because what I’m looking for is an authentic turnaround, and I see this as an opportunity to
have one. Yes, somebody’s going to have to give up something, but I’ve had snow plows up
my driveway, down my driveway. I’ve seen them stuck, they’re stuck, a huge snow plow, in
a snow storm. It’s just stuck and they have to call for a tow. It’s very disconcerting. Now,
what effect would this variance have on the character of the neighborhood. Well, maybe not.
I mean, I really appreciate Case’s thoughtfulness in saying he wants to keep these lots big and
he’s lived there for a long time, and he doesn’t want to see it change, I’m sure, but I think
we’ve already heard two possible alternatives. There are people here willing to spend their
money and buy it, buy these lots. Is that going to preserve it forever? Well, it’s going to
preserve it for a lot longer, and as I’ve seen in this Town, things change constantly. You have
something written and then someone applies for a variance. It happens all the time. So
nothing, absolutely nothing that people do, is permanent here. So, I’m just concerned about
myself, and I live there by myself, as a matter of fact, so I’m just even that much more
concerned. Are there feasible alternatives? Yes, I think we’ve heard that, and is the amount
of relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I think the relief is large, because, again, I’m
discounting the talk about the 16 residential lots. Maybe there can be more than what
they’re proposing, if someone came in and played around with that turnaround, but at least
there’d be a road there. I think it is substantial, and from my point of view, two additional
houses is going to increase my daily traffic by 100% or more depending on how many cars are
in that family. Now that may not sound like a lot to people who live in a big development,
but 100% is a lot, and will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood and district. Well, I can’t speak to the
environmental. I’m not an environmental scientist. It seems there are more wetlands that
appear on this map, but, again, I don’t know what the definition of a wetland is, so I can’t
comment on that, but it would change the character of the neighborhood with additional
traffic, and again, no relief from this congestion that we have at the end of the street as other
people have talked about, and it really is nasty. It’s nasty to see the snow plow backing up,
because the street curves, and if you’re driving into the street, and the truck is backing up,
and you can’t hear the beep, beep, beep, it’s winter, the windows are up, you could, you
know, have a bad accident. It’s happened. I guess one of the mailmen did get smooshed. So,
basically that’s it. I mean, I feel very badly that we found out on Wednesday. I would have
a better understanding of Mr. Prime’s intent and he’s not obligated, of course, to discuss any
of this with us, but this idea of being a good neighbor, I guess we’re all just a little bit taken
aback by it, and I guess you’re hearing that emotion here tonight. So I trust that you will
deliberate in the best interest of the community at large. Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question for you, ma’am. How large is your lot?
MRS. DELAHOYD-Yes. 2.16 acres.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other comments from the public? If so, please raise your
hand and be recognized. Yes, sir. Would you mind coming to the table, please, speak into the
microphone and for the record identify yourself and your place of residence.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
JERRY BECKWITH
MR. BECKWITH-My name is Jerry Beckwith. I live at 1023 Ridge Road. In the back yard,
let me show you. Back here. I’ve grown up in that neighborhood all my life. So I went to the
City a short time and I came back out to Ridge Road. I knew that Case owned that property
up there and stuff and it was a considerable piece of property, and the back of my yard is
large and it goes down towards the brook and then there’s all hardwoods up there, on that
whole hill, and it’s one of the reasons I bought the property and stuff, because I’m kind of a
country boy and I wanted the big hill behind me and stuff where nobody could be around me,
and I knew he owned a big piece of property and stuff, so it was unlikely to happen. I just got
back from vacation, and got the notice about this variance and stuff. So I really didn’t have
much time to talk or look about it, but my concern was that those two homes, I’m going to
see them from my back yard now and stuff, because there’s all hardwoods up there and stuff.
So there’s going to be quite a bit of clearing out. So I’m going to have two homes right there
to look at, and the other concern was the sewage, of course, the drainage, because the brook’s
back there. It’s a clean brook and stuff, and that was one of my big concerns, but most
importantly is just my privacy and changing the character of the neighborhood that I’ve
been used to for 27 some years or so. That’s really it.
MR. BRYANT-Can you tell me how large your lot is, please?
MR. BECKWITH-Almost two acres. I think it’s 1.5, 1.65. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Any other comments from the public, please, concerning Area Variance No.
73-2005?
JOAN MC GRATH
MS. MC GRATH-Joan McGrath at 38 Hiland Drive. I went out and my concern is that, from
the minutes, from August 15, there was a question of the, it was unclear, at least to me,
th
when I read the notes, about the applicant’s driveway and what Hiland Drive is versus his.
So I went out there today to measure it, because I was confused, and if I may show you on
the map, or I can show you here, I measured from Rockwell to this line here, and I got
approximately 950 feet, and I measured the road, which is approximately 20 feet wide.
However, when you get up here, probably just at the junction here of our driveway, it is 20
feet, but 17 feet from our mailbox it indents and the driveway there or the road there is
actually only 12.6 feet. That’s just a clarification from the notes from the August 16,
th
because I was unclear as to what was his driveway. At first it was said that this was his
driveway, the whole thing. So I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Any other public comments?
MRS. SOTANSKI-I just want to make this one comment. A few years ago, Tom and I
contacted the Town Supervisor and we attempted to have the turnaround put in at the end of
our driveway. We allowed the Town to come in, cut down trees, and prepare for the
turnaround, and Mr. Prime had stopped that process, so that we weren’t allowed to finish
that legal turnaround that would have helped the Town, would have helped Joan and Fred,
and would have helped Annette as well as ourselves to have a legal access right of way or
turnaround so that the snow plows, the fire trucks and everyone would have a safe way to get
in and out of that area of Hiland Drive. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Apparently, I don’t see any other public comments
for Area Variance No. 73-2005. It not, then I’m going to ask the members of the ZBA to offer
their comments.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We have one letter.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, we have correspondence, please, Mr. Secretary.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This letter is from October 24, 2005, addressed to the Queensbury
Planning Board. “Dear Mr. Hunsinger and Board Members: We are Arlen and Robin
Vernava, of 18 Hiland Drive, on the corner of Summit Lane, the first property on the right
within the subdivision. Thank you for receiving this letter as our comments for the record.
In your meeting of August 16, 2005 with Mr. Prime and his agent, you dealt with complex
and technical issues concerning wet lands, waste disposal and well water, private versus
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
public roadways, and frontage distances. I am an American Baptist clergyman and my wife
is a Clinic Psychotherapist and college academic. We appreciate these issues, though they fall
outside of our training and education. We expect that you will discern wisely in this to insure
that the planning for the subdivision meets all of the controlling Town of Queensbury codes
before granting any approvals. Mrs. Steffan offered Mr. Prime “just some advice” toward the
conclusion of your August meeting. She suggested that crafting language spelling out the
shared roadway use for the properties entering and exiting Hiland Drive might include
“…..language about ATV’s and power scooters….because….you have a quality of life…..” It
is this issue, a quality of life in the Hiland Drive neighborhood, that concerns us. We value
and esteem our neighborhood for its large wooded lots, uniquely designed homes,
unpretentiousness, safety, and intimate nature. We chose this subdivision because it does not
feel or look like a busy suburban neighborhood. We are here precisely for a sense of
sanctuary, for country living in the midst of suburban development. We believe there
remains high value in protecting the rather unique nature of our neighborhood. Will two or
three more families change us from a unique to a mundane place to live? Will your “yes” to
subdivisions set a precedent for future subdivisions by other with larger than minimum size
parcels? Quality of life matters to us, and its measure does not easily show up on a Sketch
Plan . Friends, we urge you to counsel wisely. Case and Peggy, should your meet with
approval, we entreat you to guarantee, as you are able, our unique and goodly neighborhood
sanctuary for relative new-comers like ourselves, and for those who will someday follow.
Sincerely your, Arlen and Robin Vernava”
MR. ABBATE-Any other correspondence?
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Would you care to comment on the public comments?
MR. MESINGER-Yes. Thanks. I kept notes. So I’ll simply follow them. With respect to
comments regarding the purchase or subdivision of the parcel on Rockwell Road, that’s not
really in front of you because we don’t need a variance for it. That’s just simple subdivision,
and I’m not sure that it’s germane, other than to point out that the overall development of
the property, as it’s proposed, is, and the gentleman’s questions were, I thought, on point, is
consistent with the character of the neighborhood in terms of lot sizes. So I wanted to make
that point. With respect to the alternative of a public road, we addressed that in our initial
comments. You could build one there. I’m not sure that the Town particularly wants or
needs the infrastructure for a couple of additional lots. We don’t think that putting a couple
of additional cars off Mr. Prime’s driveway into other lots is a cheesy thing to do. It’s a very
nice neighborhood, thanks to all the neighbors who live there, and we’re sure that’s what will
happen in the future. While, two neighbors may have some right to that right of way, they’re
not using it as their driveway. So the driveway is a three lot driveway. We don’t think the
relief is substantial. The relief is essential if the property is to be developed. You only have
50 feet there. There’s not another way to skin this cat. With respect to the environmental
questions, those are all reasonable questions. They’re not really before this Board right now.
They’re Planning Board questions. There are certainly wetlands on the property. You see
them here. These wetlands were delineated by Mr. Case. We have done our own delineation.
We’ll be presenting that to the Planning Board with a subdivision application, should you
allow the variance to go forward, and as you all know there’s a set of rules that we have to
follow with respect to separation from wetlands.
MR. URRICO-Is there a reason why we can’t see them now?
MR. MESINGER-Yes. I haven’t surveyed them.
MR. URRICO-Because, I mean, that’s the question before us, as far as its impact on the
environment. You’re telling us that you have that but you’re not showing it to us.
MR. MESINGER-I have flagged them in the field. I haven’t picked up the flags, pending the
results of this meeting, I can tell you that our flags are nearly identical to Mr. Case’s, not
Roger Case, Charlie Maine, excuse me, Charlie Maine’s findings. So I will represent to you,
and I don’t have any problems saying to you that the wetlands that you, basically the
wetlands follow the stream corridors, and so what you’re seeing there are stream corridor
wetlands.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. ABBATE-What are you suggesting, that you have this information but it’s not prepared
to be presented to us this evening? Is that what you’re saying?
MR. MESINGER-I don’t think it’s germane to your deliberations on the road frontage issue.
I’m saying to you that the wetlands boundaries are essentially identical to the boundaries you
see in front of you. If you want me to bring a map, which I can do, that will show you the
same information with some jigs and jogs, it’s not going to affect my conclusions.
MR. ABBATE-Well, let’s go back to what’s germane here. You made a statement that a
couple of the comments from the public were not germane. Let me make it quite clear to you
what is germane. We have a procedure here, and the most important part of our procedure is
the public hearing, and any individual who has an interest in any project that comes before us
has an absolute right to present their concerns to this Board, and in particular, let’s not forget
that property owners other than Mr. Case have rights, too.
MR. MESINGER-I totally agree with you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. MESINGER-And please don’t misunderstand me. It’s simply that, the issue is whether
the property on Rockwell Road should be subdivided or not. We’re not asking for a variance
to do that, and so with great respect to the neighbor who’s interested in purchasing it, when
the property is subdivided, they’re free to purchase it from Mr. Prime. It’s not, we don’t have
a variance in front of you for that. Simple enough.
MR. ABBATE-I want to go back to what Mr. Urrico indicated earlier about these flags.
When do you think you might have them prepared to present to the Board? Because to me
that’s an integral part, or plays an important role, perhaps, in our decision making process.
MR. MESINGER-And because you’re worried that the results might be somehow different
from what you’re seeing up here?
MR. ABBATE-Worried? I want facts.
MR. MESINGER-Fair enough. We can have them to you for your next meeting.
MR. ABBATE-Well, then, you know what I propose, then, we’re going to table this.
MR. MESINGER-I’m guessing you are. Do you want us to go through the rest of the
responses to the public.
MR. ABBATE-If you wish.
MR. MESINGER-I would like to, yes. There were a couple of comments with respect to
Chazen having some sort of conflict or issue with respect to performing test pits. I don’t think
I have to say too much to that, other than, you know, we’re licensed engineers. This is what
we do for a living. We have to abide by our license, and I don’t really think I have to say
anything more about that. There were a couple of comments with respect, I think the issue, I
mean, I appreciate your interest in the issue of the wetlands because you’re interested in
seeing whether there are possibly house sites in areas that aren’t wet. I will represent to you
tonight that it is, and I’ll show it to you at the next meeting. The area where the two houses
are proposed, to the east of Mr. Prime’s house, are on top of the hill, and as the neighbor from
Ridge Road said to you, he looks up on those hills and the hardwoods, and that’s where those
houses are going to go, and I think that’s all I had.
MR. PRIME-If I may, on the signs. There was some comment that there weren’t any signs
up there. There were signs. Both for the sketch plan review before the Planning Board and
the sign for this hearing is up there now, right next to the mailbox. So we’ve complied with
all of those directions as far as signs go, and I think that they’re, I don’t know whether they
saw them or not, but they’re there. There was one other thing. I think most of these issues
really belong before the Planning Board, in terms of environmental impact and septic testing
and that sort of thing. I really can’t believe that that really is within the jurisdiction of this
body, and I would think that, if it does get to the Planning Board, that that is where these
issues will be reviewed.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. ABBATE-We’re concerned with the health, safety and welfare of the entire community.
That falls well within the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question regarding feasible alternatives. At least two of your
neighbors made an offer to purchase the property outright, and have you been approached
about that? Have you considered that? Because you seem to come across as being very
concerned about preserving this area as you have for quite some number of years, and I just
wonder, as a feasible alternative, that’s something we need to consider also.
MR. PRIME-That surfaced tonight, just before the hearing. I was not aware that the
neighbors were that concerned or that there was that proposal, and my response to them was,
that really was not within my thinking at the moment. I think we’ve got to go through a
different process before approaching that, and so that, I think that’s the way I would leave it.
I think we have to go through this procedure first.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me go through the procedure and ask the members of the Board
if they’d like to offer any comments concerning 73-2005. Mr. Bryant, I believe, has a
comment.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. Mr. Chairman, it’s very rare that I disagree with you, but I’m going to
have to take umbrage at this point. You make the, yes, we are interested in the health and
welfare of the community. However, in this particular case, we have to review the request
and the facts before us, and the request for the variance has nothing to do with the wetlands.
It’s just a question of road frontage, and regardless of where the wetlands are, unless they
encroach on the existing driveway at this point, it’s really of no consequence, and I think it’s
something we can hear tonight. The other thing that I wanted to point out was relative to,
and I did this with all of the public that came to the microphone, and we do take public
comments seriously. However, I did ask all of the individuals who came forward the sizes of
their lots, and the purpose of that was to determine whether Mr. Prime was trying to
subdivide his property into lots that weren’t characteristically the same size as the
surrounding lots, and in reality, his lots are about the same size, or actually larger than the
majority of lots that surround them.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Excuse me, we have 10 acres.
MR. BRYANT-You were the only exception. Everybody else was 4.9, 2.1, 1.5.
AUDIENCE MEMBER 2-We have more.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s fine. So that’s two out of five, and so my point is, and that was
my point in asking that question. So if the discussion now is whether or not we should
continue, whether we should wait for the wetlands thing, I really agree with the applicant,
that the wetlands at this point are not germane to the question, and we should hear it.
MR. ABBATE-All right, Mr. Bryant. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I think I basically agree with Mr. Bryant. Certainly wetlands are
important, and at some stage if this thing were to proceed that’s something that needs some
very close attention. I’d love to be involved in that whole process, but it really belongs to the
Planning Board and to the environmental authorities, and I think we’ve got to trust them to
make sure that whatever’s proposed meets the proper restrictions there, and really what is
before us tonight is the question of whether or not to allow a variance to allow two lots that
don’t have the required frontage on a public road to be considered buildable lots, and I think,
if anything, the balancing test, I think a couple of things. One is the one that Mr. Bryant
already has kind of addressed is, is what’s proposed characteristic of the neighborhood, and on
average, it strikes me that it is. I think another consideration, as far as changing the
character of the neighborhood, are the alternatives, and one alternative, as has been
mentioned tonight, is to make that proposed common driveway sufficiently built that it can
be a dedicated Town road and turn the road over to the Town. Should that happen, whoever
develops it is going to have to recover a lot more money out of that property than Mr. Prime
(lost word) selling off two or three lots, because building a road to Town specs is far more
expensive than putting a driveway in. So that would say that somebody doing that is going
to build a lot more lots on that piece of property than what’s being proposed tonight, and I
think that maybe is, at least, a side consideration for us in making this kind of a decision, but
I have to agree with Mr. Bryant and the applicant, that there’s a lot of issues that were raised
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
tonight, the wetlands being one, that while they’re germane to overall consideration of this
proposal, they’re not germane to the decision that we’re charged with making tonight. I
think we could move forward and make a choice tonight.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I certainly agree with Mr. McNulty and Mr. Bryant. However, I recognize that
this is an emotional issue, and the neighbors do have some concerns. In a pure world, yes, our
decision is a very narrow one, and I’ve said that many times when I Chaired this Board that
all of this information is valuable, but it is Planning Board information. However, I would
like to see, even though it’s a very narrow issue, I would like to see this map before me made
so that I can better understand where the neighbor’s houses are, where the property lines,
where the stream is. Obviously the stream, by definition, is a wetland, and I see it, but when
you mix it up with contour lines, I get a little bit confused. Somehow I would like to peel off
a layer or something on this thing, so that I can certainly see, as the neighbors are talking
about where their house is, where their access point is, and it would help me. Having said
that, I certainly could vote on it tonight, but I would prefer not to.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think, in the normal sense, if someone were proposing this, we
certainly have had, dealt with other issues that were very similar to this. I think the most
recent one was up in Twicwood, where we did allow something very similar to this to be
proposed, but in this instance here, I think that there were some obvious concerns on the part
of Staff about the length of the road and how far back in you were going here over the
prescribed numbers, and I believe that number is about 1,000, and you’re talking about 1400,
plus going back in to get into Lot Number Three, where the turnaround is proposed to be
made. At the same time, we have not heard from the Town Fire Marshal. I know that these
things usually are dealt with, that the roads can be built accordingly so that they do meet the
width requirements at the same time. So, at this time, I think, too, that, you know, we’re
talking about topographic restraints. I would like to see some better details on this map here.
I know it’s been intimated that you could put 16 houses in here, but I find that a big stretch
of the imagination, given the wetlands and the streams, and knowing what that is like back
there. So I’m not prepared to vote on it this evening.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I have concerns. I have concerns that we don’t have enough information
to make this decision tonight. If I were to vote on this tonight, I would be against it, and I
would be against it because I’m not sure there aren’t alternative means. When asked about
alternative means, Mr. Mesinger said that he doesn’t think the Town would like the
alternative, and I would like to know what that alternative is. I think we have, you know,
it’s a legitimate question, what the Town road might be like, what it would encompass, what
the factors might be, if that’s an alternative. Maybe there are other alternatives. I don’t
know, but this strikes me as being similar to a case that we heard recently involving property
straddling Queensbury and Luzerne, and I had the same concerns there. I’d like to see the
alternative. I think there are, and some have been raised. Some of them may be legitimate,
some of them may not be legitimate, but I’d like to know what they are, and I’m not sure
that, what the changes in the neighborhood may encompass. I think it’s a substantial
change. Forty feet without a public access is a lot. It’s 100%, and as far as the
environmental effects, I think that’s where the wetlands comes in. I don’t know if it has any
environmental effects. I’d like to be sure before I make a decision on that, and as far as I can
see, this is self-created. So I need to find out more information.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have a lot of concern with the lack of 40 foot road frontage on
this, the length of the driveway to access these two lots, and if I had to vote tonight, I would
vote against it, but I would like more information.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. I agree, completely, with what Mr. Urrico said
and what Mrs. Hunt said, and Mr. Stone. I had the same concerns. I’m concerned with the
fact that we don’t have a Fire Marshal statement. I’m concerned with the fact that, with this
cul de sac. I’m concerned with the fact that we talk about a driveway in excess of 1,000 feet.
I’m concerned, quite frankly, also, with the concerns of the neighbors. While it may be true
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
that environmental impacts falls under the purview of the Planning Board, nonetheless, we
still have the responsibility in making a decision to determine whether and how it will affect
the health, safety and welfare of the community, and so for this evening, I would not support
the application. So, I’m going to give you, if you will, several options, and you may select
whatever you wish. It appears that you do not have support for your appeal, pending
additional information, and to provide you with every opportunity for a fair and impartial
hearing, I’m going to suggest to you, and you can ignore any one of these, that perhaps you
request this Board to table your appeal for the next available date, or you certainly can
withdraw your appeal or you can request that we continue to hear your appeal, and the
choice is yours and only yours to make, and you have every right to reject any suggestions
that we’ve made this evening without prejudice. Now, for the record, may I have a decision,
please. What would you prefer to do?
MR. PRIME-Mr. Chairman, I would like to have it tabled.
MR. ABBATE-Of course, yes. So you’re asking this Board to table Area Variance No. 73-
2005, for a period of up to 30, 60 days?
MR. PRIME-Thirty days ought to do it.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2005 CASE PRIME, Introduced by Charles
Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Rockwell Rd. & Hiland Drive. For a period of up to 30 days.
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 73-2005 is seven in favor, zero against. If
there’s no challenge to the tally, the motion is carried. Area Variance No. 73-2005 is tabled
for a period of up to 30 days. Thank you, gentlemen.
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, do you want to, if you wanted to tell them what additional
information you would like when they come back, that probably would be good.
MR. ABBATE-Why don’t we provide you with the minutes of the meeting, as soon as
possible. Would you see that the applicants receive the minutes of the meeting, so that
there’s no contradictions.
MR. PRIME-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK,
LLC SCOTT MAUPHIN, PARK MANAGER AGENT(S): LYNN SCHWARTZ, ESQ. & JOHN
C. LEMERY, ESQ. OWNER(S): HWP DEVELOPMENT, LLC ZONING HC-INT LOCATION
1221 AND 1213 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 475 SQ. FT. DOUBLE SIDED
FREESTANDING MONUMENT SIGN; 390 SQ. FT. UPLIT WALL SIGN WESTERN
ELEVATION SIDE; 504 SQ. FT. DOWNLIT WALL SIGN SOUTHERN ELEVATION, AND 168
SQ. FT. DOWNLIT WALL SIGN SOUTH SIDE OF PORCH-LIKE ROOF. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS AND MAXIMUM SIZE
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2004-898 HOTEL/WATER PARK; BP 99-3338, BP 99-
3337 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 12, 2005 LOT SIZE 6.76 ACRES, 3.9
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-5 AND 4 SECTION 140-6
JOHN LEMERY , RUSS PITTENGER, JIM MARTIN, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 70-2005, Great Escape Theme Park, LLC, Meeting Date:
October 26, 2005 “Project Location: 1221 and 1213 State Route 9 Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes installation of a free standing (FS) sign as well as three wall signs
on the Hotel/Waterpark.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief for oversized signs to be located at the proposed freestanding sign
location along Route 9 as well as relief for an additional “Parking Entrance” sign at the same
location. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for both size and number of wall signs for the
Hotel/Waterpark. The applicant offers that the Theme Park, Hotel/Waterpark and Samoset
uses are all separate businesses independent from one another, however, no proof has been
offered. See attached sketch and outstanding questions.
Free standing sign
Samoset Cabins 29.33 sf no variance required
Parking Entrance 48 sf variance required for additional FS sign
Great Escape Lodge 66.67sf variance required for size\
If considered one sign, 161.25 see sketch
Great Escape Park 80 sf variance required for size/
Total signage at the freestanding sign location): 224 sf
(not including spaces in between the signs)
Wall signs
Lodge South variance for size 504 sf vs 194 sf
Lodge West variance for size & number 325 sf vs 100 sf
Lodge Port Cochere variance for size & number 168 sf vs 135 sf
History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Several approvals and permits have been
granted for the Great Escape, most notably, Area Variance 23-2004, which granted 27 feet of
height relief from the 40 foot maximum. This façade is the proposed location for the 504 sf
sign.
Staff comments:
If the applicant can offer proof that the Hotel/Waterpark and the Theme Park are two
separate businesses, then each would be allowed a freestanding sign of their own. Currently,
the theme park has a freestanding sign on the East Side of Route 9 adjacent to the main
entrance to the park. Per §140-6, B. (3) (e) an amusement center is entitled to two signs of 50
sf each. The allotment is not specific to freestanding signs, however, it is the position of the
Zoning Administrator that the intent of the code is to address freestanding signs with this
section. If the Theme Park and Hotel/Waterpark are two separate businesses, then the focus
of the relief shall be on the sizes of the freestanding signs.
The applicant offers that the Hotel/Waterpark needs the oversized wall signs for
identification. It seems as though the building itself, with the external waterslide tubes, and
the “look” of a hotel/lodge, might be serving as a sign already. Additionally, the signage
located along the Adirondack Northway offers direction for the public. Will the applicant
have additional signage on the “Northway signs?”
For comparison purposes, the large Home Depot freestanding sign, including the tenants
below equals 228 sf. The Home Depot wall sign is approximately 420 sf at 6ft high by 70 feet
long.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
October 12, 2005 Project Name: Great Escape Theme Park, LLC Owner(s): HWP
Development, LLC ID Number: QBY-05-SV-70 County Project#: Oct05-32 Current
Zoning: HC-Int Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 475
sq. ft. double sided freestanding-monument sign; 390 sq. ft. uplit wall sign western elevation
side; 504 sq. ft. downlit wall sign southern elevation, and 168 sq. ft. downlit wall sign south
side of porch-like roof. Relief requested from number of allowable signs and maximum size
requirements. Site Location: 1221 and 1213 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 295.8-1-5
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
and 4 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes a 475 sq. ft. double sided
freestanding-monument sign; 390 sq. ft. uplit wall sign western elevation side; 504 sq. ft.
downlit wall sign southern elevation, and 168 sq. ft. downlit wall sign south side of porch-like
roof. Relief requested from number of allowable signs and maximum size requirements. Staff
recommends discussion to address the amount of relief requested. County Planning Board
Recommendation: Approve with comment The Warren County Planning Board
recommends Approval with the comment that the Great Escape make its best effort to
complete the pedestrian bridge prior to opening the Hotel.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll,
Warren County Planning Board 10/14/05
MR. ABBATE-I see the gentlemen for Sign Variance No. 70-2005 are at the table. Would
you be kind enough to speak into the microphone, and for the record, please identify yourself
and your place of residence.
MR. LEMERY-Mr. Chairman, my name is John Lemery, Counsel to The Great Escape
Theme Park LLC, as well as HWP Development LLC, which owns the Hotel. I have with me
tonight Eric Tulious, who is the director of signage and other matters at The Great Escape
Theme Park, Jim Martin of the LA Group, our consultant, Russ Pittenger of the LA Group,
our consultant, and also here with us tonight, Chuck Roarty, Vice President, Six Flags, Vice
President for Hospitality for Six Flags, and Dan Williams, the new General Manager of the
Hotel and Waterpark and they wanted to come by and take a look at what was going on, so
we asked them to come over.
MR. ABBATE-Were they impressed?
MR. LEMERY-So far, we wish we had proceeded the last one. We have a number of changes
to make tonight. We spoke briefly with Craig Brown before the meeting here, and the relief
we’re going to be requesting, I think, is considerably less than what is set forth on the
application. We went out and we reconfigured the signs that we’re looking to put up here. So
I think that, if you’ll be patient with us, we’d like to describe these signs, one at a time.
There are four signs that we’re looking to discuss here tonight, and I’m going to turn this over
to Jim Martin, who’s going to go through these one by one. Obviously, Mr. Chairman,
anybody can ask questions as we go along, but I think, at the end of it, that the relief
requested is a lot less than was originally presented in the application. So, with that, Jim.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thanks, John. I just want to apologize, at the outset, about the
confusion here with the numbers. I know these applications, particularly when you have
multiple signs in a packet, so to speak, can be confusing as it is, and I’ll ask Russ to briefly go
through what led to the main change in the relief requested, and you’ll come to see, at the end
of this, that it’s far less than what was listed in application or in the Staff notes, and it’s really
resulting from a calculation of the sign panel area by virtue of how it’s defined in the Code,
and Russ will take us through that briefly.
MR. PITTENGER-The only changes in the proposals before you is in the manner of the
calculation of the square footages of the signs. The signs in the packets have not changed in
their character or design, but in the configuration, in the re-analysis of the signs, what’s been
presented, what was presented in the packets to you, is, for example, The Great Escape Lodge
sign, the dimensions were taken from the total width by the total height, and so indeed the
fact that we were asking for a variance from this particular Lodge sign, which is part of the
monument sign at Route 9, indeed the outside area of this, including the tree and the
mountain logo on top, is at 45 square feet. So we would ask, as we go through the entire, the
litany of the four signs, of which this combination sign is one where we feel we do not need a
variance, we’re going to try and alert that to the Board as we go through it. Generally
speaking, the large monument sign we feel is very important, as it identifies the number, the
main and only parking entrance into The Great Escape. So we felt that while we are adding a
sign to this monument sign, we felt it was critical in the development of the entire scheme of
reducing the amount of car traffic on Route 9, because this is the only entrance into the
parking for The Great Escape, and we felt that it was reasonable to present to the Board, to
entertain the fact that that is an important function of the ring road design, and the service
character of that road that serves these other businesses also. The Great Escape Lodge, this is
the only entrance to that Lodge. So we felt it was important to present a good face on that.
Running through these signs, the Samoset cabins sign is much less than the allowed
requirement. I’ve measured this with a planimeter, and I would be happy to get scaled
drawings to Staff to verify these numbers, but I took these to scale and went around them.
The parking entrance outline sign is at 30 square feet, which is different than what we
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
presented to you and what are in the Staff notes. The Samoset cabins which was in
compliance is indeed only at 19 square feet. The Great Escape Lodge and Indoor Waterpark
sign is under the 50 square feet. It’s at 45 square feet, and The Great Escape and Splashwater
Kingdom sign is at 58 square feet, which is larger.
MR. BRYANT-I have to stop you. I know you’re in the middle of your presentation.
MR. PITTENGER-No, that’s fine.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to clarify this thing. I mean, you take a Mall or a situation,
they’re allowed 50 square feet at 15 square feet away from the thing, regardless of how many
stores are in there. Okay. Now why are we describing these individually when this is one
sign? I’m not following this whole thing.
MR. MARTIN-If I could explain the justification behind that is that if you look at the Sign
Code, in terms of Business Complex, and the Sign Code was written back in 1996, and it was
written to accommodate this very type of circumstance that was happening around Town
with shopping centers throughout the community, that there were, at the time, a monument
sign was limited to just like Plaza, Northway Plaza or Queensbury Plaza, and what was
happening is a lot of the shopping centers were finding that individual stores within the
center wanted their sign on the monument sign, and at the time, there was no mechanism to
accommodate that. The Sign Code was specifically changed at that time to introduce this
idea of the Business Complex that could accommodate multiple tenants within a shopping
center or a lot that had multiple stores within, and this is that same scenario that you’re
seeing here, and therefore, that’s why each individual business within the Business Complex
as we have here is permitted its own individual signage, and then the calculation is done
based on the individual sign area of those respective businesses, or for those respective
businesses, and that was the reasoning behind that.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but I think, even in a Business Complex sign, you still have an overall
dimension that you’re allowed.
MR. MARTIN-Well, that’s true.
MR. BRYANT-That’s not per business.
MR. MARTIN-It’s per sign, within.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t think that’s correct.
MR. BROWN-Is it my turn to answer a question now?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. BROWN-If it’s for a Business Complex, the Complex is entitled a freestanding sign,
unless it has access from two highways, then you get two freestanding signs. That’s not the
case here, but you’re correct, the overall size for the Business Complex sign is 50 square feet or
64 square feet, depending on the setback, and within that square footage, that’s where all the
tenants need to put their sign. Mr. Martin’s correct. Previously the Sign Code used to say
you could put your plaza name up there, that’s it. The revised, well, 1996 revised Code,
allows for individual tenants to be placed on the sign, but they still have to fit within that 50
or 64 square feet overall size.
MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s what I assumed, in the presentation, then, to isolate each sign
and saying that one is 20 square feet, or whatever it was, is within compliance, it’s not within
compliance, because the overall dimension is greater than the 50.
MR. BROWN-Well, there’s a question that I’ll ask at some point with the Board’s
permission, but it has to do with the individuality of each one of the businesses. If they’re all
separate businesses, Samoset separate from the Lodge, separate from the Park, three
businesses constitutes a Business Complex, so they’d be subject to the Business Complex
signage. If the Lodge and the Park are not separate, they’re one business, then you have to
put those two signs together and calculate them differently. So I think we need to first figure
out if each one of the entities are separate and apart from the other, and then we can see how
we have to regulate it.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. BRYANT-And before we go on, I just have one other question relative to the structure
of the signs. I know you have a bunch of signs here and space and so forth and so on, and I
know that in Staff notes and in this thing, they’re calculating the signs without the dead
space.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. BRYANT-Now, in previous similar situations, where we had dead space between signs,
we included that as part of the sign, okay. So theoretically, in my view, this is a 475 square
foot sign.
MR. BROWN-Well, your theory is correct there. I think they’re going to show you why the
number, 475, is not even close to being accurate, but you would, and if I can just go to the
sign here for a second and show everybody where I would designate this as a Business
Complex sign. What you’d have to do is you’d have to draw a box around the sign, and each
one of the components of the sign, and that would be your freestanding sign, if this is a
Business Complex, and whatever that number is, these guys can provide those numbers for
us, but this would be your Business Complex sign. The 475 number in your application, if
you look at the dimensions, they originally calculated a 19 foot wide base by an overall 25
foot wide, or 25 foot tall height, which includes all this space up here, which is not an accurate
way to do it. You want to focus on the advertisement area (lost words) signage.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the space between the signs above, between Great Escape and so
forth, that’s all part of the sign.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s correct. I don’t think you want to come in and go around it like
that.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, okay. That’s my understanding.
MR. MARTIN-The only thing that I would offer as further guidance on that is I would refer
you to the definition of a sign surface or area, the entire area within a single contiguous
perimeter, enclosing all elements of the sign which form an integral part of the display. The
structure supporting the sign shall not be included unless the structure is designed in a way to
form an integral background for the display. Only one face of a double face sign. So, I mean,
that definition says to me that the panel itself is the sign. I mean, because if you look at the
reasoning behind that, you’re looking, the visual intrusion is the consideration. Well, where is
the visual intrusion of seeing through these voids. I mean, they’re voids.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but that’s all part of the, yes, I understand what you’re saying, but I
can understand where part of the base would not be included because that’s support
structure, but the balance of it is all part of the design of the sign, otherwise you’d stick the
four signs together, one on top of the other, and that would be the end of it, but I think that’s
all an integral part of the sign. I can understand where the base is not, but the other part,
that’s part of the sign.
MR. ABBATE-Well, there is an overall question that might help provide an answer to this
thing. I’m going to ask Counsel this question. It deals with the separate businesses,
independent from one another. Is this, in fact, correct?
MR. LEMERY-The two businesses that are totally distinct and have their own separate ID
tax numbers are the Hotel and The Great Escape Theme Park. They’re two separate
companies owned by separate parties, and we were told if we provided the tax information,
that that would be adequate representation. The Samoset cabins are owned by The Great
Escape Theme Park, but they’re operated as a separate business, but there’s not a separate
Tax ID Number, but it is a separate, but it is a separate business up there at the north end of
the site, but I can’t represent to you that it’s a separate Tax ID Number, but they are
separate businesses.
MR. BRYANT-So it is not, then, a Business Complex, there’s only two businesses.
MR. BROWN-No, I think he said that it is a separate business.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. BRYANT-Well, if it doesn’t have a separate Tax ID Number, it’s not a separate
business.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The Samoset’s the only one that’s not.
MR. BRYANT-It’s the same business.
MR. BROWN-The Samoset and the Theme Park are the same business?
MR. LEMERY-No, the Theme Park is the Theme Park. The Samoset cabins are the Samoset
cabins. The Samoset cabins are owned, however, by Great Escape Theme Park, LLC, which
is the corporation which owns the Theme Park.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. LEMERY-But they’re not the same businesses. They’re not even the same type of
business.
MR. BRYANT-So they have separate tax numbers, then.
MR. LEMERY-No, sir. The Great Escape Theme Park owns the Samoset cabins.
MR. BROWN-I guess my decision would be that there’s three different businesses.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Then it falls under a Business Complex.
MR. BROWN-Then it’s a Business Complex, and the measurement of the sign would be as I
instructed on the board there.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. STONE-Let me just ask one question. This is the only way in to the Lodge? Is there
another way into the Theme Park?
MR. LEMERY-As part of the traffic plan, which I think you saw at one point also here
earlier, in the Planning Board’s approval, there is going to be one road into both the Theme
Park and the Hotel, and that’s the so called ring road. It’s now, we now have a name for it,
Six Flags Drive. It’s been approved by the Town.
MR. STONE-This is from the north?
MR. LEMERY-That’s from the north. There’s one entrance in here. Well, there won’t be an
entrance from the south in here, either. It will be, from the south, they’ll come up here and
enter there.
MR. STONE-I just wanted to confirm that.
MR. LEMERY-Yes, both ways. This will be the only entrance into both the Hotel and the
Theme Park. There won’t be any other entrances in, and so this sign is to direct patrons into
both parcels.
MR. BROWN-Can I just ask you a question?
MR. LEMERY-Sure.
MR. BROWN-Because I’m familiar with the site plan. Doesn’t the ring road come out at
Blind Rock Road? Isn’t there a going to be another entrance into the?
MR. LEMERY-Ultimately the ring road will come out at Round Pond Road, but that’s
basically, at this point, not an entrance to the parking lot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s an exit only.
MR. STONE-But might it be an entrance?
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. LEMERY-No, it will be an exit only, because there are going to be some tollbooths
erected as you come down below the hill, below the Hotel, for patrons once the parking lots
are all paved. They’ll be parking in there. So you wouldn’t come in and come around to the
tollbooth. So there’ll be one entrance and one exit. The Round Pond Road will be the exit at
the south end.
MR. ABBATE-So you’re suggesting there’s going to be some traffic control?
MR. LEMERY-Well, there is a traffic control going in at the Glen Lake Road and Route 9.
That traffic device has been bid already. In fact, they’ve received the bids, and that contract
is going to be awarded shortly.
MR. STONE-Is that going to be a third light, or are we moving one north and one south?
MR. LEMERY-Well, the two lights in front of The Great Escape are going to removed when
the pedestrian bridge is erected, and the light will be at Glen Lake Road.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LEMERY-We don’t have a warrant yet, Mr. Stone, for the light at Round Pond.
There’s no warrant that has been issued by DOT for that.
MR. STONE-That was hopefully the plan.
MR. LEMERY-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-A couple of more questions, actually, when we’re talking about traffic
control. Is it your intention, eventually, to put a monument, a freestanding type sign, on the
Northway side? Are you eventually going to do that?
MR. MARTIN-The Northway, on the Park side?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, on the other side.
MR. MARTIN-No.
MR. BRYANT-No, okay, and there was, correct me if I’m wrong, when you’re talking about
traffic. Wasn’t there some discussion about a bridge that was going to go across the?
MR. LEMERY-The bridge is going to be going, construction should start within a couple of
weeks. We’re just waiting for our permit from DOT.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. LEMERY-And that bridge has got to be in by this next season.
MR. URRICO-So that’s going to be the major entrance?
MR. LEMERY-Yes, all the traffic, everything, all the Park patrons will come over that
bridge. Now there may be a drop off, actually, there won’t be a drop off on the east side
anymore. You’ll come in that road, even handicap parking will come in there, and will go
over that bridge to get into the, it’s all ADD compliant.
MR. ABBATE-So your DOT permit for the bridge is well underway, then?
MR. LEMERY-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-But that’s a pedestrian bridge.
MR. LEMERY-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Pedestrian, of course, a pedestrian bridge over Route 9.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. STONE-It’s handicapped, and I’m curious how they.
MR. LEMERY-No. The handicapped, right now, on the east side there’s provisions for
handicapped, but that’s all going to change with the bridge and the traffic controls. So this is
the principal entrance to the entire complex, and I apologize for the confusion we got into
over the size of these signs. We read the Ordinance.
MR. BRYANT-My apologies for interrupting your presentation. You can go back to it, now.
MR. LEMERY-We’re trying to sort it out, so that it makes sense in terms of what the
Ordinance says, and we appreciate what Craig has done in terms of giving us some guidance
here.
MR. LEMERY-Go ahead, Jim.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. So moving along. I guess that, working from Craig’s interpretation,
then, and in response to your question, I believe that we’ll be looking at the entire area of this
sign here, including the separations between the signs as the overall area, and we’d be looking,
then, at a relief, Craig, then, considering 50 feet?
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. So we’re clear on the monument sign, then, before we move on to the
wall signs?
MR. STONE-What’s the relief that you’re seeking?
MR. MARTIN-We’d be calculating off of, we’ve got the sign areas here, and I’ll ask you to
take a pen and paper. We have 58, 45, 19 and 30, in terms of the sign panels themselves, and
then we’re going to have to provide.
MR. BRYANT-Did you reduce the signs there?
MR. MARTIN-No. We’ve calculated the areas of these panels, and then in response to your
question, we’re going to be adding in addition to that, and according to what Craig is saying,
these gaps in between.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, because originally, The Great Escape Park sign was calculated at 80
feet.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. MARTIN-Right, and I think Craig’s in agreement that it is permissible to calculate the
sign panel, and then we’ll do the gaps in between, in response to your question as well. That
would be in addition to these numbers that you’re seeing here.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. PITTENGER-The reason, the discrepancy between the 80 square feet and the 58 square
feet is that, indeed, that was calculated by total height multiplied by the total width, and so
this is slightly smaller than the 80 square feet. Likewise, the Lodge sign was calculated from
the highest point to lowest by the widest to widest. So we’ve done an actual calculation of the
sign face, although with this new information it’s going to change as we add in the white
spaces. So it’s really kind of a moot point.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. For the record, then, what you’re suggesting is that the Samoset
cabins would be 19 feet?
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-And you’re suggesting that the parking entrance will be 30 feet?
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-And The Great Escape Lodge will be 45 feet?
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-And The Great Escape Park will be 58 feet?
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-Actually, I think the real figures are closer to what you have already, Staff
does.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. Once you add back in those gaps, you’re probably correct.
MR. BRYANT-And then you’ve got to add a little bit more, but you’re probably going to be
looking around 250 square feet, 260 somewhere around there I would say. Quick guess.
MR. ABBATE-I think you’re right, because it’s 224 square foot without including the spaces.
So you’re probably right.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-That’s what I’m getting at, that’s why I’m pinpointing the figures, because
we want to be specific.
MR. MARTIN-We have one outstanding number we have to give you. It’s the overall square
footage that we’re getting the relief off of.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Please, yes, make it easier.
MR. MARTIN-All right. So we’re all set on the monument sign. Okay. Now, moving on to
the wall signs, now as I, again, reading the Code, I believe the Staff makes reference to the
fact that, I think there are a couple of ways this can be looked at. As a Hotel, there’s two
signs permitted. That’s referenced in the Staff notes. Correct?
MR. BROWN-Two freestanding signs.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, two freestanding signs.
MR. BROWN-Right. You’re talking wall signs, now.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Then, in reading the Code additionally, Section 140-6B(3)c we do
have, and I’ll refer to that, a business located on a parcel of property shall be granted a
permit for two signs, one freestanding, double faced, and one sign attached, or two signs
attached to a building, and what I’m referring to is although this is not a corner lot, we do
have frontage on two highways. We obviously have frontage on the Northway, and we have
frontage on Route 9, and I think the argument.
MR. STONE-Why would you say you have frontage on the Northway? I would object to
that. You cannot get there from the Northway. You have visibility.
MR. MARTIN-In terms of a strict reading of the lot frontage definition, the lot fronts on the
public right of way.
MR. STONE-I don’t think the government would like that, but okay. I hear you. You’re
saying it. We’ll get there.
MR. BROWN-Let me just answer that question, maybe, to help Mr. Martin, before he goes
too much further, is I would have to agree. I wouldn’t interpret the frontage on the
Northway as frontage that entitles you to another sign. If it’s a corner lot where you have
actual physical access to both highways, then you could count them both, but I don’t think
that applies here.
MR. STONE-I agree. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Okay. I appreciate the clarification. All right, then, so in that
regard, we have the wall sign here for the west elevation, and an important point we’d like to
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
raise here is that I think you have an exceptional building elevation here of some 15,000
square feet. Again, we calculated the overall frontage of this mass as it’s going to be seen by
the public, and that’s at 15,000 square feet. When you look at this sign, at 325 square feet,
that’s two percent of the building mass.
MR. LEMERY-I think the issue with the Northway façade, if you drive north on 87, this
facility is only visible for a fleeting few seconds, really. Almost when you get in front of it,
and what we were trying to do here is create a situation where people looking for this Hotel
would be able to at least see the sign that identifies it. I respectfully disagree with the Staff
notes that you can see those tubes. Half the people wouldn’t know what they are in the first
place, and they are really shielded. We dropped this building to comply with the needs that
we had at the time of the variance, and so this building is not very visible, except for that
very short distance and that’s only on the northbound lane. You really can’t see it coming in
the southbound lane. Our sense was that, from a safety perspective, and people looking for
the Hotel, where is this place, as they come up, that this sign would give them a sense of
where it is, and we felt that it wasn’t unreasonable, given the scale of the building. The entire
façade of the facility faces 87 and as Jim pointed out, it’s really only two percent of the size,
and it really doesn’t affect any other property in the Town, really. I don’t know how many
situations we’ve all seen here where someone’s trying to get a sign that faces the Northway, in
terms of where Northway traffic can view it from this kind of perspective. This is set back
100 feet behind the right of way. So it’s not like it’s right up against the right of way. So I
think the relief we’re requesting, our hope is that it’s not outrageous, and given the scale, and
given what we’re trying to achieve, given the public’s quick view as they go by, that this is a
reasonable request.
MR. STONE-You’re arguing for the size of the wall sign.
MR. MARTIN-What I’m suggesting is that if you take, given the mass of this particular
building, in relationship to this sign, if you, in your mind, can file through a number of
commercial buildings across Town, like Staples or the Red Lobster or Home Depot or Lowe’s,
when you look at the relationship of those signs, in relationship to those building masses, this
is not out of character.
MR. STONE-No, but all I’m saying is you’re arguing for the wall sign right now.
MR. MARTIN-Correct.
MR. STONE-I mean, your argument is not unreasonable, but you’re talking about the wall
sign, that’s all I wanted to know.
MR. LEMERY-That’s correct, Mr. Stone. That’s the argument.
MR. MARTIN-And the other argument I’d like to advance is, and John was touching on it, is
the safety aspect. I understand it’s not enough for us to come up here and say, a larger sign
gives us better business. What’s your care about that as a public body, but what is important
as a public body is the safety of the traveling public, and if someone is looking to search out
this location by virtue of looking at this sign, speed of traffic and distance of that sign to that
car matters, and what we’re trying to show on this graphic back here is, as a practical matter,
if you measure the distance that people are going to begin seeing these signs, here’s Route 9,
here’s the Northway, you’re looking at 500 and 750 feet in these two particular cases. Now I
understand, for calculation purposes, yes, we have to use the raw setback, 134 feet or
whatever it is, but as a practical matter, these distances are much more important to the
practical usability of these signs to be safely seen. A car traveling 65 miles an hour travels
500 feet very quickly, and the last thing you want to have happen is the driver of that car is
to have to squint or take extra time to figure out, what am I looking at? Is that, in fact, my
destination? It needs to be seen quickly and comprehended easily.
MR. BRYANT-But to be honest, though, let me ask a question. You’re not going to have
that little blue sign coming off Exit 20 that says Splashwater Kingdom, jump through the
tubes?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, I think that question was posed in the Staff notes. I don’t know what
the status of the request is for signage with DOT.
MR. LEMERY-I’m sorry, what sign is that you’re referring to?
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. BRYANT-When we’re talking about safety, isn’t there going to be, most of these hotels,
they all have little signs on the Northway that say, at this exit, you can stop at Joe’s or you
can stop at Marriott, okay.
MR. LEMERY-The little blue signs?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, the little blue signs.
MR. LEMERY-I’m assuming they may make them, but I have no idea about that. I’m sure
if DOT offers that, why wouldn’t they?
MR. BRYANT-Okay, well then that is, then, the safety issue.
MR. LEMERY-But the issue is, we believe that the size of the sign, and I think, you know,
Mr. Stone pointed it out, that given the size of the building, and given its location where it is,
it’s not an egregious sort of request, given the scale of the building, and aesthetically it
should be pleasing and it’s only visible from 87. It’s really not visible from 9, and it’s not
visible from anywhere else on the property. So, on that basis, we think it’s not unreasonable.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. You’re going to, the sign that’s in the picture now is the one on the
west facing side of the Hotel?
MR. LEMERY-Yes. That’s correct.
MR. MC NULTY-Which is not the one that your sight line is pointing to on your other?
MR. MARTIN-No.
MR. MC NULTY-This one’s going to require someone to turn their head 90 degrees to the
right to see it, which takes their eyes off the road.
MR. MARTIN-Correct.
MR. MC NULTY-So, instead of being a safety sign, this particular one could be a dangerous
sign.
MR. MARTIN-The one you’re referring to, this is the southern elevation.
MR. LEMERY-Well, if you drive up and down the Northway, and you see the hotels that are
located wherever they are, up and down the Northway, down near Exit 9 or Exit 12, those
hotels, many of them, have the huge, long high signs that identify them as Marriott’s or any
of these other places that are identified to the people on the Northway.
MR. BRYANT-But they’re not in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. LEMERY-I understand, and I’m not suggesting that at all. All I’m suggesting is that,
given the scale of the building, we didn’t think it was unreasonable to request that we have a
size that’s two percent of the façade. So, we’re hopeful that you’ll look at it on that basis.
MR. STONE-Let me just, while we’re on the subject of this sign, how important is it from
these gentleman’s point of view to say Six Flags? I mean, nobody up here, the locals, nobody
ever thinks of it as Six Flags. I’m sure I know it’s the corporation. I’m just asking. I mean,
because it certainly adds to the size of the sign. Maybe you could even make the other sign a
little bigger, if you just said Great Escape Lodge.
ERIC TULIOUS
MR. TULIOUS-The only comment I can make to that is that it may cause a little bit of
confusion, giving that all of our marketing campaign and everything we’ve put out there is
written out in the same form.
MR. STONE-Fine. I can’t argue with that. I’m just throwing it out.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Gentlemen, proceed.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. STONE-Yes, where are we?
MR. MARTIN-And the thing I would point out, too, is that the 325 square foot number is
what you have in the application. That’s consistent on this particular sign.
MR. STONE-Okay, and since that’s the first one you argued, that doesn’t require a variance,
for number, but I know we’re going to get there.
MR. BRYANT-Actually none of them should require a variance for number, because they’re
three businesses.
MR. STONE-No, no, no. This is the one business for the Lodge they’re talking about three.
MR. BROWN-Well, all of these signs say Lodge. I think.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I realize that.
MR. BROWN-That business is entitled one sign.
MR. BRYANT-There’s no other wall signs relative to the other businesses?
MR. BROWN-Not in this sign package.
MR. BRYANT-Are there going to be?
MR. LEMERY-I didn’t hear the question. I’m sorry.
MR. BRYANT-Well, you have three businesses here.
MR. LEMERY-Right.
MR. BRYANT-So, are there going to be other sign requests other relative to the other
businesses?
MR. LEMERY-What he’s asking me is whether or not The Great Escape Theme Park, and/or
Samoset cottages will ask for other signs in the locations where we’ve got these signs. Is that
a fair statement? Is that what you asked?
MR. BRYANT-Exactly.
MR. MARTIN-Are you referring to each business individually, or just as all?
MR. BRYANT-Each business individually. You claim that there are three businesses there.
These three signs are specifically for the Lodge. Right? So now, are there going to be
additional signs on top of that for the complex for the other businesses?
MR. TULIOUS-As far as the Lodge, I think that we’re going to fulfill all our needs. Samoset
cabins, there might be one additional down the ring road, when we determine where the
entrance to the cabins will be. So that would be more of a directional, as far as the
amusement park itself, if the front gate plan would extend in growth to this project, we might
look at approaching the Board of substituting the sign we have in place now for a new one.
MR. URRICO-I have a couple of questions, too. I’m trying to get an overall picture of what
you’re going to have. You have a Great Escape sign right now in front, sort of a pedestal kind
of rock sign. You have a billboard which is visible from the Northway as well, that sits back,
and those are staying, what you have there now, on the eastern side of Route 9. Those are
not changing?
MR. TULIOUS-At this point right now, no.
MR. URRICO-Okay. That sign that says Six Flags, Great Escape Lodge, do you have
something showing the sight line from the Northway heading south?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You can’t see anything.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. URRICO-You can’t see that heading south at all. What are you proposing to make it
visible for cars heading south?
MR. TULIOUS-You would have the large monument sign.
MR. URRICO-In front?
MR. TULIOUS-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. BROWN-From the Northway you wouldn’t have any signage, from the Route 9,
southbound traffic you’d have the monument sign.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m talking about the Northway. There’s not going to be anything from
the Northway?
MR. TULIOUS-Well, I think we’ll have our DOT required signs. I mean, DOT is going to
require us to put up a certain aspect of signs on the Northway, directionals, and to back up a
little bit, to kind of clarify the question you had about the Northway signs, the placement of
the existing signs right now is actually further up the road than where you would be seeing
the Hotel signs. So this would be your first visual impact that there’s an amusement park
and a hotel there.
MR. BRYANT-The big question that comes to my mind is, this is a very complicated project.
MR. TULIOUS-Yes, it is.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Multiple businesses, different parking lots, bridges, tunnels, whatever,
and my thing is, why not put all the signs before the Board at once and get this thing over
with, rather than talk about three signs here, one sign here. Maybe come back later on with a
change to this sign, add this sign. That’s what’s complicated to me.
MR. TULIOUS-As far as I know, in the general scope, as of right now, I would say that this
is pretty much all we’re going to be asking for, but I can’t guarantee, as the Park growth
continues, that, as some point, like that big monument sign out in front of our main gate
might go away. It’s kind of hard from my point, perspective, to be able to tell you that.
MR. ABBATE-You anticipate Park growth? What’s the basis for that?
MR. TULIOUS-We always anticipate Park growth.
MR. ABBATE-That’s being optimistic, of course, for any business.
MR. LEMERY-Well, under the original SEQRA plan that was approved by the Town back
in 2000, 2001, the Park is permitted to go to 1.5 million people, if you remember, and the
traffic mitigation was really in consequence of that. A lot of this traffic mitigation wasn’t
even required until the population, the traffic counts and the population reached 1.2 million
people. So part of this traffic mitigation has been accelerated substantially. For purposes of
the variances here, we’re trying to put in place the monument sign, so that when the people,
this hotel hopefully opens in a couple of months or so, the people coming in will know how to
get there, because it’s not, you can’t get there from Route 9. You’re going to come in off
Route 9 and come down that ring road, which is consistent with the Town’s plan to get the
traffic off 9. So that’s the purpose of that sign. The Samoset cabins are there. I can’t tell you
whether the long range plan of the company or not is to keep those Samoset cabins. I don’t
know the answer to that tonight.
MR. ABBATE-But basically what you’re requesting will be meeting your immediate needs.
Is that correct?
MR. LEMERY-Yes, and the sign on the building, our hope was that it could be approved
because basically it, aesthetically it works, and it flags the building in terms of what this is,
for people who see it on Route 9. Not everybody, you know, hopefully the kids in the car will
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
be looking for it, because this is a destination resort for families and hopefully they’ll be,
where is this place.
MR. ABBATE-And also, am I correct, it is two percent, is that figure correct?
MR. LEMERY-Yes, it’s two percent, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. LEMERY-The southern sign, it’s our position, and we’d certainly defer to the Planning
Department, that this is the Route 9 sign, at the southern location. If you measure it, it’s
closer to 87 than it is if you come all the way down to where it sort of meets Route 9. If it’s
measured from Route 9.
MR. MARTIN-On the direct line it’s 340.
MR. LEMERY-Yes. We comply with the Ordinance and so we don’t need a variance, as we
see it right now at this point.
MR. MARTIN-Again, I understand, as a practical matter, as a technical matter Craig has to
do his calculation from the Northway side, but as John’s saying, the west side sign here
cannot be seen by travelers on Route 9, and this is the only identifier for northbound traffic
on Route 9 that this is a Lodge.
MR. LEMERY-And what we’re effectively asking for here, quite honestly, is that if you’ll
give us the approval of this sign, we will remove the Coach House sign, which is the big neon
sign there, you know, the big, red neon sign that says Coach House. That will come down.
MR. STONE-Right. I was just going to ask you about that. So there will be no identification
on the Coach House?
MR. LEMERY-That will come down, other than the signs on Route 9.
MR. STONE-Yes, there’s a monument sign, yes.
MR. LEMERY-So that will come out. So this would replace that sign, which we think is far
less intrusive on everyone than that big red thing.
MR. ABBATE-And that’s for the record, that will be removed?
MR. LEMERY-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right.
MR. MARTIN-Then I believe the last remaining wall sign is the Port Cochere sign, and
again, when we did the calculation here, this turns out to be 102 square feet, and I think that
holds up here, correct, Craig, because there’s no gaps or anything with this sign, and it is 130
feet from the Northway. So that would be within the allowed square footage.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that facing north?
MR. MARTIN-No, that is facing.
MR. STONE-That’s the east side, right?
MR. PITTENGER-There’s one also facing north. There’s a north side and a south side.
MR. LEMERY-It’s on the building end.
MR. MARTIN-What I think is confusing is there is one on the other side, Craig made the
determination that since it’s interior to the site, it’s not an issue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Did you think about putting it on the end facing the Northway?
Because that was the one, you know, when I was looking at all the signage, that was the one
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
there, because I think that your main entrance way looks out. You’re sloping this way, but
the end of that is facing towards the Northway. I thought that would be a.
MR. TULIOUS-To answer your question, we did do an exercise of several different sign
options for this facility, and quite frankly, between the design team, Six Flags made the
determination that this was kind of a more welcome to the Lodge as you’re driving up.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I just had a quick question, if I could. Just to understand the
south facing sign, maybe I didn’t hear, but in the original application it measured 504. When
you re-did your calculation, did it get smaller as well as the rest of the signs?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, that goes down to 304.
MR. BROWN-Okay. So it’s 200 square feet less.
MR. MARTIN-There’s a substantial difference. That’s the south facing wall sign.
MR. STONE-Which way is the entrance facing?
MR. LEMERY-The entrance to which, the Hotel?
MR. STONE-The port cochere.
MR. MARTIN-It essentially faces to the west. If you have your site plan there.
MR. BRYANT-It faces the Northway.
MR. MARTIN-It faces to the west towards the Northway.
MR. ABBATE-That’s the Northway side.
MR. BRYANT-Could I ask why you even need that sign, just out of curiosity. This sign here,
it’s up against the Northway. It really kind of, it’s not going to be visible from the Northway
because the other building is on that side. I mean, I don’t even see the need for that.
MR. TULIOUS-Well, we kind of danced around this a little, even Craig and I, in the little
meeting. We kind of wondered if this was kind of more of an interior property style sign or an
actual advertisement or sign to target the Northway, and from our perspective we would like
to put it there because it’s just kind of a nice, as you’re driving up underneath, it’s kind of
saying welcome, and you’re here.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t think it’s visible from the Northway, really.
MR. TULIOUS-It’s hard to make that determination right now without all the trees and
stuff put in place.
MR. BRYANT-The only people that are going to see it are the ones driving up.
MR. TULIOUS-Correct.
MR. LEMERY-Pretty much, yes.
MR. MARTIN-It’s kind of a welcoming sign to guests.
MR. URRICO-This sign, basically, is only going to be visible from Six Flags Road?
MR. TULIOUS-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other questions from members of the Board? If there are no
other questions, then I’d like to move on to the public hearing and open the public hearing for
Sign Variance No. 70-2005, and those wishing to be heard from the public please come to the
table, speak into the microphone, identify yourself and your place of residence, please. Do we
have anyone in the public who would like to comment on Sign Variance No. 70-2005?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
DON SIPP
MR. SIPP-Good evening. Don Sipp, Courthouse Drive. In regards to the first sign that was
put up, the monument sign, is this lighted?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-The answer is yes, it is a lighted sign.
MR. SIPP-If so, how?
MR. BRYANT-Internally, from my understanding.
MR. TULIOUS-Yes, it’s going to be internally illuminated. We predict that it will give off a
soft glow, much less than what you’re kind of seeing at Home Depot, and we’re also going to
be looking at a small portion of ground lighting to light up the parking lot entrance that says
parking.
MR. SIPP-Where is this sign being placed in relation to the entrance to the right turn lane off
of Route 9?
MR. PITTENGER-It’s going to be around the corner towards the Samoset building. This
the Samoset building. The road comes in here.
MR. SIPP-Okay. It’s opposite Glen Lake Road.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes, Glen Lake Road is right here.
MR. SIPP-This is your right turn lane.
MR. PITTENGER-Yes, correct.
MR. SIPP-Okay. Thank you. In regards to the west wall sign, facing the Northway, nobody
travels 65 on the Northway. About 75 or 80. Calculate the number of seconds that they have
to look at that. The sign may cover probably the ugliest building on the Northway. That
may not help it any, but I still say it’s a safety hazard. If this sign is lit, in the evening, when
they break the tree barrier there, they’re going to be seeing lights on this building for
approximately I think a second and a half, if you take the total distance there of 400 feet.
They’re going to be turning to their right to look at the sign. Now it seems to me when
somebody’s looking for a hotel and they have a brochure or directions or they’ve made a
reservation, that somebody would tell them that it’s Exit 20 on the Northway, the one that
comes after 19, and they wouldn’t need a sign, especially a sign of this size lit, and I wonder if
the Federal government, Federal highway department is apprised of the situation of a sign of
that size, because I don’t think, on an interstate highway, that I’ve ever seen a sign of that
size that close. As to the number of different businesses, it seems to me that Six Flags owns
the whole thing. Premier Parks, how can there be different businesses? Are they
subcontracting out something? If you’re going to allow these signs, is the billboard sign also
going to stay, the one that’s on the hillside? As for the aesthetics of the area, I think these
signs add no aesthetics. Anybody in their right mind knows where Great Escape is, from
Albany southward, from Plattsburg northward, and I don’t think that these signs of this size
are needed to identify this Park. Everybody knows Exit 20, one way or the other, north or
south is where you get off. Outside of those (lost word), I’d still like to know, the last sign, for
the last one, which is one located where? I could not see.
MR. PITTENGER-It’s on this part of the drop off, the port cochere.
MR. SIPP-That’s 168 square feet?
MR. MARTIN-No, it’s 102.
MR. SIPP-102, and that faces to the south?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It faces south and north, it’s on either side.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. SIPP-South and north.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Two sides.
MR. PITTENGER-From this plan here, the port cochere is here, there’s a sign on this side
and there’s a sign on this side you can see from the in the hotel parking only, and this you’d
generally see from the ring road. You might get a glimpse of it from the Northway, but.
MR. SIPP-I think that’s all the comments I have.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Do we have any other members of the public who would like
to comment on Sign Variance No. 70-2005? Yes, sir. Please come to the table, speak into the
microphone and identify yourself and place of residence, please.
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident in North Queensbury. Tonight
I think you violated one of your own rules, and that is there will be no last minute
submissions of changes. That’s what’s happened here tonight. They’ve come in with a fresh
new story, and you’ve entered the hearing. Others have not been allowed to do this. There’s
a closing date for submissions and that’s what you hear. Talking about the monument sign, I
still don’t know what amount of relief you’re being asked to grant. You heard some numbers,
but there are two gaps that haven’t been measured yet. I don’t think you know what they
are. There’s no relationship in our Code between the mass of a building and the area, the size
of the sign. Absolutely none whatsoever. I don’t know how you’re going to measure that,
what grounds you use for measuring it. I submit that this project should go back for site plan
review. The Planning Board did do a site plan approval on this project, and according to our
Code, Section 179-9-080, Section F, the Planning Board review of a site plan shall include, as
appropriate, but not limited to the following general standards. The location, arrangement,
size, design, and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. I can’t recall that
the Planning Board has reviewed the signs of this project. With regard to the number of
businesses, I don’t understand that, either. When this was presented to the Planning Board
for site plan review, there was no talk of a separate business. The full faith and credit of the
Six Flags and The Great Escape and all you could talk about was put behind this project, and
that’s why it got approved, not that some upstart organization was going to come along and
do this massive thing. I think you should be real concerned about these signs and their
proximity to the Northway. They are dangerous. They’re going to be distracting, and
believe me, no one is coming up the Northway, on a impulse, looking for this type of facility.
They know where they’re going. They better know when they get up here, going 65, 85 miles
an hour, whatever they’re doing. It’s downhill coming into that chute. So I believe that you
should table this, this evening, and this should go back to the Planning Board for site plan
review. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Do we have any other folks in the audience this
evening in the public who wish to comment on Sign Variance No. 70-2005? If not, would the
appellants please come back to the table, and perhaps you’d like to address some of the
comments that were just made.
MR. LEMERY-I don’t know what is referred to regarding going back to the Planning Board.
The whole purpose of the Zoning Board, in terms of a variance request, is obviously if you
come before the Board to request a variance is because it doesn’t comply with the Sign
Ordinance. If we had complied, in all respects, with the Sign Ordinance, I’m assuming we
would have the right to put up the sign. That wasn’t an issue for the Planning Board at the
time that the project went before the Planning Board. The Hotel and the Theme Park have
separate Tax Identification Numbers. They are separate businesses, and that, so far as we
understood it, met the requirement of the Town Planning Board.
MR. ABBATE-Let me interrupt you for a second. You indicate they’re separate businesses.
Have you submitted documentation to Staff to indicate that they, in fact, are? Staff?
MR. BROWN-There’s a document in the file.
MR. ABBATE-It is in the file. All right. That satisfies that. Thank you, Counsel.
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. LEMERY-I can’t speak to the rest of it, sir. I mean, it is what it is. People have a right
to make their comments.
MR. PITTENGER-I did a quick calculation on the monument sign area, including the
spaces, and I think we can comfortably fall within 265 feet, as the total area of that sign, and
we will provide detailed drawings to Staff to verify that number. The lighting of the sign on
the west side is very minimal in that they are really arm type signs that I think, as the
drawings that were provided to the Board, I think there’s perhaps half a dozen that light that
up from hanging lights, from arm lights. Also the ring road, we have a lighting plan that was
reviewed very carefully by the Planning Board. So that roadway, the ring road does have
lighting on it. The parking lot for the Hotel and the entrance to the Hotel will be lit probably
all night long. So there is some lighting there. I don’t think that the lighting on that sign will
be glaring or objectionable or striking to people as they come up the Northway.
MR. URRICO-I’m sorry, what did you say about the lighting on the freestanding sign, the
monument sign?
MR. PITTENGER-The monument sign, actually the discussions we had during the comment
were correct. The signs are internally lit, but the parking lot sign at the base might be uplit,
but quite frankly I don’t think there’s a need for it. I don’t think that many people are going
to come in in the dark, but that’s kind of letters attached to the stone. So that would be
probably lit from the ground.
MR. BRYANT-Question. You have a number of renditions of the wall signs to show their
proportion to the overall size of the building. Do you have anything that shows the
monument sign in relationship to the size of the building? I mean, what’s this thing going to
look like? I mean, I see the picture of the sign, but to me, you know, it’s pretty hard, first of
all the building is a monstrosity. It’s a big building. If you look at that building, it’s a big
building. I’m trying, you know, you stand out there, and I was out there today, I don’t live
far from this site, but I can’t fathom what that sign’s going to look like 15 feet from the road
in proportion to the building.
MR. PITTENGER-Well, it’s quite some distance. I mean, you’re never going to see the sign
and the building in the same view. I mean, it’s quite some distance away.
MR. BRYANT-What are we going to see?
MR. LEMERY-Mr. Bryant, the monument sign is up at the Samoset, at the Route 9/Glen
Lake intersection.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I realize that, it’s north of the building.
MR. LEMERY-Way north, yes.
MR. BRYANT-Way north of the building.
MR. MARTIN-Just to try and frame it a little better, it is within the height requirement of.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that.
MR. MARTIN-And then in terms of relationship, it is on the site plan.
MR. BRYANT-But you know when you first started this project, I remember the height
discussion of the building. You provided renditions and photographs whatever. I’m just
wondering what that’s going to look like on Route 9.
MR. LEMERY-The monument sign?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. TULIOUS-Would it help if I gave you kind of details of what the construction is? Or are
you just kind of visually trying to place it there?
MR. BRYANT-I’m trying to visualize it in its position. That’s all.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. TULIOUS-I understand your comment, and unless you can envision that, it is hard to
do that.
MR. BRYANT-We did reference the Home Depot sign, and when they came before us, they
gave us photographs that showed the Home Depot sign, showed all the buildings around it,
what it’s going to look like.
MR. BROWN-Like a photo simulation of what the sign was going to look like?
MR. BRYANT-Exactly. What it’s going to look like coming from the north, what it’s going
to look like coming from the south. I mean, this is a big structure.
MR. PITTENGER-In the Route 9 corridor, there is some guidance that the Town tries to
give in an Adirondack theme. I think that as time goes on, that the office building at the
Samoset will be torn down. That’s the ultimate plan, and there will be parking for some kind
of facility that supports The Great Escape in that area. I think this sign will be in an area of
trees with no buildings around it. It will be an entrance alone, standalone site. It will look
like a State park or like a national park kind of a sign. That’s the flavor that I see when I
look at this, and I think that the Home Depot gave you a number of renditions because they
were doing a big, orange sign. This is stone, wood, with some graphics in it and some color in
it. I think that what they’re trying to do here is really to create an identity that lives up to
the character of the Lodge and The Great Escape as it goes along.
MR. URRICO-Where is this going to be located? Is this going to be opposite Glen Lake
Road, when you come out Glen Lake Road and you?
MR. MARTIN-It’s on your first page of your site plan.
MR. URRICO-I’m still having difficulty picturing it.
MR. PITTENGER-This is Glen Lake Road, and the sign’s going to be right here, the
southwest corner.
MR. LEMERY-The Hotel, the building itself has a stone façade, the columns. So part of the
attempt here was to try to get a coordinated look that would provide the Adirondack theme,
would not be intrusive, but it is, it’s not a business that has created this sign and it’s sort of a
logo that’s out there. This is all new. It’s a brand new attempt at getting a sign. It’s about
20 feet high. The base of the sign is 19 feet.
MR. URRICO-It sort of sits in the parking lot now?
MR. LEMERY-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Will that be taken out and replaced with grass? Because I notice green
underneath the sign there.
MR. TULIOUS-Yes. To answer your question, the general whole scope, that area where the
sign will be located will be more natural, and the Samoset entrance would actually move
down the ring road a little bit.
MR. MARTIN-Let me give you some framework on the height. It would be approximately
the height of the building that’s there now.
MR. URRICO-The Samoset?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, the office building.
MR. URRICO-The office building.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. If there are no more questions, then I’m going to ask members to offer
their comments, please, and I’ll start with Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Well, the concept doesn’t bother me at all. I would like to know, however, the
relief that we’re really talking about. Mr. Pittenger said he can safely, I don’t know what
language he used, about 265. We hate “abouts”. You know we hate “abouts”. I don’t want
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
you to stand behind that and fall on your sword. I think the concept, I think there’s some
valid questions that have been raised. When we talk about the safety issue, we’re talking as
the public stated. I think it’s something we have to think about, and I certainly don’t want
to be responsible in the Town of Queensbury, as a Zoning Board of Appeals, for causing a
massive pile up on the Northway. I don’t think that’s going to happen, but stranger things
have happened. We do know that there are areas on the Northway where fog comes in, very
strangely sometimes, and I would hate to have somebody looking at that sign coming down
the hill, and then going back up again a little bit. That doesn’t say I’m against this thing. I
would like to think about it more. I would like to see the numbers very specific. You’ve
talked about the monument sign approximately 265 square feet. You’ve made arguments for
the three wall signs. Certainly the port cochere, if I’m saying it correctly, doesn’t bother me
at all. That’s almost an interior sign. I mean, it’s going to be enclosed inside the building.
The south side doesn’t bother me, neither the size or anything about it. I do have to think a
little bit more about the west sign, because there are some valid points that have been made,
and I think ones that I hadn’t thought about as well. So I would like to think about that,
and I would like some real, what relief are we talking about, specifically. That’s about where
I am, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I guess I’m going to be about where Lew is on this. I’m concerned about a few
things, and this is a huge complex. We’ve never been faced with something like this, and
obviously, nothing where a major entity has been split by a State road, State highway, and
it’s hard to look at this project separate from what Six Flags/Great Escape is, which is the
entire area there. So I’m concerned how that is going to be presented in totality, when we’re
finally done here, and I want to make sure that when we make decisions that we have all the
facts in front of us. I want to see, I want to know if the signs that are currently there are
going to stay, how they’re going to change. I want specific measurements on these signs here,
and their impact. Obviously you won’t know their impact, but I’d like to know specifically
what the measurements are that we’re dealing with. I’m also concerned about that sign
facing the Northway, both from the perspective of, well, it’s really not on a road. We haven’t
really determined whether it really deserves a sign there, but logic says there should be a sign,
but we never dealt with winter and Great Escape. We’ve never dealt with inclement weather
and a sign there. So that’s something I want to be careful about as well, and the other thing
is that we approved a variance for, which granted 27 feet of height relief, in order to allow this
project to go on, and now that’s sort of being brought back to us and said, well, now we have
this big building, well, yes, you have this big building because we granted you relief. Now
you have this big building and you’re saying, but the sign is only a percentage of it. Number
One, that’s not in our Sign Ordinance. We don’t have any percentages in our Sign
Ordinance. We just have certain specific measurements, and I’d like to see that sign be
within that, what’s allowed, Number One, and then the other issue we’re dealing with here is
that this is Highway Commercial Intensive, and we’re a trendsetter, you know, we’ve already
had other hotels come before us in that same zone, and we’re going to be dealing with the
same issue, signs on the Northway, signs on Route 9, and I think we have to be real careful
about how we treat these, and I’d like to see some specific numbers.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Several thoughts. I guess first off I agree with the two previous
speakers on all the points they’ve made, and I’ve scribbled various notes as I’ve gone through
this, and so this may be partly incoherent as far as order, but one thing that worries me, in
looking at things like this, the note I made was pretty pictures versus actual. We’ve had
several instances lately, and your Hotel is one of them, that you look at the pretty pictures
with all the little green splotches around and the pine trees and everything, and then you see
the thing and you say, whoa, that’s not what I really expected, and for instance, I’ve had
several people tell me I thought that Hotel was going to have logs on the whole Hotel. Now if
you look real close at your pictures, it’s clear that you’ve got shingles on part, you’ve got
clapboards on part, and you’ve got logs on the lower part, but when you step back from the
illustrations and look at them, it all kind of looks like logs. So it’s that kind of a problem, and
that’s one of the things that somebody else mentioned that worries me a little bit about trying
to conceptualize the pylon sign and what it really is going to look like when it’s out there on
the ground. It looks reasonable for the job that you expect it to do, to me, the way it looks on
the poster, but I’m a little concerned about that. I think another point that was made, I’ve
forgotten what reference, but it was basically to the effect, well, this is Queensbury, not
Albany or some place else when you’re referring to signs, and that’s true. There’s a fairly
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
strict Sign Ordinance here, and it was put in place by people that wanted to reduce the
number of gaudy signs that we had in Queensbury, and the section of that thing that talks
about variances says that we may very or alter that, the strict application of any of the
requirements of the Sign chapter, in the case of exceptional physical conditions where strict
application would result in substantial difficulty, and unnecessary hardship that would
deprive the owner of a sign of reasonable use of the same. It doesn’t say just say it would be
nice to have an extra sign to suck in people. It says if it really would deprive you the use of a
sign, and it goes on to say, no variance in the strict application of the provisions of this
Chapter shall be granted by the Board of Appeals unless it finds there are special
circumstances or conditions applying to the land or a sign and not applying generally to land
or signs in the neighborhood, and that such circumstances or conditions are such that the
strict applications of the provisions of the chapter would deprive the applicant of reasonable
use of such sign. It’s that kind of language that goes on. They very clearly didn’t want some
flippant variances given. They wanted some real specific hardships presented to justify a
variance. So I’m looking for a little bit of that. Another note that I wrote down is at one
point back a number of years ago the Adirondack Northway was declared the most beautiful
highway in the Country, and one of the reasons is it didn’t have a lot of gaudy billboards and
other signs up and down the road. So I think that’s another important consideration for us,
and the point that was made about getting kind of a comprehensive idea of what are we
looking at in terms of total signs for the whole complex at some point struck home with me,
too, thinking of, well, a couple of things, one of which comes up as an attractive or
unattractive nuisance, but thinking of signs, you’ve got the pylon sign in front of The Great
Escape entrance. You’ve got the billboard that changes during the year. We’re hiring people
to come to the October Fest or whatever else, and then if I remember right there’s another
sign plastered on the side of the building that houses part of the water ride behind the roller
coaster there. So you’ve got at least three major signs just for Great Escape there already,
plus the Coach House sign which you’re willing to trade for the other one, but again, the
whole concept of where are we going with all these signs, what ones are we going to lose,
would help some. The attractive nuisance type thing, the other thing that’s hit, and it may
happen, I hope not on the Northway like it did on Route 9, but when you put that roller
coaster on, down across from Martha’s, the one that just goes up and comes back, people
stopped in the middle of Route 9 to look at the thing. Now, not your fault, but it was an
attractive nuisance for a long time, and created real hazard. I hope that doesn’t happen on
the Northway, with the tubes coming out of the Hotel, but I’m concerned about adding signs
that will attract additional attention there. I’ll agree with the comment that was made that
it strikes me that for the most part somebody coming to this Hotel is going to know they’re
coming to this Hotel. So, if they’ve got good directions, maybe they don’t need all the other
signs. On the flip side, every Spring and Fall I end up driving back and forth to Florida to
move my in-laws up and down, and we stay at hotels, and we like to stop to eat, of course,
and one of the things we look for, if we’re looking for a Cracker Barrel, is that tall sign that’s
up there that says Cracker Barrel because even though we know that’s the exit, that sign
helps us find the place. So on that side I’m leaning the other way. I think where it comes
down is I’m like the other two previous speakers. If there’s something else that could be
provided that would help me get a better grasp of the picture of this and what it’s going to
look like, it would help me, because on the one hand I don’t like the idea of a sign, the west
facing sign facing the Northway. I’m not sure it’s necessary. On the other hand, I think of all
the signs you’ve presented, that strikes me as being the most attractive that is there. I’m
concerned about the sign facing south and how it’s really going to look, whether it’s going to
look like a gaudy sign or like a neat sign, but at the same time, I can recognize, from a
business point of view, that that may well be the most critical sign that you’re asking for,
other than your entrance sign. So I guess that’s where I’m at, is more information would help
me.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-I’ve got to agree with Mr. Stone and Mr. Urrico and Mr. McNulty. Some of
the signs, the way I look at the westerly sign, I really don’t see the need for that because of
the amount of time that people are going to be able to see it. It’s insignificant, and I think
the directional signs, anything that you put on the highway, are going to suffice. The south,
the sign facing south, you know, as you’re going up the hill, that facility is pretty obvious.
It’s not a hidden facility, and I think, I have to agree. I don’t remember who said it, but
whether or not you even need that size of a sign in the south side. The other sign, the Lodge,
whatever it is, over the awning, that’s an internal sign. I really have no problem with that
sign. The monument sign, and I said it earlier, and I think Mr. McNulty reiterated it, I’m a
little concerned about, you talked about numerous businesses and you provided two tax
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
numbers, and as far as I know, and I’m not an attorney, you need a tax number to do
business in New York State. So the cabin should have a tax number if they’re a separate
business, but that’s neither here nor there. I’d like to know where all the signs are going and
what’s going to happen with all the signs in that complex. If we’re going to have a couple
more signs for the cabins, and we’re going to have some other signs, I’d like to know, and
maybe one of the visitors here, one of the public had something to say about the Planning
Board, and maybe that’s the route to take. Maybe the Planning Board should review this
whole sign scenario for the whole complex and come up with some kind of plan that is
reasonable, rather than having 18,000 businesses in one square block have 20,000 signs. Mr.
Chairman, if I had to vote tonight, I don’t know how I’d vote, and frankly I don’t have
enough information, really, to make a decision tonight.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-In looking at the signs, in the order that they were presented to us, the
monument sign I think is probably the most important of all the signs that you’ve described
this evening. I really do believe that you do have the three distinct businesses there. I don’t
have a problem with it. I think that the layout of the sign has been tastefully thought out.
It’s not some hokey sign like you have on say the old place up in North Hudson there, but as
far as the other signs go, the only ones that I would approve, under any circumstances at this
time, would be the port cochere signs. I have no problem with those. I think they’re internal
signage, as has been suggested. The west facing sign along the Northway I think is a
distracter. It’s never been done before. I think that we’re close enough to the Park line that
we can emulate the regulations within the Adirondack Park, that it’s wholly unnecessary, I
think, that you’re building your product that you’ve built here is going to sell itself. I know,
having driven past the Wisconsin Dells, when you drive past there there’s just a little sign
that says Wisconsin Dells and everybody knows what it means, and pretty soon everybody
will know where Exit 20 is, too, in that regard. I think the south facing sign, as has been
suggested, too, is also totally unnecessary, in its present form that you’ve presented it. I
think it’s much too large, and I think that what you’re trying to do here is emulate things
elsewhere in the Country, and it’s not Las Vegas, it’s Queensbury, Lake George area, and I
think that it’s important for us, and for you to present yourselves properly, and I think that,
you know, the mere fact that we granted such a huge variance for the height of this building
and the size and shape and form of this building, it’s really not necessary. You’d have to be
deaf, dumb and blind not to see it coming up Route 9, and I think everyone, as has been
suggested, will know which exit to get off at to get to this place. It’s also important for us,
because this is the first one, in the case of the Dells where there are many other similar
buildings that have been constructed, if we’re faced with that same thing, you can just
imagine if all the way up Route 9, heading south towards the business area part of our Town,
if more of these are proposed and built up over the years, that we’d be dealing with more of
these huge signs. They’re not really necessary. I mean, if you’re going to present a class act,
then be a class act. You don’t really need all that signage. I think that’s it’s just over the
top. I would be fully in support of the port cochere sign, and the monument sign. I have no
problem with that, either, but the two wall signs, forget it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I would agree with Mr. Underwood. I think the freestanding
sign’s attractive. I think it’s needed, and it certainly points out the parking and what you’re
going into. I have some real questions about the west side, west sign. It’s almost like an
accident waiting to happen, and I don’t think it’s necessary. I think the building speaks for
itself. I don’t care too much for the south sign, either. I think it’s large and not really adding
to the information of the people you get, but I have no problem with the port cochere signs.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I would have to agree with my fellow Board members.
There are a number of concerns that the Board members have, as well as the public has, that
should really be addressed, such as the safety factors, the exact relief that you folks are
looking for, the visual effect, possibly, on the Northway and coming up Route 9, the number
of signs involved. I’m going to offer you some options, Counselor, and I’m going to do that
because I want to ensure that we’re going to have a fair and impartial hearing this evening.
So I’m going to suggest three options. One, you request this Board to table your appeal for
the next available date, and if that’s the case, I’m going to recommend to Staff that you
provide the applicants, as soon as possible, with the minutes of this meeting, so that they may
address the concerns of the Board members, as well as the public. The second option would
be to withdraw your appeal, or you can request that we continue to hear your appeal this
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
evening, but I have to forewarn you that I would suspect that there would not be approval,
and it might result in a disapproval. The choice is yours. As I said to the other applicants,
you have the right to reject any suggestions that any of us have made, without prejudice, but
you have to make a decision, and for the record, I’m going to ask Counselor to speak for his
clients as to what option he would prefer.
MR. LEMERY-I’d like to pose it two ways. Obviously, we would appreciate the opportunity
to table it and come back and deal with the questions that have been raised by both the
members of the Board and the public who spoke at the public hearing. I’m wondering,
though, whether or not it would be possible to get an approval tonight for the monument sign
alone, if that was at all possible, and we’d come back and look at the other issues which
you’ve raised, because it seems that most of the questions are related to the west side and the
south side, those two big signs. So, I mean, if we could get, and we hear you very clearly with
regard to that, and I appreciate Mr. Underwood’s comments. That would be helpful to us, if
that’s possible, if that’s not, if you don’t find that sign offensive. I think that Craig and our
consultants have agreed that that’s 275 feet. I that correct?
MR. MARTIN-265.
MR. LEMERY-265. So that is a number that is not going to change.
MR. BROWN-I agree with the size. I can’t speak to.
MR. STONE-So, 265, whatever relief that requires.
MR. BROWN-If that’s the relief you grant them, that’s the relief they’re stuck with.
MR. LEMERY-That’s correct. So I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if that would be possible?
MR. UNDERWOOD-That and the port cochere, we ought to be able to deal with that. I
have no problem with that.
MR. LEMERY-If that’s possible.
MR. ABBATE-I have my own personal views on this, however, I am only one member of the
Board. I would ask the Board to make that decision of whether or not they would be
agreeable to approving the 265 foot sign that you refer to and the port cochere. Let me try it
this way, without belaboring the point, and it’s twenty after eleven as it is now. Does anyone
on the Board object to doing this, or, the option, would you prefer one package? I’m willing
to listen.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I object, for the reason that now, to me, this is exactly what I
was speaking to when I talked about a general, overall plan, okay, because now we’re going to
approve this sign, and then it’s going to be that one, and then we’re going to have this sign
and then we’re going to change these, and before you know it we’re talking about 20 signs,
and, frankly, I don’t feel comfortable with it. So I would prefer to keep the package together.
I’d like some more information, and frankly, if I had to vote just on the monument sign,
without any renditions, I would vote against it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to wait until last because I’m not going to try and influence
any members of the Board. Do we have any members of the Board who object to what Mr.
Bryant has just said?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t you just ask each member if they want to vote?
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Stone?
MR. STONE-In light of what I heard, the request from my fellow Board member to see the
overall package, I would have to agree with Mr. Bryant.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have no problem voting on those two this evening.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. McNulty?
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. MC NULTY-I could go either way. I guess I’m leaning on wanting to have the whole
package, though.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-I already told you.
MR. ABBATE-You already told me. Mr. Urrico?
MR. URRICO-I’d like to see the whole package.
MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt?
MRS. HUNT-I would vote on the freestanding sign and the port cochere signs.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’d prefer, quite frankly, an entire package, and I withheld my request
just for that reason, because I didn’t want to suggest that to the Board. It would appear that
there are five members of the Board, which is a majority, who would wish to have a package.
So let me continue with my options, Counselor.
MR. LEMERY-I think we’ll ask to table, but could we get some clarification? I’m not sure,
with regard to renderings for that sign, I’m not sure what else, what would you need to see
beyond what the drawing would look like? Would you want see?
MR. BRYANT-What I’d like to see is a photograph showing the monument sign and how it’s
going to look from the north and the south. That’s what I would like to see.
MR. BROWN-Placed on the existing site.
MR. BRYANT-Exactly.
MR. BROWN-Basically a photo simulation of the site.
MR. ABBATE-A photo simulation, if you will.
Mr. LEMERY-Okay. Sure.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, I’m going to give you the option, you’ve already asked for a
tabling, and I have no problems with that at all. We can table it for 30 days or 60 days,
whatever is.
MR. LEMERY-I guess we’d like to come back as soon as possible because we’d like to at least
get the monument sign over with, so when people start coming in there. I think we can
address your other issues to your satisfaction quickly.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. LEMERY-When you speak of the whole package, now, this is the only package we’ve
got, or what we’re planning at this point. We don’t have anything else. I’m not sure.
MR. ABBATE-Well, let me be specific, this is one of the reasons why I would like you to get
the minutes of the meeting as soon as possible to these folks, because a lot of issues.
MR. LEMERY-Because I want to make sure we understand what it is.
MR. ABBATE-That’s my point. We’ve covered such issues as safety factors, the exact relief
that’s required, the visual presentation, the number of signs and several other things as well.
So it’s critical that you provide these folks, so that you will have the minutes of the meeting
and know, word for word, exactly what the concerns of the Board members were.
MR. LEMERY-Well, it’s been kind of far ranging, because there have been discussions about
the other side of the road and all those kinds of things, and there’s no way we can answer
that. We’re here to deal with this new facility and the entrance to the ring road. So I’m not
sure I know how we’d answer that.
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. BRYANT-I think I was the one who said something to the effect, you know, we got into
this discussion of the number of businesses and stuff.
MR. LEMERY-Right.
MR. BRYANT-And my only concern is, we’re looking at a package here with four signs.
MR. LEMERY-Right.
MR. BRYANT-Now are we going to then look at a package, later on, for a couple of signs for
the Samoset lodges, or whatever it’s called, or another Great Escape sign or some other sign
that’s going to be in this complex?
MR. LEMERY-On the west side?
MR. BRYANT-Exactly. That’s what I’m concerned about.
MR. LEMERY-Understood. I understand.
MR. BRYANT-If you’re going to have a couple of Samoset signs, I’d like to know about
them now, that’s all.
MR. LEMERY-Okay. Fair enough.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. So let me continue here. Counselor, the appellant has
requested that this Board, Sign Variance No. 70-2005 be tabled for the next available
hearing. Is there a second to this tabling?
MR. BRYANT-Second.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question before you go further?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Just so I’m clear as to what information I’m going to receive from the
applicant. You’re looking for information only on the west side of the highway? You don’t
want anything to do with the east side signs?
MR. ABBATE-No, that’s not correct.
MR. BROWN-Well, I just want to make sure, then.
MR. ABBATE-When I mention a total package, we would like the ramifications of this entire
project, whether it’s north, south, east or west.
MR. BROWN-And again, I don’t mean to belabor this, but are you looking for an inventory
of existing signs, east and west?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Contemplated.
MR. BROWN-And then a proposed or contemplated sign?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, and a visual presentation.
MR. BROWN-I just want to make sure that I know what I’m supposed to be receiving.
MR. ABBATE-Sure. Is it okay now?
MR. BROWN-It’s okay with me. I just wanted to make sure everybody understands.
MR. LEMERY-That’s not.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. We’re not talking about east. We’re talking about this entire
complex. East is the amusement park.
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. ABBATE-Well, then forget the north, east, south, and west. The entire complex.
MR. BRYANT-The complex that we’re talking about is the hotel, the cabins, these
businesses that are going to be on this monument sign.
MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. BRYANT-Everything west of Route 9 between the Northway, that’s what we’re talking
about, that whole complex.
MR. LEMERY-Right.
MR. URRICO-I disagree with that, because I am concerned about the whole package. I
think, this is a business that covers both sides of the road, and we’re considering it as a
Business Complex because of the business that exists on the east side, and the business that
exists on the west side. Because without the business on the east side, you wouldn’t have a
need for parking lot on the west side. So I’d like to know what signs, if they’re going to
remain, fine. I don’t have a problem with that, if they have no plans for anything on that
side, but I want to know what I’m dealing with for total signage, because when you’re coming
up the Northway, when you’re coming up Route 9, you’re going to be inundated with signs
on both sides of the road.
MR. LEMERY-Well, I think you’ve given us an impossible task. We can’t, the Zoning
Ordinance is pretty specific about, you know, what.
MR. URRICO-Well, the Zoning Ordinance doesn’t account for something like this, where you
have an amusement park on one side, and you have Highway Commercial Intensive on the
other side, and you have a parking lot for that amusement park on that one side of the road,
and one of the things we had to consider, when we gave you the variance, is whether you’re
going to keep the Highway Commercial Intensive flavor of that, and I think I’d like to know
what the signage is going to be for the entire complex. Are you going to direct signage just for
the Lodge on that side where the parking lot is, or are you going to have signs for Great
Escape as well?
MR. LEMERY-Where, over on that west side?
MR. URRICO-On the west side.
MR. BRYANT-You are on the monument sign.
MR. URRICO-I mean, you’ve already included it on that side. You say Great Escape and
Splashwater Kingdom.
MR. LEMERY-Because the whole plan, which was approved by the Planning Board, and
which we’re required to implement we’re required to implement a plan that calls for one
entrance to the Theme Park and Hotel, and get the traffic off 9. That’s all part of what was
the subject of discussion with you folks and then we went through all that with the Planning
Board. So we only have one entrance coming for all the parking for the Theme Park and all
the parking for the Hotel.
MR. URRICO-Then what’s the business on the east side of the road?
MR. LEMERY-The Theme Park is located on the east side of Route 9. However, none of the
traffic, none of the parking is going to be on the east side, and none of the ingress and egress
to the Theme Park is going to be on the east side. Everyone who comes to that Theme Park is
going to have to go over that bridge, park on the west side and go over that bridge and come
down the ring road and exit the ring road.
MR. URRICO-So in essence you have a business on both sides of the road. Right?
MR. LEMERY-I’m trying to understand.
MR. URRICO-I’m just asking what signs are going to remain from what you currently have
and what signs you’re adding here.
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. LEMERY-Well, the signs that are before you are the monument sign up, which
basically is the entrance, now, to the Theme Park and the Hotel. That’s the monument sign.
I understand your issues on with the sign on the west side. That’s a Hotel sign. The south
side is a Hotel sign. Those are it. That’s all we’re looking for today.
MR. MC NULTY-But part of the thing that we’re going to be looking at, or I’m going to be
looking at, is, as you come up the Northway, what’s the visual impact, not just of what’s on
the west side of the Highway, but how much of those signs am I going to see. Once I’m
attracted to look at The Great Escape Lodge sign on the south side, if you get that, then am I
going to be looking, also, at the billboard that says we hire people in the Spring, and come to
the October Fest in the winter?
MR. LEMERY-Those signs aren’t the subject of anything here. Those signs are there.
MR. MC NULTY-But they’re part of the consideration. If I were to approve the sign on the
south side of the Hotel, part of my consideration would be the total impact.
MR. LEMERY-The Hotel is a different business. It’s a different.
MR. MC NULTY-It may be a different business, but I’m still going to be looking at the entire
impact that all that causes, because that’s a whole issue.
MR. STONE-But I would offer that the billboards, and I was about to bring it up before we
got there, are not on the table. They’re a separate business. They are renting space. They
don’t own it. I assume you don’t own the sign?
MR. LEMERY-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-They’re not covered in our Code anyway.
MR. TULIOUS-I’m kind of confused on what you’re asking, too, because it’s almost like
you’re saying you could look at Wal-Mart and K-Mart as being the same, yet they’re two
separate identities, because The Great Escape Theme Park itself is a separate identity from
the Hotel. Although the wording of the signs might seem the same, they’re still separate.
MR. STONE-Yes, but by putting them on the same side, you have opened the door for
considering both sides of the road. I think that’s what some people are saying.
MR. MC NULTY-And you can argue, okay, they’re separate and they should be considered
separately, and yet you’re asking them to be considered together, too.
MR. MARTIN-There’s a positive aspect of them being considered on the same pedestal here,
in that you’re not getting that so called sign pollution by having eight different pedestal signs
for eight different businesses. We’re kind of falling on the sword of what’s the intent of the
Code here. The Code is asking for these kinds of things to be consolidated like this.
MR. STONE-And I think what we’re saying is tell us, that’s all, I think.
MR. LEMERY-Yes. I think we can address the west side, I think that’s, the comment about
are there going to be any more Samoset signs at some point. I think that’s a reasonable
comment, and I think we need to address the west side. We don’t have any ability, folks, to
come back here and talk about the billboard signs or what The Great Escape might do. We
have no ability to address that, and we’d like to answer all these questions. We felt that the
sign on the south side wouldn’t be so offensive because we would agree, basically, we’d take
out the big neon sign. We felt that by replacing that with a much less offensive sign might be
palatable to the Board.
MR. STONE-I only have one question. You said about the parking lot on the east side.
That’s not going to be used in any way for patron parking?
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON-Handicap. That’s going to remain handicap.
MR. TULIOUS-To be honest with you, I don’t believe there’s a person in this room that
could really answer that question for you. Honestly.
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
MR. STONE-The boss can’t answer? The head office can’t answer?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I think, gentlemen, we’ve covered enough this evening. So let me just
continue here. The appellant for Sign Variance No. 70-2005 has requested that it be moved
until the next available hearing, and I believe it was seconded by Mr. Bryant.
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2005 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
1221 and 1213 State Route 9. Tabled until the next available meeting.
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Sign Variance No. 70-2005 is six in favor, one against. The
motion is carried, if there’s no challenge to the tally. Sign Variance No. 70-2005 is tabled
until the next available meeting.
MR. BROWN-Two questions. The two meeting dates in November are the 15 and the 23.
thrd
if you pick a meeting date, I think we should then pick a date when the information has to be
submitted. Because we have to do some Staff notes. We have to digest it. You guys need to
get the information.
MR. ABBATE-I’ll leave that deadline up to Staff.
MR. BROWN-Which meeting date do you want to put them on? The 15 or the 23.
thrd
MR. LEMERY-I think if we could get on the 15 , if there’s any room, we’ll get back.
th
MR. ABBATE-If you really want the 15, there’s room.
th
MR. LEMERY-With your permission, we’d like that, if we could.
MR. BROWN-Well, then I’d like to have the information by the 5, November 5.
thth
MR. LEMERY-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-So you provide Staff with the information by the date he’s requested, and I
know there is room for the first hearing. So you folks will be for the first hearing in the month
of November.
MR. LEMERY-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, gentlemen, very much and thank you for your patience.
MR. LEMERY-Thank you.
MR. TULIOUS-Thank you all.
MR. ABBATE-All right, gentlemen, we have an administrative thing here.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
August 27, 2005: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE TO THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 2005, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
61
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/26/05)
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr.
Abbate
NOES: NONE
August 24, 2005: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE TO THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 24, 2005, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
Duly adopted this 26 day of October, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr.
Abbate
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
62