08-24-2016 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 24, 2016
INDEX
Area Variance PZ-0193-2016 Sereena C. Coombes 1.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-39
Area Variance PZ-0209-2016 Michael Dorman 17.
Tax Map No. 295.11-1-5
Area Variance PZ-0210-2016 Brett R. & Pamela T. West 24.
Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17
Area Variance PZ-0213-2016 Paul Shambo, II
34.
Tax Map No. 289.9-1-20
Sign Variance PZ-0211-2016 Saxton Sign Corp. for Concord Pools
37.
Tax Map No. 309.17-1-24
Sign Variance PZ-0212-2016 Saxton Sign Corp. for G & G Boat and RV Storage 41.
Tax Map No. 309.17-1-23.21; 23.22; 23.23
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 24, 2016
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
MICHAEL MC CABE
HARRISON FREER
JAMES UNDERWOOD
MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, everyone. We're going to try to start a little early. So the good news is,
welcome everyone to tonight's Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. For August 24th
at 7 o'clock in the Queensbury Activity's Center. For those of you who haven't been here in the
past, it's a very easy process. There is an agenda on the back table. There's also an agenda
on how we conduct our meetings on a regular basis here. So what we'll do, and in the case of
tonight's agenda it's all New Business so we don't have any housekeeping to do or Old
Business, and I'll be introducing each application. I'll ask the applicants or their representatives
to join us at the small table here. Roy will read the application into the record. I'll ask for any
comments from the applicants, if there are any more that they'd like to make. The Board
members will ask questions. When there is a public hearing scheduled I will open the public
hearing. There is a public hearing scheduled for every one of these this evening. I will make
sure that the public can comment as appropriate. Roy will read public comment into the record
if he's received any public comment. At that point, after public comment, I will ask the
applicants to re-join us at the table. We will ask them questions that may have come up during
public comment, and then I will poll the Board to see how they're feeling and whether they'd like
to move forward with the application as proposed and after I poll the Board I'll make a
determination as to whether I'm going to leave the public hearing open or close it and seek a
motion for approval or denial. So all that said and done, we're ready to rock n' roll. Right? So
let's go with the first item this evening is the Christopher Della Bella application. PZ -0204-
2016, and we are withdrawing that from the agenda. Is there a re-scheduling date?
MRS. MOORE-No, it's been withdrawn completely.
MR. JACKOSKI-Completely. Okay. We'll take that off the agenda. See how quickly we move
along here? The next item is Ms. Coombes of 108 Birdsall Rd.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE PZ-0193-2016 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II SEREENA C. COOMBES
OWNER(S) SEREENA C. AND JOHN M. COOMBES ZONING WR LOCATION 108
BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 33 FT. BY 3 FT. DOCK AN
INSTALL A 40 FT. BY 4 FT. DOCK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS FOR A DOCK. CROSS REF BP 2007-261 DOCK WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-39 SECTION 179-5-060
SEREENA COOMBES, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0193-2016, Sereena C. Coombes, Meeting Date: August
24, 2016 "Project Location: 108 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to remove a 33 ft. by 3 ft. dock and install a 40 ft. by 4 ft. dock. Relief requested from
minimum setback requirements for a dock.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback
requirements for a dock.
Section 179-5-060 Docks, boathouses, moorings—Waterfront Residential Zone, WR
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
The applicant proposes to replace an existing 3 ft. by 33 ft. dock with a 4 ft. by 40 ft. dock where
a 20 ft. setback is requires and a 0 ft. setback is to remain. Existing dock was approved as a 3
ft. x 40 ft. dock at a Oft setback AV 36-2006.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant
is replacing a dock in the same location and expanding the dock width by one foot.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives
may be limited as the dock was approved in the location per a court decision arrangement.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 20 ft. to the east side of
the property where the existing setback is to remain.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be
considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the
area. The dock width is within the applicant's property.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes replacement of a 3 ft. x 33 ft. dock with a 4 ft. x 40 ft. dock at 0 ft.
setback from the east property line. The dock location was previously approved as part of AV
36-2006 with a 0 ft. setback and a 3 ft. x 40 ft. dock. The applicant has indicated during
discussions with dock builders that a 4 ft. width is a common width. The applicant has
explained there are four sections with the first three being rolled and the fourth to be a floating
segment. The narrative submitted indicates the neighbors with deeded access are in
agreement with the dock as proposed."
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could introduce yourself for the record and if there's anything
you'd like to add at this time or just have Board members ask questions.
MS. COOMBES-My name is Sereena Coombes, and I do have a little statement to read,
primarily because of how much controversy this brought up. So thank you for hearing us
tonight. I apologize that what I thought was a simple request to change a three foot wide dock
to a four foot wide dock turned into such an issue. Primarily I'm not trying to re-visit any of the
issues that have been settled in the past or change any prior proceedings that have been
established. What it really comes down to is the dock that is now there on the eastern border
of the corner of each lot is starting to rot and is in need of replacement. Myself and the five
other current neighbors with the deeded rights to beach access met and desired to replace this
three foot wide dock with a four foot wide dock. We discussed the best dock options and felt
that removable sections would be best to prevent future ice damage so that this dock would last
longer and the four foot wide sections are much more common, even at local Home Depots and
such. This extra foot does also provide some safety for children who are passing side by side,
the ability to put a chair on the dock for fishing and other non-motorized vehicle, non-motorized
activities. So I am well aware that the property frontage is less than standard for having a dock
in that the 0 setback on the eastern property line is a substantial relief. However, this was
determined 10 years ago by this Board to be reasonable and was passed as the best location
for a dock on this property to maintain the swimming space and access to the lake, and it was
felt at that time that the nine properties which are in the rotation with deeded lake access should
have the ability to enjoy motor sports as well as non-motor sports on the lake. The dock that is
currently allowed is three feet by forty feet long. The previous owner chose only to build a dock
that is 33 feet long and proposed likely due to the lake bed depth, but from what I can tell, the
length of 40 feet was not an issue 10 years ago and was passed as allowable. Regarding the
use of the dock, there is a lengthy legal proceeding that establishes only two dock slips for the
beach lot. One is for the owner, myself and my husband, and the other one is in rotation for the
other properties. I'm not proposing that this change at all. The maximum boat size is 16 feet
by 7 feet, and thus, as has been commented in other comments, there should be no marina.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
The only way that four boats can be parked here is if the Valentis or their successors chose to
park two boats on their side. I also feel that the legal proceedings to maintain the walkway are
completely maintainable. The removable sections can be placed behind that space. Five of
the families currently using the dock, and we each have children, most of us have paddleboards
or kayaks. In fact, if you came by the lot at all you can see them on both sides, and we're all
there to enjoy. None of us wants to compromise enjoyment of the lake by sacrificing safety and
access for these non-motorized vehicles and will not do so even with permission. We have
discussed extending the dock beyond the current 33 feet, as it is right now impossible to dock
anything other than a wave runner on the inside slip because of the lake depth. However, we
are very cognizant of property lines. We're cognizant of the size of the boats allowed and we
have all taken that into consideration. Just as Mr. Miller was able to choose to build a 33 foot
dock, when given the option to build up to 40, we planned, and still plan, to work as a
conscientious neighbor to do the same. We expect that the dock length might be ultimately
slightly longer, and discussed 36 feet to get a little more space for that. One of the community
notes and had forwarded a picture that I had taken, a couple of pictures, and I had offered to the
neighbors to park a boat on the dock to prove that there was adequate space and safety for
swimming. I was not taken up on that offer so my children and I put kayaks and paddleboards
out to simulate 16 by 8 foot and show there was still room to move around and swim. We
extended the dock by basically attaching our five foot float to the end of it to try to simulate 36
feet, and I think you'd agree that there is still safe space there. And as for some of the recent
letters that include pictures of larger boats, people enjoying the lake, I'd like to make two points.
First of all, I thought enjoyment of the lake was what we were all trying to attain, and the fact
that the current owners of the property actually want to use the beach lot and the lake should
not be. I think the neighboring properties have been accustomed to it being a relatively quiet
and abandoned space in the past. A lot of the neighborhood has been turned over and now we
actually want to be there. We're taking care of it. I've done a lot of landscaping, and so this is
a change to the neighborhood. I think for the better, and I would also argue that our neighbors
knew when they purchased their properties that this is a community beach lot and would have
multiple properties accessing it. And the second, and I have also said this to Bill directly, is that
I wish Bill would just speak up to us and his neighbors when there's a problem. If a float has
drifted into his space and he feels it's encroaching on his ability to enjoy his space, if you just
talk to us we can move it and the same thing with people's behaviors. Just talk to them and I
think that can be changed. I don't think that needs to be really settled here. So, again, I thank
you for your time and energy, which is essentially to change a previously approved 3 by 40 foot
dock to a 4 by 40 foot dock, as it is legal.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So as a matter of disclosure for the Board members and
for the audience I was heavily involved in that court case. I actually owned the house to the
right. I was, built the dock there by Mr. Miller, just so you know. I don't know half the
neighbors there anymore because it has, that neighborhood has completely turned over in the
last eight to ten years. So I'm very familiar with what you're trying to accomplish. I think you're
correct. The beach lot wasn't used hardly at all when I owned the property next door. So I'm
going to let Board members ask questions and I'll do my best to try to clarify as I can from what I
know and what my thoughts are on why the dock was built where it was and why we agreed to
that as part of the court case. I don't have ownership in any of the properties there anymore,
but I'm very knowledgeable of that whole parcel there. So hopefully we get through this. So
are there any questions from Board members at this time?
MR. MC CABE-First, yes, is the actual dock going to be 36 feet or 40?
MS. COOMBES-1 haven't bought any parts to the dock. So it was to be decided as a
community. I've discussed with the neighbors that I felt 36 feet would be a compromise
between adding some space but not reaching 40 feet and impacting the neighbor.
MR. MC CABE-So I just want to be clear what we're approving here.
MR. JACKOSKI-So the application in front of us is for 40 by 4 feet and that the applicant can, of
course, if they so determine during the proceedings, request less relief, but right now the
applicant is in front of us at 40 by 4.
MR. MC CABE-Fine.
MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. If you're going to remove the old dock, why aren't you going
to position it in the middle which would give you a better angle, which is going to give you more
depth at that position. Wouldn't it? when I looked at it, it looked like if you put it in the middle,
that way you're going to have more depth and you wouldn't need to maybe go 40 feet, to give
you that depth, and then also that way if you park boats on the other side, you wouldn't be
infringing on Valenti's property.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MS. COOMBES-Well, I don't feel that we're infringing on the Valenti's property currently. If we
were to place the dock in the middle and park two seven foot boats on either side of the four
foot dock, that would encompass essentially the point where our two property lines match,
because the property is pie shaped it's going to basically.
MR. HENKEL-Right, your lines continue out.
MS. COOMBES-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-I realize that.
MS. COOMBES-But if I then park my boat on one side, and my neighbors park on the other
side, that's 14 foot of boat plus the 4 foot dock, that's 18 feet across and that's going to
encompass most of that line and we're going to have to have to swim out of that space to get
out, and I also think it compromises the beach in that you want this. I would say we use this
wharf for swimming and kayaking. I realize that the property is community, but that's what we
wanted it for.
MR. HENKEL-If we left it to where it is, would you be willing with the condition no parking,
nothing on that side to infringe on the people's property?
MS. COOMBES-No parking on which side?
MR. JACKOSKI-So, John, what I can tell you is the left side of the dock as you're looking at the
color photograph is shared by the beach lot, the people who have beach lot access and the
beach lot owner.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-The other side of the dock is exclusively used by the owner of the lot that is
actually, keep going to the bottom of the screen, Laura and to the right, right there. That lot
actually has the rights to that entire side of that dock, even though it is in fact in front of the
home that is there. It happens to be family owned, but they have exclusive rights according to
the court case to that side of the dock. I chose to put the dock on that line in order to benefit
not only the access to the lake, but also I didn't care that the boats were going to be in front
because at that time I only owned the front house then somebody else owned the parcel. So it
just felt better to keep that as tight to there and give them as much access to walk into the
water, stay out of Mr. Merritt's property, and try to use the lot. We spent maybe years working
on that.
MR. HENKEL-Unfortunately Mr. Merritt's dock is in an awkward position, then, too.
MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. Okay. Any other questions from Board members? We do have a
public hearing scheduled for this evening. You can stay at the table unless people want to join
us. So just bear with me. There was a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'm going to
open the public hearing and I'm going to ask, Roy, is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Oh yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. How much written comment?
MR. URRICO-1 would suggest opening the floor first and then I'll read afterwards.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Could you do me a favor. Could you possibly be able to tell me who it
is that has provided written comment, and then if we can determine if they're here, and then
read the other ones in first, if they aren't represented here.
MR. URRICO-There's Mr. Pittenger. There's at least two letters from him here.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR. URRICO-There is also, maybe three letters from him. Then there is signed by a bunch of
the neighbors.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. They are here. So we'll let them speak as they feel appropriate. Ms.
Whittle.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's the Pittenger family. Okay.
MR. URRICO-And I think A. Russell.
MR. JACKOSKI-Annie Russell. Annie's not here. Okay. So I'll open the public hearing for
the public comment at this time. I assume there are folks here in the audience who'd like to
address this Board, and I guess I'll ask the applicant to give up the table. Who would like to go
first on this application for this Board? Welcome, Mr. and Mrs. Merritt. So if you can we try to
limit each person's addressing of the Board to about three minutes or four minutes.
WILLIAM MERRITT
MR. MERRITT-Thank you. First, I'd like to thank you for your time and the ability to speak on
this matter. I'm William Merritt. This is my wife, Carol. We reside at 103 Birdsall Road,
Queensbury, NY. We own the adjacent lot on the west side of the beach lot. We have been
there for generations, for over 60 years, and my dock, even though that's not relevant, has been
in the same position for those 60 years, through agreement with the owner, Mr. Hirsch, owner of
the beach lot, and much of that land, and then later on with Bob Cross who purchased that land.
So it's a well-established dock.
Anyway, you acknowledge that you have received a letter signed by many of the neighbors,
several letters from Russell Pittenger, a letter from Linda Whittle, and the application from the
beach lot owners. In the initial letter that I believe you received on July 11th of this year, and
that letter was dated July 7th, in the second paragraph it states that our immediate adjacent
neighbors, the Merritts and Valent's, are in agreement with our plan. At that point, at that time
when you received that letter, we did not know of any plan to construct a dock. We did not give
permission to anyone to say that we were in agreement with it, and I am at a loss as to how that
statement was incorporated into that, this misleading statement was incorporated into that letter.
You are well aware, I think, of the very small, tiny unique area of the lake that we are speaking
of and that is a very small, tight area. That picture up there is old. It shows our old dwelling,
not our new, not our new house, and I cannot tell you what else is out of date without studying it
closer. So it may be out of date, as far as the position of the subject dock is. Anyway, as I
measured the Coombes' dock, I found it to be, by the tape measure, 28 feet 2 inches to the
water's edge, not 33 feet. The remaining footage was on the land. Why I don't know because
the land gradually very gently slopes to the water's edge and there is no need for an acre. So
when it is spoken of that it's a 33 foot dock, it isn't. It's a 29 foot dock that extends into the
water. I then measured on a survey and schematic that was provided by the office and I came
out with a very similar figure. Anyway, let's go on here. I have a letter, which I would ask my
wife to provide you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Merritt, we're already past the time limit. So I don't know how you want to
proceed.
MR. MERRITT-Well, these are pertinent issues. We urge the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny
the Area Variance sought as the applicant cannot satisfy the mandated requirements for the
granting of such relief as embodied in the New York State Town law and more specifically as
enumerated in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code, 179-14-080 in considering the application
for an area variance, and I'll skip that part. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in
the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby property will be created by the
granting of the variance. The change created by granting the variance is clearly an undesirable
change and a detriment to the nearby properties in that the applicant seeks to extend an
existing 29 foot long dock as measured from the water's edge and increase the 3 foot width,
proposing to remove existing dock and install a 40 foot by 4 foot dock. And there's some other
verbiage in there that you can read on your own at another time. Further the Zoning Board,
quote, mandates that every dock shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet, and so forth, as it
extends into the lake. By extension of the common boundary line between our land and the
applicant's parcel, the existing 29 foot long dock already causes encroachment into the littoral
water (lake shore area) associated with our property. A granting of the variance and the
construction of an additional eleven feet of linear dock would exacerbate the encroachment
upon our shoreline waters. Moreover the applicants, those seven families with deeded rights,
and their guests would reasonably be expected to utilize such an extended dock for swimming,
boating, and associated activities, all of which would be to the severe detriment of our property
and further an unreasonable encroachment. Only in appropriate cases should the Zoning
Board of Appeals consider granting setback relief; however, in no case should a Zoning Board
of Appeals presume jurisdiction that it can approve an encroachment beyond well-defined
property lines or boundaries extended beyond shoreline littoral rights. Whether the benefit
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to
pursue. Simply stated, the applicant proposes to replace their existing 29 foot long dock with a
longer and wider dock. One feasible choice would be to simply relocate the proposed dock
within the appropriate setback to an area on their own shoreline at a location that no longer
causes encroachment. Admittedly, the applicant may not consider this a desirable choice; but I
have others that suggest other possibilities Whether the variance requested is substantial
The existing dock is 29 feet and they want to extend it to 40 feet. That is over a 30% increase
in length and widening the dock to four feet is an increase of the width by 25%. This increases
the total square feet by 73 square feet which is more than double the existing dock. Such a
request is certainly substantial. Moreover, the applicant goes beyond a request for setback
relief and, in actuality, seeks permission for an encroachment over our shoreline water rights,
their adjacent neighbor. We do not consent to this encroachment and we consider any variance
request to increase the size of an already pre-existing non-conforming dock to be a substantial
imposition on our shoreline property rights. Whether the proposed variance will have an
adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The
applicant's land as a private common beach is a pre-existing non-conforming accessory use.
By the way, the Merritts were there before the beach lot was created by the Dubois in 1965 or
'66 when they purchased the land from Alexander and Susan Hirsch. As a private beach, the
applicant's parcel is used in common with nearby and non-adjacent residences for swimming
and boating access to Glen Lake. The applicant's parcel has no principal use as there is no
residence on the site. The common beach has been in existence for many years and prior to
the creation of the current zoning. Historically this common beach has experienced increased
use; more people more boats, more personal watercraft, more floats, more rafts and is presently
used at times beyond the limits of reason, which is probably why the dock that you see up there
might have made sense when the Zoning Board gave permission for it, but the people who put it
in told me one day we did not put in a 40 foot dock. We made it shorter because we were
aware that the 40 feet would cause encroachment. It pinches people in, causes them on the
other side of their boundary lines, causes them to float beyond their littoral rights, causes their
jet skis to move over into adjacent waters, causes them to move boats into adjacent waters.
The front boat closest to the water, how would that boat get in or out of the water without
encroaching on, and access the lake without encroaching on the adjacent properties? I don't
know. I don't know if there is a way, and I can show you in diagrams and also will show you
also that when the dock is extended to 40 feet and a boat is at the end of the dock or a pontoon
boat from a visitor is at the end of the dock, there's only a couple of feet, and in some cases no
feet. The boat extends into our waters. What we are, what's going on here is that the
applicant has not established any alleged or practical difficulty that would warrant the approval
of an area variance of setback relief. The applicant requests permission to extend and increase
the use of a common beach dock well beyond reason and upon the erroneous proposition that
their encroachment can be permitted merely by seeking a setback variance. Clearly, the
Zoning Board of Appeals cannot allow the extension or increase in the pre-existing dock without
imposing the encroachment to our detriment. The granting of an ill-advised setback variance
will not sanctify an extended dock encroachment, the extended activities that will encroach
across the waterfront rights of the adjacent parcel. If the applicant's area variance request is
completely understood and appreciated by the Zoning Board members, this is a request that
cannot be lawfully approved without our consent to the planned encroachment. It should
remain perfectly clear that we do not consent to any increase in any encroachment to our
shoreline water rights. For the reasons stated within, it is urged that the Zoning Board of
Appeals upon deliberation make such findings that support the proposition that the applicant's
project creates an undesirable change exacerbating a current prickly situation. This request is
substantial and beyond reason, the relief sought is a detriment to nearby properties especially
ours and the Glen Lake waterfront as a whole. And one of the letters, which most of the
neighbors signed, will attest to that. So I believe that the Zoning Board of Appeals should deny
the requested area variances as inappropriate and without merit. Fellows and ladies, thank you
for your time and your consideration, and I could gladly show you, if you wish, a diagram that
illustrates some of why we have concerns.
MR. HENKEL-And you've been there since when, the 40's, the family?
MR. MERRITT-In that particular spot, a handshake between my father and Alexander Hirsch,
and my little league coach who bought the property next door in 1959.
MR. HENKEL-Between that time, did you ever change your dock?
MR. MERRITT-It always has been in the same spot. We changed a post when it was broken or
damaged by ice. We changed decking.
MR. HENKEL-Did you bring it any closer to the line to the west?
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. MERRITT-No. Right now the line to the west, as I measure, at the beginning of the dock,
the shoreline, there is 11 feet 3 inches between our dock and the property line. At the end of
the dock there is 13 feet 9 inches. Keep in mind that we have a 50 foot waterfront, and again,
as I said, that was done originally with a gentleman's agreement between Mr. Hirsch, the owner
of what became the beach lot, and later on Bob Cross who was the owner of the beach lot later
on, as well as Len DuBois who owned the property as well before Mr. Cross.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So I think everyone understands what the situation is.
We've been through this before. So thank you. is there anyone else who'd like to address the
Board personally? Yes.
MR. MERRITT-I spent all this time on these eight by ten glossies.
MR. JACKOSKI-If we need them, we will come and talk to you about them. Again, if we could
try not to reiterate what's already been said. Try to keep the comments down to three minutes.
We chose to allow Mr. Merritt extra time because he is the adjacent neighbor.
KATE HIRSCH
MRS. HIRSCH-Kate Hirsch, 145 Birdsall Road.
WALLY HIRSCH
MR. HIRSCH-I'm Wally Hirsch, 145 Birdsall Road.
MRS. HIRSCH-1 submitted the letter from the neighbors. Will that be read into the record?
MR. JACKOSKI-If you want us to after you speak.
MRS. HIRSCH-1 would like that. I have a couple of comments on issues in the letter. One
was, it was the 60's, not the 50's that my father-in-law sold the property, but I would like to
speak to a point that Sereena brought up. On August 8th, I contacted her to discuss the
requested variance. I did so because after discussing it with the signees on the letter, they
were uncomfortable with going behind her back with the letter. So I said I'll talk to her. I did,
and we talked, we discussed it and she said that she was still asking for 40 feet, but would
probably settle for 36, and she said at the time that she had already submitted that addendum. I
did not see that in any of the records but I did hear it tonight. So that is what we discussed at
that point. I would like to know from what point the dock is going to be measured. Is it going to
be measured from the five feet on land or from the shoreline because that 36 feet would be 31
feet from the shore if it was measured from where the dock exists right now. That being said,
that would be a three foot increase. That's not enough to put two boats on the dock. Sereena
also suggested to me that if I wanted to get a boat and put it there and rearrange that and take
some pictures, she would love to see them. I could not find a 16 foot boat. They're all well
over 16 feet. That being said, I say why bother with all of this. Why not just fix the dock that's
there. In addition to that, yes, a variance was granted of 40 feet 10 years ago, and those who
put it in saw the folly of a 40 foot dock, and built a dock that is in keeping with the neighborhood.
That's all we ask, just keep within the neighborhood. We have a wonderful neighborhood in the
corner on Glen Lake, and we would love to maintain it with everyone's happiness, safety, the
love of the lake. We do not want people to be endangered by the increased traffic that could
result and the changing traffic, and the problem with encroachment because there is such a
narrow, narrow space for small craft, small kayaks, etc. to get through. That's my say. See
how short I was.
MR. HIRSCH-The only thing I would like to say is that I've been on the property since 1950. 1
request that the Board actually look at a map, not a photograph, because a photograph doesn't
really show it. Look at a map of the lake, and you will see that that is an actual pinch point on
the lake, very odd angle, and the only other thing to say is even the applicant calls it a beach lot,
not a dock lot.
MRS. HIRSCH-Thank you for your volunteerism and your commitment to the Town of
Queensbury.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board
concerning this application? Yes, sir, if you could, please. Mr. Valenti, I'll get to you next.
PAUL MC PHILLIPS
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. MC PHILLIP-Good evening. My name's Paul McPhillips and I'm here representing the
Glen Lake Association. Paul Derby is the President of the Association, and I'm on a Board of
Directors. Paul couldn't make it. So bear with me. The Glen Lake Association would like to
have some input on this issue, but we wanted it to be informed input. We feel we need more
time to assess the information we hear tonight and have a chance to review it and follow up with
any questions raised by what we hear and what we see tonight. In order to provide informed
input we need more time. We request that the decision be delayed one month. The
Association has a member meeting in September and we would have time to then let the
members of the Glen Lake Protective Association review the situation and get a sense of their
feelings on the subject. So our goal tonight, this Association, would be to table this for one
month. It's clearly a controversial issue, and some information has come out tonight, and I
think for our standpoint we would love to have a month to have more time to look into it and be
able to react in a little bit more informed way.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir.
MR. MC PHILLIPS-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-I offered Mr. Valenti next, but it's up to you. Mr. Valenti, go ahead.
TOM VALENTI
MR. VALENTI-Good evening. Thank you. Tom and Maureen Valenti, 113 Birdsall Road. We
happen to be newcomers on the block. We've only been there since 1981, but in that time
we've seen many changes in the community. Even though most of the neighbors have been
there for generations, there have been situations on the beach lot that have at times have been
difficult and at other times have been completely silent, and I think part of the reason why we're
having some difficulty tonight is that over the last year or two five new residents came into the
community using the beach lot, and I think the dramatic change has come because everyone
came at once. We have, what, 10, 15 years of no activity at all. Now all of a sudden there's a
lot of activity, and we did a little research and found out some details about the lawsuit that
occurred before and the agreement that was made, and I'm not so sure all the neighbors who
purchased property were aware of all the details of that settlement and maybe this is why we're
here. I think as far as Maureen and I are concerned we'd rather see it continue the way it has
been all these years and, you know, just replacing the dock with what you have would be fine.
If you look at the picture you can see that it's, the way it stands right now it's in line with the rest
of the docks on the lake in that cove and I can tell you I see neighbors swimming along the
fronts of those docks all the time. Early in the morning we have neighbors who like to get a
morning swim and they like to stay out of the main part of the lake, and they'll swim along the
docks and get exercise, and if that one dock was sticking out 10 more feet, it would put
everyone in the situation where you'd have to jockey around it to maintain that enjoyable area
that we all share, and if you look at the way that cove is set up, from any one of the homes, if
you look out onto the lake, it seems like you're encroaching because sooner or later all the lots
end up coming to a point because we're on this tight curve, and it does make it difficult and
awkward, even if everyone's following the rules. So if you went to another 10 foot of dock and
you could put an extra boat there, it's going to make it even more confusing. So we tend to
agree with the rest of the neighbors who live on that property and we'd like to see it just
replaced with something that exists. We would also be willing to offer a change in the position
of the dock. If you notice, it's the only one that's angled to the left going out into the water, and
by angling it that way, it actually drives swimmers to the left side, as you go out on that dock,
especially if you were to have boats parked on it. So we came up with another idea that's
actually up to Sereena to choose. If you want to move the beach section of it closer to the left,
the dock would follow pretty much the angle of all the other docks and drive swimmers more
directly out into the center than off to the left, because I know the way it's set up right now which
really encroaches on the Merritt's property. Anything else, Maureen?
MRS. VALENTI-The bottom line is I just want to see harmony amongst all the neighbors. It's
such a tight community there. We all get along, enjoy each other's company. I don't want
there to be any ill feeling amongst any of us. That's, as a mother, I just want to see harmony
amongst that little community we have, which is driving us to move up here because we just
love this area so much.
MR. VALENTI-Yes, sorry it had to come to this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Sir? Normally we try to keep the public comment to about
15 to 20 minutes, three minutes per person.
WILLIAM CLARK
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. CLARK-It won't be 15 to 20 minutes. It'll be real short. Three minutes at most.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to try to get the secretary to paraphrase anything that might be new
of the written comment because we certainly don't need to reiterate, but please go ahead.
MR. CLARK-My name is William Clark. We reside down on 10 Benmost Bur down off Ash
Drive on the other end of the lake. I'm just voicing my concern. Forty foot seems like a very
long dock going out into the lake. If I were to do that in our cove it would definitely raise
eyebrows with the neighbors and cause some issues. So that's where I stand on that and I just
wanted to let you know. I also have a concern, concerning the Glen Lake Association and
maybe consulting the Glen Lake Association and communicating with them, too. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to address this Board personally.
LORRAINE STEIN
MS. STEIN-Good evening. My name is Lorraine Stein. I live on Ash Drive, 86 Ash Drive,
across the lake from this piece of property. I have two concerns that no one else has seemed
to raise. If the dock were moved, if the Town Zoning Board approves in asking the applicant to
move the dock and to meet the setbacks, would they then allow boats to be parked on each
side of the dock or two boats on each side. Would that then, I'm not sure, I'm tried to look to
see what the marina requirements were, and I didn't know if that then would open up a whole
other can of worms with that, because we have a concern in our area on Ash Drive that there
may be another piece of property coming before you that might be an issue with that also. So I,
you know, I'm concerned about the Town Zoning Board setting precedent in that capacity. So
I'd like to know what the Zoning Board would do in that situation, if they were going to allow, or
how many boats they were going to allow an addition. I didn't hear anybody mention anything
about personal watercraft. I noticed, because I live across the lake, I've noticed that on this
piece of property in the last couple of years there's been a lot of jet skis parked on that lot, you
know, not on the dock,just side by side, and when , you know, how is that going to be taken into
consideration also, especially since this is supposed to be a beach lot, you know, for use for
swimming, etc. So those are my questions and concerns, and of course, again, I don't want to
see the Town being, setting a negative precedent here.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. I see other neighbors in the audience. Is there anyone
else who'd like to address the Board on this application? I have a feeling the room is going to
empty out after this application.
DAVE DE SANTO
MR. DE SANTO-Dave DeSanto, 31 Marley Way. My family's been coming up here for four
generations. My late father, whose wife is here tonight, have lived in Queensbury for about 30
years. Most recently we purchased two of the lots that have access to this beach lot. We did
a major rehabilitation to the rundown property that was there. It was an overgrown property,
made it fit into the neighborhood. A couple of main facts that were already said. I don't want to
waste any time here. The shared property is currently a 40 by 3 dock. It's a direct result of a
lawsuit where many options were given, where that lawsuit states the following, following the
installation of the new dock approved by the Town of Queensbury, the plaintiffs agree that they
will discontinue their lawsuit against the defendants, and the second, and these are two key
points and there might be a third. The other key point which you've already heard is the dock is
falling into disrepair. It's cockeyed. It's somewhat unsafe. Four foot is the standard width.
It's readily available. Some ancillary facts I have to address which have been brought up by
some people in rebuttal. As for the lawsuits, there's only two slips o the shared side, with
restrictions on both sides as you've heard. A removable dock is more desirable. We don't
have electric down there. I don't think the neighbors are giving it to us. It wouldn't block any
walkway. We can move it ad we've already agreed that a wooden dock versus a metal dock is
more desirable in the neighborhood, certainly better than some of the metal rusting ones that
you see winched up and tied to a tree for the off-season. A swim platform likely exceeding the
square foot variance we're looking for tonight was recently added in very close proximity
somewhat looks like it impedes one of the neighbor's lots. I didn't hear boo about that
swimming platform. Regarding opinions of any safety issues, where's the documentation of the
outcries to the police and the Town if this was such a concern. Speaking for my family, we've
been boating and safely using wave runners which are legal. State collects taxes and
registrations on them for 30 years, mostly on Lake George. We've never been stopped.
Never been issued a violation. Every member of my family has passed the boater's safety
course which is required and every one of us is of legal age to operate personal watercraft. I've
given them instructions to be respectful of the neighbors. You treat it like it's a five mile no
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
wake zone. Start it, go out, enjoy the lake, and come in, you do the same thing. I can't say
that I'm seeing the same thing out of the neighbors, including those which signed the petition.
Suggesting merely replacing an existing dock is going to cause damage to seawalls and unravel
the safety of the lake is opinion and inaccurate at best. Mrs. Coombes has discussed possible
accommodations with the direct neighbors. That's documented with the Town, and has offered
to get everyone together in person to discuss and demonstrate with boats and floating sections
from the dock builder. The occupants to the east replied with their availability. To the west, no
reply. This might be the third key point. As for impeding access to the adjoining lots, this is
100% untrue for the dock to the east. You can see it. We're docked to the left side of that lot.
Even if you extend it, you're not impeding the east side. As for the dock to the west, the Town
has no record of this dock which we know. I believe the owner would claim it's a pre-existing
nonconforming dock. That owner keeps his dock at least on, and what often looks like over the
property line. Furthermore I believe I can prove to the Board that this dock location has been
moved closer to our property line over the years. Through documentation I've received from
the Town, I have what I believe is evidence that the dock was moved between 2005 and where
it is now. Zoning regulations were clearly in place during this time, which means the owner
should have applied to the Town for a variance, making any claim status of pre-existing,
nonconforming null and void. I can share this documentation with the Board. I'll give it to the
secretary if necessary. I have the photographs from the Town, and I can explain them if you'd
like. Again, three facts. The property is already currently approved. It was a direct result of a
lawsuit. We're looking to repair a dock that's already there. We're also allowed, through that
lawsuit, to beach craft on the property. So neighbors that have concerns over that, that was
part of that lawsuit, but I have some photographs here where it shows the dock was moved. I'd
like to share that. I'm going to give them to you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Our dock is not pertinent to this issue. It should not be discussed.
MR. HENKEL-How true are these surveys that we have, according to like where the docks are
supposed to be on this survey?
MRS. MOORE-That's the most recent survey. There's a date.
MR. HENKEL-There's no doubt that this one to the east on our survey is definitely different than
that picture.
MRS. MOORE-Correct from 2013.
MR. HENKEL-So how can that be? I'm talking about Mr. Merritt's. It's definitely different than
what we have here compared to when I walked the property and saw it up there and see it up
there. There's no way, unless this is wrong.
MRS. MOORE-1 mean, again, we're looking at this applicant's.
MR. HENKEL-Right. I realize that, but I'm just saying, how good is this survey.
MRS. MOORE-Again, it's relevant to this applicant.
MR. JACKOSKI-But at this point, we're in public comment, let's get through public comment for
a couple of more minutes and then we'll address the issues of the locations of the docks and the
pinch points, and whatever. We need to keep moving with this application. You've made your
point about the dock being moved, and causing potential restriction on your side. I get that. Is
there anything else you'd like to add to the application?
MR. DE SANTO-No. If you have any questions. If you'd like to look at the pictures.
MR. JACKOSKI-We may keep the public hearing open. We may ask for additional comment,
but at this time.
MR. DE SANTO-Okay. Thanks you for time, folks. I appreciate it.
MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to address
the Board?
BRYAN BACKUS
MR. BACKUS-1 apologize for not changing before I got here, but it's a great day to defend the
constitution of the United States and the first amendment.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
LYNN CRUTNICK
MS. CRUTNICK-Good evening, and thank you to members of the Town Zoning Board for letting
me speak tonight. My name is Lynn Crutnick. This is my husband Bryan Backus. We own
the home on 100 Birdsall Road. After receiving the petition I felt compelled to write a little bit
about some of the things that have been left out of the petition and some clarifying facts that I
think it's important for you to know. There are 12 properties, excluding ours, in the bay, ending
with the Berry property. One hundred percent of the petitioners have a motorized boat. One
hundred percent of the petitioners have a useable, safe dock. Seven out of 13, which is 54% of
the homes have two or more motorized watercrafts. Four out of twelve, 33% of the properties,
have moorings that probably, if measured, go out 40 feet past the shoreline to up to 70 feet past
the shoreline. The petition says that they are long-time residents and stewards of Glen Lake.
If anyone had asked me or had a personal conversation with me, with the exception of Tom and
Maureen, they would realize this about me and my family. I take the award. My family's lived
here for 70 plus years. No, not in that bay, but on Glen Lake. I am a third generation Glen
Laker and my children are fourth generation Glen Lakers. The petition claims that the number
of boats could potentially grow by four plus jet skis. As you've heard from others, we can only
use one side of the dock. We don't plan to have more than two boats. While a very new
lakefront owner wins the award on the major issues with safety and quality of life, with the
addition of two jet skis, one floating raft, two paddleboards, a 50 foot mooring and a four kayaks,
and that's for one lakefront owner in the bay, a new lakefront owner. The dock could lead to a
mini-marina. Ten out of the twelve docks that stand today have dock space to accommodate
up to four boats if they wanted to. Our dock would only be able to accommodate, again, two
boats on one side. Visual deterioration claims. Responses that the dock will lead to visual
change from character of the lakefront. I implore you to please review the photos and even
visit the dock that's there now. It is crooked, unsightly, uneven, unsafe. Petition Number
Seven, seven or eight households on the opposite side of Birdsall Road should not be given
greater lake rights than direct lakefront owners. We don't have seven or eight houses, folks.
That is a false statement. We have six households that currently share the lake lot right now.
Our dock would cause damage to their seawalls, their docks and their boats. Our response.
The petitioners have their docks, their boats, their seawalls, but it's not okay for us to have a
dock, a boat, or a seawall because as the petitioners would state, our lakefront owners should
have greater rights to enjoy and access the lake. Lakeside ownership has remained relatively
constant for years. I think that was a common theme. I the three years my husband and I have
been here, there have been four out of twelve new families in the bay. I'd like to say this, we
put our house up for sale, and I want to make this crystal clear. Our family has put our house
on the market as a direct result of the negative behavior from the waterfront neighbors. We
bought our lake home to be our forever home, our retirement home, a place where we could
have fun on the lake, make memories with loved ones, foster the love of Glen Lake for our
children, the future stewards of the lake. However, we will not tolerate this type of behavior or
subject our children to it. We've probably spent around 10 hours on that lakefront this year
because of this. The petitioners call themselves stewards of the lake. I think not. A steward
takes care of their neighborhood, watches out for their neighbors, includes and welcomes new
families. We are members of the Glen Lake Association and my family has been members
since its inception. The Association actually has a standing agenda item on every meeting
asking Glen Lakers to welcome newcomers to the lake. That practice models the meaning of
stewardship. Fostering and protecting the lake and the people who move to the lake because
of our common love of our lake, not just the lake owners behind us. We have spent, like I said,
10 hours on the lake. It is our belief you become who you associate yourself with. We are not
interested in associating ourselves with a group of lakefront people who sign petitions of
inaccurate facts against their neighbors without having discussions first to resolve challenges
and bring about peaceful solutions to support a peaceful neighborhood. In closing, we are
confident that the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board with the previous Town Board approved
40 by 3 foot dock with serious consideration to approve an additional one foot to support a safe
dock for the families who share the Birdsall lakefront property. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. No one else is wishing to address the Board? Roy.
MR. URRICO-There are two nine page letters here.
MR. JACKOSKI-I know. So, I mean, the letters have been part of the public record. I've seen
them. Much of what's been discussed tonight is contained in the letters. Would you read the
one from Annie Russell which is on the yellow paper.
MR. URRICO-"I own the property which has deeded rights to the `Beach Lot' where the dock
which is the subject of the proposed Area Variance will be located. I am also a party to the
Stipulations discussed below relating to use of the Beach Lot and the current dock. I have lived
at my current address as my primary residence since 1987. Although the Town and the ZBA
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
are not bound by private litigation, I note that the Beach Lot was the subject of protracted
litigation that ended with Two Stipulations in 2004 and 2005 and 2005 Court Decision and
Order. The current dock was constructed in response to this litigation and the proposed dock
would also be consistent with the Stipulations, Decision and Order. Dr. Sereena Coombes and
her husband, Dr. John Coombes, purchased the Beach Lot in December 2014. Since that time
they have dramatically improved the appearance of the property with extensive landscaping and
consistent maintenance. Now they are seeking to continue these improvement s by replacing
the failing dock. I am writing to address some of the numerous incorrect statements in the
comment letter dated August 4th and signed by several neighbors. It almost seems like they did
not actually review the application before submitting their letter. 1. Current Variance. A
variance permitting a 40' long dock situated along the extended property line was previously
issued and remains in effect. The existing dock was constructed pursuant to that variance.
The current application simply seeks to increase the allowed width from 3' to 4' for a
replacement dock. It is my understanding that even if the pending application is denied a 40'
replacement dock will still be allowed in the current location under the existing variance. The
current dock replaced two docks that had been on the property for decades, neither of which
complied with current setback requirements. 2. Number of Boats. The number of boats and/or
jet skis using the dock will not increase as a result of this variance. The volume of oat traffic
generated by this shared dock will remain what has been permitted by the existing variance and
envisioned by the Stipulations, Decision and Order. The upland owners will continue to use a
schedule of rotation to share the two dock spaces. 3. Taxes. The property assessments for
the upland properties reflect the increased value resulting from deeded Lake rights. We also
pay an additional assessment for the Glen Lake Aquatic Plant Growth Control District. 4.
Removable Dock. It is unlikely that the dock will be in the water for nine months of the year.
My understanding is that it can be stored anywhere on the Beach Lot when it is removed and
there is no reason to assume that it will block the foot path right-of-way. As the application does
not involve a boathouse or a deck above the dock, it will be minimally visible even when it is in
the Lake. History of Issues. This property actually enjoyed a long period of peaceful use until
the last owner created a host of issues leading to the litigation. I think everyone agrees that the
current dock needs to be replaced. Dr. Coombes is trying to do the right thing but seems to be
burdened by the former owner's legacy and the unfounded animosity of some of our neighbors.
6. Greater "Rights". Most if not all of the houses in this neighborhood are located on
substandard lots. Recent construction projects, from dock expansions and garages to
innovative primary homes and luxury vacation houses, have needed area variances. Some
have complied with their variances and some have not. Granting the proposed variance on the
basis of the criteria found in the Zoning Law rather than property ownership can hardly be
considered giving any greater rights. The inaccurate and unsubstantiated statements
presented in the comment letter certainly do not support a determination of detriment to the
neighborhood. I believe that if everyone had known the facts and understood the application at
least some people would not have signed the letter. In fact, I cannot imagine how this variance
will have any effect whatsoever on most of the property owners who signed the letter because
they simply are not located in close proximity to the Beach Lot. However, a slightly wider dock
would directly benefit all of the property owners with deeded rights to use the Beach Lot and the
dock. The Board's decision should be based on the relevant criteria rather than the generalized
opposition provided by the comment letter. Thank you. Sincerely Ann Russell"
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. I think I want to paraphrase the three nine-page letters of
Mr. Pittenger and Ms. Whittle and the applicants have slightly addressed it. The public has
slightly addressed it. Everybody seems to address it. I want to just kind of go quickly with the
Board so that we all seem to be on the same page. The issue simply is as the dock extends
out 40 feet from the high water mean mark, that should be where they measure the dock length
from, not how far it is on the shore. It's 40 feet from high water mean mark out into the water.
The question becomes the pinch point of the left tip of that dock, is it closer to the projection of
the western boundary out into the water at three feet by forty, four feet by thirty-six, four by
thirty, whatever it is. So the discussion becomes when a boat is in the dock closest to the
shore and has to be pushed over toward the Merritt property and then pushed out into the water
or back out into the water, are they, so to speak, in the Merritt's water, even though we all know
nobody owns the water, anybody can swim, boat, do whatever they want, recreate, but it is
general common practice to try to avoid being in the neighbors' water. We all understand that.
There's no such thing as riparian rights in the water and all that other stuff. So everybody on
the Board understand what we're trying to deal with as far as maneuvering within this Beach Lot
dock complex there, correct?
MR. FREER-In the normal variances for the one to the left, the side setback would be 20 feet
from the extended water line, right?
MR. JACKOSKI-Correct.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. FREER-And we have not determined where that would fall with regard to a 40 foot by 3
foot dock and even if it busted that 20 foot setback, it's still approved by the court. Is that true?
MR. JACKOSKI-The judge's stipulation, and I'm probably not saying that correctly, Mr. Lapper's
here, but the judge's stipulation was a three foot by forty foot dock, agreed to by the four parties
who have rights to Beach Lot, including the Beach Lot owner, to be on that eastern boundary as
it projected out into the water and that that tip left there was definitely closer than 20 feet to the
Merritt's projected line out into the water. There was no way on this piece on this Beach Lot to
get 20 feet, and 20 feet was impossible.
MR. FREER-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So everybody's clear on what I think the argument is with the
neighborhood. As far as the Glen Lake Association and setting precedent, as we all know,
we've been doing this for a long time, each application is unique and distinct and we don't
believe that it will in any way create a precedent for other applications. Every one of these
applications is different. So Jim's been on the lake a very, very, very long time. I believe Jim
was Chairman here when I presented this application back then to the Board, on behalf of all
the folks in the lawsuit. So I understand the position you're in. I've been in your shoes before.
Believe me. So do you want to address anything that was brought up this evening, or would
you like me to simply poll the Board and see where they're leaning and then you can decide
what you might like to do?
MRS. COOMBES-I just have a couple of comments. I guess first I'm new to the neighborhood.
This is a disappointing way to be accepted into the neighborhood, but I will say that when we
started the summer out, we were sitting at the picnic table trying to discuss this, and the
Valenti's were at that table. The Merritts were outside next door, more than welcome to join us.
I did not physically invite them over. I do apologize to both of them directly that I misspoke in
the initial letter, and there is an addendum letter. Did it get to everybody? I did submit it like
three days later. The Merritts and I sat down here in the Town in the building next door and I
said, hey, this is what I'm looking for. I'd like to make it one foot wider, okay. The dock
regulations say that the dock can be up to 40 feet long. That's what the previous variance had
been requested for. So it seemed reasonable, but I had said to both the Merritts and the
Valentis, because as a community, I want to live here a really long time. I don't want to disrupt
anything. Although we want to put in a removable dock, we want it to be a wood surface so that
it follows along with the neighborhood. If you don't want metal poles to be showing up, there
are wood coverings that you can put on it to make it fit in. We've discussed that the length of
the dock is adjustable to fit the neighborhood, and we have had these conversations before all
this became on paper and submitting and need to make it formal, and it's disappointing that we
can't just sit down as a neighborhood and decide. I'm not stuck on 40 feet. I just feel that, you
know, I, as the owner don't have a boat. I have a boat docking space. The inner one does not
have the ability to put a real boat there, and I feel that a little bit more distance would allow that.
In terms of the length of the dock, yes, we measured wood to wood. We did not account for the
space on the water. I do not expect it really to be five foot on the land. I think it's probably
been pushed inland two to three feet by the ice over the years. So at one point it was two to
three feet more out in the water, and that was not a problem then. I have attached a five foot
float to the end of it, and it has been, when we're not using it that's where I tie it so that it doesn't
encroach in other people's space, and nobody seems to have a problem with it being there, that
they've said to me, but again, nobody ever talks. So, again, I'm here to ask for one foot wider.
I'm not stuck on 40 foot. I want to have the neighborhood compromise. I want to live here a
long time. I don't want this to be a fight for the world forever, and if you have any questions.
MR. JACKOSKI-So at this time I'm going to poll the Board members and see where you all think
you're going to go with this, and I'm going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I've lived on the lake since 1990 and I was on the Board, Roy was on the
Board at the same time, when Steve lived in the house there and then the big controversy came
about when the dock was first created at that point in time, and I think that, as a regular paddler
of the lake, I paddle the contours of the lake past the docks. I think in a practical sense here
we can wrap this up this evening. We don't need to delay any kind of approvals or
disapprovals whichever way the Board is going to go here. My suggestion is going to be this.
I think that if we look at the average length of the two docks on either side of the dock that you
have there, and I'm looking at the picture and I can see that those are longer than what you
have currently extending out into the lake water. I think as a compromise situation I would be
more than willing to go with the four foot wide dock at the same length as those two docks on
the adjacent properties, and I think that would be some kind of a compromise, maybe two or
three feet longer than what you've got there, and I think it would fit with the neighborhood. It
won't encroach any more or much more than what you already have there, and I don't think it's
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
going to change the ingress and egress over the Merritt's property. I think in a practical sense
we should go that way, and I think we can approve it here this evening.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim, I don't normally do this, but do we have any idea what those two docks
measure?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but I think in a practical sense we could go out there with a tape
measure tomorrow morning and measure them and get back to you guys, whatever it is, if the
Board decides that make the most sense, I think we can go there.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in agreement with Jim. I think we have to look at two things. One,
everybody has the option to ask for a variance. That's not something that's subject to review.
That's something that we have an Appeals Board for. So you've done the right thing, and
secondly we're looking at setback requirements. That's the variance that we're looking for.
We're not looking at re-designing the lake. We're not looking at re-designing docks in general,
and the third thing I think I want to mention is that we're here to grant the minimum variance
necessary, and balance that with the application. So I think Jim's is a perfect compromise. I
would go along with that, and I'd be in favor of the application.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Certainly when I looked at this initially I didn't think it would garner the attention
that it has. It was pretty straightforward to me. As I look at it, you know, what we have to
approve here is the zero setback, and it's already been approved, so to me that's not a big deal.
You already got that. The width of it, you know, I frankly don't see a big difference in extending
your three foot to four foot. So I'd go along with that. In terms of the length, I didn't see a
problem with the 40 feet, but a number of the neighbors do. So I was thinking in my mind that a
reasonable compromise was 36 feet, but the average of the two existing ones sounds like a
good way to go. Can we do an approval like that?
MR. JACKOSKI-I can word it. I'll take care of that.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I'll go along with Roy and Jim. I'm okay with the project, the extra
foot and the width to be determined by the average of the two docks on either side.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'd be in agreement with Mr. Underwood as well for the same reasons he
said. I really feel strongly, as an owner myself, 40 feet would be way too close to the Merritts
and would really prevent egress and ingress and dangerous operation of personal watercraft.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Harrison?
MR. FREER-So, just so that I understand, the current 40 by 3 is already approved. So we're
trying to find a compromise and I did 36 by 4, and kind of came up with that as sort of a position
that I could support. I do support Jim's position if it's 35 and 37, or 32, then the 4 foot thing,
from my standpoint, makes a lot of sense. So I would support Mr. Underwood's
recommendation.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-It's too bad we all can't get along and use the lake, but I would go with my Board
members also. I have no problem with what they're saying about the average length of the
docks. So go for it.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to depart a little bit from normal. The public hearing is still open,
just so everyone knows that in case this Board doesn't have the opportunity to move forward.
Mr. Merritt, are you aware of how long your dock currently is?
MR. MERRITT-My wife says 25.2.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Valenti, do you have any idea how long my old dock is?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Theirs is 30, from the water's edge. Just noting that they do have
seawalls and I don't.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. JACKOSKI-My fear is that it ends up being that it ends up being shorter than average, than
they've already got.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think that we can word it so that we say either replacement in kind with a
dock the same length with a four foot width or the average of the two docks. That gives them
that option there.
MR. JACKOSKI-So your preference is to have a wider dock and shorter than it is to have a
longer dock that allows deeper wharf? I'm trying to understand, the Board, as Roy said, we're
obligated to provide you with a minimal relief necessary to accomplish what you're trying to
accomplish. Unfortunately right now I haven't heard why the one foot allows you to do more
than what you currently can do there.
MRS. COOMBES-So the one foot wide is because those are the more common standard
sections of a removable dock. So it makes it much easier and much more cost effective for us
with four foot wide sections, and the other is most of us have kids, if you've tried to walk down a
three foot wide dock or you have kids running, jumping, or even try to sit a deck chair on there,
it's very tight, and so four foot allows for those activities, and being able to dock a boat. In terms
of the length, a little bit more length, and I think the Valenti's dock seems to be longer to me
than ours is currently from the water's edge, makes the inner dock slip more functional for the
five other properties that rotate through that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think when we measure the dock we measure the way, to the point to the
dock. In other words, the one to the north, the one to the east and the one to the west, if we
measure the length of the dock that's presently there.
MRS. COOMBES-So not necessarily the length of the dock itself, but how long it extends out
into the lake.
MRS. MOORE-You're looking to see, changing the length of the dock, and I'm confirming that
that is a method that you could reduce the length of the dock. I'm concerned, again, with
seeing the average length of the adjoining docks, yes, you could say that, but I think her point is,
looking at the application materials, I'm not certain that it's going to give her the length that she's
looking for and the dock.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike, what do you like?
MR. MC CABE-1 like 36 feet.
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm willing to amend my statement and say we're going to exchange 40 feet
by 3 for 36 by 4. That would be fine.
MR. JACKOSKI-So Board members that provided input, there's an opportunity for average
length of the adjoining docks and wider widths. There is the opportunity to remain with what
you are allowed to use on that Beach Lot, and for the audience here, a variance runs with the
property for life. So just because the dock wasn't built to the 40 foot length at the time it was
built and replaced doesn't mean she doesn't have the rights to do it now. She could actually
built that three foot by forty foot dock now and there's nothing this Board can do about it.
Unfortunately that's the judge's stipulation. That's what was agreed to. It's there. It was
approved by the Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals at the time. I was not on the Board at the
time. That is allowed right now. Forty feet by three feet. So the Board here is trying to find a
compromise to allow for what's going on there. So we can't tell you how to amend your
application. You can request from the Board, and I've tried to give reasonable guidance to you
at this point, a tabling of the application completely to re-think and maybe get some, of your
neighbors, a withdrawal of the application as it stands and just go forward and build what you
are allowed to build according to the previous variances and the court order or a
recommendation to this Board for less relief than you originally requested in your application,
meaning four by forty down to four by thirty-six or something to that effect, but we cannot grant
you more relief. We can only allow you to have less relief is you so request it from us.
MRS. COOMBES-So I guess my question would be is if I requested the opportunity to speak
with the other affected neighbors, because it is community accessed, that would be preferential,
but I really don't want to, does that mean I have to come back next month for the same hearing?
Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Is the public hearing still open?
MR. JACKOSKI-The public hearing is still open, yes.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. MC CABE-We've got a question back there.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can I ask you a question?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, just bear with me one second, hang in there. Staff, can you tell me,
removable docks, and articulating docks, is that what they're called articulating docks, the ones
that go up like this? With a wire and stuff, are they allowed?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we don't make a distinction on those.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They're just considered a dock. Because it's a solid dock.
MR. JACKOSKI-I can't find anything in the Code that says. There's no tree there to do it
anyway.
MRS. COOMBES-1 guess if those are my options.
MR. JACKOSKI-Just bear with me, okay. So right now as far as this Board is concerned, I
heard four by thirty-six.
MR. MC CABE-I'm changing mine. I think it should be the forty by three. Then that's what the
court says.
MR. JACKOSKI-Deny the application.
MR. MC CABE-Forty by three.
MR. FREER-I would support thirty-six by four.
MR. JACKOSKI-When we do the thirty-six by four, how many square feet does it make that
dock?
MR. FREER-One Forty-four.
MR. JACKOSKI-If we do the three by forty, how many square feet does it make that dock?
MR. FREER-One Twenty.
MR. JACKOSKI-So we're adding 24 square feet of dock.
MR. FREER-Or you could do 33 by 4 and it would be 132.
MR. JACKOSKI-I certainly understand your plight, but you've heard the four by thirty-six. To be
very honest with you, I'm so close to this thing from when I did it, when I had children there, I
bought the three foot wide dock and I did only bring it out into the water that far, trying to be a
good neighbor, but you're right, we didn't have anywhere near the usage of that Beach Lot that
you folks are having now. So I understand all that. Personally, I don't know, by granting this
extra relief, how much more enjoyment out of that lot you're going to get because you already
have a right to three by forty. I like the idea of bringing it back because I agree the farther out
you go the closer you're going to get to that western line, but I personally won't, I don't have the
math in front of me to know if that pinch point is closer to the line of four by thirty-six or not,
compared to the three by forty.
MRS. MOORE-In reference to the survey, the survey was in 2014, directed at the Coombes, the
applicant. If you're looking to know additional information, that information could be added or
directed at the survey after construction or prior to, you know, issuance.
MR. JACKOSKI-At this time, knowing that the Board members are four by thirty-six, knowing
what you know, what would you like for us to try to do? You need four votes up here, just so
you know, out of the seven.
MRS. COOMBES-Am I allowed to converse with my husband.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, so why don't we take a five minute recess. We've been here an hour and
a half. We'll take a five minute recess and allow the applicant to converse and we'll move
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
forward. I'm going to call the meeting back to order, please. Could I get the applicant back to
the table, please. At this point, what would you like from the Board? Would you like a motion,
would you like to table? What would you like us to do?
MRS. COOMBES-So the consensus is to withdraw the application so that we can retain the
option.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I have a request from the applicant to withdraw, not table, withdraw. Is
that correct? The applicant is withdrawing the application at this time. I'm going to close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-May I have a motion to accept the withdrawal, or we don't even have to do
that?
MRS. MOORE-You don't need a motion to accept the withdrawal.
MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE PZ-0209-2016 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL DORMAN AGENT(S) TOM
CENTER — NACE ENGINEERING P.C. OWNER(S) MICHAEL & KATHLEEN DORMAN;
MONTY & BARBARA CALVERT ZONING MDR LOCATION 35 BONNER DRIVE
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 2.54 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 LOTS; 0.50 AC.;
0.40 AC.; 0.60 AC.; AND 0.59 AC. PROJECT IS FOR FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.
LOTS 2 & 3 TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH HAMMERHEAD. PROJECT INCLUDES
WATERLINE EXTENSION AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS FOR EACH LOT. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT SIZES FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF
SB PZ-207-2016 PRELIMINARY STAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE
2.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.11-1-5 SECTION 179-3-040
TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0209-2016, Michael Dorman, Meeting Date: August 24,
2016 "Project Location: 35 Bonner Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes subdivision of a 2.54 acre parcel into 4 lots each less than '/2 acres. Applicant
proposes development of a hammer head road section instead of a cul-de-sac. Relief
requested from minimum required lot sizes for the MDR zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum required lot sizes for
the MDR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Establishments of District Dimensional requirements.
The MDR zone requires 2 acres per lot when not residential lots proposed are not connected to
town sewer and water. The applicant proposes on-site septic and municipal water. The lots
sizes proposed are for 4 lots to be 0.50, 0.49, 0.60 & 0.59 acres.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant
has indicated the lots are similar sizes to the adjoining parcels along the same street.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives
may be considered limited due to the size of the lot and the zoning requirements for
development.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code. Where relief requested for lot 1 is 1.5 ac, lot 2
is 1.51 ac, lot 3 is 1.40 and lot 4 is 1.41.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be
considered to have minimal impact. The applicant proposes disturbance of more than an
acre where a stormwater pollution prevention plan is required for the subdivision
development.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a 4-lot subdivision of a 2.54 ac parcel where 2 ac per lot is required.
The applicant has explained that two of the lots are proposed to be developed immediately by
the applicant's sons and a third lot is being sold to a friend. The applicant has indicated the lots
are similar to the neighboring lots. The project includes development of a hammerhead
turnaround, the extension of Bonner Drive and the extension of the waterline."
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that
was approved unanimously on August 16tH
MR. JACKOSKI-Please tell me you do not have a dock.
MR. CENTER-No dock. Good evening. Tom Center with Nace Engineering with Mr. Dorman
and his son is also in the audience. As it was read into the record, we're requesting a variance
for this four lot subdivision to basically finish out the development of the Bonner Drive or
Franklyn Manor subdivision as it was called, with a hammerhead turnaround. We're proposing
four residential lots that are similar in character to the neighborhood, except for the two estate
lots that surround the subdivision to the north and south. The road, hammerhead we discussed
with the Highway Department. We've located the driveways and the utilities so as to make it
more efficient for the Highway Department to maintain the hammerhead turnaround. Currently
right now it's a dead end road and every year they meet with Mr. Dorman to discuss how to
plow, where to plow the snow as they come down in and he is comfortable with them putting the
snow on his parcel. That's how they do it every year. They come and get permission for them
to plow the snow down Bonner Drive onto his parcel. This is a non-realty subdivision, less than
five lots. As far as the engineering comments and concerns, we can address all those at the
Planning Board stage if we are approved to go back, and these lots, many of the lots on Bonner
Drive are actually a little bit smaller. They're closer to .4 acre lots, lot size. Two of these are
slightly larger, but in compliance with the neighborhood.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Pretty straightforward application.
MR. CENTER-Pretty straightforward application.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone on the Board at this time that needs to ask questions before I
open the public hearing? Seeing no one, I'm opening the public hearing. Is there anyone in
the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ROY KLINE
MR. KLINE-Hi, I'm Roy Kline. I'm on the southern parcel here, on the south end. We
purchased the lot from Kruger. The lot is five and a half acres. We built the house was
owned, this division was only able to put one house on it because this was a forever green area
as stipulated in Queensbury's agreement with Mr. Kruger, and so I'm kind of concerned with the
fact of five and a half acres now going to two half acre lots right next to the adjoining property,
and I brought my representative who happens to be my son who's an architect and deals with
Zoning Boards and Boards of Appeal and I'll have him be my representative.
MR. JACKOSKI-But can you tell me which lot is yours?
MR. KLINE-So right on the bottom of the screen.
MR. JACKOSKI-That whole parcel?
MR. KLINE-That whole parcel there.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
TRAVIS KLINE
MR. KLINE-So my name's Travis Kline and according to Queensbury's Comprehensive Plan
goals the idea is to promote the protection of natural resources such as the water, air, critical
environmental areas, and wetlands. The direction that the Town of Queensbury has decided to
go since the Comprehensive Plan is to encourage green space, not for the 1966 Bonner Drive
subdivision. For instance, as Roy said, 11 Shallow Creek has five and a half acres, one house,
due to a required green space. The Freiberger lot, which is to the east and to the north of the
proposed subdivision, is roughly 78 acres, also only allowing one house. It was mentioned,
Roy mentioned earlier that in the Moderate Density Residential area maintaining a moderate
density of one unit for every two acres, provide a density bonus for developers who connect
their projects to public water and sewer, the density of planning area should be one unit for
every two not developable acres where sewer and water are not present. This aids in the safe
and efficient operation of septic systems. In locations where public sewer and water do
existing, one unit per acre would be appropriate. It is an incentive program that they had so
that developers that did not want to connect to the sewer and water infrastructure did not have
to, but they are limited to one unit per two acres. What the applicant is requesting is essentially
asking for a bonus higher density on top of an existing higher density that was rewarded for
attaching to the Town water and sewer. The applicant is not proposing anything that would
constitute a reason for even the initial bonus to increase density to one unit per acre, and if the
Bonner Drive subdivision was introduced after the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, due to the
close proximity to the Rush Pond area, a conservation subdivision would be advised. This
would require two acres per unit with 50% of subdivided property remaining and meaningful
open space. This variance is not being requested due to hardship or a flaw in the zoning plan,
but rather for financial gain. As members of the Queensbury Zoning Board, we ask you to
uphold the plan adopted in the zoning laws and the Comprehensive Plan and deny the
applicant's subdivision.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address
this Board with this application?
MARK COLLYER
MR. COLLYER-Good evening. My name's Mark Collyer. I live at 32 Bonner Drive. I am
three doors down from the Dormans and I just wanted to say that the Dormans have actually
done a lot for our neighborhood by buying the end cap years ago. Before that happened we
had numerous parties in the woods and people driving 45, 50 miles an hour down our road to
get into those woods, and back then you could drive right in. Ever since the Dormans have
bought that end cap on the end of the road they've prevented all the traffic that's been coming
up and children on the weekends to have their parties in the woods, and has made our
development very quiet. I have no problem with his plans whatsoever since most of the lots at
our end of the street are all .40 size. His lots are very similar to ours. It's an extension of the
street by a little bit, but as you can see, the Lehland Estates goes even further than his property
line. If there's an issue with Rush Pond, I don't see it. As far as the Kline's property is
concerned, their southern exposure is actually not very far from the property line to the south
where, as far as I know, that's a buildable lot anywhere in there. There's still plenty of woods
between his home and the woods on Bonner Drive, as you can see. He may see a little bit of
one of the two lots at the end of the street, but I don't see that as a detriment at all, seeing his
lot, it's very narrow, very slim, and he doesn't have much southern exposure there anyway. So I
just want to let you know that I don't have any objection to the subdivision whatsoever. The lots
are very similar to the rest of the lots on our street. He's already created much less traffic than
used to be there. So I don't mind, you know, another few cars at the end of the street. Thank
you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else? Welcome.
KEITH CRIST
MR. CRIST-I'm Keith Crist at 34 Bonner Drive, and like Mark was saying, I've been there since
1970. I bought my parents' house. One thing unique about Bonner Drive, it's a good old-
fashioned neighborhood. We all help each other house. As Mark was saying, you know, all
our lots are four tenths of an acre. Mine's four tenths of an acre. The whole road is about that.
So the relief they're looking for is basically in the same round as what we already have. It's not
like it's anything out of the ordinary, trying to make a quarter acre lot or any of that stuff, and
also the Dormans are going to have it for their family, for themselves, what their plans were for
their two boys and my son grew up with their sons over the years. They're great people. So,
you know, sometimes neighbors need to help each other out for the right cause, and to cap off
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
Bonner Drive, so the Freiberger property can't be extended out in the back area is a big concern
for myself as well because that property on 34 Bonner Drive is on the back side of that swath
where Freiberger's property comes down through. So I was always concerned that that could
be developed behind my house, and between us and Lehland Estates, and that would kind of
take away from my property. So I'm all for doing their proposed proposal, and probably Kline's
house, they built it right behind 35 Bonner Drive. It's pretty close in proximity. I would say it's
going to be closer than what those other two lots would be. So I don't really see what their
concerns would be on that as well. So that's it. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comment?
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry, one more. My apologies.
BILL WASILAUSKI
MR. WASILAUSKI-My name is Bill Wasilauski. I live on Sara-Jen Drive. I looked at this
application. I'm sorry, I'm a little unprepared not having done this, but I looked at this
application, and one thing that struck me is that it does seem to be a very substantial request to
go from a two acre required minimum lot size in the MDR district to four small, much smaller
lots. In particular there's over 100 pages of deeds and deed restrictions and what not in the
application on line, and looking at those there are covenants on there that are deemed to run
with the land and be a perpetual restriction on the use of the premises hereby conveyed to the
party of the first part or any persons claiming title to any part thereof. These things go all the
way back to the 40's, and as Bonner Drive was developed and there were subsequent deeds
and transfers and so on and so forth, these carried on down, that the premises, and one of
those restrictions was that said premises shall not be subdivided. Looking at that further, it
went on to say in later deeds, in the 70's and 80's, that no lot shall be subdivided. So I guess I
have more of a question. It's a little confusing to me why we're entertaining a four lot
subdivision of a lot in a 50 year old subdivision that may not be by deed covenant and
restrictions eligible for subdivision.
MR. JACKOSKI-We come across this all the time, sir, covenants and restrictions and deeds,
and what I can say to you is unfortunately this Board cannot enforce those. It is up to the
property owners who may be affected who think they have rights to those to work that out
through the courts. Unfortunately we can't have any jurisdiction over that. So I understand
that you're concerned about.
MR. WASILAUSKI-I appreciate the answer, but it wasn't clear.
MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately we don't have any right to enforce the covenants or restrictions.
MR. WASILAUSKI-Okay. I appreciate that. The only other thing that struck me, again, it's a
substantial request for relief, and looking at the engineer's information on there, the other thing
that struck me was under Part 75A of the Health Department standards for soil and on site
appraisal for a percolation test for on-site sewer systems, septic systems, faster than one inch
are not suitable for subsurface absorption systems unless modified by blending with less
permeable soil to reduce the infiltration rate, and I wasn't sure if they were considering that or
additional treatment to remove the phosphorus and nitrogen. Again, the soils information, the
perc rates were well under an inch, 30 seconds even. The effluent from four septic systems on
a size that's really one lot, they're just going to flux through that soil, and those nutrients are
going right to the Rush Pond water shed and subsequently Glen Lake. I'm not sure if it's in the
best interest of public health and so forth to have that kind of density in an area that as was
pointed out earlier is an area where the Town is looking at more open space and that type of
thing. They have Rush Pond and their recreational uses. That was a minor concern. The
only other thing, a couple of quick comments on the application itself. Under the height
minimum, the required height was 40 feet, I believe, on the form, and proposed was greater
than 40 feet for the structures. Again, there's a deed covenant that the homes built in there
would not exceed I believe it was two or two and a half stories, which is well under 40 feet, and I
wasn't sure why they were asking for greater than 40 feet. Could create visibility issues above
the tree line.
MR. JACKOSKI-We'll ask the applicant when they come back up.
MR. WASILAUSKI-I appreciate that. And then the last minor comment on the application was
that they were, checked the box, there was a question there, I think it was on Page 12 of 13 of
their form, does the project site contain any species of plants or animal listed as rare or species
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
of concern, and the answer was no. Looking at the list on the DEC website, 6CRRNY193.3 is a
list of endangered, threatened and rare plant and animal, you know, species. There's a list
there. There is a plant there in the woods off of the trails, I don't go on to this property. I don't
know where the property lines are, but the trail that goes from West Mountain Road all the way
down to Rush Pond Way, it is visible in May that there are, I don't know if I'll pronounce this
correctly, Cypripedium candidum, or, I'm sorry, acaule. There's two different kinds. It's
basically a pink lady slipper. It's a woodland orchid. It is on the list, List D, as a species that,
basically it is listed as a species of concern and for that reason it's of interest on the
environmental side, okay, that it's a protective native plant pursuant to 9-1503 of ECL. So I just
thought that that's, it's a really minor point, but I just thought that that question should be
corrected to indicate that yes, there are, you know, rare plants or plants of concern. It says
species of concern. Well that is one that's listed on the ECL, and on their List D. So minor
point. The only other comment, I didn't realize until I got here tonight, I didn't have a lot of time,
I just traveled back from North Carolina, that the hammerhead that they're proposing instead of
a cul de sac, I would encourage, if possible, a cul de sac. That is a long dead end road. It
would be easier, it would be safer for people to turn around instead of pulling in to somebody's
yard potentially, and that's really all I have to say. I appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Again, thank you for the clarification on the deed restrictions.
MR. JACKOSKI-No problem. Thank you. Any other folks here in the audience who'd like to
address the Board? Is there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-No, there's still no written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I wasn't sure after the comments. So you were able to hear public
comment. Do you have any responses?
MR. CENTER-Starting with the previous comments. We do have modified soil systems
proposed for this, similar to many systems that we've put in in Queensbury where we have the
deep well-drained sands. So we will do where, we need to, do blended soils. Again, when
you're going down to the woods and you're using one or two jugs to get a perc test, sometimes
one, you need to use more water. You're allowed to pre-soak the hole for up to 24 hours.
Sometimes that works when you're trying to lug water out of the woods. Sometimes you don't
have enough and sometimes you just don't and sometimes you have to modify soils. It's
nothing different than anywhere else in Queensbury. With regards to the DEC comment, we
filled out the system on line using the EAF mapper, and DEC actually marked that comment as
a no in regards to endangered species and endangered plants. So when we, the DEC mapper
picks the parcel out, you call out the parcel that you're looking to do work on, and it will auto fill
those areas of concern, and that will give you that list that's in the grid there that talks about the
endangered species. So that was actually filled out by DEC that there wasn't species of
concern.
MR. JACKOSKI-Could they have missed it?
MR. CENTER-Could they have missed it? I don't know. I mean that's something that, how we
fill it out and when we do these things at the Planning Board and we fill out these SEQR forms,
we go through those, we use that automatic. They know their areas. They do know their
areas. Where there's blue lupine we know where we have to have modified, where there's
wide open connected areas. This is a fairly wooded parcel. It's a small parcel. It's not near a
wetland or any areas of concern, on the parcel or immediately adjacent, within 100 feet or so.
That would be something that would trigger, not that small of an area. I don't believe it would
trigger that type of issue, and it may have something to do with the existing development around
it, too. I don't know how they're, for that. In regards to the question about the area, the
substantialness of the application, I think we're finishing out the existing subdivision with similar
sized lots. There's these spot areas that were previously developed all throughout the Town,
trying to do something for Mr. Dorman and his family to finish out the road itself. Yes it's
substantial, but I think it's in character with the nature. The Planning Board brought up the fact,
during the recommendation, to a degree one of the Board members said this will effectively lock
out the Freiberger parcel from development. By having the Town road end where it ends, and
these lots surround it, it would protect that parcel, quote unquote from being developed in the
future, from someone trying to do a something. That was something that was brought up
during the recommendation by the Planning Board. That they didn't see an environmental
issue, or an issue that we couldn't address through the engineer's comments.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions?
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. HENKEL-Now, why wasn't this piece of property, back when they made his road in the
development, why didn't they make it four lots then if it was supposed to be four lots of that
size? Why would you leave that at the end there?
MR. CENTER-It was in the 60's. I don't know why they didn't finish off the cul de sac.
MR. HENKEL-Because that would make it a lot easier for us now to make this decision.
Because it's kind of hard for us to make a decision on when the Code is two acres.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members at this time? So I'm going to poll the
Board and I'm going to leave the public hearing open. Would anyone like to volunteer their
thoughts?
MR. HENKEL-I'll go first. I know in the past we've given other developers a hard time to make
smaller lots in an area where it's supposed to be two acres. I would not feel comfortable, even
though it fits the development, I just wouldn't feel comfortable, it wouldn't be fair to other past
applicants, even though you're supposed to handle them all differently, I just would not feel
comfortable with small lots like this at this time.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-When I first looked at this, I felt kind of the same way as John, but then I did
some further thinking and, you know, the question is, well, why wasn't this done in the original
development. Well, I think Bonner Drive, when it originally went in, went in when Crownwood
and Pinewood and all those developments off of Aviation went in. It was kind of out of the way.
It wasn't really connected to those. The lots are similar to Mountain View there. So I just think
it was kind of an unfinished thing. So although it looks like, you know, we're granting a lot of
relief here, really we're just kind of extending the neighborhood, and that'll be the end of it. So I
would support this project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm sitting on the fence on this project. I think that if we look at the past
history in the area, I know the Finch Pruyn property that's now currently under development and
it's gone through the review process, they originally were approved for a subdivision there back
in the early 70's or late 60's, and entitled to like I think 40 houses and I think they now, having
gone through the process again, they've narrowed them down to 18 to 20 houses.
MR. CENTER-It's closer to 60.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Really, was it 60?
MR. CENTER-Yes, they had 40 approved and they had it subdivided out for another 20. 1
believe it was up to 60, at the entire 66 acres.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, you know, my only question would be, you know, I think that the Town
has recognized over the years, and I would agree with both sides of the coin here, you know, if
you look at this in a practical sense, it's just finishing off a subdivision, with the same size lots
that currently exist on Bonner, but at the same time, we have to ask ourselves why is it that
we've gone from one acre to two acre, you know, over the course of history, and I think there's a
reason for that is that they recognize the fact that when you pack in places like you have on
Bonner, even though it's a very compact neighborhood and the neighbors are very neighborly
and get along with each other, at the same time it creates problems in the long term because if
you design a house and put it on the lot and then you want to add a garage you've got to come
back for a variance, things like that, too. So we're shoehorning in here, and I think especially in
this example, the last two lots with the turns where the hammerhead is, you know, it's a little bit
undesirable. If you were in those two houses on those tiny lots there, I think you are going to
be put off by all the traffic coming in and turning around and their headlights in your yard at the
same time. So I'm going to wait to hear what everybody else has to say.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-Well, 1, myself, live at the terminus of a dead end road, and I can certainly
appreciate what Mr. Underwood said, with constant turns in my driveway. One of the concerns
I have is with snow. I mean currently they put it on the property. So one way or the other
someone's going to get a load. My other concern is over the environment and the
Comprehensive Plan for the Town and trying to find some sort of compromise. Because I can
imagine that this is probably something like the original plan for Bonner Drive, but looking at the
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
current zoning and the rationale for that, I have a concern. So my recommendation would be to
modify the plan so that those lots would be larger.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I think this is too much for too little space. I think we look at the, you know,
the history of the lot is one thing, but we also went through a zoning change as well, and they
didn't keep the current, they didn't keep in mind the current subdivision when they asked for two
acres for these parcels, and I think for us to grant, I mean four parcels where maybe only two
are supposed to go in there would be changing the Code, defacto changing the Code, and I
don't think that's something I want to be doing. So I would be against the process.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, I believe that this is too much of a request for relief in that the idea that one
acre with sewer and water is sort of the current Code, and so I don't support this, even though
there's a legacy there. I understand the concern about completing the neighborhood, but too
much relief and I believe that for lots there is not in keeping with the expectations.
MR. JACKOSKI-So regardless of where Jim and I feel at this point, I'm hearing that there's not
enough support for approval of the application as it's planned.
MR. CENTER-Since my client who is a homeowner who lives on this, this isn't a development
type of deal where he's speculating on land. He lives next to this. He owns the land. Can we
discuss a little bit? If we came back with a three lot, if there's anywhere in that nature where we
maybe, since we have that end cap issue where we have, trying to finish out that road and bring
that hammerhead, if we did two lots to one side and one lot on the other, in that kind of
configuration, is there any sort of configuration with three lots that this Board may feel
comfortable with or are we still going to be in the same boat?
MR. URRICO-So you're looking at about .8?
MR. CENTER-It would be close to .8. Probably would pull the hammerhead back slightly, but
again the hammerhead goes into either lot. So I'd have to look at that, rather than maybe
taking one lot line out and leaving the hammerhead where it goes. I'm going to have to try to
look at a couple of different configurations and find the best one with that, but if we did go down
to a three lot subdivision, would that be something that the Board may entertain or have any
particular concerns with?
MR. JACKOSKI-Where does the Town put the snow now?
MR. CENTER-The Town puts the snow straight off the end of the road, right onto Mr. Dorman's
property. If you walk down the road and you look straight ahead you can see that area, straight
in there to the right, just to the right of the fence, the fence garden area and some apple trees.
That's where they plow the snow to now, straight off the end, and that was one of the, I know
one of the questions with regard to snow was one of the things that the Highway Superintendent
stressed to me to talk to the client. It was kind of easy because he was selling these two lots to
his sons. They're making it fairly obvious that they're going to be putting the snow somewhere
and they understood that his concerns were, hey, we're going to put the snow somewhere. It's
going to be on your front lawns. If we go ahead and do this, we can't come to them at a later
date, and they understood the issues there.
MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, can the applicant benefit from a simple two lot subdivision without the
Board, or because it's still so far under?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, it's still under the acreage.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, we can't tell you what to do, Tom, unfortunately.
MR. CENTER-No, I guess in a way of polling to say, before we go ahead and spend the money
to engineer, is there anything in particular that the Board has?
MR. URRICO-I would look at it more favorably?
MR. JACKOSKI-Two lot or three?
MR. URRICO-Three.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. MC CABE-I'll support three.
MR. HENKEL-I see two, I definitely see two.
MR. FREER-I think two is the right number for me.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'd like to see two.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are you going to table the application?
MR. CENTER-I'll table the application.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Michael Dorman. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.54 acre parcel into 4 lots each less
than '/2 acres. Applicant proposes development of a hammer head road section instead of a
cul-de-sac. Relief requested from minimum required lot sizes for the MDR zoning district.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE PZ 209-2016 MICHAEL DORMAN, Introduced by
Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Tabled to the October meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals with a submission deadline of
September.
Duly adopted this 24th day of August, 2016, by the following vote:
MR. MC CABE-Will September be okay? Can you submit your plans?
MR. CENTER-Table to September, please.
MR. JACKOSKI-With a September submission deadline.
MR. MC CABE-Until October with a September submission deadline.
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr.
Jackoski
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE PZ-0210-2016 SEQRA TYPE II BRETT R. & PAMELA T. WEST
AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES
OWNER(S) BRETT R. & PAMELA T. WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 106 BAY
PARKWAY, NORTHWEST POINT OF ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A
REVISED VARIANCE AS AV 95-2016 WAS OVERTURNED BY THE APA. THE APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 159 SQ. FT. DECK ADDITION. THE PROJECT STILL
CONSISTS OF A 785 SQ. FT. 3-SEASON LAKESIDE ADDITION, 880 SQ. FT. ADDITION OF
A PORTE COCHERE WITH TWO NEW PORCHES ON THE BAY PARKWAY SIDE OF THE
HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF A 654 SQ. FT. PATIO/DECK AND
FRONT PORCH, 80 SQ. FT. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, AND 3,545 SQ. FT. OF DRIVE
AND WALKWAYS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK, SIDE
SETBACKS, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND FOR A SECOND
GARAGE. CROSS REF AV PZ-0095-2016; SP PZ-0089-2016; AV 47-2007; BP 2007-571
DOCK, DECK; BP 2007-359 RES. ALT.; BP 99-566 DOCK; BP 97-676 BOAT SHELTER,
DOCKS & COVERED PORCH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2016
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.96 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 275.15-1-
17 SECTION 179-3-040
JON LAPPER, TOM HUTCHINS & ANDREW ALLISON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-This project has been in front of the Board in the past and it is here because of
a court decision, I'm sorry, not a court decision, an APA decision, my apologies. There is a
public hearing scheduled this evening and I'm going to turn it over to Roy. Do we have to read
the whole thing in, Staff, or can we just read the revisions? It's a whole new application, right?
MRS. MOORE-It's a whole new application. However, you could just highlight the fact that
there's only been one change to the application.
MR. URRICO-I'm just going to go ahead and read it.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0210-2016, Brett R. & Pamela T. West, Meeting Date:
August 24, 2016 "Project Location: 106 Bay Parkway, northwest point of Assembly Point
Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has submitted a revised variance as AV 95-2016
was overturned by the APA. The applicant proposes to remove a 159 sq. ft. deck addition. The
project still consists of a 785 sq. ft., 3-season lakeside addition, 880 sq. ft. addition of a porte
cochere with two new porches on the Bay Parkway side of the home. The project includes
removal of 654 sq. ft. patio / deck and front porch, 80 sq. ft. accessory structure, and 3,545 sq.
ft. of drive and walkways. Relief requested from shoreline setback, side setbacks, expansion of
a nonconforming structure, and for a second garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from shoreline setback, side
setbacks, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and for a second garage.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts
Proposed three seasoned porch is to be 26.6 ft. (east), and a back porch (west) to be 25.7 ft.
from the shoreline where a 50 ft. : shoreline setback is required.
Section 179-5-020 accessory structure
Proposed porte-cochere to be located at the (non-shoreline) front of the house where a
detached garage already exists on the site. The proposed porte-cochere is considered a
second garage.
Section 179-13-010 Continuation —expansion of a non-conforming structure
The proposed additions along the shoreline are expansion of a non-conforming structure where
the expansions do not meet the required setback of the waterfront residential zone.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant
has indicated additional shoreline plantings on the east side of the property and the existing
vegetation will assist screen the additions form the shore view.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible
alternatives may be possible to reduce the overall size of the additions proposed.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for the three season porch
23.4 ft. and the back porch 24.3 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed
may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or
area. The applicant has included new stormwater measures that did not exist prior and
proposes a new septic system.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes expansion of an existing non-conforming home with a three season
porch on the shoreline side of the home, a new back porch area and a front porch on the non-
shoreline with a new porte-cochere roof area. The project also includes a new septic installation
and a conversion of the driveway area to permeable pavers. The APA denies the previous
variance and the applicant has changed the application by removing an existing 159 sq. ft.
attached porch that violated the shoreline setbacks."
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Lapper, welcome.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with the project engineer,
Tom Hutchins, project architect, Andrew Allison, and this time Brett West who was unavailable
when we were here in March. As the Chairman has said, this was approved by the Zoning
Board. There's a lot to this project. It was approved by the Planning Board for site plan. It
was approved by the Town Board for on-site holding tanks instead of a septic system, and
because this is not located in a hamlet, the APA has the right to review the variance grant, and
they overturned it and they raised a number of issues. So we re-submitted a new application to
specifically address the issues that the APA had raised which are primarily visual character, and
we really want to focus, I think in more detail than we did with the last hearing, that the goal here
is this is really an architectural gem. I mean, you look at this and it's a 75 year old cabin, but
it's something really special and unique about how Lake George was developed, and most
people in Brett's shoes, who bought this lot about eight years ago, this beautiful lot on the point,
would buy to build a McMansion, and we showed in the application that there's another 2100
square feet of floor area ratio available that he's leaving on the table here with this proposal, so
the APA is asking us to get into the visual impact. Tom will get into what we've done this time,
and what we did last time was to provide screening along the shorefront, but also to just explain,
have Andy explain in detail in terms of this design. In order to keep this old home here, it needs
to be modernized and three season porches in the past, the lack of air conditioning, just the
difficulties of using this really old-fashioned home, but it was designed in character with what's
there, Andy could instead, and Brett could be requesting, you know, a full second story, a much,
much larger footprint. Yes, sure, it would be pushed back a little bit from the lake, but it will be
much more of a visual impact, and that's not what's going on here, and he doesn't want to be
left without any options. So this is a case where less is more an we're trying to be sensitive to
the visual impact and to maintain the structure, sure to modernize it a little bit, but to keep the
structure that's there. So we want to supplement the record from last time to have Tom go
through the stormwater plan, which has been fully developed now, the screening plan which has
been fully developed now, and have Andy talk about just how we got here and what the
alternatives would be. While there are alternatives, and they may require less relief, they would
be worse alternatives in terms of the visual impact. So I want to turn it over to Andy first to talk
about the design.
MR. ALLISON-So, for the record Andrew Allison with AJA Architecture and Planning. Thanks
for hearing our story and this project. Brett approached me over a year ago now and he came
to me with a simple request. He said we want to make this house more livable by today's
standards, and one of his ideas was to have a three-season porch added on to the building out
in the front that could take advantage of the views, but he was really careful to say that he did
not want to impact the historical significance of the building as it's perceived from the lake.
Brett is a unique owner there. As Jon stated, he could tear this thing down, too, and build a
much larger building there and he wouldn't be in front of the Zoning Board or the APA. Tom will
probably show you that if we did build where we could build, it would probably be worse for the
lake in the long run because we'd eat up the one part of his property that is most well suited to
deal with stormwater coming off the road, and Brett was concerned about that as well. So we
came up with a plan that really our goal was to enhance the view of the building from the lake.
So we came up with the three season porch. It's not where you would normally put this.
Normally if you were looking at this, when you were looking at his property, you might just say,
well, let's just come right off the front of the property and be somewhat in the middle of this
point, which, no matter what you do, you're within the 50 foot buffer, but that wasn't the right
solution because it would hide the character of that building which is deemed as very important
to that part of the lake and what people see. They're so used to seeing that building there, that
to move that or destroy that or change the way it looks from the lake significantly would be, I
think, taking away from the character of Lake George, and we've seen it. You can go out and
prove it to yourself by going down Assembly Point and look at many of the houses that have
been re-modeled on that, and I'm sorry you cannot build today to make something look like it did
100 or 75 years ago. I practice architecture and the world of historic preservation every single
day of my life, and you cannot re-build a new camp to look like that. It just can't be done, and
so Brett's idea is to let's just softly add on to that, and that's what we're trying to do. So the plan
is to build this sort of octagonal shape and the octagonal shape is drawn from inspiration from
many of the great camps in the Adirondacks. Some people look at it and say, well it doesn't
make sense. It's not symmetrical with the rest of the building. Well, if you go and look at great
camps or look at old camps along the lake, nothing made sense. They just did it and it all
looked good because they did it with a sense of scale and proportion and materials and that's
what Brett's doing. We're looking at using a natural timber that matches the same timber that's
on the building. We're keeping the scale of that roofline very shallow so it doesn't become
monumental and start to tower up. We're not trying to do a two story sort of addition so it gets
drastic, dramatic views of the lake. It's more about how this looks from the lakeside toward the
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
house. We're using a natural material, you know, nice stone chimneys along there as well, and
then just on the front side of the house there's one thing that we do is to just do a little bit of an
overhang there, to give a little bit of a front porch feel to the existing house and also that's sort
of protective measures to protect, that side of the house is what takes the beating of most of the
snow load during the winter, and so we added on a little bit of roofline there to just get that snow
shed away from the building, but other than that, on the lakeside, that's the majority of the
project. The real benefit to the lake happens on the other side of the house, which is the porte
cochere out in front. As much as I talk about historic quality and how nice this building looks on
the lake. From the roadside it's actually not that nice looking, but it's kind of you're walking in
the back and it's a large two story fagade and the windows are kind of oddly placed and there's
quite a bit of asphalt driveway there. So I told Brett when I first met him, you know we have an
opportunity here, your driveway's kind of failing, let's take that up and let's use that natural area,
which by grade takes all of your stormwater runoff off of Assembly Point Road and let's take the
asphalt driveway up and put in a permeable paver driveway and have that be done nicely and
then put a little porte cochere over the front or the back of the building actually which is on the
roadside and that will give you protection to protect that side of the building which is showing
pretty significant signs of deterioration from rain. So we added a porte cochere on that side,
again in the same timber style that we're doing on the front, and that'll help bring the scale of
that down from being a two story fagade that kind of sits, you know, in proud view of the road, to
now it strips it down to a single story view that sort of steps back. It's nice and open, timber,
stone, the whole Adirondack feel again, and those rooflines help to protect the historic structure
that's there. I don't see other people going through these measures. Brett is not getting
everything that he wants out of this. He really wanted a much larger living room, and when I
walked through it, I looked at the living space, the bathrooms are small and the bedrooms are
small, and he said, you know, I'm willing to live with those things because that's the character of
this place, and I bought that place with this intention of keeping it that way. I don't know any
other people with Brett's means that would say that. They would kind of just look at it and say,
well, it's old, it's dingy, it's small, let's take it down and let's take this thing up to three or four
thousand square feet like we can, and so I think, you know, as much as the APA looked at this
as an encroachment project on the 50 foot shoreline, the reality of this thing, this is a sort of
preservation project to preserve the most important building on Assembly Point, and to keep it
relevant in today's real estate market, and then on the side of that is also to go after the
stormwater protection measures to make the quality of the water better around the point. So
that's kind of a lot of the project.
MR. LAPPER-Before I turn it over to Tom to talk about the stormwater and visual buffering, I
also want to mention that one of the items that APA pointed out was that the closest point to the
lake was the deck under the hot tub which was I think 19.6 feet from the lake. So in order to
come back to you with a different application, Brett agreed to eliminate, to remove that whole
section that's closest to the lake at 19.6, and that was here last time and it's off the plan now.
So that's another benefit to this from last time. Tom?
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins. Yes, one of the strongest things of this
application, and it remains where we were with the last application, is the removal of the entire
driveway. There's over 3500 square feet of asphalt drive there and we're removing that in its
entirety, replacing it with less area of 100% permeable driveway, which resolves the drainage
problem. Presently there's a yard drain with a pipe that directs to the lake, directly. That will
be removed. Stormwater management will be installed on the perimeter, all the perimeter of
the new structure will be protected. Again Jon had mentioned the deck that had, that was an
issue, not so much with this Board, but in the APA's review they took big issue of it. That deck
is to be removed and not to be replaced. So actually that, the lowest shoreline setback, by
removing that deck we are increasing that minimum shoreline setback from today's to what we
will be. By removing that deck our shortest shoreline setback will actually be further from the
shoreline. Again, wastewater system, we looked at a number of possibilities to replace the
wastewater system. There is a, there's a drainage channel along that eastern parcel line that
is, that drains most of the time, and it's very low over there, and that's the area where the
existing system is. The existing wastewater system is functioning. It does not have to be
replaced. They've opted to replace it to put in a lake friendly system, and that's not without
some sacrifice. It's a holding tank system. It has been approved by the local Board of Health
and that's a giant step forward for protection of the lake. We've added, we've also added a full
landscaping plan and that is included in your package. We've been more specific with
plantings, more specific with locations, more specific with species, and we've tried to hit the
areas that make the most sense in terms of shoreline buffering and visual filtering, and with that,
I think I'd turn it back to Jon and Brett if they have anything else to add.
MR. LAPPER-Because this is a variance that has to be reviewed by the APA, we have to
address the older standard which no longer applies under Town law but still applies under the
APA regulations, the practical difficulty, and so that needs to be in the resolution, and the
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
practical difficulty here is that we have this 75 year old camp which doesn't meet the present, in
conformity with the present setbacks, but the difficulty is that Brett is trying to preserve this
architectural gem, and that's what's unique here. If he didn't care about the character of this
structure and keeping the structure, it wouldn't be a practical difficulty. He could knock it down,
but that's not the right answer. So the difficulty is working with what he has and trying to make
it work for his family and trying to respect what's there. That's something that's really unique
here. So, Brett, would you like to add anything?
BRETT WEST
MR. WEST-Yes, I mean, it's simple. We love this house. It doesn't have any outdoor living,
no screened porch like many of the houses on Lake George, and it's a log house. Especially
after this summer, it gets very warm over there in the summer. So, you know, the porch, or it's
not the porch, the pavilion is much needed, and then the backside, the carport. Are there
photos of the current backside? I think that would explain it.
MR. FREER-I don't think anybody's objecting to that.
MR. WEST-Yes, it's just kind of a flat side of the house. So we want to build that out. Any
questions?
MR. JACKOSKI-Board member questions at this time? Having no Board member questions, I'll
open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to
address this Board concerning this application? We do have one person. If you could give up
the table, please. While they're getting settled, is there any written comment? Welcome.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's no written comment.
LORRAINE RUFFING
MS. RUFFING-Good evening. My name is Lorraine Ruffing, and I live at 66 Bay Parkway, and
I've lived there since 1953. 1 think in March this Zoning Board resolved that the benefit to the
applicant by granting the then requested variance outweighed the resulting detriment to the
neighborhood in Assembly Point, and I would like to emphasize that Assembly Point suffers
from serious stormwater runoff during rain events and it needs every inch of permeable surface
to be preserved. That being said, I'd like to raise the following comments about this application.
First, the applicant requests significant relief on this proposed site, including a shoreline
setback, a side setback, an expansion of a nonconforming structure, and a second garage.
The totality of these developments will have a significant impact on this Critical Environmental
Area on the shore of Lake George. Second, there is yet an additional setback which has not
been considered by the applicant or the site development plan. What has been overlooked,
because it's being called a ditch, is the AA special stream that borders the northwest part of the
property, and according to the APA regulations, a 100 foot setback is required from this stream.
So I request that the treatment of the AA special stream become part of the current site
development plan. I have pictures which show that this stream originates in the property of
Otyokwa, which is across the Bay Parkway from the West property. It funnels underneath the
road. I believe that was a construction by the Town. It enters onto the adjoining property and
then it enters the West property. So I think that the APA was a little bit negligent in that they
didn't pick this up when they first considered this application, that this stream will be impacted,
and as I said in my statement I have the pictures that shows the stream, its origin and how it
funnels into the lake, and in the previous presentation of where the wastewater treatment site is
right now, and it abuts the stream, and you can see, if you look at the area where the stream
enters the lake, it is carrying a heavy nutrient load. So the one good thing about his application
is that they are going to switch to holding tanks and that will give some relief, but I think they
need to consider even more relief given this stream. Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board on this
application? Seeing no one, and knowing that there's no written comment, if you could come
back to the table again. Mr. Lapper, I assume you'd like to address the discussion.
MR. LAPPER-That's what we have an engineer for.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, on the stream issue, that's why we did what we did. I talked about that
last month. I talked about the running water on the west side and that's why we went to holding
tanks. Absent that, we would have proposed some type of enhanced treatment system on this
property to get it off. So that's why we did what we did.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. WEST-Allow me just a quick second here. The stream that we're talking about runs down
the property line right here. It goes under the road right here and comes out. My current
leaching fields are all right here. We're removing that and we're putting in holding tanks right
over here.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Lapper, could you explain the 100 feet?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the location that we've sited the holding tanks is essentially midway
between the waterway on the west and the lake, and we've maximized the distance as best we
can. The 100 foot separation that I'm familiar with would be to the absorption field from a
waterway, be it the lake or be it, a holding tank would be a 50 foot separation in a new
construction scenario, and in this case it is maximum separation to maximize it from all, and it's
also at the high point from all the property. So the holding tank system is at the ideal location
for this property, and 100 feet is not applicable to a holding tank, and we have variances,
approved variances with this one from the Town Board.
MR. LAPPER-The woman who spoke also didn't acknowledge that this site will be more
permeable rather than less permeable after this is built because of moving all the asphalt.
MR. WEST-It was mentioned earlier, but I just want to make sure that everyone understands
that currently I have an open drain right here in the driveway. It's not really in this photo, and a
lot of water comes off of the road down here and into this drain, and then there's just a straight
pipe to the lake. It just drains into the lake, untreated. So we're getting rid of that, because it's
not good what's going on there, and, you know, it's been that way for decades, and we're
removing that and we're bringing in a new permeable driveway and all kinds of, he can explain
the rock systems we're putting in to absorb the water, but it's very much our intentions to solve
those problems.
MR. HENKEL-His permeability is up to 81%. It's probably better than anybody in that
neighborhood.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any further comments regarding public comment? Go ahead. Just briefly.
MS. RUFFING-As I mentioned, the fact that they are going to put the holding tanks in is really
good, but I still think that the APA regulation of a 100 foot setback from an AA special stream
should be considered and to be part of the application.
MR. JACKOSKI-So what we're here to do is we are here to address the Zoning Administrator's
determination of the application in front of me right now. I don't have a determination from the
Zoning Administrator that there is an issue there regarding that matter.
MR. HUTCHINS-And we've applied for the variances we were advised that we should apply for
for the Town, and the APA has had the opportunity to look at that variance, and they've opted to
act on that. Nowhere in their summary of that do I recall, and I could be wrong, but do I recall
any discussion of any additional setback requirements about 100 feet from a stream. We can
build a house 50 feet from Lake George. We can build a house 50 feet from a stream.
There's no more separation from a stream than there is from Lake George for a structure.
MR. JACKOSKI-And again, I don't have a determination from the Zoning Administrator at this
time. So it's not something that I can rule on, or the Zoning Board of Appeals or essentially your
appeal regarding Craig Brown's decision.
MR. WEST-One last point. I think it's important. We've had two bids on this project, soup to
nuts, all of it. One at$700,000 and one at$850,000. That's the scale to this project, and what
I'm getting that's usable for the family? The little porte cochere, that's it. That's a lot of money.
A lot of this money, most of this money is all for environmental impact, which is important to us.
We want to do this. I'm a little surprised that there's a dissenting opinion on this. As Jon said
earlier, you know, we could just tear the whole darn thing down and put up something much
bigger, almost for just the cost of my porch and my porte cochere. So that's just, I needed to
say that.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to leave the public hearing open. At this time I'm going to poll the
Board. Would anyone like to volunteer to go first?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. MC CABE-I'll start. I took a look at this project and I'm truly impressed with the plans of
the applicant. I think he's approached everything in the proper manner and I support the
project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-1 support the project. I'm really impressed with the improvements, and my
concern was after looking at the property was the proximity of the gazebo. It's really a close fit,
but I think on balancing it with the permeability, I would vote for it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I still have a little bit of a concern with the diameter of the three
season porch. You put on there 29 feet, and I think if you slid it back in line with the front of the
house, in a practical sense it's going to change the lines, and I think you want to, I think what
you're trying to do is preserve the view out of all sides of the house.
MR. WEST-We had looked at that, Jim. The problem with putting it in front of the house is
that's the great room in front of the house. That's where we spend 90% of our time, and there's
two fabulous windows that look out at the lake, and that's the view from the house is right there,
and if you put it in front of that, there goes your view from inside your house. You'd only have it
in the gazebo.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 just don't want you to have to go back to the APA and have them wig out
again over why they don't want this built because you are encroaching, getting closer to the
lake, and I think that, you know, in most sense, you know, like when people are doing this,
you're trying to make it fit, trying to make it work, you know, so you get what you want. They
can compromise and get what they want at the same time, but I think that still maybe the size of
that three season room being 29 foot in diameter, you know, that's pretty big to me.
MR. WEST-Well, that's the roofline you're looking at.
MR. ALLISON-There are a number of studies that we do. One being from what it does to the
inside of the house, the views coming out, because I do these with homes on the lake, but we
also did a study, too, where we looked at the view shed of the adjoining properties to see where
we could put that where it would be the least impact to their view of the greatest extent of the
lake, and the property to the south, when we had this model in our software when we had that,
the octagon out in the front of the building, we're actually, then we're encroaching on two sides
on the 50 foot buffer. So we're going to need two of them, but the other thing was that building
to the south side, if you swing that octagon shape to the front, it almost completely cuts off their
view of the northern part of the lake that they can see from their property, and that, as much as
the view from her property from the side, that was the main. Your first concept when you came
to me was, we walked out in the middle of the yard and we're going to put it right here because
that's where it seemed to make sense, and then we studied what it would look like, how it would
affect the look of the house, the existing house, from the lake, and putting that right in front of
there, it just felt very odd. It really, it ruined the view of the house from the lake. So shifting
that to the side made sense from interior views looking out, views of the house from the lake,
and minimizing the view impact to the neighbor to the south.
MR. UNDERWOOD-How about the porch that faces due north then. You're adding a porch on
the north side there, looking out toward the point.
MR. WEST-No, you mean the one that points north or going to the?
MR. UNDERWOOD-The one that's parallel with the front, kind of looking north.
MR. WEST-That's existing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That's existing. So that's not going to change.
MR. WEST-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, because that's not clear to me.
MR. FREER-So the proposed porch on the left side of the diagram is existing?
MR. ALLISON-On the north side.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, because the way you have it drawn there, it looks like you're adding
that, re-doing that completely.
MR. WEST-Okay. So, this is existing. That's what I was referring to, Jim. Right now there's a
porch that's right here. So, do we have a picture? We're trying to balance the front of the
house with the porch.
MR. ALLISON-So what's existing right now, there's a covered porch right here. The existing
roofline comes down and covers this porch. That's going to remain in place. All we're doing is
replacing the concrete that's underneath it. Because it's all tore up, and then there's a concrete
patio that comes out this full width all the way to here, and we're actually removing that concrete
patio. So we're gaining some green space and we're just putting in a walkway here to get to
that covered walkway. It has a low roof over it, but we're increasing impervious area on that
side of the lake in that zone.
MR. WEST-And then this is being added. This is all new.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That's the one I'm talking about.
MR. FREER-That's the one I'm talking about, too.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That's being added on?
MR. ALLISON-Yes, this is on the west side of the lake, and this is added on. There is a roof
that comes out here now, but we're just kind of going off the sides there.
MR. WEST-One of the problems when you look at the house from the lake, I wish we had
photos, because it's a one story, when you're looking at, so this is the point here. So the boats
are all coming by here. When you're looking at it, this is a one story, and this is two story here,
because it's two stories in the back. So this roof from here goes a long ways, and all you see
from this side is roof. You don't see much building I mean there's building down here, but it
just, it's always bothered me since the day we bought it, every time I walk from the dock to the
house I just stare at this ugly roof. So we're going to put a dormer in here to break that up and
this porch here too to break that up. That's the whole idea.
MR. ALLISON-So this is the before condition, on Page A900 of your packet, and you can see
what Brett's talking about. This is just a really large sloping roof and just sort of a non-descript
front and then there's a roof extension right here for that existing porch, and what we all like
about it is when you look at it from the lake all you see is just a big roof, and then this side of the
building, down around, near the ground level is taking on quite a bit of deterioration of the logs
because there's no overhang on that side. So the proposal is to extend that roof almost at the
same slope but slightly shallower coming out, and then we're simply adding in a gable on that
side, just for aesthetic impact. That doesn't go to the inside. It's merely just built up on the
inside, and that sort of helps it tie in, you know, with this roofline and how all that works, but
we're really just extending that roof. The main reason is just to protect that side of the building
from further deterioration.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, Jim, I didn't hear a yes or a no?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm still thinking about it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-So I applaud the work you're doing with regard to the lake. However, the setback,
the 50 foot setback, you're asking for relief of current noncompliant from 30 feet, 29.7 feet, to 25
feet on the porch. I just, for the first time, heard that it's to protect the lake, but I'm not an artist.
I have more of an engineering and numbers aspect to it, and so I don't support the 25.7 foot
request of increasing noncompliance on that piece, but I will, I do, and you're going to get it
approved anyway, but I could live with the 26.6 feet based on all I heard and all of the goings on
and the APA's insistence that the 19.6 feet existing deck, but I would really like to see you
design something that stays at 29.7 feet max, which is what is there. All I care about is the lake
setback. All the rest of the stuff is great.
MR. ALLISON-Harrison, I'll just clarify something. The 29.7 is to the wall of what's the existing
bedroom on the north side, and our encroachment is to the roof overhang, but the actual
physical structure is in line with that same 29.7. So the wall of the pavilion is at the same 29.7.
The roof overhang is the encroaching asset, and underneath the roof overhang is all permeable.
There's no concrete under that.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. FREER-I didn't realize that.
MR. WEST-No, we have large overhangs. They're about three and a half feet past the actual
structure.
MR. ALLISON-They wanted the pavilion to be perfectly parallel to that side of the house. So it
doesn't go out any more than the other.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So only the roofline is going to be sticking out on the three season, past
that?
MR. FREER-Well, that wasn't clear to me.
MR. ALLISON-That's what we have to measure to is the roofline.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I think it's a great looking project. It could be a lot worse. It could be 1900
square feet bigger. The building could be a lot worse. We could be giving a lot more relief on
that. I just think it's a great project. It looks good. Go for it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Normally I'd look at the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health
and safety of the community. In this case they've actually gone out of their way to assure the
benefit to the community and to the welfare of the community at their detriment. So I think they
should be applauded for that. I think they put together a hell of a project and I would be in favor
of it.
MR. WEST-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. LAPPER-There was one thing I noticed in the application that was a typo that I just wanted
to correct. In the existing garage, 54.3 and the proposed garage is 54.3, but it says 5.3, on
Page Two so I just want to put that on the record. That's a glaring error.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Brett R. and Pamela T. West. Applicant has submitted a revised variance as AV 95-2016 was
overturned by the APA.
The applicant proposes to remove a 159 sq. ft. deck addition. The project still consists of a 785
sq. ft., 3-season lakeside addition, 880 sq. ft. addition of a porte cochere with two new porches
on the Bay Parkway side of the home. The project includes removal of 654 sq. ft. patio / deck
and front porch, 80 sq. ft. accessory structure, and 3,545 sq. ft. of drive and walkways. Relief
requested from shoreline setback, side setbacks, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and
for a second garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from shoreline setback, side
setbacks, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and for a second garage.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts
Proposed three seasoned porch is to be 26.6 ft. (east), and a back porch (west) to be 25.7 ft.
from the shoreline where a 50 ft.: shoreline setback is required.
Section 179-5-020 accessory structure
Proposed porte-cochere to be located at the (non-shoreline) front of the house where a
detached garage already exists on the site. The proposed porte-cochere is considered a
second garage.
Section 179-13-010 Continuation —expansion of a non-conforming structure
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
The proposed additions along the shoreline are expansion of a non-conforming structure where
the expansions do not meet the required setback of the waterfront residential zone.
SEQR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 24, 2016;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because the new design maintains the character of the existing old
building, classic Lake George architecture. They've visually improved the structure from
both the lakeside and the roadside. So therefore we view it as an improvement to the
character of the neighborhood.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but not reasonable because of the desire to
maintain an old existing property. It's impractical in order to maintain the existing
structure.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because the building really isn't much bigger
than what exists and therefore when compared to the Code it's substantial, but
compared to what's already existing we're really not doing much to the property at all.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district? And in fact the improved wastewater management and the
improved stormwater protection will be a great improvement on the environmental
conditions that exist now.
5. The alleged difficulty on the surface appears self-created, but it's not. The actual
condition was caused 75 years ago when the property was originally built.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community by a large degree;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary; in order to maintain maximum view, to maintain the character of the existing
structure and neighborhood, and the location on the existing lot based upon practical
difficulty.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE
PZ 210-2016 BRETT R. & PAMELA T. WEST, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for
its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 24th day of August 2016 by the following vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-Staff?
MRS. MOORE-There's two items. I would maybe suggest something in addition in your
feasible alternatives. You've indicated they're not possible, and maybe there's some language
that you might want to consider, that the applicant is maintaining the existing structure in its
current location, so it's not possible to achieve an alternative.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I'll say it's not practical, in order to maintain the existing structure. Is
that okay with you?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay, and then the other item is in reference.
MR. URRICO-Or you could say impractical.
MRS. MOO RE-Impractical. Okay. That doesn't sound correct. The other item is in regard to
practical difficulty. You'll need some language addressing the statement practical difficulty.
Previously you heard that the applicant, the project involves a 70 year old camp renovation to
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
add residential additions as well as site improvements to an existing camp where the applicant
is not proposing a tear down re-build, and there may be other language that the Board finds
more useful than the word practical difficulty.
MR. MC CABE-With respect to which of the?
MRS. MOORE-It's actually in addition to it.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. All right. So I'm amending the requested, or excuse me, the feasible
alternatives.
MRS. MOORE-No, you're actually potentially going to add it, it's not a condition. It would be
after the consideration is the minimum necessary. In addition the Board may find the practical
difficulty.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is
the minimum necessary considering the practical difficulty of maintaining the existing structure.
MR. JACKOSKI-So let's say the existing structure, the neighboring view sheds.
MR. LAPPER-Location of the house.
MR. JACKOSKI-The location of the existing house, the desire of the applicant to minimize the
impact on the environment by not fully developing the parcel, and keeping the genuine authentic
nature of such a home on the lake.
MR. JACKOSKI-And Maria will get that as she types it all in. We do have an amended motion.
I assume it's still seconded.
MR. MC CABE-Are you okay with that?
MRS. MOORE-Do you want to add a bit of clarification to that?
MR. MC CABE-So, I'll say, I'll amend my resolution by saying that the Board also finds that the
variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; in order to maintain maximum
view, to maintain the character of the existing structure and neighborhood, and the location on
the existing lot based upon practical difficulty.
MR. JACKOSKI-And the location on the existing lot.
MR. MC CABE-And the location on the existing lot.
MR. LAPPER-Which is based upon a practical difficulty.
MRS. MOORE-Based upon practical difficulty.
MR. MC CABE-Based upon practical difficulty.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Will she be able to interpret that?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-So I'll amend my resolution.
MR. JACKOSKI-Accordingly. Great. So we do have a motion. Can I have a second to the
amended?
MR. HENKEL-Second.
MR. JACKOSKI-Call the vote.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do we want to do this Shambo next? Do we want to go out of order, or should
I just do the sign ones?
MRS. MOORE-That's completely up to you. They're, both applicants are present.
MR. JACKOSKI-Let's do the Shambo one next.
AREA VARIANCE PZ-0213-2016 SEQRA TYPE II PAUL SHAMBO, II OWNER(S) PAUL
SHAMBO ZONING WR LOCATION 31 SULLIVAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,024 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WHICH INCLUDES A
SECOND STORY ABOVE A NEW GARAGE AND ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME; NEW
FLOOR AREA 3,948 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK AND
FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF
BP 97-250; SFD; BP 97-250 PORCH; BP 2014-427 POOL; BP 2014-426 SHED WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-20 SECTION
179-3-040
PAUL SHAMBO, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0213-2016, Paul Shambo, 11, Meeting Date: August 24,
2016 "Project Location: 31 Sullivan Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 3,024 sq. ft. residential addition. Relief requested from minimum
setback and floor area ratio requirements for the WR zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback and floor
area ratio requirements for the WR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Establishments of District Dimensional requirements.
The applicant proposes a 3024 sq. ft. residential addition that is to be located 27.8 ft. from the
front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. The project also includes increasing the
floor area of the home where 0.23% is proposed and 22% is the maximum allowed. The
current floor area is 2,684 sq. ft. and 3,948 sq. ft. is proposed total 6,632 sq. ft. (includes a new
garage, living space above and a living area connected to the existing home.)
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant
has indicated neighboring homes have garages either detached or attached.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives
may be limited due to the location of the existing home and location of the septic area.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 2.2 f.t to the front property
line and 1% in excess for the floor area ratio.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be
considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the
area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a residential addition that includes attached garage with new living
space on the first level that includes kitchen and dining area. The area with the new garage will
also include living space above for bedrooms and bathrooms. The plans show the elevations
and floor plans of the existing and the proposed house plan arrangement."
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. It's a straightforward application, but if you have
anything more to add, please feel free to do so.
MR. SHAMBO-My name is Paul Shambo. We're basically doing an addition. We're about two
feet four inches shy of the setback. We have woods on one side and building up on the hill on
the other, with both neighbors. So I was just hoping to get the variance for this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any questions from Board members on this application?
MR. HENKEL-You're looking for a floor area variance. Any way of negotiating that FAR
variance? I have no problem with the setbacks at all, but you're talking 900 square feet
variance over the allowable. That's a large amount.
MR. SHAMBO-As far as the garage size, if you shorten that garage, as far as the width, you're
not going to get two cars in there. That's the problem on that side of the building.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, but you could squish the in between part between the old house and the.
MR. SHAMBO-1 see what you're saying.
MR. HENKEL-And that would eliminate some of your FAR variance plus it would eliminate some
of your setback if you squished it a little bit more.
MR. SHAMBO-Well, I have no answer for that, other than I was just hoping that you'd allow it.
MR. HENKEL-Maybe the rest of the Board will, but that's where I see my problem is the FAR
variance a little bit.
MR. SHAMBO-We looked at the property, we dropped two camps that were eyesores. We've
consolidated the four pieces of property into two. We've cleaned up, if you saw pictures from
before, we've cleaned the property up from what it was, and built retaining walls to support the
banks and everything. I was just hoping that you guys would allow both the square footage and
the variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members?
MR. URRICO-I just want to clarify something which I read in. Are we talking about a .23% floor
area ratio where 22% is allowed, or are we talking about, but is it .23%?
MRS. MOORE-No, it's 22%, and he's asking for 23.
MR. URRICO-23%, not .23.
MRS. MOORE-No, it's 23.
MR. HENKEL-He's going up to 900 square feet.
MR. FREER-It says .23.
MRS. MOORE-It should say 23. Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing?
I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's no written comment?
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board? Seeing
no one who would like to address this Board, I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with Roy.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. URRICO-I would be in favor of the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 think it'll be an improvement to the neighborhood and I would support the
project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I could tell from looking at your property yesterday you did a ton of work
landscaping and such. I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-I too think he's asking for the minimum relief.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Like I said, I have no problem with the setbacks. I have a little problem with the
Floor Area Ratio. I'm going to say no.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm okay with the setbacks, and I agree the floor area is not really much
development. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Paul
Shambo, 11. Applicant proposes construction of a 3,024 sq. ft. residential addition. Relief
requested from minimum setback and floor area ratio requirements for the WR zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback and floor
area ratio requirements for the WR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Establishments of District Dimensional requirements.
The applicant proposes a 3024 sq. ft. residential addition that is to be located 27.8 ft. from the
front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. The project also includes increasing the
floor area of the home where 0.23% is proposed and 22% is the maximum allowed. The
current floor area is 2,684 sq. ft. and 3,948 sq. ft. is proposed total 6,632 sq. ft. (includes a new
garage, living space above and a living area connected to the existing home.)
SEQR Type: 11 — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 24, 2016;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because this project is asking for a very slight increase in the
zoning requirements.
2. Feasible alternatives could be considered but it would just take away from the utility, the
benefit that the owner is seeking from the project.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's within one percent of the floor
area ratio and pretty close to one percent of the setback requirement.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created but as has been mentioned a lot of other
improvements have occurred on this piece of property.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE
PZ-0213-2016 PAUL SHAMBO, II , Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 24th day of August 2016 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Henkel
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. SHAMBO-Thank you for your time.
SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0211-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SAXTON SIGN CORP. FOR
CONCORD POOLS AGENT(S) SAXTON SIGN CORP. OWNER(S) BIG BOOM LLC
ZONING CLI LOCATION 60 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 61.34 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN WHERE A 54.5 SQ.
FT. SIGN WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON MAY 25, 2016.
ALSO, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL FOR INSTALLING THE SIGN PARALLEL
TO 1-87 RATHER THAN FACING NORTH AND SOUTH AS THE ZBA APPROVED PLANS
INDICATED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE FREESTANDING
SIGNS AND MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE IN A CLI ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SV PZ-0133-
2016; CO-00075-2016 CONCORD POOLS C/O'S; SP 39-2015 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING AUGUST 2016 LOT SIZE 1.93 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-24
SECTION CHAPTER 140
PAT BONI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-0211-2016, Saxton Sign Corp. for Concord Pools, Meeting
Date: August 24, 2016 "Project Location: 60 Big Boom Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant requests approval for the installation of a 61.34 sq. ft. freestanding sign
where a 54.5 sq. ft. sign was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 25, 2016. Also,
the applicant requests approval for installing the sign parallel to 1-87 rather than facing north and
south as the ZBA approved plans indicated. Relief requested from maximum sign size in a CLI
zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from maximum sign size in a CLI
zoning district.
Section 140 Signs for which permits are required-number of free standing signs and size of
�ign
Applicant requests approval of a free standing signage at 61.34 sq. ft. where a 54.5 sq. ft. sign
was approved and a 45 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this sign variance. Moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives
may be considered to install a compliant 45 sq. ft. sign. The second sign free standing sign
has been granted as part of SV PZ133-2016.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 16.34 sq. ft. in excess of
45 sq. ft. The applicant was granted a 54.5 sq. ft. sign and the existing sign is 6.84 sq. ft. in
excess.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed
may have a moderate impact within the district as the sign exceeds the size allowed for the
zone and the previous approval.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The oversized sign was discovered during a follow-up site inspection to verify compliance with
the sign variance. The building permit was applied for and issued for a sign that was compliant
with the sign variance. The applicant now requests approval of the installed sign of 61.34 sq. ft.
sign that was previously approved for a 54.5 sq. ft. at 18 ft. in height for Concord Pools. The
plans show the sign location to be horizontal with the property line/Northway where the
approved plan was for a sign perpendicular. The applicant has indicated that the larger sign
allows for notice to potential clients to exit the Northway."
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome.
MR. BONI-Hi, I'm Pat BONI with Saxton Signs. This is Mike Giovanone with Concord Pools,
and what we would like to do is have the sign approved now different from the last time we were
here and have it parallel to the Northway because the trees are in the way blocking it, and by
making it parallel it'll also be 19 feet setback instead of 15 feet, and the sign itself is, from what
was legal before we got a variance of 45 feet, it's seven feet taller than the other sign and 11
feet wider, but it's only one inch taller than what was approved before by seven inch wider. It's
hard to really tell the difference in terms of scale, the difference in the sizes from what was
approved to what's there now.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time?
MR. URRICO-Yes, how did we end up with a bigger sign than you were approved for?
MR. BONI-There was a mess up with the setbacks. There was a 60 square foot sign setback
and we mixed up the two sizes from 45 square foot to 60, and also we made the sign one inch
taller so the lamps could fit in it, and I told the shop to make it one inch taller but they did it to
scale and not only did they make it one inch taller, they made it like seven inches wider. So it's
a combination of two mistakes.
MIKE GIOVANONE
MR. GIOVANONE-The sign is 11 inches wider than what was approved. We turned it, it was
my decision actually to turn it parallel with the Northway so it was an easier read, and not having
two signs, two signs facing the Northway, south and north. So now actually one half of the sign
faces the building. So there's only one facing the Northway now. We moved it back four feet,
and it's about one inch higher than the previous application.
MR. BONI-He made that decision while the guys were on site installing it. The base was
already in. Just by rotating it on the base is what made it four feet back further.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members at this time? I'll open the public
hearing. Seeing no one in the audience, I'll ask Roy if there's any written comments.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-I do not see any written comments.
MR. JACKOSKI-With no written comment, I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Roy?
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. URRICO-Well, when I look at projects like this I always say, well, what would I do if you
came with clean hands, you know, if this was a new project, and I wouldn't approve it. I think
you're well over the maximum signage allowed, and then when you add on the fact that you
turned the sign as well, there's two things that you didn't comply with. So I would not be in
favor of it. I'm sorry.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 also have a problem. We had quite a bit of discussion with this project before,
and I approved it, but I have a hard time saying that we're granting the minimum variance, you
know, necessary here, if we approved it smaller and all of a sudden it got bigger. So, you
know, at one point you accepted the smaller sign. How can we say that that's the minimum
that would be acceptable?
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I'm not really that big on signs along the Northway anyway. So I'll give you the
45 square feet, but that's all I'm going to go for. So I'm not going to accept the application as
is.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, I'm kind of in Roy's camp. This doesn't fall into the minimum variance and,
you know, coming back and asking for more relief is not the right answer, and so I don't support
it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-We should rescind the previous approvals that we gave and the sign
should be removed and there should be no signs along the Northway as the Town Code
specifies.
MRS. MOORE-That's not the case.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm not in favor of it. I was not here for the first variance, so I'm looking at
this with a fresh eye, and I'm just not in favor of the variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-So in a situation like this we normally give you two, we can't tell you what to do,
but obviously you can withdraw your application and conform to what you've already been
approved for. You can request less relief, and/or you could simply table the application and
come back to us with something else. It's really up to you, but right now you could also ask us
to vote. We could vote, but you'd get a no vote.
MR. BONI-If we withdraw the application, we can go back with the original square footage that
was approved.
MR. JACKOSKI-The original variance runs with the property, yes.
MR. GIOVANONE-May I ask the Board to consider that we're so far under the allowable square
footage on the whole property.
MR. MC CABE-We understand that. That was part of the discussion before.
MR. GIOVANONE-Neon sign like a drive-in sign up on that building, and if you've been by
there, if you've taken the drive by, we put a very expensive granite planter, gorgeous sign, 45
feet, less than half of what we were approved. I made a mistake. It was my mistake. It wasn't
Pat's, it was mine. He's being kind. It was my mistake. I do believe if we had come in during
two months ago, at the first variance request, and it was 11 inches wider.
MR. BONI-It's not 11 inches, though. It's 11 inches wider than 45 feet. It's only like six or
seven inches wider than what was approved.
MR. GIOVANONE-A little bit wider, than it would have been approved. I know I made a
mistake. What we've done on that property, we are surrounded, we are surrounded by
noncompliance, surrounded, and I think everyone on this Board knows that. We've done a
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
beautiful job there on both those projects. We've created jobs. You see the excitement it's
drawn in the local papers. I mean, there's almost a dozen articles on both of those stores. We
made a small mistake on a sign, and I'm respectfully asking you, the sign is up. It's a very
expensive sign. We've had a lot of compliments on it. It's not double-faced on the Northway
any longer. It's single faced. If you'd like me to remove the back face of it and put an
American flag on it or something, I'll do whatever you'd like, but I'd hate to throw a $12,000 sign
out.
MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately at this point the Board has provided its opinion. So, I mean, I'll
do what you ask me to do, but I've kind of laid out what the four options are. If you want to
table and come back to us. I mean, tabling doesn't preclude you from continuing and asking us
for a vote later. You can withdraw the application and go back to what you had originally. So,
Staff, did the resolution say that the sign had to run parallel in width?
MR. HENKEL-No, I don't think the orientation is important.
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Orientation is important because it violates the Code.
MR. JACKOSKI-But, Jim.
MR. BONI-May I ask a question? If the sign face was blacked out on the border, blackened
out, not illuminated, to bring it to the exact square footage of our last meeting instead of
throwing a $12,000 sign out, would that satisfy the Board?
MR. MC CABE-You'll have to discuss that with the Zoning Administrator.
MR. JACKOSKI-Craig Brown, and I think his answer is going to be, no, it's not going to change
it because he's going to say any surface that could be a sign, unfortunately, I think that's what
he's going to say, but I don't know.
MR. BONI-So turn it back, double faced the Northway and make it the original size and we're
good.
MR. JACKOSKI-You've gotten that approval.
MR. HENKEL-I guess he could ask Craig.
You might better keep it parallel.
MR. JACKOSKI-Personally if I were you I think I would table this application and seek some
more discussion with Craig Brown. We can't act on something we don't have in front of us, and
we can't guide you.
MR. GIOVANONE-Are you saying we can't keep it parallel?
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm saying I can't tell you that.
MR. BONI-So we might be able to.
MR. JACKOSKI-I can't tell you that.
MR. BONI-We might be able to.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think the orientation of it was addressed in the resolution. Correct?
MR. MC CABE-No.
MRS. MOORE-It was not, but it was presented to this Board as perpendicular.
MR. BONI-On the drawings.
MR. JACKOSKI-But an applicant can always do less relief. Correct?
MRS. MOORE-They can ask for less relief. The setback wasn't an issue. The applicant, if
there was a change in the proposal, is always encouraged to communicate with the Code
Enforcement as well as the Zoning Administrator.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. JACKOSKI-So, personally, I can't tell you want to do, but my instinct is you go back to
Craig and see what you can work out. I mean, withdrawing the application doesn't hurt you.
You just start over.
MR. BONI-So we'll withdraw this.
MR. JACKOSKI-The applicant has requested a withdrawal of the application. There's no vote
at this point. So we'll move on to the next application.
SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0212-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SAXTON SIGN CORP. FOR
G&G BOAT STORAGE AND RV STORAGE AGENT(S) SAXTON SIGN CORP. OWNER(S)
G&G BOAT N R.V. STORAGE, LLC; GIOVANONE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS ZONING
CLI LOCATION 74 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 61.34 SQ.
FT. FREESTANDING SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY TAX
PARCEL NO. 309.17-1-23.21 AND FACING 1-87. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM
SIGN SIZE FOR SUCH SIGN IN A CLI ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF CC-500-2016 -
G&G BOAT NORTH COLD STORAGE BLDG.; SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 48-2014 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2016 LOT SIZE 2.53; 1.78; 1.45 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO.
309.17-1-23.21; 23.22; 23.23 SECTION CHAPTER 140-6
PAT BONI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-0212-2016, Saxton Sign Corp. for G&G Boat and RV
Storage, Meeting Date: August 24, 2016 "Project Location: 74 Big Boom Road Description
of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a 61.34 sq. ft. freestanding sign to be
located at the back of the property Tax Parcel No. 309.17-1-23.21 and facing 1-87. Relief
requested from maximum sign size for such sign in a CLI zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from maximum sign size for such
sign in a CLI zoning district.
Section 140 Signs for which permits are required-number of free standing signs and size of
�ign
Applicant proposes a free standing sign at 61.34 sq. ft. where 45 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this sign variance. Moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives
may be considered to install a compliant 45 sq. ft. sign.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 16.34 sq. ft. in excess of
45 sq. ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed
may have a moderate impact within the district as the sign exceeds the size allowed for the
zone.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to install a sign of 61.34 sq. ft. sign The plans show the sign location to
be perpendicular with the property line/Northway. The applicant has indicated that the larger
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
sign allows for notice to potential clients to exit the Northway. In addition applicant is aware that
lots are to be combined as shown on plot plan for compliance."
MR. JACKOSKI-Do you want Board members to ask any questions?
MR. BONI-Yes. As far as the increase on this sign, the reason we want to go bigger on this
one is because all the information on the sign is very important. The name of the company is
important and storage garage is important. It's very important for our people to know it's for
boats, RV's and autos. So with all that information on the sign we really need it to be bigger than
the allowed square footage.
MR. HENKEL-The letters could be smaller, right?
MR. BONI-And they then won't be readable.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing?
The public hearing is open. Is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, seeing no one in the audience for this particular
application, I'll poll the Board at this time. I'll start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think this is another clear example of why we don't want signage along
the Northway, and I think that the Federal Highway Administration also discourages signs along
because of the distractive nature of that signage, and I think because this sign here is too much
on the sign. It's going to make people focus on the sign to read what it says, and I think that
creates a dangerous situation. We never should have approved the previous sign that we
heard earlier this evening, and I don't think that we should approve any more signage over here.
I think we go back and get an interpretation from the Town administrators, i.e. Craig Brown. I
think Craig would discourage anymore signage also.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Well, I think that the applicant has a business and I believe that it's important to
his business to let people know what's going on, and I also suffer from trying to read a smaller
sign. So I would be in favor of the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I have some concerns. Number One is that he's asking to advertise on the
Northway like that. It's really distracting as a driver and especially trying to read zooming by.
You're slowing down for the Exit 18. I know exactly where it is, and the other thing, the
competition between these signs is in relative proximity to one another, and our other signs we
can see around. I'm just concerned about the number of these types of light up signs and the
light pollution as well. So I would not be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. BONI-It's a type of sign that gets read over and over for multiple impacts to gain knowledge
of what the facility is. It's not like a gas station where you have to find a station and pull up.
So that's why we felt it very important to have the name, what we do, and of course the hours
on it. It's a 24/7 facility, and the phone number.
MR. JACKOSKI-Anyway, we're poling the Board, so at this time let's just keep going. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I've never been a fan of oversized signs. So I'm going to stay consistent
with the way I've always looked at these and not be in favor of something that's in excess of
what is allowed.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-So this doesn't meet my sort of litmus test of the minimum variance necessary.
So 45 square foot is what we're supposed to be centered on, and if there's extenuating
circumstances and it's the minimum required, then that's what we're tasked to do. So I don't
support it as presented.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I don't like signs along the Northway either. It's distracting and today everybody
Googles everything. Everybody knows where everything is by their GPS and everything. So I
don't think there's a need for a large sign like that. So I would be against it.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, again, the options for you are similar as the last time. You would have a no
vote.
MIKE GIOVANONE
MR. GIOVANONE-If this sign were the same sign as our existing variance next door, to match
the size, obviously we're going to have to go back and re-make a sign at Concord, to what was
approved, if this sign were the same square footage of the existing variance next door, would
that be acceptable?
MR. JACKOSKI-So what you're trying to suggest is there's precedent set because of the
Concord sign? And that's what the fear is going on right now, and every application is unique to
when it's presented to the Board, and as we now pay attention to the fact that the Concord sign
is there and they're competing with each other, it's raising concerns. So I'm not going to tell
you that this Board would approve that larger sign, like next door, because we don't have that in
front of us. Right now what we have in front of us is that sign, but you're hearing from the
Board pretty clearly I think, I'm paraphrasing on their behalf and I probably shouldn't but this is a
different makeup of the Board. This is a new Board that you haven't sat, you haven't had these
folks in front of you before. It's a different makeup, and it's pretty clear that the signs along the
Northway are being discouraged. Yes, Staff?
MRS. MOORE-1 just want to point out the setback for freestanding signs, it says 15 feet from
any property line. So just keep that in mind.
MR. JACKOSKI-I believe Jim's comment is they're discouraged along the highway. Jim, do
you have that in the Code?
MR. UNDERWOOD-That FHA information? No, but, I mean, it's clear on the interstate
highways, when you drive up the Northway, that's why you don't see signs along the Northway,
along most of the Northway. Those old pre-existing signs like the billboard signs, the ones that
are set way back, those were the last ones. Once you got up to a certain area on the Northway
they weren't allowable.
MR. JACKOSKI-But do we have that in our Code?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but the Federal Highway Administration, as a matter of fact, Linden
Johnson, back in the old days, that's been around forever.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So anyway, at this point the application in front of us.
MR. BONI-This particular sign we could put up without a variance, 25 feet back.
MR. JACKOSKI-I can't tell you that. I need you to get some clarification from Craig Brown.
MR. BONI-So for now we're going to withdraw this. We're going to table, I'm sorry.
MR. JACKOSKI-You want to table the application. I have a request from the applicant to table
the application. Do we need to do SEQR before we do that or no? No?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Saxton Sign Corp. for G&G Boat and RV Storage for a variance from Chapter 140 of the
Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to install a 61.34 sq. ft.
freestanding sign to be located at the back of the property Tax Parcel No. 309.17-1-23.21
and facing 1-87. Relief requested from maximum sign size for such sign in a CLI zoning
district.
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE PZ 212-2016 SAXTON SIGN CORP. FOR G & G
BOAT & RV, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Henkel:
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2016)
Tabled to the first meeting in October meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals with a September
deadline for submission of mid-September.
Duly adopted this 24th day of August, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr.
Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Can I have a motion to adjourn, please.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
AUGUST 24, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by
John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 24th day of August, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr.
Jackoski
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
46