04-26-2017 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 26, 2017
INDEX
Area Variance Z-AV-26-2017 Stewart's Shops Corp. [Chris Potter] 1.
Tax Map No. 266.03-1-11
Area Variance Z-AV-29-2017 Robert Fulmer IL
Tax Map No. 296.14-1-49
Area Variance Z-AV-31-2017 Gregory Teresi, Member Dark Bay Properties 19.
Tax Map No. 239.18-1-27.1; 239.18-1-27.2
Sign Variance Z-SV-4-2017 Hudson Headwaters Health Network 21.
Tax Map No. 308.16-2-2.3; 309.13-2-31.2
Area Variance Z-AV-22-2017 Teudy Nuesi 25.
Tax Map No. 302.13-1-16
Area Variance Z-AV-13-2017 Stephen, Carol & Andrew Bodette 28.
Tax Map No. 289.10-1-32
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.
D
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 26, 2017
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
RONALD KUHL
HARRISON FREER
JAMES UNDERWOOD
JOHN HENKEL
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to begin this evening's meeting of the Queensbury Town
Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here before, it's actually a very easy
process. There is an agenda on the back table. There are some Staff Notes on the back table, and a
general explanation of how we conduct ourselves, but basically we'll call each application, the applicants
can come to the small table here. Roy will read the application into the record. At that point we'll
ask the applicants to introduce themselves and add anything they wish at that time if it's necessary.
We'll follow with questions from the Board. When there is a public hearing advertised, and for every
matter this evening there is a public hearing advertised, I will open the public hearing, seek comments
from the public, including written comments. I will leave the public hearing open until I poll the Board
to see where the Board is thinking that they are going to go with the application, and then we'll act
accordingly. Having said all of that, the first thing on tonight's agenda is New Business. We have no
housekeeping to do. Do we want to table this, the 3300 State Route 9L?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. You can. Do you want to do that as an Admin item?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I'll do it as an Admin. Do I have to open the public hearing, though? Yes, all
right. So we'll go in order of the agenda this evening. Okay. So we'll start with Stewart's Shops,
and this is 977 State Route 149, and it is Area Variance Z-AV-26-2017. A Type II SEAR. There is a
public hearing scheduled for this evening.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-26-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. (CHRIS POTTER)
OWNER(SJ STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. ZONING NC LOCATION 977 STATE ROUTE 149;
NORTHWEST CORNER OF ROUTE 149 AND RIDGE ROAD (91-1 APPLICANT PROPOSES
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 2,292 CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEL PUMPS AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,695 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH A 2,360 SQ. FT.
CANOPY TO HAVE 4 FUEL ISLANDS FOR A TOTAL OF 8 FUELING STATIONS. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FROM THE TRAVEL
CORRIDOR OVERLAY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR NEW CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEL SERVICE. CROSS REF P-SP-30-2017 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.72
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.03441 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-030
CHRIS POTTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-26-2017, Stewart's Shops Corp. (Chris Potter), Meeting Date:
April 26, 2017 "Project Location: 977 State Route 149, northwest corner of Route 149 and Ridge
Road [9L] Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 2,292 sq. ft.
convenience store with fuel pumps and construction of a new 3,695 sq. ft. convenience store with a
2,360 sq. ft. canopy to have 4 fuel islands for a total of 8 fueling stations. Relief requested from
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
minimum setback requirements and from the Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirements. Planning
Board: Site Plan Review for new convenience store with fuel service.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from setbacks in the NC zone (Neighborhood Commercial).
Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay —Route 149
The applicant proposes a 44 ft. setback where a 75 ft. setback is required for the canopy —on Route
149.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements NC zone
The applicant proposes a 27 ft. setback where a 40 ft. setback is required for the canopy —on Ridge
Rd.
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.
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
for location of the building, septic area and canopy as the parcel is on a corner having two front
setbacks.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The applicant requests the Route 149 relief for 31 ft. and for the
Ridge Rd relief for 13 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a new convenience store and a new fuel canopy station. The
project includes the placement of the building and canopy to face the intersection of Route 149 and
Ridge Rd. The new building is to have 29 parking spaces at the building area with 8 fueling positions
under the canopy. The applicant has indicated the traffic flow arrangement would allow for the tourist
traffic flow for the area. The project activities disturb more than 1 ac and the applicant has completed
a stormwater pollution prevention plan that is under review and comment by the Town designated
engineer. The plans show the building to be 23 ft. 4 in height. Then color scheme to be clapboard
cobble stone with white column and fascia features and a stone veneer base."
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, based on its limited review, passed a motion in which they
did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project
proposal, and that was adopted on April 25, 2017 by a unanimous vote.
MR. JACKOSKI-Hello. Welcome.
MR. POTTER-Good evening. My name is Chris Potter from Stewart's Shops. Like he said, we're
looking to re-build at our location, a larger store, larger gas. We've made several additions to the
building in the past and we've kind of outgrown the space that we currently have there. So we're
looking to re-build and in doing so we would expand the gas which would require two variances from
the front yard setback. The existing canopy currently is 19 feet to Route 149, and we would be going
to 44. So we'd be increasing the setback to 149 to the canopy from what's currently there today.
The setback on 9L is 27 feet today. We'd be going to 35. So we would be decreasing that slightly
from what's there today. The corner lot does pose some issues with fitting a canopy to increase the
size. If we, you know, built the same canopy that we had today we would be able to meet the setbacks,
but with enlarging everything we would want to increase the size of the canopy which would require
the variances that we're requesting.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ready for Board member questions?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
MR. POTTER-Sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board member questions at this time?
MR. KUHL-Could I ask a question, please, Mr. Chairman?
MR. JACKOSKI-Always.
MR. KUHL-The building that you have there now, this is going to be placed further north of that
building or in the same footprint?
MR. POTTER-Correct, yes. We would keep the current store open during construction. It would
be a phased project. So once the new store is built we would then demo the existing store and at that
time demo the existing gas canopy and begin construction for the new canopy. There would be a
portion of approximately four weeks that we would be down with gas, but the store itself would stay
open.
MR. KUHL-So you're basically going to cut down all the trees that are north of the store now?
MR. POTTER-Correct.
MR. KUHL-Are there any plans, well, I guess that isn't our purview is it, Mr. Chairman, to talk about
what should be re-planted?
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think that if you've got concerns with encroaching on the setback, there's
always mitigations that we're willing to weigh. So absolutely you can ask that question.
MR. KUHL-I guess I can ask that question. Are you going to be re-planting any of the trees you're
going to be cutting down?
MR. POTTER-There is a proposal for trees to be planted in our landscaping plan,throughout the whole
perimeter of the property.
MR. KUHL-I'm not going to go count trees but I'm hoping that you took that into consideration and
will have some more greenery there.
MR. POTTER-1 think, yes, the overall green space is well above the required, and I think the quality of
landscaping that's proposed is going to be a substantial improvement over what's there today.
MR. MC CABE-Well, I'm sure that those trees that are on the golf course there, they're probably not
even on your property.
MR. POTTER-There are a number of trees that are on the golf course property that would remain
obviously.
MR. MC CABE-Unless you want to protect yourself from wild shots.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? I mean,
I have a couple if you don't mind.
MR. POTTER-No, sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-I drive by this particular Stewart's every day to and from. So there's always a lot of
tractor trailer traffic. How are you handling that?
MR. POTTER-With this location you will be able to drive around the back of the building like you
currently can today, but it's much larger, which will accommodate. We route it with our fuel truck.
So our fuel truck will fit around back of the building. So the lot that's proposed will allow for trucks
to come in.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, there is a residence right next door. Is there screening for that residence in
that plan?
MR. POTTER-There's landscaping along that side. The edge of blacktopping really doesn't extend any
further past what's currently there. That edge of blacktop on the west side of the property is right
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
in line where it is there. Our driveway stays where it is, but there are a number of landscape beds
along that property line.
MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'm going to open the public
hearing at this time. Is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-There is no written comment. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like
to address the Board on this particular application? Okay, if you could, sir, if you could come to the
table, please.
BRIAN WALKER
MR. WALKER-Good evening. My name's Brian Walker and my mother Joan and my sister Michelle
live in the residence adjacent to the Stewart's property where the expansion is proposed. We share
an estimated 350 property line with Stewart's Store Number 282. As the co-owners of 967 State
Route 149, we're strongly opposed to the variance sought by Stewart's, and we have a rather lengthy
list of complaints that we would like to make the Board aware of to take into consideration, and this is
through years of existing experience being a neighbor of Stewart's. So the first item on our list is the
light pollution is a very big concern. The store has significant lighting and it's open for roughly 17
hours a day. So the light pollution is a problem now, and we think it will be a bigger problem with a
larger store, with a bigger canopy it's going to have more lights. There's a potential for increased noise
pollution. As I said before, the store opens early and it's open late. So delivery trucks show up
before the store opens. They're not typically there after the store closes, but you know we're basically
looking at truck traffic and car traffic from five in the morning until 10 or 11 p.m. at night. So it's a
long day, 17 to 18 hours a day, with noise and pollution. We're concerned with the overdevelopment
of the existing site. There's already not enough parking for cars and trucks. Cars often park on our
land. They park in front of our house on the road. Tractor trailers park in front of our driveway
blocking our access to get out of the house, and then they walk back to the store. They park where
the gas station used to be, the Getty station. They walk across the street there because tractor trailers
can't pull in to the Stewart's parking lot. It's too small. So it creates a problem in front of our house.
It creates a traffic hazard, because when we pull out of our driveway and people are pulling out of
Stewart's onto 149 heading west, they're looking up towards Fort Ann to make sure the traffic is clear
and they're not looking the other way of cars coming out from around out building. So there've
been a couple of close calls there which need to be thought about. Stewart's customers oftentimes
use our driveway as an area to turn around. They even sometimes take the liberty to use our lawn as
a turnaround. So it's pretty disappointing because I've talked to the store manager a few times about
some of these issues and nothing's really been done about it, and I think that increasing the size of the
store isn't going to make things any better. We have concerns about the increased stormwater runoff.
We want to understand how this will be addressed and how it could possibly affect our property during
the construction and after the future expansion is completed. There's a huge problem with the lack
of separation between the existing Stewart's building and the paved parking lot. The gentleman
mentioned there'll be nice landscaping. Well there isn't nice landscaping now. There's, the trees that
were planted between their property and our property died to snowplowing. People jump right over
the property line onto our property. They urinate behind our building. They walk their dogs on our
land, and there's always a litter problem. So these are just a few of our concerns. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience this evening who'd like to address
the Board on this application?
MR. WALKER-Could I submit a copy of?
MR. JACKOSKI-Sure, to our Secretary, of course.
MR. URRICO-Thanks.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. If the applicant could join us back at the table. I will make note that the
public hearing is still open as we address these items. Is there anything you can do to talk about the
adjoining property owner's issues with the property's re-development?
MR. POTTER-Sure. I think as part of maybe the littering and the trash problem and customers going
onto their property from our property I think it might be feasible to maybe install a six foot high
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
fence along that property line which would help, I guess, with the stuff going on to their property as
well as give them some additional screening.
MR. JACKOSKI-Would a fence require a variance if it were six feet tall out to the road? I think so,
right?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You can't go out to the Travel Corridor Overlay, past there.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You've got to be set back from there.
MR. JACKOSKI-But landscaping could work, cedar trees, yews, whatever.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Like arborvitae.
MR. JACKOSKI-Arborvitae.
MR. POTTER-So it would have to be back that 75 feet?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm just saying because of your sight lines, when you're turning west coming out
that way, you know, towards Walkers' side.
MR. POTTER-Right, yes, it wouldn't necessarily be all the way to the road. It would be, you know,
might be 20 feet or so off. So you're not impacting the visibility as you pull out.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. HENKEL-Is there a way of dimming the lights later as the night goes along, so it's not so bright?
Because those LED lights are pretty bright.
MR. POTTER-There is an option with the pole lights to back shield the lights, so it forces the light out
into the lot versus.
MR. HENKEL-That's not the canopy, though.
MR. POTTER-Well, no, that would be the pole lights that are proposed on that property line.
MR. HENKEL-I think he expressed that more gas pumps there would actually be bringing that closer,
you'd be going closer to Mr. Walker's property line with that canopy.
MR. POTTER-1 think lighting would be something that we could definitely look at. There's other
options for lighting. What we typically propose with our first submittals is our stock light which we
stock at our warehouse. There are other options that are less bright. They go by number of LED's.
Our canopy lights I believe are a 60 LED. They do offer, I believe, a 30 or 40, and then there's
different drivers which would also decrease the amount of light that emits. We're open to doing
different lighting for sure.
MR. HENKEL-You do have the store kind of cocked a little bit more to the east. So a lot of that
light will be going away from probably somewhat the Walker's property, the way the store is now.
MR. URRICO-Is there any way to make the property smaller? I mean Stewart's came to us maybe,
what, eight or nine years ago when you re-did this property and at that time we had to grant some
variances that were significant because of the Travel Corridor Overlay and your proximity to the roads.
So now you're coming back for more of a variance additional to the one that we passed, what, eight
years ago, whenever it was. So we're talking about an incremental increase in the use of that property
which is neighborhood commercial. It's not for an intensive use. It's to fit into an existing
neighborhood, and we've already heard from neighbors that say you haven't been quite a good
neighbor. So why should we grant extra relief for a bigger project?
MR. POTTER-Yes, this is the first I'm hearing of any complaints.
MR. JACKOSKI-I appreciate you started out saying, you know, you're going to have less of an
encroachment on the overlay corridor on Ridge Road and 149, but quite frankly I'd like to see the
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
canopies be within not any of those encroachments. It's nice that you've reduced them, so to speak,
but that's because the Board did grant those eight or nine years ago.
MR. HENKEL-You have 1.72 acres. That's quite a bit. The reason you've probably got that problem
with the canopy is because you're going to keep the store open, and the build later.
MR. POTTER-The problem is the two fronts is what really gets us and not having the ability to turn
the, you know, even if you were to turn that canopy to fit four in there, you wouldn't meet the
setbacks. You would probably worse off with the 9L signs.
MR. JACKOSKI-You have four pumps there now?
MR. FREER-Three.
MR. POTTER-No, there's four fueling points, yes.
MR. FREER-And what are you going to?
MR. POTTER-Eight.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's a lot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But if you look at the current dilemma that they're in now, you know, like the
traffic flow through there doesn't make a lot of sense the way, the attitude that the store is built, you
know, it's like a maze going through there if you're trying to drive through past the pumps.
MR. FREER-I almost got hit Saturday sitting at the little table on my bike.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I think if you look at the existing versus what is proposed, the angle
that the pumps are at, because of the way that the cars pull out of them, it makes more sense and it
doesn't create that back up situation where people are crossing with the cars.
MR. JACKOSKI-I agree with the angle. I just think if he went to six pumps and slid the canopy back
a little, shrunk it in a little, what relief would he need?
MR. HENKEL-Right.
MR. JACKOSKI-You've got a lot of acreage there. Our task is to grant the minimum relief necessary.
MR. HENKEL-There's alternatives.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think we also have to reflect upon the fact that it's relief for the canopies,
you know, it's not the store itself. The store itself is compliant the way they're proposing it.
MR. JACKOSKI-But like Roy said it's neighborhood commercial. It's not commercial intensive use.
That's where I'm struggling. Well, anything else you'd like to add before I poll the Board?
MR. POTTER-Well, as far as the relief goes, would you be looking for more to meet what our current
setback is, or, which we already had variances for?
MR. JACKOSKI-I personally think the Board was very lenient in those days with that much property.
So, I don't know that I'd be in favor of that, but that's a whole different thing. Unfortunately today,
tonight you've applied for a certain amount of relief. So we can't grant you more relief. We can
negotiate less relief tonight, but we can't negotiate more relief.
MR. POTTER-Right, that's what I'm saying, because right now our setback to 9L currently is 35 feet,
and we're increasing, we're going from 19 feet to 44 on 149. So the setback is increasing.
MR.JACKOSKI-I know, but that's because the Board was very generous when it gave you those original
variances. I mean, it's nice that you're giving some of that back, I get it, but you've got a land of land
there, that's just my personal opinion.
MR. POTTER-Well, the other issue with what's, it can't go back anymore because you have septic
system and stormwater is the issue with pushing stuff back. There's a stormwater retention basin back
there as well as.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
MR. HENKEL-But if it was a smaller store, then it could be, too.
MR. POTTER-Well, decreasing the size of the store wouldn't really change the stormwater and septic
usage tremendously.
MR. HENKEL-No, but it would, you could push that canopy back basically. Like Roy was saying, if
you put the store right, then you could push the canopy back, probably go to three islands, do six
cars, and that would eliminate any request for the variance, right?
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I don't know about the engineering, but that's one of the things I'm thinking
right now.
MR. POTTER-Yes, three would still require a variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-How much, though?
MR. POTTER-1 don't know. I don't have the numbers, but obviously it would be less than what we're
currently asking for.
MR.JACKOSKI-All right. I'm going to poll the Board at this time. Would anybody like to volunteer
to go first?
MR. MC CABE-Sure, I'll go first.
MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Mike.
MR. MC CABE-This business has been there for at least 40 years.
MR. JACKOSKI-No, eight or nine?
MR. MC CABE-Eight or nine? I used to come off that golf course and go over and buy stuff.
MR. URRICO-Not as a Stewart's shop.
MR. POTTER-1 think the 80's is when.
MR. MC CABE-There was some sort of store there. I don't know the name, but there's been a
business there for a long time.
MR. KUHL-Is that where you bought your golf balls back from?
MR. MC CABE-No. We used to get coffee there in the morning, but anyway, and the business has
grown over the years and wants to grow a little bit further and they're going to be competing against
another business across the street. So I feel that they've been a good neighbor and they deserve to
be allowed to expand their business, but on the other hand, I'd like to see them be a little bit more
neighborly, so to speak. I don't like it when the neighbors complain about relations with a business
that looks to expand. So I don't see granting these two setbacks to be a big problem if we could
condition some concessions to the neighbor, improved lighting and some sort of barrier between your
business and his business.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't see that as unreasonable. Is there a business that's between them?
MR. MC CABE-1 mean his business and the residence.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I see bigger problems. I do see major impacts to the neighbors already. We just
haven't heard a lot of them until tonight, but I think increased traffic, increased fuel pumps are going
to bring more cars and more problems to that area, and that's just going to affect the neighborhood
much more than it is already. I think there are feasible alternatives, making the project a little smaller,
more in line with what a neighborhood needs to hold. I think the relief is moderate, and although
we've granted similar relief in the past, it was for a much smaller project. We gave them greater relief
but with a smaller project. This is less relief with a bigger project. So I'm not sure that's an equal
trade, and I see, I don't know about the impact to the neighborhood or the environmental conditions,
but this is definitely something self-created, and so I would be opposed to it at this point.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I appreciate what Mr. Walker brought up, but all the items that he talked about, the light
pollution, the noise, the parking spaces, the driveway turnaround, those items are going to be there
with this store. What could happen with this, though, as far as the landscaping and the plantings that
died, perhaps your suggestion of a fence to a certain point and then plantings out to the road, and
even behind the fence, put plantings towards their property, and that might help with the light
abatement, and it would help that the landscaping didn't die and the people wouldn't walk their dogs
on their property. I mean, I also believe that this relief they're asking for is better than they have.
The way that they plan these things, as they did on Route 9. 1 think the traffic flows good, better. I
don't think we're going to be able to address the trailer truck issue. It is what it is, and even today,
if the trucks are going to get in there, I think they'll get out of that design better than they get in
today. I don't know, but I would be in favor of this project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I'm going to have to agree with Ron. I think that there's several things we
can do to alleviate the distress that the neighborhood who's directly next door feels at the present
time. Number One I would say no parking signs on 149, no parking signs on Route 9L over on both
sides. So that would alleviate that problem immediately. I think the creation of a fence on the
property line, and I would say a six foot tall fence as far as is feasible, and an arborvitae hedge in front
of that fence that's going to grow up 30 feet tall eventually. That's going to alleviate the problem,
and I think that the relief requested is less than what currently exists. I think the traffic flow as
currently exists is sort of bizarre. It doesn't really have any real flow to it. It's a stop and go situation
almost all the time and cars are parked filling up at the pumps, and I think the traffic flow situation will
be improved. So if you would agree to those changes, I would permit what you're asking for.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I agree with all my Board members so far here. This is tough. Like Roy's been on the
Board here a little bit longer than myself. So he knows, he worked with this store before in granting
more relief at that time. I guess we're granting him even more according to Roy. It's hard to say.
I do respect the neighbors,the Walker's there, but changing the size of the store and more gas probably
isn't going to change that, your problems unless you change the lighting like Ron was saying, and I
guess I'd be on board with the project as is. I'd like to see the lights change and definitely a fence put
up, but I'd be on board with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, I think that I can support this with the constraints that were addressed, a fence, if
that's what the neighbor finds satisfactory, followed my some shrubs to make sure that people can get
out safely. Definitely need to address the lighting as you move forward and look for better ways to
reduce the lighting. Four pumps may actually help the situation because people won't be backing up
and waiting around and fussing. That's, in my mind, a tough one to call, and no parking signs out on
149 if the State will approve that I think would be a good request. So I can support it with some
constraints.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. After polling the Board, I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim or Mike, who wants to try it?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stewart's
Shops Corp. Applicant proposes demolition of existing 2,292 sq. ft. convenience store with fuel pumps
and construction of a new 3,695 sq. ft. convenience store with a 2,360 sq. ft. canopy to have 4 fuel
islands for a total of 8 fueling stations. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and from
the Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for new
convenience store with fuel service.
The applicant requests relief from setbacks in the NC zone (Neighborhood Commercial).
Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay —Route 149
The applicant proposes a 44 ft. setback where a 75 ft. setback is required for the canopy — on Route
149.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements NC zone
The applicant proposes a 27 ft. setback where a 40 ft. setback is required for the canopy —on Ridge
Rd.
SEAR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 26, 2017;
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 since we're simply expanding to a small degree what already exists and we
are, in fact, moving some of the boundaries back.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable because they don't meet the
requirements of the applicant.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's moderate at best because all of the elements
actually exist right now.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district. In fact we think that some of the environmental conditions are going
to be improved with improved stormwater management.
5. Is the alleged difficulty is of course self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of
the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) The applicant needs to provide a fence and planting to isolate the neighbor to the west as per
the findings of the Planning Board.
b) The applicant needs to bias his lighting to the east so that there is minimal lighting heading to
the west towards the neighbor.
c) The applicant needs to pursue signage to eliminate parking and protect the neighboring
properties of Stewarts.
d) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-
AV-26-2017, STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. (CHRIS POTTERI, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Duly adopted this 26" day of April 2017 by the following vote:
MR. MC CABE-The Board has two conditions. Actually we can't really condition him on signs on
either the State road or 9L with a County road because we don't have that authority. Do we?
MRS. MOORE-1 don't think so.
MR. POTTER-You could probably put it in there, provided DOT allows it, I guess.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think we can put the language and say the applicant agrees to pursue the posting
of both 149 and 9L for no parking at any time on that road shoulder, and at the same time, a six foot
privacy fence along the property line with an arborvitae hedge in front of it.
MR. MC CABE-Well, I'm a landscaper, so I'm not going to recommend arborvitae. So I like Canadian
Hemlock. So anyway we're going to condition this approval with the following three items. First, the
applicant needs to provide a fence and planting to the west to isolate his property from the neighbor.
Next the applicant needs to bias his lighting to the east so that there is minimal lighting heading to the
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
west towards the neighbor, and the applicant needs to pursue signage with the State and County with
respect to parking and other disruptions to the neighbor. Do you think that'll fly?
MRS. MOORE-1 would suggest you be specific on the installation of a fence. You're talking about
the west property line, the entire west property line, my assumption is that you're saying the entire
west property line.
MR. MC CABE-Well, to where it won't obstruct vision of people leaving the, you know, leaving the
property to the west.
MRS. MOORE-As much as possible you're going from the north side of that west property line down
to the south side, whereas it's not obstructive to traffic. Correct?
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I'll re-do the fence and plantings to isolate the neighbor on the west side
from the far north end of the property to as far south as unobstructed vision will allow to exit the
property.
MRS. MOORE-You also talked about planting. Planting on the west side of the fence or planting on
the east side? If you're placing it on the property line, then you're placing the plantings on the
neighbor's property.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They would have to be on the east side
MR. KUHL-Yes, but then they're going to die and wilt. Right?
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't think so. You're not running pavement right up to the edge of the fence.
MR. HENKEL-But like he's saying, they probably will die because you've got the snow plowing and
other stuff. So it would be better to be on the west side of the fence.
MR. JACKOSKI-Could we leave that up to the Planning Board? Could we make the condition that?
MR. MC CABE-That's why I conditioned just fence and planting to isolate the neighbor and then they
can.
MR.JACKOSKI-A six foot fence within a reasonable distance from the property line, on the west, we'll
say it as it adjoins Walker, that way it catches the jog and all that other stuff, okay.
MR. URRICO-Can I ask a question? The Walker property is also in the same zone?
MR. WALKER-Yes, it's NC.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-And that the plantings would be on the Walker side of the fence because I mean, if I
were the Walkers I wouldn't want to be looking at the fence. I'd rather be looking at the plantings.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That makes sense. That makes perfect sense.
MR. JACKOSKI-And let the Planning Board decide where that is going to locate, and if they can't
locate then they're going to have to come back to us and come up with some other plan. Is that
reasonable?
MR. WALKER-1 don't know if we really want to maintain a 300 foot long hedgerow.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, sir, we're trying to accommodate. I don't think it would be on your property
to maintain. It would be up to the Stewart's Corporation to maintain.
MR. WALKER-So if a fence will be like five or so feet away from the property line and then the trees
on the other side of the fence. Is that what you're proposing?
MR. JACKOSKI-The trees would be on your side of the fence and the fence would be within the
Stewart's property.
MR. MC CABE-Well, unless you want it the other way around. Would you rather have the fence on
your side?
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
MR. WALKER-I'm not sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we're going to let the Planning Board decide and you can certainly have input
to that Planning Board process as to where the fence and the plantings are going to be, but there's
going to be a fence and there's going to be plantings on one side of the other of it and those two will
dictate where it's going to get placed on the Walker property. Is that okay?
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is that okay, Staff? Do we want to re-state it, Counsel?
MR. CROWE-1 think that you probably do want to get it as concisely re-stated for the motion as
possible so that the Site Plan Review, Planning Board can take your final thoughts and craft their
strategy according to what you put in the motion.
MR. MC CABE-All right. So I'm going to condition our motion so that there is a fence and plantings
to isolate the neighbor to the west as per the findings of the Planning Board, and how about the
lighting? Was that okay? So that the lighting is biased to the east so that it has the minimum effect
on the neighbor to the west, and the applicant will pursue signage to limit parking, or eliminate parking
and protect the neighboring properties of Stewart's.
MR. JACKOSKI-Our intent is there. We're trying to give as much leeway to the Planning Board as
necessary so that we don't hamstring them in getting done what they need to do. I think that if they
all read the minutes of this meeting they'll understand what we're trying to accomplish. Is that fair?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-That's fair.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Urrico
MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck.
MR. POTTER-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-And you can follow up with Staff with any clarifications that you need. Okay. The
public comment period is over. I closed the public comment.
MR. KUHL-Chris, off the record, how many stores is Stewart's up to now?
MR. POTTER-365.
MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on the agenda this evening is Robert Fulmer, 54 Country Club Road.
Area Variance Z-AV-29-2017, a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-29-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 ROBERT FULMER OWNER(SJ ROBERT
FULMER ZONING MDR LOCATION 54 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD (COUNTRY CLUB
MANOR) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,100 SQ. FT. 3-DOOR DETACHED
GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN
REVIEW AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS REVIEW REQUIRED FOR SITE WORK WITHIN 100 FT.
OF A WETLAND. CROSS REF P-SP-31-2017; P-FWW 3-2017; BP 2007-084 2-CAR ATT. GAR./RES.
ADD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2017 LOT SIZE 3.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
296.14-1-49 SECTION 179-5-020
ROBERT FULMER, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record, and, Michelle, if you don't mind,
I'm going to recuse myself on this application because of my parents across the street, so to speak,
and me just selling the house down the road. So I'll let Mike handle this one.
STAFF INPUT
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
Notes from Staff,Area Variance Z-AV-29-2017, Robert Fulmer,Meeting Date: April 26,2017 "Project
Location: 54 Country Club Road (Country Club Manor) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 1,100 sq. ft. 3-door detached garage. Relief requested for a second garage.
Planning Board: Site Plan Review and Freshwater Wetlands review required for site work within 100 ft.
of a wetland.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for a second garage.
Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures —garage
The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project
may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited as the
applicant would like to use the building for storage of lawn equipment and recreational vehicles.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial
relevant to the code. Relief is requested for second garage where only one garage is allowed.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The plans show the garage to have 3-garage doors and an open floor plan. The garage is to be 20 +/-
ft. in height. The applicant has indicated there will be no stairs or pull down stairs and the rear of the
building is to be the same as the front without doors. There is to be a man door on the south side
of the building."
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review passed a motion that did not identify
any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that
was adopted on April 25, 2017, by a six to one vote.
MR. MC CABE-Hi. Please identify yourself.
MR. FULMER-Good evening, folks. Board members and Staff, I'm Bob Fulmer. My wife Sue and I
own 3.2 acre lot on 54 Country Club Road. We purchased it two and a half years ago. This is our
third residence in Queensbury and we love it, and I want to thank the Staff for the Planning Board for
really encouraging me since early January to go this alone and see if I can work this through and got
a lot of support and help from them. Thank you. Just a quick project overview on this. We have
an existing attached two car garage. It's full. Two cars are in there, a tractor with a loader and a
snow blower, a mower, classic cycle, a generator and everything else that I could fit in there. It's been
two and a half years. Outside on the backyard is a powerboat on a trailer, and that's got a big white
shrink wrap on it which I find very unattractive and probably other people do, too, a utility trailer,
kayak, gas grill, not pretty. I want to get all this stuff consolidated, under cover and make the
neighborhood a little bit more attractive for my neighbors. So starting last summer we began planning
and my wife and I are proposing a 33 by 33 foot square 1100 square foot garage, finished off in browns
and tans to kind of fit in, and when I show you on the survey, we spent a lot of time on site placement
to make it unobtrusive and as unnoticeable as possible. Maybe people would rather look at a structure
than the stuff in the backyard including the big boat. It's for storage, boats, vehicles, yard and snow
equipment, a trailer, and I've done a floor plan for it and put the stuff in there nose to tail and 33 feet
wide gives me three rows, 33 feet deep means I can park two things in there nose to tail, and I can get
all the stuff out of the garage and out of the yard. We paid a courtesy visit to all of our three
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
contiguous neighbors and they said okay with me. Do what you want, and two of the three already
have detached garages, and it seems to be customary generally it's consistent with the neighborhood
and they've been great neighbors. Take a look at the survey, which is very recent, it's a large parcel,
almost 600 feet from the road to the back line, 260 feet, 266 on the road, and what you see here is
the recent flagging by DEC of the wetlands, which was done in March, and then immediately those 40
flags were plotted on this survey so you're seeing actual accurate wetlands that are here, and then the
day after the survey we had a 22 inch snow, blizzard. So we got it in just in time. I made a presentation
to the DEC committee about three weeks ago, and on Friday we got the wetland permit from DEC.
Did you get it in your packet I hope? Thank you, Laura. So there's a letter and an actual permit
there for that wetland. I did another wetland permit for Queensbury, and that was last night. So
we're good there. So we have setbacks on the front, sides and backs which are all above minimum,
and the wetland setback is 50 feet and so we are not asking for any variances to violate setbacks, and
that's why we placed it where we placed it. The other thing here is that this, the lawn in the back
where the garage will be, it's actually a finger of lawn going into the woods about 40 feet wide, and
this tree line has actually been surveyed so that you can see what it looks like. So we're not cutting
down or clear cutting trees to slide this puppy in there. I think there are a couple of leavers that are
immature trees that might have to go, but in general we just want to make it look like it blended in,
and then everything else is densely vegetated in there and I'm taking very good care of the trash
vegetation so it creates screening to the back. So this kind of fits right in there. We rotated it a
little bit so we wouldn't be taking down really, these are great trees in the back, poplars and white
pines. We want to keep that nature for our backyard. So we're 59 and 61 feet from wetlands and the
zoning setbacks are on the right of the survey from the subdivision. This is a six lot Valente subdivision
from the 80's, and this is our lot, and 33 feet wide gives me room for three doors to back in a boat
trailer and leave it for the winter without knocking off fenders and stuff like that. Being over three
acres, currently the zoning MDR allows three out buildings. We're not going that way. We would
rather have this plan that works here. Any questions? I'll do the best I can.
MR. MC CABE-You're all done?
MR. FULMER-1 think I am, except that I want to follow up on the plantings other than arborvitae,
which people got a kick out of, hemlock.
MR. MC CABE-Canadian Hemlock is a favorite of mine, but there are a number of other choices. You
can do Colorado Blue Spruce. You can do Norwegian Spruce. Are there pertinent questions from
the Board?
MR. KUHL-Mr. Fulmer, you did very good on your presentation.
MR. FULMER-Thank you very much.
MR. KUHL-I would like to know if you plan on putting a driveway in or are you going to run everything
in on the grass?
MR. FULMER-Grass. No pavement. No driveway.
MR. KUHL-Are you going to put any water or electric in?
MR. FULMER-No water. Yes, electric. No septic. Just electric for lights and running.
MR. KUHL-Do you plan on working, using this as a business?
MR. FULMER-Negative. Absolutely not. I'm so retired.
MR. KUHL-Well, if you were retired you'd be going to Florida. You wouldn't have a snow blower.
MR. HENKEL-The shed, is that staying?
MR. FULMER-The shed came up last night, and here's where the discussion went, and I'd be happy to
summarize it with the Planning Board. I believe we have an agreement. So it goes like this. When
we bought two and a half years ago this 10 by 12 shed was there. It looks to me like it's been there
for a while, but it's in good shape.
MR. HENKEL-It's closer to the setback, right?
MR. FULMER-To tell you the truth, I have not measured from the back of it. It just came the way it
was. It's in a very unobtrusive place. The neighbors don't mind it. I've never had a question. So
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
the shed was there, and I don't know, the side setbacks are 15. 1 would say that's just about what it is.
It's a shed set on, you know, six by six or slides or whatever. All I did was I painted it and so it's in
good shape, and the next plan was to re-roof it in the same shingles as the house. So it's 120 square
feet, and the function. In that now are things like bicycles, yard tools, you know I can grab a rake
really quickly, power tools such as weed whackers, leaf blowers, that sort of thing, and because I don't
have a big garage, I mean, it's just, you know, it's chock-a-block. The advantage of it is the location
for me. It is just so close to go get something or if the granddaughters are there to pick up, to get
their bicycle and we have a tandem bike in there, too, we get on the bike trail. It's great. So the
discussion last night was would you want to keep it, and for those reasons it would be really handy
because the garage that I'm proposing is basically for storage, and I wouldn't want to walk back there
all the time to get a rake or a baseball bat or something like that. So what we discussed and came up
with, that basketball court that you see there is blacktop. I inherited it. It's 40 by 45. That's 1800
square feet. So as far as permeable versus non-permeable, I had the granddaughters playing basketball
with me a couple of times there. I think they'd be happier with soccer and somebody on that side of
the Planning Board said how about badminton. So I'm a badminton fan now. So it's 1800 square
feet. The garage is 11. The shed, I asked if I was allowed to keep it, was 120. So that's a total of
1220, and that means that the project then would gain 580 square feet of permeable, putting it at
99.3% permeable, and they were happy with that.
MR. KUHL-If this approval were based on you eliminating that shed, would you eliminate that shed?
MR. FULMER-If that was the only way to get it? Sure.
MR. KUHL-I could suggest to you that your reasons for keeping it, you're emptying out your garage
by the house, all that stuff could be put into the garage where your cars are, and still not get in the
way of your car because you stated that you have a lot of stuff jammed in your garage. I understand
you want to put your long-term things in this new three car garage. I believe that this shed could
disappear. I'm not suggesting it. I'm not making you do it. I'm just saying should that be a product
of getting approval or not, would you eliminate it, yes or no?
MR. FULMER-1 would have to eliminate it rather than kill the whole proposal. There are some things
in there that I, bicycles and that sort of thing, which falls on cars, and I would be happy to have those
away from the cars, but if it were a deal breaker, last night it worked. It was basically reasonable. It's
already there. You're not going to get anybody to buy it. Basically I'd have to knock it down and
take it piece by piece to the Queensbury landfill and they have to deal with it.
MR. FREER-Is the back of your property close to the bike path?
MR. FULMER-The back line is bike path.
MR. FREER-Are you the one with the bridge across?
MR. FULMER-No. You've heard about that one apparently?
MR. FREER-I just rode it today and was familiar with it.
MR. FULMER-We were on the bike path, my wife and I, two days ago and it's one of the reasons we
bought it. It's an asset for us. It's really great, and we have purposely kept all the trees, brush,
bushes and that sort of thing that the line you see here would be I think the end of the right of way
that the bike path has. So I think the bike path we figured out was from center to their end of the
right of way would be like 33 feet, and I think this garage I heard last night was 91 feet from it, and we
want to keep as much screening as possible.
MR. URRICO-1 have a question for Staff. Isn't the basketball court considered an accessory structure
as well, according to our Code?
MRS. MOORE-I'm not aware.
MR. URRICO-Examples of customary residential accessory uses include storage sheds, boathouses,
swimming pools, tennis court, basketball court, paddleball courts and any other athletic courts, decks
and garages.
MRS. MOORE-But that's not before you.
MR. URRICO-Well should it be?
D5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MC CABE-Are there other questions?
MR. FULMER-Well, are you saying that I should remove the basketball court?
MR. MC CABE-He's just asking a question of Staff. Are there other questions from the Board? There
is a public meeting that's advertised tonight. So I will open the public meeting, and is there any written
correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No, just a DEC permit that's on file.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So we do have somebody from the audience who'd like to speak. So just
please identify yourself for the Board, please.
JAMES P. TWYMAN
MR. TWYMAN-Thank you. My name's James P. Twyman. I live on 15 Edgewood Drive. That's the
section behind the bike trail and I'm directly behind Mr. Fulmer's property, and I'm also here
representing Deborah Lord Putnick on 4 Edgewood Drive. They own the vacant property on the
corner, Sean Danahy, she owns the property to the right of me if you're looking at the bike trail, and
Claude Loiselle who's on the other side, and I'm in opposition of the storage shed.
MR. MC CABE-Okay, but it's not a storage shed. It's a garage. It's two different things.
MR. TWYMAN-Yes, okay. I, James P. Twyman, am here representing the above homeowners on
Edgewood Drive in to opposition to the variance to allow a three bay garage on 54 Country Club on
all our behalf. I am here to oppose the variance application of Mr. Fulmer of 54 Country Club Road.
I am the owner of the property on 15 Edgewood Drive which is located directly behind Mr. Fulmer's
property on the opposite side of the bike trail. I purchased the property in November of 1985. When
I moved in, the only house on Country Club Road was the Dawsons property. The rest was wetlands.
Well since then, there has been about 7 homes built. The main reason I purchased this property was
because it was beautiful, quiet, and wooded and because of the wetlands which I thought would remain
protected. The homes that have been built have respected the wetlands. They have maintained a
respectful distance and still maintaining the aesthetics of the woodlands, the wetlands and the adjacent
neighborhood. The 3-bay garage, in my opinion, will ruin the aesthetic of my property as well as the
above-mentioned properties on this section of the bike trail. I sit in my backyard deck now and see
woods. If this variance is allowed, I will be looking at the back side of a storage garage. This is also a
section of the bike trail which is heavily used because of its beauty. People haven't got to go a long
distance to enjoy the beauty of the woods. I feel the wetlands have been tempered with enough. I feel
this structure will bring down the value of our properties and the aesthetics of the bike trail. I also feel,
in my opinion, there would be a strong opinion against this by the thousands of residents and others
who use this bike trail. Mr. Fulmer has been granted other variances which I have not opposed because
it has respected the surrounding areas. In Mr. Fulmers application, he stated notified adjacent neighbors
but he did not notify me or any other homeowners on Edgewood Drive who will be the most adversely
affected by the garage. Secondly, Mr. Fulmer has three point two acres of land on his property. I have
done a walk by on the bike trail and I can see many areas near his home where the garage could be
placed without being anywhere near the wetlands and bike trail. The only reason I can come up with is
he doesn't want to look at this structure as well as we don't want to look at it. Also, my understanding
is Country Club Road is zoned commercial and I am not disputing that the intentions of a 3-car garage
is for storage, but this can also have the potential to become something other than that. Again, I stated
this was all protected wetlands years ago. Now here's the reason for the wetlands variances. Town
of Queensbury Chapter 94: Freshwater wetland 94-3 E. Any loss of freshwater wetlands deprives the
people of the Town of Queensbury of some or all the many and multiples benefits to be derived from
wetlands, line 8] Open space and aesthetic appreciation; and] line 2 and 4 of section E pertains to
wildlife habitat and recreation. Article 94-9 section B articles 1] D which states is this activity being
reasonable and necessary? No not when it will tamper with an already depleted wetlands, wildlife habitat
and take away from the aesthetics of the area. Secondly, [Town of Queensbury zoning Variance use
NYS Law 267 Town Law] Reason to not allow the variance Use Variance A] 31 Will the request
variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Yes Edgewood Dr.
neighborhood, wetlands and Warren County Bike trail. Area Variance Area Variance application
must address the balance between the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the health, safety
and welfare of the neighborhood, should the variance be granted. The Zoning Board of Appeals must
consider the following criteria when "balancing" the request for relief.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
MR. MC CABE-We know that.
MR. TWYMAN-Okay. As a representative of Queensbury, I hope you will see fit in this matter to
deny these variances and respect the affects it will have on numerous residents of Queensbury. Thank
you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Do you want to leave a copy of this?
MR. TWYMAN-Absolutely.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak on this matter? I just
want to clarify. He's not asking for any wetlands relief. All he's asking for is relief to put in a second
garage.
MR. TWYMAN-There's two variances that are requested. Right? Initially.
MR. MC CABE-No, all we're passing judgment on here is a second garage. Am I right?
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. MC CABE-Yes. There's no wetlands violation here.
MR. TWYMAN-There isn't?
MR. HENKEL-I think he's misunderstanding the 100 foot, it's within 100 feet of the wetlands.
MR. KUHL-But he only needs 50.
MR. HENKEL-Right, and he's got 59.
MR. MC CABE-So I'll keep the public hearing open, and I'll poll the board as to, you know, how they
feel on this matter.
MR. KUHL-Could I ask Mr. Fulmer a question?
MR. MC CABE-Sure, absolutely.
MR. KUHL-Mr. Fulmer, are you taking down any trees or shrubs to build this garage?
MR. FULMER-Very few. It's lawn. I'm putting it on a finger of lawn, a peninsula of lawn.
MR. KUHL-Are you taking trees down?
MR. FULMER-It looks to me like two immature leavers need to go down. period.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. FULMER-We spent a lot of time with site placement. So anything else would be a lot of trees,
and my wife and I just don't want to do that.
MR. FREER-Well, how about moving it on to the basketball court?
MR. HENKEL-Yes.
MR. FULMER-Possibility. You would think that with 3.2 acres and 600 feet side lines that there would
be a lot of places to place this, and I'd be very happy to do that for the neighbors and frankly I
contacted my contiguous neighbors who would be able to see it, the doors will be in the front facing
my house, not theirs, and the development to the back is over the bike trail and the houses basically
face the other way. So it didn't occur to me. I didn't mean it to be a slight to my neighbors and
frankly I'm a little off balance. So placement with a survey. There's wetland all on the north side,
including a pond which I maintain. The leach field is on the east side of the house. The whole lawn.
The south side, I've got no room with setback on the side. We've got a lot of great trees that I do
not want to cut. It would make it worse for my neighbors to the west across the bike trail. If I were
to move this out and just cut down great, great trees there. I thought this would be the most hidden
and required almost no cutting of trees. The wetlands would push the garage around. So the question
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
was, what have we got left? So there is the basketball court, and that's right in the middle of the lawn.
I mean, I'd prefer that it was grass and lawn and more permeable. So we have, the whole back of our
house is glass. It's walls of glass. The backyard is wonderful, and the sunsets are wonderful, and we
have a lot of wildlife that heads to the pond for water a lot. Putting the garage in the middle of the
back lawn would not be aesthetically.
MR. FREER-How about moving it 30 feet closer to your house? See, I see you've got it tucked right
back. I mean, these guys obviously are worried. Now the wetlands issue is not part of this, correct,
but still aesthetically the bike path and the neighbors, you know, to me you've got it way back there
and you could move it closer some amount closer to the basketball court and give these guys more
distance.
MR. KUHL-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, shouldn't we just?
MR. MC CABE-That's right. We've got to vote on the issue before us which is the second garage.
Michelle, I'm going to ask you, how do you feel about this project?
MRS. HAYWARD-1 agree with Mr. Freer. I think some modicum of compromise is indicated here to
just, as this gentleman pointed out in our balancing test, and, you know, looking at the benefit to the
applicant versus the detriment to the neighborhood. So I would be in favor of the project if it was
moved closer to the house.
MR. MC CABE-How much closer?
MRS. HAYWARD-Shielded from the bike path and the neighbors in some fashion to be determined.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think if we had this project proposed on any residential lot anywhere in
the community, we would have an adverse thought for adding such a large structure, and even though
this is a large lot and you can make a justification for where you propose this thing, I don't think it's
unreasonable for us to say, look, you have a two car garage already. You could add a third bay and
have a three car garage with no impact on the neighborhood whatsoever, and I think that's more in
keeping with what the Town prefers. I think an excess garage with three bays on it is huge, you know,
anywhere in the community. I don't care if you're on a 100 acre lot. It's a huge request and I don't
think at this point in time that this is in any way, shape or form reasonable. Everybody else gets by
with a two car garage or in some cases a three car garage, but not a separate whole other three car
garage. I think it's way over the top. So I would not be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-We've had requests like this before and we've asked the applicant to downsize the size of
the garage. I think as far as the neighbor to the west of you, if, in fact, you're not cutting down any
trees, if, in fact, that neighbor is concerned with not being able to see the trees. I don't know if that's
a valid concern if he's not taking anything down. Basically I think you're asking for an awful lot, Mr.
Fulmer. So at this time I would not be in favor of this size garage.
MR. MC CABE-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, I don't think you need a three car garage, either, and, you know, my typical sort of
litmus test for a second garage to keep property equipment is five acres, and in any case, moving it
closer east would also get me to re-consider a second garage, but not this one.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, also I'd like to see a smaller garage or definitely get rid of the shed. You've got
to consider the neighbors behind you I think. The location where it is now, there's other locations.
So I would not be in favor of this.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I don't mean to jump all over the application, but there's several things wrong with
this approach. Number One, asking for a second garage, when, because it's less than five acres, the
garage that you're allowed would be 1100 square feet at maximum. So now we're asking for a second
garage above and beyond that. That's the same size as what you're allowed. If you went in the other
direction where most people might look at would be the accessory structure, you're allowed 500 feet
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
total for all of the buildings that you have. In addition to the garage. So you already have a shed.
The basketball court unfortunately is considered an accessory structure as well. So there's two, and
now this would be the third, if you added on to this, and if you went to an accessory structure which
was minimal compared to what you're proposing, 500 feet, you would still have to deal with the other
accessory structures. So you have several ways to move in this but you're going to have to give up
something in order to get there.
MR. FULMER-The basketball court is history.
MR. MC CABE-Well, here's your situation. You've got way too many no votes. So you've got a
couple of choices here. You can table your application until you get a chance to re-look at this.
You've got a pretty good feeling of what the Board requires here. So you can table your application
and kind of look to re-do it, or you can withdraw it.
MR. FULMER-Just your feedback, Mr. McCabe, on this.
MR. MC CABE-1 believe that the maximum size garage that you're asking for, in addition to the garage
that you already have, is too much, and although I favor a second garage over temporary structures
or plastic around a boat or something like that, I have to admit that an 1100 square foot second garage
is a little bit more than my tolerance. So I would not favor it also.
MR. FULMER-Well, I think I heard that eight times. So what kind of a range of footage are you talking
about that's reasonable?
MR. UNDERWOOD-We don't negotiate.
MR. MC CABE-Yes, we can't negotiate with that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You come up with a new plan as to what.
MR. MC CABE-You have to see what'll fit your needs.
MR. FULMER-Let me talk to my neighbors, you know, all of my neighbors to the west.
MR. MC CABE-Sure, now that you have somebody else to negotiate with.
MR. FULMER-Yes, because I don't feel comfortable going ahead knowing that I have apparently
offended the entire development.
MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to suggest that you table this. How much time would you like?
MR. FULMER-Say it again?
MR. MC CABE-How much time would you like to re-consider this?
MR. FULMER-You meet twice a month?
MR. MC CABE-Twice a month. So you wouldn't be able to get onto May, I don't think. So the first
opening that would be available to you would be June. You'd have to submit your paperwork by the
middle of May.
MR. FULMER-So I do the application over for the Zoning Board of Appeals?
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MR. FULMER-Okay, but I'm good with the Planning Board?
MRS. MOORE-You would be amending the application. You're tabling it. The applicant is amending
the application with new information. I don't know, between now and May 15t", if that's enough time
for the applicant to do that.
MR. MC CABE-We can give you until June and if you need later than you can write a letter to Laura
stating that.
MR. FULMER-Or could I discuss it with Laura on what I would have to do and she could schedule it
with me?
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
MR. MC CABE-Sure, you can use all the resources. Right now we'll temporarily reschedule it until
June, and then you can firm that up. So can somebody make that resolution?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I can make that resolution.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Robert
Fulmer. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,100 sq. ft. 3-door detached garage. Relief requested
for a second garage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review and Freshwater Wetlands review required for
site work within 100 ft. of a wetland.
The applicant requests relief for a second garage.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-29-2017 ROBERT FULMER, Introduced by Ronald
Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Tabled to a June meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals with a submittal date of May 15tH
Duly adopted this 26' day of April, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-So, Mr. Fulmer, thank you for your time and we'll see you again.
MR. FULMER-Thank you for the quality feedback and thank you for your service to the Town.
MR. TWYMAN-1 got a letter in the mail today that says comments to the Planning Board.
MRS. MOORE-So they will table that application.
MR. TWYMAN-So the Planning Board is off for next week?
MRS. MOORE-Correct, and they're leaving the public hearing open.
MR. MC CABE-Yes, I'll leave the public hearing open until the next time.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. An outstanding job. Next item on this evening's agenda is Dark Bay
Properties. The owner is Lawrence Davis. The agent is Jonathan Lapper. The location is 3300 State
Route 9L, Ward One. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. It is Area Variance
Number Z-AV-31-2017, a Type 11 SEQR.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-31-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 GREGORY TERESI, MEMBER DARK BAY
PROPERTIES AGENT(SJ J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR/HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(SJ
LAWRENCE DAVIS ZONING WR LOCATION 3300 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT
PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME
WITH A SHARED CURB CUT WITH THE ADJACENT PARCEL. PARCEL 239.184-27.1 WILL REDUCE
A 1.5 AC PARCEL TO 0.91 AC AND INCREASE PARCEL 239.184-27.1 RO 0.81 AC. PROJECT
ALSO INVOLVES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE ON PARCEL 239.184-27.2 AND ASSOCIATED
SITE WORK ON BOTH PARCELS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR INCREASING THE
NONCONFORMITY OF AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING PARCEL. RELIEF IS ALSO
REQUESTED FOR STORMWATER DEVICE SETBACK. PLANNING BOARD: CONSTRUCTION
OF SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND STORMWATER FOR SLOPES
AND LOCATION IN A CEA. CROSS REF P-SP-33-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
APRIL 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.5 ACRES & 0.23 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 239.184-27.1; 239.184-27.2 SECTION 179-4-040
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, could you just read in the project description and then I'll see if there's anybody
here for the public hearing.
MR. URRICO-Okay. The applicant proposes a boundary lot line adjustment to construct a single
family home with a shared curb cut with the adjacent parcel. Parcel 239.184-27.1 will reduce a 1.5 ac
parcel to 1.0 ac and increase parcel 239.18-27.2 to 0.80 ac. Project also involves construction of single
on parcel 239.18-1-27.2 and associated site work on both parcels. Relief requested for increasing the
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
nonconformity of an existing non-conforming parcel. Relief is also requested for stormwater device
setback. I think that covers it.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you. Because we have received notice from the applicant that
they'd like us to table this application, I am going to open the public hearing, though. Is there anyone
here this evening who'd like to address the Board on this particular matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, even though the public hearing has been opened, I'm
going to seek, is there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-There's a lot of written comment.
MR.JACKOSKI-So, Counsel, my thought is because there's no one here to hear that written comment,
do we have to read it in now or do we read it in at the next open hearing?
MR. CROWE-You're keeping the public hearing open?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
MR. CROWE-You can read it in at that time.
MR. JACKOSKI-Let's leave the public hearing open and we'll read it in at the next one, Roy. How's
that?
MR. URRICO-That sounds good.
MR. JACKOSKI-Great. Can I get a motion to table this matter until the June meetings, or July
meetings?
MR. MC CABE-The May meeting is what he requested, right?
MR. JACKOSKI-Can that happen?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Great.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Gregory
Teresi, Dark Bay Properties. Applicant proposes a boundary lot line adjustment to construct a single
family home with a shared curb cut with the adjacent parcel. Parcel 239.184-27.1 will reduce a 1.5 ac
parcel to 1.0 ac and increase parcel 239.18-27.2 to 0.80 ac. Project also involves construction of single
on parcel 239.18-1-27.2 and associated site work on both parcels. Relief requested for increasing the
nonconformity of an existing non-conforming parcel. Relief is also requested for stormwater device
setback. Planning Board: construction of single family home within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and stormwater
for slopes and location in a CEA.
The applicant requests relief for installation of stormwater devices less than 100 ft. from the septic and
further reduction of a non-conforming parcel. Parcel is located in the WR zone.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-31-2017 GREGORY TERESI, MEMBER DARK BAY
PROPERTIES, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison
Freer:
Until the first meeting in May of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Duly adopted this 26' day of April, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Let's move on. The next item this evening, Hudson Headwaters Health
Network, Sign Variance Number Z-SV-4-2017, an Unlisted SEAR. This is Dick Jones, and it is at 9
Carey Road, 161 Carey Road, and 151 Carey Road.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-4-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH
NETWORK AGENT(SJ RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(SJ HUDSON
HEADWATERS HEALTH NETWORK ZONING CLI LOCATION 9 CAREY ROAD,161 CAREY
ROAD, 151 CAREY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MULTIPLE ON-SITE SIGNS; ON PARCEL
309.13-2-31.2 THE MAIN FREE STANDING SIGN IS PROPOSED GREATER THAN 45 SQ. FT.
ADDITIONALLY TWO FREESTANDING SIGNS ARE PROPOSED ON THE SAME PARCEL TO BE
LOCATED AT THE EAST ENTRANCES ON CAREY RD FOR BUILDING DIRECTION. THE
ENTRANCE SIGNS DO NOT MEET THE REQUIRED 15 FT. SETBACK. THEN ON PARCEL 308.16-
2-2.3 ADMINISTRATION SITE ONE FREE STANDING IS TO BE 24 SQ. FT. AND LESS THAN 15
FT. SETBACK. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SIZE OF FREE STANDING SIGN AND SETBACK FOR
FREE STANDING AND ENTRANCE SIGNAGE. RELIEF ALSO REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF
FREESTANDING SIGNS. CROSS REF SPR 5244A; SPR 5244; SPR 61-2013; SPR 45-2013; SPR 45-
2010; SP 47-2007; SIGN PERMITS NOTED AS BLDG PERMITS BP 2001-627; BP 2011-626; BP 2011-625;
BP 2009-210 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2017 LOT SIZE 2.16 ACRES AND 6.9
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-2.3; 309.13-2-31.2 SECTION CHAPTER 140
RICHARD JONES & TOM LYONS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I will turn it over to Roy to be
read into the record.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-4-2017, Hudson Headwaters Health Network, Meeting Date:
April 26, 2017 "Project Location: 9 Carey Road, 161 Carey Road, 151 Carey Road Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes multiple on- site signs: On parcel 309.13-2-31.2 the main free
standing sign is proposed greater than 45 sq. ft. Additionally two free standing signs are proposed on
the same parcel to be located at the east entrances on Carey Rd for building direction. The entrance
signs do not meet the required 15 ft. setback. Then on parcel 308.16-2-2.3 administration site one free
standing is to be 24 sq. ft. and less than 15 ft. setback. Relief requested for size of free standing sign
and setback for free standing and entrance signage. Relief also requested for number of freestanding
signs.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for size of free standing sign and setback for free standing and entrance
signage. Relief also requested for number of freestanding signs.
Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required
Parcel 309.13-2-31.2 Signage: Free standing Sign size proposed 84 sq. ft. where 45 sq. ft. is the maximum
allowed; two entrance signs North and South to be located 1 ft. from property line where a 15 ft.
setback is required —only one free standing allowed per parcel and 3 are proposed.
Parcel 308.16-2-2.3 Signage: The administration building proposes one free standing sign at 24 sq. ft.
to be located at 0 ft. from Corinth and 13 ft. from Carey Rd where a 15 ft. setback is required.
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. Minor impacts
to the neighborhood may be anticipated as signs along the corridor are required to be compliant.
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 adjust
the number of signs and the size of signs.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested for the number of free standing signs is 3 and
only 1 is allowed. The relief for the size of the free standing sign is 39 sq. ft. greater than allowed.
The relief requested for the setbacks for the location signage is 14 ft.and relief for the administrative
sign is also 14 ft.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
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
minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant has explained the Hudson Headwaters Health Network is proposing a new signage format
for the Carey Rd. facilities to assist with directing customers to the correct buildings for services.
There are additional directional signage's proposed that are to be code compliant."
MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board did not meet on this. So I take that back.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, welcome. A very straightforward application. I'm assuming you just want us to
ask some questions, but if you could introduce yourselves, please.
MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones. I'm the architect representing Hudson
Headwaters and with me tonight is Tom Lyons from Hudson Headwaters, the Director of the Network
Development. I'd like to give you a little background and then we can go through any questions that
you have. Over the past year Hudson Headwaters has been in the process of re-branding all of their
signage and their logo for all of their facilities in Upstate New York. Basically in the last year and a
half of the Carey Road campus we have completed three major projects for Hudson Headwaters. The
first of which was the new Building Two which is located to the rear of the original Health Center. The
second project that was completed was the actual addition for palliative care to their Building One
which was the original Health Center. The last project that we just finished was the interior fit up of
two patient pods in Building Two which was completed about a year and a half ago. So with that being
said, the number of patients and visitors to the site in the last year and a half has dramatically increased.
They have many specialty doctors now located in Building One. Building One used to be a primary
care facility. Now it's all specialty care. Building Two is a combination of both primary care, mental
health and some specialty care as well, and the Administrative Building which sits on the other side of
Carey Road on the west wing of Carey Road is strictly for administrative offices. We, in looking at
the various signage, they had two existing pylon signs, one for the Administrative building and one
for the original Building One on the east side of Carey Road. Both of those are both compliant in size
and setback. What they have found is that the patients and visitors to the site have had major issues
with all the re-development that has occurred there in finding the correct building, the correct doctor.
We have patients that are being late for their appointment. It's that type of thing, and they have
attempted, by using some temporary signage, to re-direct the patients to the right building and the
visitors to the right building, and they had a heck of a time doing that. They painted red lines on the
pavement to try and direct people from the Administrative building. They had everyone going to the
Administrative building for their patient visits. There are no doctors in the Administrative building.
So what we're hoping to be able to do, through this series of re-signage and re-location, is to be able
to have people identify the campus and subsequently find the right building, and each building has
numerous things going on within it. So there's a whole series of directional signage that's going to
be undertaken on the campus that will be compliant. We felt it was important to have a sign for the
patient care side of the facility, the campus which would identify Hudson Headwaters. We moved it
closer to the property line, and we did increase the size. The speed limit on Corinth Road is 45 miles
an hour. There is a lot of existing vegetation, a lot of pine trees on the undeveloped lot on what
would be the south, or, no the northeast corner of the Carey Road development. There is a part
opposite our Building One. We have, after going through Site Plan Reviews on all of the buildings,
planted numerous plantings on both sites, which are further restricting our signage and coming from
the west on Corinth road, the opposite side of Carey Road, there is a large planting of existing white
pines, red pines that exist there that, again, prohibit people from seeing the signage and being able to
turn into the correct driveways. We're looking to increase the sizes and move them closer to the
property lines in the hopes that we can get patients and visitors to identify the sign and be able to
locate the right building. The purpose of the two signs at the end of the driveways that would service
the patient buildings is to get them to the right building. We found that in numbering the buildings,
Building One and Building Two, it's a start. When they call for an appointment they're directed to
either Building One or Building Two, but they still don't seem to be able to find them, even with the
temporary signage that's been done. So that's why we wanted the oversized signage on the driveway
entrances onto Carey Road. We do not feel that we're detrimental to the neighborhood. We
basically sit on the edge of an industrial zone. The way the properties have been developed, it's a nice
transition from the industrial zone to the few residential properties that currently exist on both the
north side and there's several down on the south side of Corinth Road as well. So with that said, I'd
be happy to answer any questions.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing?
MR. URRICO-Kinney Drugs is sharing that sign?
MR. JONES-Yes, they are currently sharing the sign at the eastern most intersection, that one right
there.
MR. URRICO-It's the same entrance for everything on that campus, right?
MR. JONES-Well, we have, the entrance for the Administrative building is on the west Carey Road
entrance, but there is a linkage of interior driveways that connect all the buildings. There are two
driveways currently on the east side of Carey Road, one for Building One, and the pharmacy, and then
one for Building Two. With each entrance we have specialty cares, primary care, mental health. We
have ambulance pick up areas. We have deliveries. So there's all types of things going on, on the
property, and that's what we're trying to organize so that we can get people to the right portion of
the property.
MR. LYONS-It's really to further clarify those two decision points and when they find the campus
make the right turn and then find the right building.
MR. URRICO-How many people drive over the sidewalk?
MR. LYONS-They're tempted on a daily basis.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions?
MR. KUHL-I can't believe that with all this land that we're talking about 15 feet, within 15 feet. I can
see you coming for one variance for the big sign up in front, but for all the rest I can't believe with
all this property you have that you didn't plan on these One, Two buildings I go there. I attend it.
I could suggest that I was frustrated that you put your new addition, but once you get there, you
understand it. I just don't understand in your planning how you didn't lay it out a lot better than
this. I'm not against what you're asking for. I'm just frustrated that we're spending a lot of money
sitting here listening to this when I think you could have done a much better job.
MR. JONES-Well, the problem that we have with the signage location for the Administrative building
is that if we locate it where it currently is, it's not visible. We're having issues with the trees as you're
coming from the east on Corinth Road it's very difficult to see that sign until you're past it. If we
move it to the west,we have to move it beyond the,there's a depression that's there for storm drainage.
There's basically a large depression, and if we put it in the middle of the depression, then you either
have legs that are 12 feet tall. So it's an issue.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board members?
MR. HENKEL-I really don't have a problem with the directional signs, but I still think, you've got to
remember that was a residential area first before it was a commercial light industrial. Right? You've
still got a lot of residents that live there. That 84 square foot sign is way too big. I understand the
directionals for what buildings to go to, but the 84 square feet sign is not needed in that area.
Especially that close to the road. No way. You'd have to be blind not to see that sign.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think you'd have to be blind to miss the campus.
MR. HENKEL-Right. It's wide open.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think, I mean with all the H's and everything, I don't think I need, I know it's
Hudson Headwaters. I see the Kinney sign. I don't know what's above it or below it, but I know the
Kinney sign is there. Maybe you built too big of a campus. I'm teasing Tom. Anyway, I think
you're hearing some of the comments. Let's open the public hearing to see what the public has to
say about it first. The public hearing is open at this point. Is there anyone here to address the Board
on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'm going to poll the Board to see if I can get a flavor as
to where they're going. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think that we should be realistic here because I think that we're in a situation
that's very similar to a school campus like Queensbury schools where you have multiple buildings and
with the empty lots in the back where you anticipate more buildings being constructed, it's probably
proper for us to dial this in at the present time before it turns into a worse situation than currently
exists. Number One, the main signs out by the road, I don't think that they have to be excessive in
size because I think it's a familiarization thing. Once somebody goes for their first appointment, they
usually figure it out, but at the same time we have to consider the fact that a lot of people that are
going for appointments are in a high state of anxiety or something like that. So we should do what
we can do to make sure that it's obvious, you know, that it's not something that's hidden or anything
like that, and I think part of the problem exists because of the multitude of buildings and more of
them anticipated in the back there. I think the internal signage, the numbers on the buildings makes
sense. You should be able to see those from a long way off because you can say, there's Number
One over there. There's Number Two over there. There's Number Three, and I know which one
I'm going to and I think that can be dialed in too like when the patients are reminded of their visits
they can say go to Building Number Three, you know, that should be obvious on the recording. So
there's some commonsense built into it, but I think that you can stay within the normality of the size
of the sign in front. I don't think it needs to be oversized. I think it can stay what we have as the
Code because I think that works for every other place in Town, but I think that the ones on the
buildings they can be a little bit bigger just to identify them.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with Jim. I think that once the people see the sign that they can identify it
and they know how to go, and numbering the buildings I think is a good deal. I mean, the ones on
Carey they help. You have temporary signs up now. I understand that. They do. Why they're
not 15 feet off the road I don't know, but that's all. I'm passing.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-So I agree with my colleagues that 84 feet is excessive. We're sort of charged to grant
the minimum useful variance. So you guys are going to have to get closer to 45 for me, and I don't
know why you have to put all the rest of the signs right on the property line. I would think that if
you put them back 10 feet and ask for a 5 foot variance, that would be more realistic for me. I'm not
a sign gestapo, but this is pretty extensive with regard to, you know, on the property line or one foot
from the property line. We have zoning for a reason and we're charged with granting the minimum
variances. This doesn't even get close to trying to recognize what the zoning says, 15 feet, you know,
one foot that doesn't pass with me.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I have no problems with the signs on the buildings and the directional signs. The one
I have a problem with is the one on the corner of Carey and Corinth on the east side. I think you
should be able to survive. The 84 feet is way too big. I'm not in favor of the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 don't normally get over to that side of Town, and I was kind of shocked when I took
a look at that complex. I hadn't really seen it before, and so I have to admit I was confused trying to
figure out what was going on. So I kind of agree with using signage to separate the things out. Maybe
84 is too big, but again, you have to consider the traffic is moving. Forty-five is probably
underestimation of the speed that the traffic moves on Corinth Road there. So I believe it needs to
be fairly big. Eighty-four feet I don't know, but I'll have to say in general I would support this project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-1 do think the freestanding sign needs to be drawn back a little bit, and I'm not saying
it has to be brought back all of 45 but the directional signs inside are definitely needed. I've had to
go there at times at night and driven down the wrong side street, tried to get in from the front and
things like that. So I think you need that directional sign, something that could be actually seen when
you make the turn on Carey Road. So I do agree with the placement of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-So you're kind of hearing that the big sign shouldn't be a big sign, and that the Board
members are okay with building signs and directional signs, and although maybe more off the line
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
they'd be appreciative of that. So at this point it's really kind of up to you. You can re-vamp and
come back to us or, you know, it's really up to you as to how you want to proceed so that we know
how to proceed.
MR. JONES-1 think we'd ask for it to be tabled at this point.
MR. JACKOSKI-We're not going to do SEQR at this time, if that's okay with Counsel, and we'll wait
until they come back with a revised plan and then do SEQR accordingly so we don't have to do it
again. So I need a motion to table.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Hudson
Headwater Health Network for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of
Queensbury. Applicant proposes multiple on-site signs: On parcel 309.13-2-31.2 the main freestanding
sign is proposed greater than 45 sq. ft. Additionally, two freestanding signs are proposed on the same
parcel to be located at the east entrances on Carey Rd for building direction. The entrance signs do
not meet the required 15 ft. setback. Then on parcel 308.16-2-2.3 administration site one freestanding
sign is to be 24 sq. ft. and less than 15 ft. setback. Relief requested for size of freestanding sign and
setback for freestanding and entrance signage. Relief also requested for number of freestanding signs.
The applicant requests relief for size of freestanding sign and setback for freestanding and entrance
signage. Relief also requested for number of freestanding signs.
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-4-2017 HUDSON HEADWATERS HEALTH
NETWORK, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Until the first meeting in June with the appropriate paperwork to be submitted by the May submission
deadline.
Duly adopted this 26" day of April, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
MR. LYONS-Thanks for your time.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Next item on the agenda is Teudy Nuesi project, 0 Hidden Hills, Area
Variance Number Z-AV-22-2017, a Type II SEAR.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-22-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 TEDDY NUESI OWNER(SJ TEDDY NUESI
ZONING MDR LOCATION 0 HIDDEN HILLS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF
A 216 SQ. FT. CARPORT ADDITION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOME. THE PROJECT IS
AN OPEN CARPORT AND INCLUDES EXPANSION OF THE DRIVEWAY AREA OF ABOUT 75
SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR
ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BLDG. PERMIT: AST-1-2017 CARPORT ADDITION; AREA
VARIANCE NO. 12-2015 FENCE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2017 LOT SIZE 0.58
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.13446 SECTION 179-5-070
NATHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be
read into the record.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-22-2017, Teudy Nuesi, Meeting Date: April 26, 2017 "Project
Location: 0 Hidden Hills Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 216
sq. ft. carport addition on the south side of the home. The project is an open carport and includes
expansion of the driveway area of about 75 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements
of the MDR zoning district.
Relief Required:
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zone.
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —dimensional requirement MDR zone
The applicant proposes a 216 sq. ft. that is to be 13.85 ac from Hidden Hills Dr. where a 30 ft. setback
is required.
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 to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The parcel is at the corner of Hidden Hills and
Dixon Road.
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 location of the existing home on the lot.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. The relief is for 16.15 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant has provided plans for the construction of an open carport on the south side of the
home along Hidden Hills Dr. The carport is to be 12 ft. 10 in with a pitched roof attached to the
existing garage."
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So a couple of things before I welcome you to the table. Number One,
for the record, just so everyone knows, I've used the applicant's agents in the past for myself, but I
don't think there's a conflict of interest, and Number Two, it's probably a pretty straightforward
application. So we might have an easy one here this evening. So go ahead.
MR. MC CABE-1 just wanted to make a point. It's 13.5 feet, not acres. Right?
MR. HALL-Correct. Just for the record, Nathan Hall from Little, O'Connor & Borie. I'm here on
behalf of the applicant who's also here. Laura and I discussed getting an agent authorization form. I
know that's standard practice. I didn't get a chance to get that to you.
MR. JACKOSKI-But the applicant's here and he's allowed to represent you. So we're all set.
MR. HALL-Okay. There we go. Moving forward.
MR. JACKOSKI-You just want questions?
MR. HALL-If the Board would like I can surely give a brief background on this.
MR. JACKOSKI-You don't have to.
MR. HALL-Okay. Let's move right to questions, then.
MR. HENKEL-Is that any concern with the gas meter there inside that, because there's a gas meter
there.
MR. HALL-On the side of the house?
MR. HENKEL-That's going to be inside the carport area, right?
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
MR. HALL-That's not something I'm aware of.
TEDDY NUESI
MR. NUESI-Yes, there is a gas meter there.
MR. HENKEL-Is that a concern to National Grid or anything?
MR. NUESI-Yes, it is. We're going to put some metal posts around it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members?
MR. KUHL-You're basically going to keep all sides open? It's just going to be a carport? You're not
dropping any curtains or anything?
MR. NUESI-No. I'm allowed to put the fence all the way out to that edge of the garage, but it won't
be attached to the carport. No.
MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience
that would like to address this Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's no written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'll start at the other end of the table. Roy?
MR. URRICO-1 have absolutely no problem with the application.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 think the applicant has done a nice job with the property and I'd support him
continuing work on it.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I have no problem as long as, condition wise, they don't enclose it. It stays carport.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Well, it was my understanding that we're approving just the carport. So if they did
something else they'd have to come back. So I'd support the application as presented.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I have no issue with this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No problem.
MR. JACKOSKI-Having polled the Board, I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Teudy
Nuesi Applicant proposes construction of a 216 sq. ft. carport addition on the south side of the home.
The project is an open carport and includes expansion of the driveway area of about 75 sq. ft. Relief
requested from minimum setback requirements of the MDR zoning district.
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zone.
Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts — dimensional requirement MDR zone
The applicant proposes a 216 sq. ft. carport addition that is to be 13.85 ft. from Hidden Hills Dr. where
a 30 ft. setback is required.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
SEAR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 26, 2017;
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. The fact that the house was built that far off and the garage was built that
close to the street, that's why the application is here.
2. Feasible alternatives are very limited because of the position of the house.
3. The requested variance is not substantial.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. Although you may say the difficulty could be self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approvall 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 Z-
AV-22-2017, TEDDY NUESI, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 26" day of April 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-So congratulations.
MR. HALL-Thank you, guys.
MR. JACKOSKI-The next item this evening is the Steve, Carol & Andrew Bodette project on 10
Hemlock Road, Area Variance Z-AV-13-2017, a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled this
evening.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV43-2107 SEQRA TYPE 11 STEPHEN, CAROL & ANDREW BODETTE
AGENT(SJ CURTIS D. DYBAS OWNER(SJ STEPHEN,CAROL&ANDREW BODETTE ZONING
WR4A LOCATION 10 HEMLOCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SECOND FLOOR
RENOVATION REMOVING EXISTING 572 SQ. FT. AND CONSTRUCTING PROPOSED 570 SQ.
FT. SECOND FLOOR WITH OFFICE AREA AND MASTER BEDROOM. NEW CONSTRUCTION
DOES OT MEET SHORELINE SETBACK AND EXPANSION NONCONFORMING. PROJECT
INCLUDES AN EXISTING PORCH RENOVATION 98 +/- SQ. FT. FOR NEW ENTRYWAY AND
OPEN PORCH. RELIEF REQUEST FROM MINIMUM SETBACK AND FAR REQUIREMENTS.
PLANNING BOARD SHALL PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS. PLANNING BOARD: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 17943-010 & 179-3-040 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, EXPANSION IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REF BOH SEPTIC VARIANCE WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.104-32
CURTIS DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
STAFF INPUT
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-13-2017, Stephen, Carol & Andrew Bodette, Meeting Date:
April 26, 2017 "Project Location: 10 Hemlock Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes a second floor renovation removing existing 572 sq. ft. and constructing proposed 570 sq.
ft. second floor with office area and master bedroom. New construction does not meet shoreline
setback and expansion nonconforming. Project includes an existing porch renovation 98 +/- sq. ft.
for new entryway and open porch. Relief request from minimum setback and FAR requirements.
Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Planning Board:
Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 & 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion in a CEA shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements and for Floor area ratio requirements
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —dimensional requirement WR zone
The applicant proposes the second floor addition to be 25 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback
is required. The floor area proposed is 26.7% and required is 22%.
179-13-010 Expansion of non conforming
The existing home is pre-existing non-compliant and the addition remains non-compliance towards the
shoreline.
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 to no
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 an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited
due to the design of the home and location on the site.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for shoreline of 25 ft. for the setback and 4.7%
for floor area.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes removing the existing second floor addition to construct a new second floor.
The existing site will remain unchanged with the major improvement is to the second floor area of the
home and porch that will be renovated to allow for a new entryway and open porch area. The plans
show the alterations to the interior of the home that include new access to the basement area, the first
floor to update -two bedrooms living area, 3-season porch, kitchen area, great-room and dining area
in an open floor plan, the second floor — is to have a master bedroom, office area, bathroom area and
relocated stairway. The applicant has indicated there is to be permeable pavers to be installed in front
of the existing garage and eave trenches on the west and east side of the home. The applicant has
provided elevations and photos showing the existing and proposed views of the home."
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, based on its limited review, made a motion that they did
not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
That was adopted April 25, 2017 by a six to one margin.
MR. DYBAS-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, Staff. I hope I do better. I know
it's been a long evening here sitting in the audience. A little bit of history on this, the best I can tell,
the house dates to the late 50's, early 60's. It was purchased in the 70's by Dick and Terri Bodette
who was one of the engineers for Rist Frost Associates that was responsible for the HVAC work at
the Civic Center. Mrs. Bodette, Terri Bodette, passed away here a few years ago and left this property
to her children. Carol Bodette is in the process of acquiring the property free and clear from her
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
siblings. Her brother lives in Colorado, comes here very seldom, and Carol Bodette and her husband,
Mario Fasulo have elected to move here on a year round basis. They currently live in Worcester,
Mass. They have been burglarized twice, once when they were home. She is a teacher and a physical
therapist and he is in partnership with a place called, it's like a mini Panera Bread. They have like nine
or eleven stores, and no home base per se, no office. He works out of the house and travels to
different stores. So re-location is not a problem, but although this is a year round house, it's not
conducive to year round living, and they want to totally upgrade it so they can move here and open
it up on the first floor and her father added this master bedroom on the second floor and if anyone's
visited this site, it's actually built above the old roof. The second floor is 16 feet above the first floor,
floor to floor. It's a nightmare, and you can tell by the tower, that picture is particularly from the
view from the lake, and it's like 30 feet tall. It's huge. So the plan is to remove that, take the roof
off the entire structure, build a new second floor and replace the roof around it and come up with a
more contemporary current looking structure. Same type of siding, and address site issues. We have
a 1950's, 60's septic system which we are going to replace, and the only place we can put it is up where
the well is, so we have to drill a new well down by the lake. Tom Hutchins, on the 17" of April, was
successful in securing a resolution, I believe it's in your packet, from the Town Board on the wastewater
system and last Friday I received an invoice from Mario Fusco that they did $14,000 worth of mold
remediation in this thing back in 2013, and one of the things that Roy read into the record was eaves
trenches, and eaves trenches are going to have to come off the table because it makes no sense to put
more water around a foundation. I talked to Tom Hutchins this morning and we're going to remediate
roof water by some type of infiltrators and get it away from the structure. We will leave the permeable
pavers but we were going to handle the roof water in a different means. At last night's meeting there
was some concern, in order to get a well rig down by the lake we're going to have to take out that
row of mature arborvitae, they're way overgrown and hanging over everyone's property, to get the
well rig down, but we've already discussed we're going to put a new row of something down along that
property line and I won't say arborvitae, put something down along the property line, but part of the
setback is 17 feet from the existing house to the lake, the corner, the closest corner, and the second
floor in its projection will be 25 feet back from the lake. The side yards of the proposed second floor
I do believe meet the setbacks. The existing house does not. FAR ratio,there is a very damp basement
underneath this thing. I mean, when I say very damp, I mean, very damp, and the only thing you can
put down there is something non-organic, and that's the best thing you can do with that. The second
floor, including the garage and the porch and everything, is just a little bit over 2,000 square feet. If
you count the basement around 2600. So that's what's driving the 26% FAR ratio is the existing
basement that's under the structure. Is it height? Yes, it's height. I have allergies. I walk down
there, I'm there a half an hour I have to get out. It's not a place that I can go, but basically that's the
project that I can think of. In fact we're in the process of re-modeling the Dansbury's next door and
the Fasulo's are coming here this summer and then they're going to rent Dansbury's next winter if we
get approval for this and they'll re-model this while they live next door in Dansbury's house next winter.
So they are making a permanent move.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Board members?
MR. HENKEL-Is the permeability changing at all? Because you said that you made some changes.
MR. DYBAS-It will be improved.
MR. HENKEL-I was going to say you said about 1% here, but you said you were going to do something
different around the trenching around the eaves.
MR. DYBAS-Well, I was going to trench the eaves, but with the mold condition that I became aware
of last Friday, it would make it worse. So Tom Hutchins and I were talking this morning and since
we're going to pull the existing septic system out of the area that's to the east of the existing entry,
it's a perfect place to put infiltrators now, and the slope of the land is not only toward the lake but
also toward the Dansbury's. There's a large hill to the west. So we're going to remediate water runoff
of the Dansbury's property and basically permeability will be handled the entire roof.
MR. HENKEL-I didn't walk to the front of the property. I just walked, I just drove in the driveway,
by what's the large concrete pad that's by the lake? What's the reason for that?
MR. DYBAS-That's just a big patio that somebody built years ago and basically it's anchored for steel
beams that holds up that cantilever dock which I don't understand.
MR. KUHL-What's the height of the basement? You said it's so wet down there.
MR. DYBAS-At least seven feet.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
MR. KUHL-It does have that kind of height?
MR. DYBAS-Yes, I believe there's pictures in the packet, I'm not sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-So how tall is the house at its highest point within the 50 foot setback from the
shoreline?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Now it's 30. It'll be 25 when it's re-done.
MR. JACKOSKI-So it'll be much wider in the future than it is now, than just that tower. Right?
MR. UNDERWOOD-But it's actually, it's not out to the edge of the roof line. It's inset from the
actual.
MR. DYBAS-The second floor addition is only 16 feet wide, and the house is about 30. The second
floor addition is basically sitting mid-point if you're looking at the house from the road or the lake.
MR. JACKOSKI-If this were a new project we'd never approve that tall of a project that close to the
lake.
MR. DYBAS-It's obviously, I think kind of when it was done it had to be after, in the 70's, because
they, the Bodette's mother and father purchased this, I believe in the deed I saw '76.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? I'll open the public hearing. Seeing no
one in the audience, I assume there's no public comment.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is no public comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment no live comment. I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll.
MR. URRICO-The Board of Health Septic Variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right. Which got approved, yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board. Jim, I'm going to start with you if you don't mind.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes I paddle by it numerous times every week when I do my loop around the
lake and it's always struck me as one of the oddball type structures, you know, due to its verticality of
it being so high.
MR. DYBAS-1 think you're being kind.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It looks kind of like stacked containers in New Jersey or something. It's certainly
going to be more aesthetically pleasing as proposed, and I think because it's inset it's essentially
maintaining the same square footage in the house and the FAR, even though it's over the top from
what it should be from this lot. I don't think by making that second story smaller would change
things that greatly. I mean, I think the big issues are the septic is going to be upgraded. The
stormwater runoff is going to be dealt with more properly. So hopefully it'll alleviate some of the
problems you have in the cellar. So I'd be all for it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Yes. I believe that what we're gaining from allowing this variance more than offsets
what we're losing.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I think we could all agree that it's a minimum relief they're requesting on a pre-
existing, non-conforming structure, and the fact of the wastewater system, and anytime we have people
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
that upgrade houses on the lake, it always improves it with the overall design and the wastewater. So
I'm in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes. I agree that while sort of doing this is close to the lake is not what we'd like to do,
it's there and I would support the application.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, it's definitely got more curb appeal. It's got a new wastewater system. It's better
permeability by one percent, and also it's not getting any closer to the lake which is a good thing. So,
yes, it's a good project.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stephen,
Carol & Andrew Bodette. Applicant proposes a second floor renovation removing existing 572 sq. ft.
and constructing proposed 570 sq. ft. second floor with office area and master bedroom. New
construction does not meet shoreline setback and expansion nonconforming. Project includes an
existing porch renovation 98 +/- sq. ft. for new entryway and open porch. Relief request from
minimum setback and FAR requirements. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals. Planning Board: Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 &179-3-040 of the Zoning
Ordinance, expansion in a CEA shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements and for Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
requirements.
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —dimensional requirement WR zone
The applicant proposes the second floor addition to be 25 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback
is required. The floor area proposed is 26.7% and required is 22%.
179-13-010 Expansion of non conforming
The existing home is pre-existing non-compliant and the addition remains non-compliance towards the
shoreline.
SEAR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 26, 2017;
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 construction will improve the situation of the height of the
house which currently is 30 feet which will be reduced to 25 feet.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and this seems to be the most reasonable solution
that's required for a second floor on a building.
3. The requested variance is not substantial even though the FAR is slightly over what it should
be. It's no more than what currently exists on the property and so it won't be increasing the
adversity.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district because we will be having a new up to date septic system put in as
well as stormwater runoff being dealt with in a more reasonable manner than currently exists
with eaves trenches.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they wish to do this project.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approvall 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
Z-AV43-2017, STEPHEN, CAROL & ANDREW BODETTE, Introduced by James Underwood, who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 26" day of April 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-We have one more item this evening of housekeeping. In the month of May some
of you may not be aware yet but we do have an Appeal that has been filed regarding a decision of the
Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown, as relates to a project in North Queensbury. The Planning Board
has made some decisions regarding that project. Correct, Staff?
MRS. MOORE-Already done.
MR. JACKOSKI-Alreadydone right? They made the decisions on it. The person has appealed that
decision and the owner of the property is actually being represented by Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth.
Our counsel here this evening is from the same firm. Because the owner has been in contract with
their firm prior to the firm joining the Town of Queensbury, it seems appropriate that our legal
counsel sitting here thing evening is going to recuse themselves. So the question then becomes does
this Board feel that we need other legal representation to hear the appeal and act accordingly?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No.
MR. KUHL-What project?
MR. JACKOSKI-Can I talk about the merits of the project or who it is?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You can just talk about what it is.
MR. KUHL-What it is.
MR.JACKOSKI-All right. So it is filed, the Hal Halliday project over on Route 9L. It's being appealed
by Frank Munoff. He addressed us the other evening.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And this is something to do with boat storage or something?
MR. JACKOSKI-It has to do with a building on his property, I can't get into any details of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-We have to verify that we have standing and then we have to apply and listen to his,
you know, that Mr. Munoff has standing and then act accordingly based on his appeal. So usually I
recommend that we have counsel, but we've been through this a number of times. Do we want to
have a different law firm come in to help us? I should make it known that the counsel has also recused
themselves from any of the Planning Board stuff as well. So I don't think the Planning Board has
actually had other counsel there. Right?
MRS. MOORE-For a different project we did that the other evening.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right, but not this project. So, Jim, you say no?
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't think it's necessary. I think the Board has enough experience and we've
had plenty of appeals from the Zoning Administrator decisions previously.
MR. JACKOSKI-And we don't have to take action that evening. We could hear the claim and then
we could act accordingly after. So we don't have to take action.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/26/20171
MR. UNDERWOOD-All we have to do is acknowledge it.
MR. KUHL-Yes, I think we can get by without counsel.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Therefore I'm not going to put forward the resolution to have other counsel in place.
I need a motion to adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL
26, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 26" day of April, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
35