2007-09-19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2007
INDEX
Area Variance No. 42-2007 Morgan Vittengl 2.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-48
Notice of Appeal No. 6-2007 Steven Seaboyer 3.
Tax Map No. 227.13-2-36
Area Variance No. 58-2007 Margorie Johnson/Leesa Stiller 4.
Tax Map No. 309.7-1-40.2
Sign Variance No. 56-2007 1093 Group, LLC/Rite Aid Store 8.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-55
Area Variance No. 60-2007 Matthew Emmens 20.
Tax Map No. 239.15-1-19
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2007
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
JOYCE HUNT
RICHARD GARRAND
CHARLES MC NULTY
JOAN JENKIN, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
ROY URRICO
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. ABBATE- Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated 19 September 2007. Prior to
setting this hearing in motion, I would like to acquaint you with information that will
familiarize you with the responsibilities of this Board, the mandated legal requirements
we are guided by, and the procedures for a hearing before this Board. The function of
the Zoning Board of Appeals is to listen to and consider all evidence that appears on the
record, and may bear upon the issue we are deciding. This Zoning Board of Appeals
can grant (or deny) two types of relief; interpretive and variance. In either case, this
Board will affirm, reverse or modify the enforcement officer’s decision. In doing so, this
Board will either permit or deny the requested relief. If the appeal is for an interpretation,
this Board’s decision will be based on the Town of Queensbury zoning regulations. If the
appeal is for a variance, this Board’s decision will be based on the standards of proof
contained in NYS Town Law 267-b. Additionally, the Zoning Board of Appeals may only
authorize the minimum variance necessary to relieve the applicant. Other than
administrative items, public comments will be invited on each appeal, however, in the
interest of time please be crisp, organized and limit your comments to only the facts and
information given this evening. On opening the public hearing the public will be allowed
a maximum of 5 minutes to comment on a specific appeal. The purpose of this time
limitation is to provide each member of the public an opportunity to be heard, and also to
limit the length of the hearing to a reasonable time frame. All questions from the
appellant or the public will be addressed to this Board. All dialogues during the hearing
will be between the appellant and this Board, and I’m going to request that the Secretary
please monitor the time. Mr. Secretary, at this time, do we have any correspondence at
this time that should be read into the record?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No.
MR. ABBATE-We do not. Okay. Then if you folks will be patient with me, I have a
number of administrative items I have to take care of first before we start our hearings.
Mr. Secretary, I’m going to ask you to read a piece of correspondence that I have
received from Stephanie DiLallo Bitter, Counsel for Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes,
concerning Pet Lodge Use Variance No. 54-2007 in which they wish to withdraw their
application. Would you be kind enough to read that into the record for me, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We briefly went through this one last month, and we gave them
more time, and it looks like they’re withdrawing. It says, “Dear Chairman Abbate: As you
are aware, our firm represents Pet Lodge with regard to the request for a use variance
for the property on 384 Bay Road which is owned by 130 Big Boom Road, LLC. On
August 28, 2007 the Zoning Board of Appeals tabled Use Variance No. 54-2007. At this
time we have decided to withdraw our application. If you would please note this for the
record, we would appreciate it.” Signed Stefanie Bitter.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Since it’s a withdrawal, there is no action on
this Board’s part. Keep this for the records for me, would you, please, Mr. Chairman.
Also, would you also be kind enough to also read into the record a letter which I received
a copy of, from the law firm of for Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, addressed to Mr.
Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator, concerning Area Variance No. 42-2007, please.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This one’s in regard to Area Variance No. 42-2007, the
Vittengl property located at 155 Birdsall Road. As you are aware, our office represents
the Vittengls with regard to the above mentioned area variance. At this time, in order to
move forward, it is necessary for you to advise what relief you find to be required as a
result of your July 11, 2007 site visit. On July 16, 2007, I had requested that this matter
be tabled until September 19, 2007. However, we are not prepared to have the Zoning
Board revisit this application until we have received additional information from you. As
a result, please consider this a request for a further tabling motion. If you would kindly
provide this request to the Chairman we would appreciate it.” Signed Stefanie Bitter.
th
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The letter is dated September 14, and since I
don’t see Counselor or any representatives here from Bartlett, since there’s no
representatives here, and they have requested a further tabling motion, I am going to
table Area Variance No. 42-2007 to the October 24, 2007 meeting.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2007 MORGAN VITTENGL, Introduced
by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
155 Birdsall Road. Tabled to the November 21, 2007, to provide, no later than October
15, 2007, the appropriate documentation to Staff.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2007, by the following vote:
MR. BROWN-Would you like to table them until November and let them submit by
th
October 15? Because they haven’t submitted anything.
MR. ABBATE-If that would help Staff.
MR. BROWN-They haven’t submitted anything yet.
MR. ABBATE-All right, then, you know what, Mr. Brown, this is what we’re going to do.
st
I’m going to modify that motion, and I’m going to say, let’s make it the 21, with the
stipulation, with the proviso that Area Variance No. 42-2007 provide, no later than the
th
15 of October, to Staff, the appropriate documentation.
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-And the vote is six yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 42-2007 is tabled until
November 21, 2007, with the proviso that the information be provided to Staff no later
th
than the 15 of October. Okay. All right. I received another letter, from Bartlett, again,
and this deals with Irish Bay. This, I do believe, is an appeal of the Zoning
Administrator’s decision, and, Mr. Secretary, would you be kind enough to read that into
the record for me, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Dear Chairman Abbate: On September 17, 2007 I submitted an
appeal on behalf of Irish Bay Partners, LLC. With that appeal, Jon Lapper as attorney for
Irish Bay Partners had executed such with the submission. In the event that the client’s
signature is required, I am hereby enclosing an appeal which contains the signature of
Jack Lefner, as member of Irish Bay Partners, LLC. If you need anything further, please
do not hesitate to contact me.” And that’s signed Stefanie Bitter also.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Again, I see no representative from Bartlett, so I will make the
decision. I haven’t received any correspondence from our Town Attorney concerning
this, but they indicate they’d like to get together with our Town Attorney, which is the
tactics, they certainly are entitled to that. So in order to provide them with ample
st
opportunities, I think what I will do is move this to the 21 .
MR. BROWN-What they’ve done is they’ve filed an appeal of a decision that I made.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I have it.
MR. BROWN-All that they’ve done there is submitted a letter with the owner’s signature.
That’s all it is. It says please add this to our appeal. So we’re going to put them on the
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
agenda for October, since they’ve made the September submittal deadline. That just
gets added to their appeal that they’ve already filed.
MR. ABBATE-Do you have any problems if I put them on for October?
MR. BROWN-You don’t need to do anything with it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. They’re already on for October. So that’s the way it’s
going to be then. What date do we have it for?
MR. BROWN-We haven’t finished the agenda yet.
MR. ABBATE-I’ll finish the agenda this Friday, and I will put them on the October
agenda. Okay. Not a problem. Okay. All right, and I have a little bit more here, folks.
Just bear with me.
OLD BUSINESS:
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 6-2007 SEQRA TYPE: N/A STEVEN SEABOYER
AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ./STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. OWNER(S):
STEVEN & DEBORAH SEABOYER ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 83 ROCKHURST
ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING A JUNE 25, 2007 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DETERMINATION REGARDING THE COMPLETENESS OF THEIR APPLICATION.
CROSS REF.: SP 33-06 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.20
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-36 SECTION: 179-16-010
MR. ABBATE-I also have correspondence that I’m going to ask the Secretary to read into
the record, again from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, and this is dealing with appeal
of the Zoning Administrator decision No. 6-2007, and if you’ll read that into the record for
me, please. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This is in regard to the Seaboyer project located at 83 Rockhurst
Road. It’s Appeal No. 6-2007. “As you are aware, our office represents the Seaboyers
with regard to their appeal which is referenced above. On August 28, 2007 this matter
was tabled until the Zoning Board’s September 19, 2007 meeting. At this time we would
like to table this matter again so that we would have an opportunity to discuss this further
with the Town Attorney. Please advise if there are any issues in doing what is
requested.” Signed Stefanie Bitter.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. All right. Again, there’s no representative here this
evening. So, unless I hear any objections, I’m going to then move the Appeal No. 6-
2007 to the October 24, 2007 meeting.
MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 6-2007 STEVEN SEABOYER,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
83 Rockhurst Road. Tabled to the October 24, 2007 hearing date.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2007, by the following vote:
MR. BROWN-Could I just ask one more question? They haven’t submitted anything.
th
The September 15 deadline, again, is the submittal deadline for October. If you’re
going to put them on an October meeting, when do they submit the information, if not by
deadline date?
MR. ABBATE-The problem here is that they are requesting to discuss this further with
the Town Attorney. Now I haven’t heard anything from the Town Attorney. However, in
order to provide them with due process, I would rather tentatively place them on the
October 24, 2007 agenda. However, if they don’t have, if the information is not
submitted by that time, I am not bashful and I will remove them from them the October
th
24.
MR. BROWN-So we’ll let them submit right up to the date of the meeting?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’m waiting for the Town Attorney to give me some guidance on that,
and I don’t have anything yet. If I don’t have it by then, ladies and gentlemen of the
Board, I will move them to another date. Okay.
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-And the vote is six yes, zero no. Appeal No. 6-2007 is moved tentatively
to October 24, 2007.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2007 SEQRA TYPE II MARGORIE JOHNSON/LEESA
STILLER AGENT(S): TAD BALEKE OWNER(S): MARJORIE JOHNSON ZONING
UR-10 LOCATION 24 HOLDEN AVENUE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-694 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A
LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.7-1-40.2 SECTION 179-4-030
LEESA STILLER, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess just so everybody understands what’s going on, I’m going to
read the letter that was sent back to the Town which kind of explains the situation here.
“To Whom It May Concern: We are writing today to respectfully submit our request for a
variance for 24 Holden Avenue, which is located in the Town of Queensbury. To
summarize what transpired, we staked out the house by measuring from the edge of the
road, which we believed was to be the starting point. We thought we measured 34 feet
from the starting point. We did not intentionally stake out the house with the wrong
setbacks; we truly believed we were doing it properly. In addition, we would like you to
note that this home is equally set back, or even further set back, from the other homes in
this area. At this point, we have poured the foundation and construction has taken place.
To our knowledge, when the foundation was checked by the Town of Queensbury it was
approved, so we continued on with the construction. Since that initial inspection, we
were told by the contractor that there were follow-up inspections that have taken place
and we were not informed at any time that the set-backs were an issue. The house was
built, sided and the roof was put on. As you can see by the photos, the home is nearly
completed. Last week, the Town of Queensbury arrived and informed us that they
thought that the setback was not in compliance and requested that we submit an
application for a variance. We would appreciate your consideration of granting our
variance. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely, Leesa Stiller and Marjorie Johnson Owners of 24 Holden Avenue”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-2007, Margorie Johnson/Leesa Stiller, Meeting
Date: September 19, 2007 “Project Location: 24 Holden Avenue Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 1200 sf Single Family Dwelling too close
to the front property line.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 16.4 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement
of the UR-10 zoning district.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to maintain the home in the constructed location.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives appear to be limited as the home is already constructed.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for 16.4 feet of setback relief from the 30 foot requirement may be
interpreted as substantial (55%).
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
No letters of support were submitted with the application materials. Photos submitted
with the application appear to show that the house, as constructed, has a consistent, if
not more compliant, front setback versus the adjoining home and neighborhood.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None applicable
Staff comments:
Per the applicants letter, the apparent cause for the erroneous location was that the
contractor measured from the edge of the paved surface rather than the front property
line. The plot plan submitted with the building permit application depicted the house to
be constructed in a compliant location.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and I see the appellant is at the table. Would you be kind enough,
please, to tell us who you are.
MRS. STILLER-Leesa Stiller.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and I see that you’re not accompanied by an attorney.
MRS. STILLER-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So what I’m going to do, as I do in all cases, those folks who come
before us without an attorney, I’m going to explain to you what our procedures, and I do
this in every case for individuals who come before us without an attorney. What we’re
going to do, Mrs. Stiller, is this. We’re going to ask you to please tell us why you feel
your appeal has merit, should receive approval, and we’re going to ask you to please
express, in your own way, in your own words, why you feel we should approve your
appeal. Now, if at any time during this hearing, there’s anything you don’t understand,
please stop us. We will explain to you what we’re doing. If, during the hearing, there’s
anything you say, my goodness, I forgot to mention something, stop us, and you will
have the opportunity to present that additional information into the record, and I
guarantee you we will take that into consideration. Do you understand our procedures
so far? Are you ready?
MRS. STILLER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Proceed. Go ahead.
MRS. STILLER-We just let our contractor do the work and he obviously measured
incorrectly from the point of start to finish, and construction took place. We trusted the
gentleman to do the right thing, and my mother, who’s not here, I’m here to represent
her, she’s been involved in it most of the way, and she’s 75 and she probably didn’t do
the follow-up work, and that’s basically what it comes down to.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right, and you’ll have an opportunity, later on, to add anything
else you may wish to do. Okay. At this point what I’m going to do is ask the Board
members, do we have any questions for the appellant?
MRS. HUNT-I have a question.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mrs. Hunt.
MRS. HUNT-How is it that the plot plan submitted with the building permit application
depicted the house to be constructed in a compliant location, and then it was not built
according to the building permit application? Can you explain that?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MRS. STILLER-I, quite honestly, can’t because my contractor isn’t here to answer that.
He made the mistake. I didn’t make the mistake.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The property line setback from the edge of the road. That’s why.
MRS. STILLER-I, quite honestly, don’t do any of, my mother does all the leg work and I
do, I keep the books. So, it’s my mother who, Marge Johnson, so we’re in this together.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other members of the Board? Yes, Rick, please.
MR. GARRAND-Who was the contractor on this?
MRS. STILLER-Tad Baleke is his name.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions for the appellant at this particular time.
MRS. JENKIN-I have a question, which you may not be able to explain or answer, but
my question is, is why was the house, when you have such a long backyard, why was it
placed so that it was right on the very, given the least frontage possible?
MRS. STILLER-We subdivided it, so there’s four lots as opposed to two that we had
there, and we plan on putting another home behind it, facing the other way coming off
the other street and then there was a mobile home that was removed as well, and we’d
like to see another one put there so we’d have four different homes there. There’s one
already existing there.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay, but you still have 70 feet in the back yard, and you put it right as
close to the road as you possibly could. That’s the question.
MRS. STILLER-And I don’t know why he did.
MRS. JENKIN-You don’t know why.
MRS. STILLER-I honestly don’t know why he did. That’s being honest with you. Like I
said, I do the paperwork and pay the bills, and my mom’s the one who’s on the job site
and does the running around because she’s retired.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions for the appellant at this time? Okay. Since there are
no other questions, what I’m going to do, I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area
Variance No. 58-2007. Do we have any folks in the audience who would like to address
this issue? If you’d be kind enough to raise your hand, I will recognize you and ask you
to come forward to the table. Any folks in the audience who would like to address Area
Variance No. 58-2007?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-I see no hands. Then we will continue. Now before I ask members to
offer their comments, I’d like to inform the public that the comments offered by members
are directed to the Chairman and comments expressed by Board members to the
Chairman will not be open to debate. May I respectfully remind members that
precedence mandates we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the
record to support our conclusions and the evidence relied upon should be specifically
stated. Additionally, any position you may take must be based on the regulatory review
criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective preferences or not liking a project, and
Board members are obligated to make decisions on reliable evidence contained in the
record of the Board’s deliberations. Having said that now, I’m going to ask members to
please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 58-2007. Do I have a volunteer?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll volunteer.
MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-I still have a problem with the fact that the building permit plan was not
followed, but the house is built, and it does comply with other houses on the road, and I
guess I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt, very much. How about, Chuck, would you
please.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, sure.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MR. MC NULTY-I would very dearly like to say, no, move it, because it’s a major error. I
think as the applicant’s pointed out, if you’re going to place fault, it’s got to be with the
contractor that didn’t do due diligence. I can see, you know, where the plan might be
submitted for the building permit showing it set back 30 feet, and apparently I didn’t
double check it, but apparently the measurement was made from the road, not from the
property line, which we’ve heard before, and contractors ought to know better. At the
same time, as the applicant’s pointed out, we had several people from Town that I’m
sure inspected the foundation before it was poured, and framing and so on and so on.
Unfortunately it’s not their job to check zoning compliance. At the same time, if they had
known that it was 30 feet from the property line and had any clue as to where the
property line was, they should have picked up on it, but I can see where a whole chain of
errors can happen in this case and have it not picked up, and as I’ve said before, houses
have been moved before in this Town. I live in one that was moved 30 some years ago,
for the same reason,19 feet too close to the road, and the Town made them jack it up
and move it and put in a new foundation. So it can be done. On the other hand, in this
case, I think where we can see where all the errors were made, it wasn’t somebody just
saying I’m going to ignore the rules, and I think the other factor is that it does kind of line
up with the other houses on the street. Now there may be good reason to move it back
or try to get new construction moved back to make it compliant, but it fits with the street.
Jacking it up and moving it would be a fairly substantial sum of money, and I don’t think
it’s justified in this case. So, while I would like to say move it, I think the balance falls in
favor of the applicant, and I’ll be in favor of approving.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Jim, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Although it does intrude into the corridor there, you know,
into the setback allowance there, I think I would agree with everybody so far, also. I think
that the Town, you know, I mean, we’ve had this come up numerous times in the past,
and I don’t think we’ve ever told anybody they had to move their house yet. So I can’t
imagine that we’re ever going to do that. At the same time, I would agree with Chuck. I
think the simplest solution for this is to ensure that it doesn’t continue until Kingdom
Come, would be to, you know, since we’re revising the Code at the present time anyway,
why don’t we just add on that 15 foot, you know, or that 16 foot, whatever it is. I mean,
we know what the distance is on most roads in Town, you know, and on city streets I
think on neighborhood streets it varies, depending upon which street you’re on, but I
would think it would be easy enough to just tweak that so you measured from the road,
because a road is a logical place to measure from anyway, as opposed to going back in
the setback and measuring from the actual property line because roads, you know, I
mean, it’s a more reliable thing, and I think that’s where everybody gets on that page in
making that error, but I’d be in favor of granting it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d have to agree with the other Board
members also. It doesn’t seem to be much of an advantage for the appellant to move
their house forward closer to the road. So I can’t see where it was intentionally done. I
see it as a contractor who wasn’t quite sure of what he was doing. At this point I’d be
looking for more applicants coming before us who have the same contractor, and that
would send up a red flag for me, but in this case, I think it’s simply the contractor made a
mistake. I don’t think that the homeowner should be necessarily penalized so much that
they have to move the house at their own expense. I’d be in favor of this application.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mrs. Jenkin, please.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think the fact that you are improving the neighborhood, that there
will be a desirable change by your new home. I agree that the neighborhood could use
that. I think that it’s behooving to the owner of the house, that is building a house, to
make sure that the contractor is doing the right thing and to check out and say, well, it’s
the contractor’s fault without taking responsibility yourself, I think that that’s not correct,
but in this case, with your mother and everything, I feel that probably she trusted, and
that was the mistake that was made.
MRS. STILLER-Sad thing is she’s been there every single day.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MRS. JENKIN-So, anyway, I will agree with the rest of the Board members and grant the
variance.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Now it’s my turn. It’s my opinion, after
listening to what the appellant had to say, and the evidence in the record and what the
other folks had to say, that the appellant acted in good faith, and at the risk of sounding
redundant, let’s not forget that New York State Town Law has provided this Board with
Appellate jurisdiction and as a result, we are considered by case law and Town Law to
be a safety valve, and we’re a safety valve for a good reason, and that’s, at times, to help
protect the people and the public, if you will, and, based upon that, I, too, would
unequivocally support the request for a variance. Having said that, I’m going to close
the public hearing for Area Variance No. 58-2007, and I’m going to respectfully remind
the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the
impact on the area, and while State law sets forth five factors to take into consideration,
again, unlike a Use Variance, the variance test for this need not find in favor of the
applicant on every one of the five factors. Rather, we must merely take each one into
account in deciding whether to grant an Area Variance. Now, having said that, I’m going
to seek a volunteer for a motion for Area Variance No. 58-2007. Do I have one?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, ma’am, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2007 MARGORIE
JOHNSON/LEESA STILLER, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Richard Garrand:
24 Holden Avenue. The applicant has constructed a 1200 square foot single family
dwelling too close to the front property line. Relief required. The applicant requests 16.4
feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the UR-10 zoning
district. Whether this benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant.
I don’t think so. It would mean jacking up the home and moving it back. Will there be an
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties? I think the
opposite. It’s a desirable change and it upgrades the neighborhood. You could say the
request is substantial, at 55%. The request will not have any adverse physical or
environmental effects, and whether it’s self-created, it may be interpreted as self-created,
but the applicants were acting in good faith with their contractor.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 58-2007 is six yes, zero no. Area
Variance No. 58-2007 is approved. Thank you very much.
MRS. STILLER-Thank you very much.
NEW BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED 1093 GROUP, LLC/RITE
AID STORE AGENT(S): BLAIR COMPANIES OWNER(S): 1093 GROUP, LLC
ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 724 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES
PLACEMENT OF ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS ON THE FAÇADE OF THE RITE AID
STORE. ALSO THE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL
FREESTANDING SIGN ON THE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF
ALLOWABLE SIGNS. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 LOT SIZE: 2.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-55 SECTION
140
FRED EARLY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. GARRAND-May I be excused?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, by all means. Go ahead, Rick.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MR. UNDERWOOD-During the course of what we’ve received here, it appears that, I
guess there wasn’t any kind of a preliminary meeting. So, I mean, there was some
confusion, and I think that the Staff Notes are a little bit, you know, I mean, they’re going
to be informative, but at the same time, they’re not really clear. So I think what we’re
going to do is I’ll read through them and then I’ll have you present, so we have a better
idea of what signs you are proposing here. So we’re all on the same page when we
make our decision.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 56-2007, 1093 Group, LLC/Rite Aid store, Meeting
Date: September 19, 2007 “Project Location: 724 Glen Street Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes construction of an additional free standing sign and multiple
additional wall signs.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief for 10 signs; 1 additional freestanding sign, 7 wall signs and two
directional signs.
As no pre submission meeting was conducted with staff, we were unable to accurately
identify the required relief until staff notes were published. Actual relief needed is for:
1 additional freestanding sign (on neighboring parcel? No setbacks shown)
4 additional wall signs
Clarification is needed for the Glen Street freestanding sign as some of the application
materials call for a 59.81 sf sign while other papers show that same sign to be 47.81 sf.
If the sign is to be the larger of the two, the minimum setback requirement is 25 feet
rather than 15 for the smaller sign.
Clarification is needed from the applicant on which signs they wish to have considered
for their allowable signs so that the Board may have a clear understanding of the
variance request.
The directional signs; 3a, 3b, 3c, 6 and 7 do not require permits nor variances.
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct the proposed signs in the preferred locations.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives may include a lesser number of signs, consolidation of signs, and
smaller signs.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for 5 additional signs where two are allowed may be interpreted as
moderate to substantial (250%).
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
The community is a commercially developed portion of Route 9. Would a variance for
multiple signs trigger additional requests for surrounding properties?
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Site Plan Review approval for Rite Aid ( see attached minutes)
Staff comments:
Clarification of applicable signs and sizes should be the first order of business. Adjoining
nd
property owner (site of 2 Freestanding sign) must be part of application. Setback
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
information needed for both freestanding signs as it is not shown on the submitted plot
plans.
SEQR Status:
Type Unlisted”
MR. ABBATE-I see the appellant is before the Board. Would you be kind enough to tell
us who you are and your relationship with this appeal, please.
MR. EARLY-Yes. Good evening. I’m Fred Early, and I’m from Signworks. We’re at 22
Hudson Falls Road, South Glens Falls, and I’m actually the agent for Blair Sign
Companies, the manufacturer of the signs, and, in lieu of that, the agent for 1093 Group,
LLC. Ellicott Development, Mr. Paladino who did most of the Planning Board prior to
this, was unable to attend, and unfortunately there was nobody from Blair to attend, so
we will be the installers of the final product for Blair Sign Company, the manufacturer,
depending on approval from this Board.
MR. ABBATE-Are you an attorney, sir?
MR. EARLY-No, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, then I’m going to have to offer you some bad news. After a
review of this appeal, I find that this appeal is defective, and as such, what I mean by that
is that your client has failed to comply with the authority granted to this Board by New
York State Town Law 267, and the resolutions passed by this Board regarding
procedures. Now I bring it to your attention respectfully, and I offer the following
information, that the appellant, under New York State Law, under due diligence, has the
burden of responsibility placed squarely on their shoulders to make themselves aware of
all the procedures of the Zoning Board of Appeals which are a matter of public record.
So, consequently, while I may open the hearing this evening, there will be no decision
made, and I will be moving a motion, pending what you have to say, to table your appeal
until November 21, 2007 providing that you provide the information to Staff no later than
th
October the 15. Now, would you like to respond to my fact that I declare that this
appeal is defective and we will not hear it?
MR. EARLY-Yes. I probably can provide most of the information that you’re looking for
so we can get this clarification process done. I’ve been in the sign business for 20 years,
and I’m pretty experienced. We’ve worked for Rite Aid directly, their corporation in the
past, and I’ve done other variances for them. So I think you’ll find me informative. I
should be able to get you to have a clearer understanding of what’s being asked for here
tonight.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me try and clarify this a little bit more. I’m sure you do have
the capability to do that, but your client has not followed our procedures. Part of our
procedures demand that the individual have a, schedule a preconference hearing with
Staff. That has not been completed. So consequently I declare this appeal defective,
which means that, in order for us to hear this appeal, your client is going to have to make
an appointment with Staff and go through the regular process. This is a clear violation of
our resolutions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we ask Staff, since they’re here, you know, what’s transpired
with you. I mean, are you totally in the dark or are you based upon, going on what was
submitted in the papers?
MR. BROWN-Well, I started out with what was submitted in the application.
Subsequently had a conversation with the applicant’s agent, ironed out some of the
things, didn’t get complete responses because I don’t think the decision had been made
about which signs were which and how they were going to pair them together and
ownership issues, and I think that’s probably what he’s going to offer to you tonight, but,
you know, I stand by what I prepared in the notes. We don’t have the answers yet, but I
think you may get the majority of them tonight.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Have they got to go back to Planning Board on the signs, still?
MR. BROWN-No, they have their Site Plan approval already.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-I will open the public hearing at this particular time, and see if anyone
wants to comment on Sign Variance No. 56-2007, and upon completion, unless there are
any objections from members of the Board, I’m going to move a motion to move this
appeal to November 21, 2007.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to allow him to present us, so that way when we come
back we’ll all be on the same page.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I have no problems with that at all. We do have an obligation to
provide you with due process, and you will have every opportunity, this evening, to
present your case, but the decision will not be made this evening. So if you are prepared
to present your case, please do.
MR. EARLY-Thank you. I think that the first order of business, in trying to clarify some
things that Mr. Brown had asked about, I took a quick look through the Planning Board
notes that Mr. Paladino had presented. There was a quite extensive discussion about
signage for this property, especially with regard to the freestanding sign, the overall
height limitations. They had asked that the sign be at a lower height, 20 feet maximum,
and so the sign was designed at 20 foot maximum. This is the sign as it appears. There
was another issue involving this sign, and it happens to be a portion of the easement
agreement between Mary Jane Canale and 1093 Group, LLC, of which I have a copy,
and I would presume you have copies of this easement agreement. If you don’t, I’ll give
you a couple of copies.
MR. ABBATE-I do believe we have it in the record, do we not, ladies and gentlemen?
We do have copies, sir.
MR. EARLY-Okay. As part of the easement agreement, the Canales asked that they
would have the right to have some portion of some space on this freestanding sign as
well as some space on the possible monument sign that would be at the Lafayette Street
entrance to the property, as part of their agreement to allow this permanent easement
into the rear section of the Rite Aid property. So you see that on the sign there’s a blank,
a smaller blank section below, and originally Rite Aid had wanted to have a reader board
there and in the planning discussion, nobody was interested in the reader board, and
they certainly weren’t interested in the reader board of the nature that CVS put up with
the electronic, so that was taken out, and in place of it, due to this agreement, they left
this blank space, so that if that is developed in that section and there’s another business
placed in there, they’ll have the opportunity to have their name on that portion of the sign,
and that will give people on Route 9 the sense that there’s another business back behind
the Rite Aid store, okay. So you’ll see that also on the monument sign. There is a blank
space below the Rite Aid Pharmacy portion of the monument sign that’s being proposed,
and that also is for the same reason, that those sign spaces all would be in place if
something else is developed they really won’t have to come back and ask for the ability
to have signs there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that sign, Craig, the question I would have on that sign is, is that
still going to be compliant in size, even though it’s blank, now that’s all considered part of
the sign, the blank parts down below?
MR. BROWN-No, I think that each business is going to be entitled to their own signage.
What is limited is the maximum square footage. For a business plaza like this, you get
one freestanding sign, maximum 64 square feet. So if they can, if this whole thing,
including the Rite Aid and the blank is under 64, then they’re all set.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. EARLY-A question. Would this be considered a business complex if the other
property is developed behind this section of it?
MR. BROWN-If it’s a separate parcel?
MR. EARLY-Where they have the easement through.
MR. BROWN-If it’s a separate property, it doesn’t count.
MR. EARLY-Either way, in contacting Blair again, I, unfortunately, don’t have the finest of
plot plans, but to scale, but on the plot plan that was sent to me, which is darn near
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
impossible to read, is this and on this plot plan it shows the setback of the freestanding
sign to be 25 feet from the front property line, leading edge of the sign 25 feet. So no
matter which proportion the sign is in, even if you include it all as one sign, this would be
conforming in either case. You’d either have a 47.81 square foot conforming sign at 15
feet setback, but considering that they’re setting it back at 25 feet from the property line,
then the 59.81 square foot sign, which includes the blank, is conforming, it’s under 64
square feet. They’re going to keep it at 20 foot height, which was the agreement with
Planning, and it will be illuminated. It’s doubled faced, and it does just basically say Rite
Aid Pharmacy. It’s blue. They’re not bad looking signs. We installed one in Rotterdam
at a Rite Aid at that location.
MR. BROWN-So that’s Sign Four. That’s a conforming sign. That’s something you can
get a permit for tomorrow.
MR. EARLY-This is a conforming sign now. It should be out of the mix for the Zoning
Board’s consideration. I think that should be clarified.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We don’t even need to deal with that.
MR. EARLY-So we don’t need to deal with that. The other signs that were originally
listed, that Six and Seven are ground directional signs about four square feet. Two of
them are under six feet in height. The other signs are clearance drop off and pick up.
They’re not illuminated signs. They go in the drive-thru canopy, and I think you’re
allowing those.
MR. BROWN-Yes. They’re not visible from off site. So they’re not considered signs.
MR. EARLY-So I’d like to move to the additional rear monument sign that’s proposed for
the Lafayette Street entrance to the property, and that would be, I don’t know what sign
number it is, but.
MR. BROWN-Number Five.
MR. EARLY-Double faced monument sign Number Five. This sign, including the blank
cabinet, comes in at 39.99 square feet. It would be set at 15 foot from the property line.
So it would be under 50 square foot. It would be a conforming sign, in all measure,
except for the fact that it’s a second pylon sign on the property, or a second freestanding
sign on the property, but in driving by that area, considering that Warren Tire has two
buildings there, with enumerable signs on the buildings, by the way, there’s no way to
know what that entrance way is. You have no idea in the universe that that lead to the
Rite Aid property or the Rite Aid building. There was no way to encourage anybody to
access and use it, and the entire purpose of planning to allow that easement and access
way is to divert some of the traffic and some of the burden of all that constant traffic
coming in and out of Upper Glen Street. I just came out of the Price Chopper parking lot
before I came here. You’ve got to wait a while, and it’s the same problem on either side.
If I go to Wendy’s next door to get a hamburger, you’ve got to wait a while. Unless you’re
turning with the traffic, you’re going to sit there for quite a period of time. So, in order to
divert some of that traffic, headache and problem, this easement was put in place, and
now the easement is in place and the road is there, but it’s blank. Coming down
Lafayette Street you see Warren Tire. To me it looks like it’s part of their property. You
have no vision of Rite Aid’s building at all. So there’s absolutely no way to determine
that there’s some reason you should turn on that road and access this property. So they
felt that this was minimal. I know in some of the planning discussions they had wanted
both signs to be low monument signs, but in consideration of the other signs along the
Upper Glen Street area, they stayed with the freestanding taller sign to compete visually
with other freestanding signs around them, but did put this as a low monument sign,
which I think is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood on Lafayette Street.
The signs aren’t oversized there or the Warren Tire has a freestanding sign, a
conforming, of at least 16 to 20 foot in height would be my guesstimate from viewing it.
So this would be the sign that would be nonconforming, but it does fill a specific purpose,
and I think the purpose was defined by the Planning Board, that some identification,
reasonable identification, which is what’s requested here, some reasonable relief from
the Code, is to have that sign, have it illuminated, make sure that people taking that road,
I mean, you’ve got Saturn on the corner. You’ve got Meineke. You’ve got businesses all
along, other than Hovey Pond and the Firehouse. That’s basically a commercial
thoroughfare. Now you’ve got the bank on the other corner. I mean, there’s nothing but
business along Lafayette Street. So, there’s no reason not to have an illuminated sign
out there, and at the same token, you’ve got to encourage people to make that use.
Locals will eventually figure it out, because most people that access the pharmacy will be
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
regular customers, but, you know, we’re now in a situation where we have a huge tourist
invasion during the tourist season, and with year round facilities being built up, with The
Great Escape and those areas, or whatever it is now, they, everything has changed, with
the amount of tourist traffic in the area. So people that are using the Lafayette Street
cutoff and are coming by would like to be encouraged to access that facility with this
sign, and that’s it’s sole purpose at this point. It will be conforming in all other aspects.
MR. BROWN-Not quite. The issue here is that this sign is not on the property, it’s not on
the Rite Aid property.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. BROWN-It’s on a separate parcel. With the application materials, there was no
signature from that property owner. That property owner was not part of the application.
So this Sign Number Five is on a separate parcel. That parcel needs the variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that the tire people there?
MR. BROWN-No. It’s the previous owner of the Rite Aid parcel.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The question I have for you, Craig, is this secondary access through
the back there, you know, as build out occurs on that blank field back there now, is this
going to be consolidated into that plan at some point so it’s a shared drive?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I would think that’s the goal, yes. I think that’s what the Planning
Board talked about.
MR. EARLY-Okay. It’s not clear to me, based on the easement agreement, that we’re
still, you know, it’s not clear to me that due to the easement agreement with the Canales
that it’s now basically a forever portion of the Rite Aid parcel, that because it’s on, they’re
still their ownership of the parcel it has to be?
MR. BROWN-Yes. This tax map that’s up on the screen here shows the arrow is
approximately where that monument sign is going to be placed on Lafayette. This area
right here, it’s the end of the Rite Aid property. So this whole parcel back here is a
separate parcel.
MR. ABBATE-Now, again, this could have been cleared up at a pre-conference hearing
with Staff.
MR. EARLY-Right. I understand that. Right, which I would have attended if someone
had asked me to come. So, okay, so in other words, that particular sign will have to
come under a separate variance based on the Canales’ application?
MR. ABBATE-You work that out with Staff at the pre-conference hearing.
MR. EARLY-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Yes, well, what the Code says is if you’re going to put a sign up, the goods
and services advertised on that sign have to be on that property. So this is basically a
sign to advertise for off site kind of things.
MR. EARLY-Okay. So regardless of their agreement, they’ll still be done that way,
except that explanation. Thank you. Now we’re back to, we’re showing the need for that
sign, it will have to be addressed, obviously, with a separate variance application based
on that parcel.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. EARLY-And we will do that. Now we’re back to the number of signs on the building
itself, which they have asked to variance. This is the last thing that I received from
Ellicott was a copy of the building elevations to scale, and the only thing that’s not quite
right on this is it says GNC, and actually it should say GNC Live Well. That is the natural
food branding that’s in that particular store. Rite Aid and the shield and Pharmacy,
Pharmacy is needed by New York State Law, period. In the same way that Target has
Pharmacy on the building, when it’s really a Target, but because there’s a pharmacy
inside, and New York State Law requires that you have the word “Pharmacy” on a
pharmacy, if there’s even a pharmacy department within, it must state “Pharmacy
Department Within”. So the shield and Rite Aid and Pharmacy are the basic portion of
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
the sign. GNC Live Well is a departmental sign to tell what some of the offerings are,
and because of this particular building style, the building that was first brought in to
Planning was a style that had a rounded portico in the front area. It was still a brick
building, but it was a totally different look than this particular building, and on those
rounded portico buildings, all this information is set across the portico. It says, you know,
Rite Aid Pharmacy, and then it’ll say One Hour Photo Food Mart/Drive Thru/GNC Live
Well and that’ll all be set in that area. Because they did not approve of that design, and
they went to this design, now we have to deal with how to show these departmental
signs, like the Food Mart, and the One Hour Photo, plus the GNC, in other area locations
on the building, and so that’s what you’re seeing here. The Food Mart and the One Hour
Photo have been moved to the side areas of the building. The GNC Live Well is left on
the front area because that front section of the building is not too large. It does allow for
100 square foot of signage, by its square footage and percentage, and the shield Rite
Aid Pharmacy takes up about 75 square feet or so I believe. Even with the GNC Live
Well and all the signs on the building, you’re under 100 square feet maximum. So we’re
not looking at an enlargement of square footage allowance, but we are looking at the
dividing up of where the signs are and what type of signs they are. My argument, in this
portion, is you have a new building around the corner which says Warren Tire Service
Center, and then it says Goodyear, and then it says Kelly KS Tires, then on the second
building it says Warren Tire Service Center Gemini Automotive Care. So, my question
is, what is the difference between Warren Tire Service Center, the name of the business,
then the branding of Goodyear and Kelly Tires, which gives public information that
people obviously want to know, and Rite Aid Pharmacy, Food Mart, One Hour Photo,
GNC Live Well. I see no difference in those, nor do I see a difference between Price
Chopper market center, 24 Hours, Pharmacy Department Within, Starbucks, and Exit to
Route 9 This Way. Each of those businesses has provided public information, due to
the nature of their business. This is, to my understanding, the only totally freestanding
pharmacy in Queensbury at this point. CVS is not a freestanding, it’s on the end, and
they have two signs on their building saying CVS Pharmacy. For whatever reason I don’t
know, because they’re not a corner location, I don’t believe, nor do they set on a
separate roadway, where they would have two signs allowed. They have a freestanding
sign and two wall signs. So they must have varianced the second wall sign, for obvious
reasons for their advertising purposes. Here, Rite Aid is in the same situation. Normally
we’d present all this information on the front of the building. With the current style and
usage of the pharmacy, if it just says Rite Aid Pharmacy, the general public would have
no idea that these other services exist, and, you know, there used to be a photo mart, I
think, in the plaza where Sears was, which is now Red Lobster. That’s gone. There’s
not too many places. There used to be a photo development and stuff put on Ray
Supply. We did a new sign for them. It just says Ray Supply. It doesn’t really, you’ll see
videos and cameras and something else, but some of the services that are provided by
the Rite Aid store, the pharmacies have been enlarged now. So there’s not just the
pharmacy any longer. So this other information is basically unknown to the public at
large. Normally locals will figure all this out over a period of time because they’ll use the
pharmacy, when you get your scripts at a pharmacy, you tend to go back there over and
over and over again, but the vast number of people who come into the area that might
want to use the pharmacy facilities might want to get one hour development done and
might want to have the nutritional store or the food mart portion would have no idea that
those services are available at this store, without some form of signage. Rite Aid feels
that this is the minimal to put on, these side signs are only like six square feet a piece.
The food mart, they’re just small letters on the side of the building. One side actually
faces to Wendy’s. Only one, I think the One Hour Photo will actually face out to Upper
Glen Street, and that’s why they’re asking for the additional number of signs, okay,
partially because of the building design, but where the placement has to be, and there is
precedent because there’s other businesses with similar things. When you go to Lowe’s,
it says Garden Center, illuminated, at one side, to tell you that they have a Garden
Center, a Department, and then it says contractor supplies, or whatever, on the other
side, illuminated, which tells you that’s where the contractors can go. So these types of
signs have been in use in the Town of Queensbury for quite a while now, and within
recent times. I’m not talking about ancient, you know, grandfathered signage that’s been
around for a long time. These are newer businesses, and there’s a fair number of signs
stating other purposes for brands that those businesses are allowing you to see, so that
the public has knowledge of what’s going on with that business, and it’s very important to
their business operation to have those additional signs. So I make that argument that it’s
very important to Rite Aid Pharmacy to not just say Pharmacy. The old pharmacy that
was in the plaza was in a strip mall, and all it said was Rite Aid Pharmacy, but it didn’t
have these departments available. Now it does, and they’re not necessarily known to
anybody else. If you’re from out of town, and I always ask Board members to consider
that don’t always be local, you know, mentally, because local means, well, we know
where everything is, and that’s the way it should be. The problem is if say you show up
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
in Atlanta and you’re looking for the Pharmacy, and your script is running out but you’ve
used Rite Aid or Eckerdt or some place else because they now have more national
pharmacies, and you see Rite Aid, and you want to get some other services there, you
don’t know whether you can get your GNC stuff, your vitamins and things at that
particular pharmacy, but you might want to drop off you film and pick it up, because you
don’t have too much time, you’re a tourist, and at the same time, whether you can pick
up some other items because they have some other items because they have a food
mart there. All of that information is provided with these signs, at a minimum square
footage. Like I said, if you took all the signs together, we’d still be in conforming size.
We’re really asking to just spread out the information on the building, due to the style of
building that Planning approved, and with that, I’ll ask you, do you have any questions?
MR. ABBATE-Well, no, I’ll ask you. Do any of the Board members have any questions
concerning Sign Variance No. 56-2007?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I would just have some comments on it, though. We’ve dealt
with this with Della Bellas, you know, with their dealerships with all the different logos of
all the GMC products on their building. As you’ve suggested, we’ve done this in the past.
My suggestion would be, you know, I’m looking at your building. I don’t know if the
Planning Board decided the kind of windows you were going to have there, but some of
these signs could be put in the windows, you know, with neon signs. I know Price
Chopper has some down at their store that are done the same way on the street there.
That would alleviate some of the wall signs and I don’t think they would fall under our
purview once they’re in the window, you know. That could get rid of some of them
anyway. I understand, you know, when you’re going to your own standalone building,
you know, that it’s going to have much more products than what you have in a normal
Rite Aid as you’ve suggested also, but I think that the size of the signs, even though
they’re small, because they’re spread all over, it tends to just light up the area like a
clock. It’s just too much, you know. I don’t know if you could change the color of the
signs, or if the Planning Board’s suggested that, you know, keep them all blue or keep
them all red, you know, I know Target and places like that, you know, they’re a little more
subtle. They’re not just a white sign, you know, it’s very bright and things like that, the
ones that are lit up. The One Hour Photo and those are going to be lit up, then?
MR. EARLY-Yes. They’re LED illumination and that, they’re not very bright. I’ve seen
them in other locations, and to be honest, they’re not the brightest of signs. It’s not even
like having neon in there.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Anyone else have any questions? Chuck, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. Again, I think more comments and rambling for a little bit, but I
think the applicant makes some good points. There’s plenty of examples where signs
have been allowed fairly recently, multiple signs like this, but we’re getting to the point
where we’re changing the Sign Ordinance. We keep allowing this, and I think this
argument is more appropriate going back to the Town Board. I also work for
Cumberland Farms, and while you were talking I was thinking, yes, okay, Cumberland
Farms, coffee bar, grocery section, automotive supply section. They could do exactly
the same thing and say we need to advertise what we’ve got in the store because
convenience store doesn’t tell what’s there. I think every business in the Town could do
this same thing, and there are some cogent arguments for doing it, because people don’t
always know what’s in the building, but I think there’s got to be some real justification to
stick all these extra signs on, because, as has been said, it tends to light up the whole
building, and the next thing you know the entire building is the sign, rather than each
individual sign, and I have a problem with that, but I want to see where we go and what
other information.
MR. ABBATE-Well, and, Chuck, you make an excellent point, and let me be a little
redundant. Remember what I said in our opening statement, to members of the Board.
The Zoning Board of Appeals may only authorize the minimum variance necessary to
relieve the applicant. So let’s keep that in the back of our minds as well. I think, Joan,
you may have a question, please.
MRS. JENKIN-I have a question in that, what about your Sign Number Four, the
freestanding one, could you not group some of those smaller signs in with that?
Because then people see, as they’re coming down the street, they see the services that
you provide, and you’re not spreading them all over the building, which, as you’re driving
down the street, that’s hard to see when you’re putting them in many different places. If
you grouped them in one place, they can see, at least a couple of them. I just wondered
if you could put them there.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MR. EARLY-The only thing with that, from my understanding, having seen the sign
produced, the sign is an embossed face, and it’s produced on a radius, and so they
have, the molds are made for that, and with all of these type of things, when you’re
dealing with sign companies who’ve gained a contract for a regional area, like Blair has
managed to do in this area, with a larger corporation, they provide signs in a certain style
and size, and they provide the molds, and the manufacturing process is for those styles.
So it’s very difficult for them sometimes to change out of that and go to anything else
because of their costs and their parameters and what they’ve offered to the company in
order to get those jobs.
MRS. JENKIN-But you said before that if you had been allowed by the Planning Board to
keep the original plan for the building that you could have grouped them together there.
MR. EARLY-Right, but they would have been the same thing. They would have been the
LED letters, but they were grouped along the front rounded portico section of the
building. So you’d have seen them all at one spot on the building, the entrance way.
They wouldn’t be on each side of the building. They would be determined by the square
footage on the front of the building.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can you change the flavor of the letters to a blue or red?
MR. EARLY-I don’t know. I’m not the manufacturer. What happens, too, is that when
they produce a standard, and there was some question about the signs in Lake George
or some other color scheme that was at question in some of the Planning minutes and
these were brought in and everybody agreed that having the blue lettering and not red
lettering and not other things that had been apparently seen before this was a large
improvement. You’ve got a brick background. So, you know, red and blue letters don’t
really look good in the daytime lighting against that. The white letters do show, even
though, I mean, you’re talking very small letters when you look at the total façade of the
sides of this building. They’re just, even the Code demands that you have a six inch
letter on a sign, just so it can be legible at any kind of distance. So we’re not talking
about large viewing distance, but considering that, you know, as you drive by each street
location, from 100 feet or 150 feet, you should be able to read these signs day or night,
and they’re not turned in the day. So you’ve got to have some kind of, you know,
comparison in color scheme in order to make them visible during the day. A blue against
the red brick probably will just go away or fuzz your eyeballs, and you’d not be too
pleased with that effect.
MRS. JENKIN-The Planning Board also had a problem with the amount of illumination,
too.
MR. EARLY-Right. That was a question based more on the pylon sign illumination
because it’s a white background with the blue letters on it, not so much about these tiny
LED lit letters on the side of the building. There’s not much you can do with that.
They’re fluorescent, you know, 80, 100 watt bulbs in there, and that’s what you get, but
they kind of finally accepted that. I think when the color scheme turned in with the blue
clad on the pylon and the blue lettering on it, everybody kind of resolved that that wasn’t
so bad looking and they could accept that. So I think those issues were kind of resolved
at Planning, as far as the look, and that’s where they agreed to lowering the height of the
sign, but leaving it as a pylon rather than a monument out there.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other Board members have any questions? If not, I’m going to
open up the public hearing for Sign Variance No. 56-2007, and if we have any folks in
the public who would like to address this variance, please raise your hand and I’ll be
more than happy to recognize you. Yes, sir. Would you be kind enough to come to the
table, please. Would you please speak into the microphone, identify yourself and tell us
where you reside, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DON SIPP
MR. SIPP-Don Sipp, 60 Courthouse Drive. I’m a member of the Queensbury Planning
Board. I don’t know where to start here. I can quote from the minutes of the meeting if
you would like, but this is going to take quite a while to explain.
MR. ABBATE-Why don’t you give us a recap of the whole thing, and tell us basically why
you wish to be heard, give us the bottom line.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MR. SIPP-At one of the first meetings in June 2006, we asked about the signs on the
building. They were counted off. There were five, what they were legally allowed to
have. I asked, myself asked, is that all the signs that you want on the building? Yes.
That’s fine. We’ll take care of that. We had a discussion on the height of the sign. They
wanted a 25 foot high pylon type sign on the front. Because, across the road, Dunkin
Donuts has got a 25 or more foot sign, they asked if they could have one the same
height. They finally, after much discussion, reduced the height to 20 feet.
MR. ABBATE-Twenty feet, did you say? Two zero?
MR. SIPP-Twenty feet, two zero.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. SIPP-We were never told that the sign on Lafayette would be on adjoining property.
We just assumed it would be, and nobody said anything different, and from the looks of
the diagram, and I’m sorry that I threw away my Site Plans, but since we approved this
last May, I believe, well, it was either April or May, I saw no need to keep them, but I’m
sure that that monument sign on Lafayette was on the, was positioned on their property,
not on an adjoining property. Now, the reason for the monument sign was that in that
area there is Hovey Pond, the fire station, the funeral parlor, a haircutting establishment,
all having monument type signs, and we felt, in keeping with the area, and because it
has been recommended in the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan, that more and more
signs become monument type signs, rather than pylon, freestanding signs, this was a
beginning. We also would like to have had that Lafayette entrance used as an exit only,
because of the traffic on Route 9 exiting back onto Route 9 with Wendy’s next door,
Dunkin Donuts across the street. We felt that it just created a bad traffic problem, but
they wanted it to, we finally got it down to the point where they would make no left turn
coming out onto Glen Street, right turn only. I think that was later changed (lost words),
but that sign on Lafayette was definitely agreed to to be a monument type sign. As the
addition of the smaller signs, every time they add something to the building, we’re going
to get to the building, we’re going to get to the point where we have more sign than we
have façade of the building, if we keep adding to it. If you keep the same size and keep
adding to the sign, you’re going to create a situation where you have somebody driving
by gawking at the sign and not paying attention to the traffic, especially on Glen Street.
All in all, we thought, and this took over a year, of many meetings, many hours, to design
what we thought was a reasonable building, with signs, entrance way, exit way, so forth,
and now to come back and want to change considerable amount of this, it gets to be an
expos facto type of situation. If you allow this, every new building in the Town of
Queensbury could use this as a case to say, well, we’ve added a new swimsuit
department, so therefore we’ve got to put up another sign in order to let the people know.
Are we catering to the visitors or to the people in the Town? Glen Street is an
abomination, Upper Glen Street, the number of signs, and I hope, with the new
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the new regulations, 179, that we get a better hold and a
grip and actually go back and reduce the height of some of these signs to conform more
with the looks that we would like to see. I’m against this, allowing a pylon sign on
Lafayette. Definitely.
MR. ABBATE-May I ask you a question, please. Am I reading you right, in interpreting
what you said, is that the plan submitted to the Zoning Board is different than the plan
that was submitted to the Planning Board? Is that what you’re suggesting?
MR. SIPP-In relation to the monument type sign, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Right. It is.
MR. SIPP-Yes. Well, I’m not sure, because as I say, I had not thought about, until I read
it tonight, that this sign was off of the property. I did not know that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It is a monument sign on Lafayette Street, that they’re proposing.
MR. SIPP-Yes, but they would like a pylon?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. They want monument.
MR. ABBATE-That’s what they requested, a monument, correct.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re requesting a monument sign. The pylon sign is only on
Glen Street.
MR. SIPP-All right. My mistake, then. I thought you were asking for another pylon type
sign. All right.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do you have any other comments, sir?
MR. SIPP-No, that’s it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, sir, I appreciate that. Do we have any other folks in
the audience who’d like to address Sign Variance No. 56-2007? If so, would you be kind
enough to raise your hands, please. I see no hands raised, so what I’m going to do is
move on, and again I’m going to ask the members to offer their comments on Sign
Variance No. 56-2007, and the comments offered by the Board members are directed to
the Chairman and will not be open to debate. Do I have a volunteer to start off, please?
MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re going to offer our comments, but we’re not going to make any
decision tonight?
MR. ABBATE-We will not make a decision. By law, we have up to, I believe it’s 62 days
to make a decision, and after this is over, I’m going to move a motion to table this to
th
November 21, 2007, with a proviso that they meet with Staff no later than the 15 of
October, and I’m going to include in my motion that Staff let me know, please. So, we’re
going to give them due process. We’re going to hear it, but we will not make the decision
this evening.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-So, ladies, and gentlemen, do we have any comments?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll go first.
MR. ABBATE-Please. Okay. Go ahead.
MR. UNDERWOOD-In regards to the relief that’s been requested here, just for your own
information, I think that the sign on Glen Street, we don’t need to deal with that because
it meets the setbacks and the size requirements.
MR. ABBATE-Agreed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The monument sign over there, I think it is necessary that they give
some kind of an answer to the Town as far as whether the relief, whether they need relief
from, you know, it looks to me like on the deed that, you know, I’m not sure if it’s just
drawn improperly off the deed.
MR. BROWN-They definitely need the relief. They just need to provide a property
owner’s, the adjoining property owner’s got to participate.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I would think that if they send a letter signing off on that, that I
would have no problem with that sign, because I think the sign is appropriate, as Mr.
Sipp has said. I think that the, it is important for us to have a little bit of information from
the Planning Board with regards to this, and I think the notes provided, you know, spelled
out to us what they had wanted. As far as the signage on the building, it is a substantial
building. I’m not sure that all the signage is necessary on there. One Hour Photo, etc.,
etc. I mean, as has been mentioned by almost everybody, it’s excessive, the request,
and it does subvert the Code. I think the Code was put in place to subvert the excess
signage and to cut down on the amount of light and stuff like that, and I think that it’s not
really necessary. I think that some of that signage could be done appropriately in the
windows, possibly, until there’s going to be use on that sign out front there. I don’t know
what else you could put on there. I mean, you’re 64 square feet, you can put as many
letters on there as you want. Right? So I mean, I think that a lot of that information could
be provided on those signs, on that blank space down below that you have there now,
and so I would not be in favor of the excess signage on the building, outside of what’s
permitted by Code.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So noted. Chuck, would you mind?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MR. MC NULTY-I pretty much agree with what Jim has said so far. I can see the logic
for wanting a sign on Lafayette Street, and I think if it’s a monument sign, in keeping with
what else is there, and providing we get the right people making the application, I think I
can see that argument. Granted there’s other buildings around, other businesses that
have got a million and a half signs on the front of their buildings. I think all I can say in
response to that argument is just because we made what now may look like a mistake in
the past, does not justify making additional mistakes to fix it. I think we’ve got to adhere
to the rules as much as we can, and this also is not an Area Variance. It’s a Sign
Variance, and the rules are a little bit fuzzier really, but there is a section in the Sign
Variance, or the sign law, that very explicitly directs that whoever is providing variance
relief should not grant it unless the applicant is deprived of the use of his sign by
following the current rules.
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely correct, Mr. McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-That’s pretty plain, which suggests no extra signs and no nothing
unless the sign is going to be not visible for some reason, but even making reasonable
allowances beyond that, like Jim, I’m not in favor of the extra signs. I won’t make a
judgment on what sign is necessary or what words are necessary. That’s up to the
merchandiser to decide how to get the essential words in somewhere, and as Jim has
mentioned, one possibility is signs in the window, which, if they don’t cover the entire
window, then it becomes exempt. So that’s about where I’m at now. given that they’re
going to come back, I’m going to keep my mind open. So I’ll listen to other arguments or
whatever when we talk about this again.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mrs. Jenkin, please.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I was glad to hear Mr. Sipp say, talk about the Comprehensive Plan,
because now that the Plan is being put into effect, and hopefully will be, the whole
emphasis has been on reducing that row of signage and everything, and you can do very
little with what’s there, but new development you can certainly make sure that they follow
the Code, and I think it’s quite important. I think that if the developers had looked at the
Zoning Code and realized that the Zoning Code would be enforced, that they could have
developed the signs to fit Code, not that the Code has to fit what the developer wants.
So, I myself, I agree that I think some changes need to be made and the signs need to
be reduced.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and may we have Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I have no
problem with the additional freestanding sign on Lafayette. It certainly is needed, but I
don’t like subverting the Ordinances and I have a problem with four additional wall signs,
too.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and I also concur with Board members. I’m
not going to be redundant, but I agree with them. Having stated that, I’m going to move a
motion, ladies and gentlemen, to table Sign Variance No. 56-2007.
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2007 1093 GROUP, LLC/RITE AID
STORE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan
Jenkin:
724 Glen Street. For the November 21, 2007 hearing, with the proviso they meet with
th
Staff no later than the 15 of October.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand
MR. ABBATE-The vote is five yes, zero no to table Sign Variance No. 56-2007 until the
st
21 of November 2007 hearing date with a proviso that the appellant meets with Staff no
th
later than the 15 of October, and I’m going to have a little addition. I’m going to request
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
that Staff please bring to the attention of the Chairman whether this proviso has been
th
met. Please, by no later than the 15 of October.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would make the suggestion, too, check and see if you can get blue
for the letters. That may be a way to make them more palatable also.
MR. EARLY-I’ll ask.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. We already made a motion and it’s tabled.
MR. EARLY-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MR. EARLY-And I’ll see you in a month.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II MATTHEW EMMENS AGENT(S):
JARRETT-MARTIN OWNER(S): MATTHEW EMMENS ZONING: WR-3A
LOCATION: 2 HIGHVIEW ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 2,500 SQ. FT. OF RESIDENCE
INCLUDING A 632 SQ. FT. ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STRUCTURE AS WELL AS FOR
STORMWATER CONTROL DEVICES PER CHAPTER 147. CROSS REFERENCE:
BP 93-693 2-CAR ATT. GARAGE; BP 95-179 SUNDECK OVER EXISTING DOCK; 87-
119 BOAT SHELTER & DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 12,
2007 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
239.15-1-19 SECTION: 179-13-010B, D & E; 179-4-030; 147-14; 147-9
TOM JARRETT & GABE HODGE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2007, Matthew Emmens, Meeting Date:
September 19, 2007 “Project Location: 2 Highview Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes partial demolition and reconstruction of a portion of the
existing single family dwelling.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests shoreline setback relief in two locations, one for a rebuilt portion of
the home at 27.5+/- feet from the shoreline and the other for the construction of an
enclosed porch on an existing open deck at 41.75 feet from the shoreline. The minimum
shoreline setback applicable here is 75 feet. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for
the expansion of a non conforming structure. Further, as the proposed Stormwater
Management System for the project includes stormwater infiltration within 100 feet of the
shoreline, relief is necessary from Chapter 147.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
2. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to perform the desired renovations and expansions.
3. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives appear to be limited with regards to the location of the current
structure.
4. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for 47.5 feet and 33.25 feet of setback relief from the 75 foot requirement
may be interpreted as substantial. With regards to the Stormwater Infiltration devices, a
20 shoreline setback is proposed, versus the 100 ft requirement, which may be
interpreted as substantial. Similarly, the devices are proposed at a 25 foot setback from
a water supply source where 100 ft is the minimum requirement.
5. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
Minimal to moderate impacts regarding the building construction are anticipated as the
structure currently exists. Effects on the neighborhood and community relative to the
stormwater variances are unknown at this time.
6. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be attributed to the location of the existing home.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Site Plan Review -- pending
Staff comments:
Consideration may be given to seeking input from the Planning Board and Town
Engineer relative to the Stormwater variances prior to deciding such matters.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. ABBATE-And I see the appellant and his representative are here. Would you folks
be kind enough to identify yourself.
MR. JARRETT-Certainly. Tom Jarrett, of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. With me tonight are
Bill Dean of Creative Construction. He is the project manager and builder of the project,
and Gabe Hodge, of Balzer, Hodge, & Tuck, the project architects.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I see that you did have a pre-submission meeting with Staff.
MR. JARRETT-We did.
MR. HODGE-We may have had three.
MR. JARRETT-I think the application materials gave you a basic overview of the project.
What’s really driving it is the drainage situation with the existing house. What lead from
that is a total re-build of the north wing, and then a renovation of the south wing to match
that north wing, and then to support the project we are building a new septic system
that’s compliant with the Town Code. Stormwater management is proposed, and we’re
re-vegetating the shoreline to native species. We need variances, two general banks of
variances. We need setbacks to the lake, and modification of a pre-existing,
nonconforming structure, and because of the proximity of the structure to the lake, we
need variances for stormwater. Because the three of us are more suited for radio, we’ve
provided a Power Point presentation and it’s on the board. We can show you overhead
photos of what we propose. I think I’m going to let Mr. Hodge get into the setback
variances for the structure, briefly give you an overview of that, and then I’ll come back
and describe the stormwater and we’ll entertain questions.
MR. HODGE-I wonder if it would be helpful if I went up and pointed.
MR. ABBATE-Providing you take the microphone with you, because we want everything
on the record please.
MR. HODGE-I think it’s the third slide we’re going to want to look at. Okay. This
diagram is hopefully a cataloguing of all of the dimensional and Site Plan issues that we
were working with here. Basically, the north wing consists of the garage, kitchen, dining
room and office area, and it also has an unenclosed wood deck, outside of the dining
room in the northern, shady part of the site. What we have is a pervasive ledge rock
infiltration underneath the house. It was at one point, I guess, a cabin that was just
pinned to the rock, and then subsequent additions were just added to it, as the years
went on, thus creating or maintaining a problem with runoff seeping into the house
between the walls and the ledge rock, and all of that begins on this hill and finds its way
into really the far reaches of the house in the form of moisture, mold, etc., rot. So, the
first part of our variance request is structural changes to a nonconforming building. The
dimensional changes are actually very minimal and they only occur in the roofline on the
east side, lakeside of the house. Because we are keeping the footprint the same, or, you
know, re-building in kind on this corner of the house, that corner remains unchanged in
its dimension to the shoreline. The only thing that would reduce the setback, and one of
our requests, is the overhang of the roof. It currently has an overhang. It’s just seven
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
inches west than what we’re proposing, something like that. So the building perimeter,
as you trace it around, is unchanged, including this corner, and including the terrace or
deck structures on the ground on the lakeside, which we’re proposing we change
materially, but not in its footprint. We’re going to hold to the same lines. The only
exception is that paths to the rebuilt, proposed rebuilt wharf structure will shift in order to
align with them. The dimension from this corner of the existing wood deck to the
shoreline changes only because we now have a covered porch on the upper floor.
There’s an existing deck on the lower floor. There’s an existing deck on the upper floor.
The owner would like to screen that in and therefore put a roof over it, causing a 2.1 foot
discrepancy or decrease in our setback. So those are our three structural requests, and
then in the remodel, Craig, if you wouldn’t mind.
MR. BROWN-One more?
MR. HODGE-One more, and then in the remodel, if we quickly sort of go through this,
the rooflines are slightly changed. If you could go back one, we have some very odd
rooflines in the existing building which cause strange interior spaces which we’d like to
just normalize with the removal of dormers such as these, and just carrying the existing
gable out to, you know, its logical conclusion, a re-roofing, re-siding, new windows, that
sort of thing, so that the entire building, once we take care of the north wing and rebuild
that, the whole thing gets remodeled. So, you know, more of the same. The addition to
the garage is interesting because currently Mr. Emmens has a big two bay garage. It’s
almost 900 square feet and only has two doors. By increasing it slightly, I think it was 11
or 12 feet, we can add another door, and get three cars into that same garage, and add
storage for the house which is sorely lacking, in that nothing really wants to go down in
the wet area, and the house could really use some storage. So that’s one of the reasons
for the garage going from two bays to three, and then the lakeside is, it’s almost identical
with the addition of, you know, some screen over this porch, changing a few windows
here and there then screening in of the dining room porch, which is pretty much unusable
in the evening when you would like to use it. It’s buggy. It doesn’t get much sunlight. It’s
constantly covered with droppings from the trees and other plants, etc., but again the
footprint, the area of that deck, isn’t changed. It’s just squared off and covered. Okay,
and then this is the north side of the house, again, looking at that dining room porch.
The one other change that’s made is that the solid lower level under the office is
hollowed out to create a shaded porch on the lower level. I think that’s basically it. Tom,
would you like to, if we go back, there’s a photo montage from the water showing the
existing house and nonconforming boat wharf and upper deck with the proposed new
house, which is clad in stone and green siding and, you know, it’s going to fit into the
landscape more than this sort of dated 70’s/80’s red building. So it’ll sort of recede back
into the trees, and then another portion of the project, which will have a separate Site
Plan application will be the boathouse and wharf, which will be brought into compliance
and the structured to match the new house.
MR. JARRETT-Do you want to entertain questions right now on the structure? Let me
get back to the stormwater for a minute and then we’ll entertain any questions on any
aspect of it. This is a slide showing a rendering of the proposed Site Plan, but let me
give you an overview of what happens right now, from a drainage perspective. This is a
rock outcrop belonging to Joshua’s Rock. We have drainage impingement right along
the base of this rock, and there’s a swale here that leads all the drainage from this area
of the site as well as Joshua’s Rock, into the lake, directly along this swale, along that
property line. It also feeds drainage from the existing driveway for the house. This is
roughly, the driveways are roughly the same. We’re decreasing the impervious area
slightly. What we propose to do is gather stormwater here from our driveway and from
our roadway, rout it into a sand filter system right here, and then let that overflow into a
terraced, what we call a rain garden or bio retention area, two stages, two terraces here
before it either infiltrates or overflows into the lake. We would be isolating the existing
drainage from Joshua’s Rock, which is clean runoff from this rock outcrop. So we really
have two systems that play here under the proposal. Our runoff would then pass through
these three terraced rain gardens and overflow into that swale that goes to the lake and
bypasses the existing domestic well which is right there. Right now the drainage does
not bypass that well. It goes right next to that casing, and basically impinges on that
casing. Our proposal includes modifying that well casing by digging up the uppermost
five feet and backfilling it with a bentonite soil mixture, which basically is a seal around
the upper part of the well that does not allow water to infiltrate right along the casing
down into the aquifer. So really we’re isolating clean stormwater from our dirty
stormwater, and we’re treating the dirty stormwater before it gets to the lake. Right now,
with the current house, there’s no treatment whatsoever. With regard to stormwater on
the front or eastern portion of the house, and the northern portion of the house, it’s not
easy to get that stormwater into this system. So we plan on an infiltration system right
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
along the front of the house and that’s really the only practical way to handle that. right
now there’s no treatment of that stormwater whatsoever. Other supporting factors to this
project are right now there’s lawn area here leading down to the lakeshore, and through
this corridor here leading up to the driveway. This will all be re-vegetated in a natural
vegetation terrace system as I described for stormwater. We’ll be putting ground covers
in this area, and a terraced walkway, or a step walkway for the owner, and this lakeshore
area will be re-vegetated to native plantings. I think you’ll see that in your package. The
existing wastewater system, which is located in this area, is noncompliant. It’s too close
to groundwater. Not enough vertical separation to give us the treatment that’s required.
We plan on rebuilding that to Code and building it up to get the required separation for
treatment. Did I leave anything out?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So you can have a chair. We’ll open it up for questions, and I’ll ask
the Board members, do we have any questions for Area Variance No. 60-2007?
MRS. JENKIN-The garage, by the garage, the rock face is almost right at the garage.
Are you going to blast out that rock in order to add 10 feet? What are you going to do
with that?
MR. HODGE-Yes. The idea is that that whole north wing of the house will be removed,
and the rock from that addition down to where the rock really comes into the building all
the way down to the closest portion of the house near the water. So, yes, the rock would
be removed down to a good footing depth in that location.
MRS. JENKIN-How do you do that? Just blast it out?
MR. JARRETT-It’s a precision drilling and blasting. Very small charges, close spacing
on the drilling so that it’s a very precise drilling pattern and blasting pattern.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to do that also to deal with the hydrostatic problem
you’ve got with the water in the ground?
MR. HODGE-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-When we take out for that, for the structure, we will over blast enough to
be able to put a drainage system around the perimeter.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that going to require a permanent sump pump then?
MR. JARRETT-No. We hope it won’t be a sump pump. We hope it’ll all be day lighted.
MRS. JENKIN-How far back will you do the blasting from the existing house?
MR. HODGE-From the end of the garage. There’s currently enough space to walk
between the hill on the garage. There’s roughly four feet or so, I would say, of clearing.
The new garage will have, we won’t take, we’re adding say 12 feet to the garage. We’re
not going to take 12 feet more of the hill out necessarily, because in the end we’re not
going to have a clear walkway. We’re going to have the hill against the wall, so we’d
take less of the hill out than we are adding to the house. Do you follow that? We’re
butting up to the hill. So that we can direct the water, so that the water doesn’t come
down the hill against the house as it does now. It’ll go away from the house in its natural
flow direction off that hill, around the garage.
MR. JARRETT-And the garage will be treated a little differently than the house. The
house will have a positive drainage system at the footing. The garage will have a
waterproof wall.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, but the water will still come over the rock.
MR. JARRETT-It’ll slope away from the garage, and we’ll have a water pumping system.
MR. HODGE-To the back.
MRS. JENKIN-I see. Behind.
MR. HODGE-Well, some of it will come into the driveway, but the idea is that none of it
goes directly into the garage.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MR. JARRETT-There’s photos in your package that you may want to refer to that show
the rock and the existing foundation.
MRS. JENKIN-The other question was the filtration system at the front of the house, the
lakeside of the house. You said there’s going to be a second filtration system, the
water’s going to drain around and you’re going to do the filtration system on the lakeside
of the house?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. Those are going to be infiltration chambers, subsurface chambers
to infiltrate stormwater along that front edge or eastern edge of the house. That’ll be roof
water essentially.
MRS. JENKIN-And then how is that going, that’ll just run right into the lake then?
MR. JARRETT-No. Actually it seeps into the ground. It’ll find it’s way to the lake
eventually through the soil, but it’ll find its way to groundwater.
MRS. JENKIN-But it’s bedrock there isn’t it?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. It’ll find its way to bedrock and follow bedrock into the lake, right,
and that won’t be surface runoff.
MR. HODGE-Yes. Currently you can find three or four places on that side of the house
where it’s basically a rill or a stream during a rain, and directly down the hill into the lake.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, how is that going to, I don’t understand how that will change. If you
still have bedrock all down there, you’re not going to have a lot of soil.
MR. HODGE-Well, there is some soil in front of the house, not very deep, but there is
some soil, it’s on your 24 to 30 inches, a little more, and we will take advantage of that.
MRS. JENKIN-And you don’t build it up at all?
MR. HODGE-Right.
MR. JARRETT-We don’t think we’re going to be able to build it up much, a few inches at
best. So it’s going to be a shallow system.
MRS. JENKIN-I had a third question about the well. That’s way over here?
MR. JARRETT-Craig, could you pull up the second drawing. Actually go back to the.
MR. HODGE-The well is roughly here.
MR. JARRETT-It should be shown on that survey. It’s actually shown on the variance
plan that you have as well. If you look below the front corner of the house, you’ll see a
small circle with a “W” in it. That’s it.
MRS. JENKIN-So you’re going to have the drainage just go around it, but what will be
the safe area around the well that there won’t be any drainage water running around it?
Or will there be any at all?
MR. JARRETT-There won’t be any right against the casing. Right now there is. There’s
drainage all through that whole lawn area, right along that well.
MRS. JENKIN-How will you do that? How will you prevent that?
MR. JARRETT-We’re going to build up around the well so it’s higher ground around the
well, and put this seal around it that we describe in our application material.
MRS. JENKIN-So that well will end up being a little higher? Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, and we dig out to put this sealing material around the casing. The
biggest contamination source of a domestic well, I should say one of the biggest, is water
that infiltrates right along the casing, it follows the casing right down into the aquifer. It’s
a perfect conduit for water right along that casing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Like the Washington County Fair.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MR. JARRETT-Very similar. Exactly. So what we’re going to do is put in a seal that
adheres very well to that casing pipe. It’s a bentonite clay. It’s a manufactured clay that
swells 10 or more times its size when water hits it. It seals against that pipe. It’s used
for this purpose all the time, and it doesn’t allow water to infiltrate down into the aquifer.
So we are taking a situation that is bad from two perspectives, we have water going right
around the casing and there’s no seal. We’re separating the drainage to provide clean
water drainage away from the well and sealing the casing itself.
MRS. JENKIN-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Ladies, gentlemen, do we have any other questions before we proceed?
None? Okay. Then what I’m going to do is that I’m going to move that the public hearing
be opened for Area Variance No. 60-2007, and if we have any folks in the audience
who’d like to address this, yes, sir. Would you be kind enough to come to the table,
identify yourself and tell us where you reside, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
WILLIAM FORBES
MR. FORBES-Hi. My name is William Forbes. I’m here representing Anthony and
Marcy Jackson. They live just north of the proposed area. Runoff has always been a
problem with the water. They would like, they were just brought abreast of the building,
the improvements that were being made, and really don’t have a clue of what’s actually
going on, except they might have talked to Craig today, and they asked me to sit in on
their behalf, and if possible I would like an extension of tonight’s decision so they would
have a chance to review all the material.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Were they given 60 days notice on that? I assume they were
notified that the meeting was going to take place?
MR. BROWN-Yes, they received, they were issued a public hearing notice. Where it
goes, what mailing address, vacation, I don’t know, but, yes all the notices went out on
that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They live out of the area?
MR. FORBES-Yes, in Massachusetts.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But they were up here all summer.
MR. FORBES-Yes, well, off and on. The water is always a problem with runoff,
definitely. It comes right down the driveway and splits and goes down what they’re
talking about and it also travels down their driveway, which is lower than that driveway.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So they’re closer into Dunham’s Bay?
MR. FORBES-They’re farther out, they’re farther north, but the ground is lower, and
where the proposed, yes, that’s the house right there. If they raise the elevation to the
waste system, that’s going to make it higher and more apt for the water to travel in their
direction. As far as the changes go, I don’t really see that they would have a problem
with that, but they would just want to know what’s going on.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is there anything else you’d like to add?
MR. FORBES-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. We’ll take that into consideration. Thank you very much, sir.
MR. FORBES-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to ask now, members of the Board, if they would be kind
enough to please offer their comments, and do we have a volunteer that would like to
start off?
MR. JARRETT-Mr. Chairman, could I interject? Could I address this gentleman’s
comments before the Board weighs in, because I think I can add some light here.
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MR. JARRETT-I’m glad this gentleman was here, because I can elaborate on what we
plan to do in this rear area of the property. Right now drainage does split between these
two driveways. The driveway he had mentioned is right here, and the property line is
right down the center of the driveway. Right now drainage goes down our existing
driveway as it exists, as well as the neighbor’s existing driveway to the north. What we
plan to do is shed as much water as we can into our driveway system, which will get
treated down here, but there is some drainage that will go necessarily to the existing
driveway is it does now. What we plan to do is put a little swale through here, starting
approximately at this point, and put a small basin in here, which will slow down the water,
infiltrate as much water as we can before it goes down this existing ditch, and along that
existing driveway, but we are attempting to mitigate that. I think it’ll be a better situation
than it is, and certainly no worse in our opinion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any kind of review going on with the septic or
anything?
MR. JARRETT-Part of the Site Plan Review, and the Town Engineer will review that
septic plan.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do any other members have any questions for 60-2007? Okay.
Then I’m going to move on, and I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance
No. 60-2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And again, I’m going to remind the members of the task of balancing the
benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and what State law sets forth
concerning the five factors. I’ve already mentioned it earlier. No reason for me to have
to mention it again. Gentlemen, ladies, would you like to make any comments on Area
Variance No. 60-2007?
MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I’ll go first, if you’d like.
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. GARRAND-First off, one of my major concerns here is stormwater, stormwater
runoff. What you have here is a huge difference in elevation from one property to
another. In many places it’s a 15 foot difference in elevation from this property to the
neighbor’s property. The next thing I did is going over the balancing test. What we’re
doing here is we’re going from a 6,000 square foot house to a 7,000 square foot house.
The first item on the balancing test is whether the benefit can be achieved by other
means feasible. Well, a feasible alternative is this is new construction. We could make
this a more compliant construction. What we have here is a noncompliant pre-existing
structure, and what we’re doing is, what we’re being asked for here is more
noncompliance. So on the first matter of the balancing test, I think they have a ways to
go on that. Undesirable change in the neighborhood. A bigger house, larger garage,
means more stormwater runoff. This area, given the topography, I don’t think the size of
this lot or the topography support a larger house. I also think that, given the nature of
what’s going to happen with this stormwater, what it might potentially do to the
neighbor’s property, it could have physical, adverse physical and environmental impacts
on the area. At this point, I’d be against this proposal.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Garrand.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll go next.
MR. ABBATE-Please, Jim, would you be kind enough.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to have to disagree with Mr. Garrand. I was up there
today and I was looking at it from across the bay, as to where it was going to be, and
looking at your drawings, you know, what you’re proposing here is a re-do. It’s the same
footprint of what’s already there. So I mean, I don’t think there’s really going to be any
net grand difference. I mean, you are going to be covering that one porch out there.
You’re going to be adding that 12 feet on the back, but that’s away. That’s the garage
back there also. It’s three acre zoning, but in the sense of the lakefront, you know, the
house is where it is, and I don’t think that it’s going to be possible to move it back without
doing some whacky design back there. The garage isn’t really seen from the lake. I
don’t think it’s going to exacerbate the problem, and I think if you look at the current
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
situation, you’ve got a real bad situation with groundwater, you know, the house isn’t
really something you’d want to live in year round and deal with that day after day, year
after year. I think that when you look at the design and you look at the way that it’s set
back into the ground, it’s not an attempt to create a McMansion in the sense that it’s
going to be some giant thing sticking up in the air, maximally as high up as it can go. It’s
built back into the hill. It incorporates the topography, you know, it’s incorporated into the
topography that’s present there, and the situation with the runoff, you know, with nothing
there at the present time, and it is bedrock. I mean, it’s hard to deal with that situation,
but by putting it in the gardens on that other side, by increasing the infiltration and
slowing down the water, it’s going to make the situation better than it is. I mean, if you
leave it as is, it’s no net improvement. This is going to be net improvement as far as I’m
concerned. As far as the request for the drainage and the infiltration devices, it’s going
to be a bonus. It’s a plus. I don’t think that rebuilding the septic system is necessarily a
evil thing to do. I think that’s a good thing to do. I’m sure during Site Plan Review
they’re probably going to make suggestions. It looks like it’s awful close to the lake
there. So I don’t know if they’re going to make you do an aerobic system, if that’s a
possibility, to really make sure that you’re not getting anything in. I don’t know what your
situation is now with the septic, but that Site Plan Review purview, not ours.
MR. JARRETT-Maybe the drawing is misleading. That’s not lake there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I know you’re back.
MR. JARRETT-That’s 200 feet of setback.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I’m just saying in relationship to your runoff, your surface runoff
and your bedrock being so close, I mean, it is a concern, you know, and when you go to
year round use, I mean, it’s always something to consider anyway, but I think there is an
attempt here to make it better than what it is. As far as the setbacks from the water,
they’re existing as they are. I think (lost word) that one deck is not going to make that
much difference since it’s kind of a double deck there now anyway. The water that
drains through that deck goes down to bedrock and sheet flows off pretty much anyway
as it exists. So I don’t really have a problem with the request. I think that Site Plan
Review is probably going to fine tune what you’ve got there, and that’s going to be the
other means of reviewing the process and making sure that it’s complete, but I don’t think
you could do anything better here, other than as suggested, you could make a smaller
house, but that’s not what they want, and you’re not really increasing the living space per
se. I mean, if you go up, it’s not increasing the runoff.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Do we have, let’s see, Joyce, would you
like to go next?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. All right.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Please.
MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with Mr. Underwood. Certainly you need some relief for this
building. To me it looks like it’s almost unlivable, and because you’re staying on the
same footprint and making minimal changes, I would have no problem with that, and I
think the system that you have for the stormwater management, the stormwater
infiltration system I think is going to be a big plus. So I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Chuck, would you like to go next, please?
MR. MC NULTY-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. MC NULTY-I have some misgivings about enlarging a structure this close to the
lake, but I think on average for the most part on the structural changes on the house I
could probably be in favor of those. The groundwater sounds good. It sounds like a
good improvement, but I’m a little nervous about approving that at this stage. I kind of
like the Staff’s suggestion of considering getting, seeing what the Planning Board does
with Site Plan and seeing what Town Engineer says about the groundwater. I mean, the
groundwater controls, from what Staff Notes say, are supposed to be 100 feet from the
shoreline, and we’re talking about stuff, what, 20 feet from the shoreline. That’s a big
difference. I can understand why in this situation, and I don’t know what else could be
done, but I guess that’s where my hang up is, is I don’t know what else could be done, if
anything. So, I guess on that basis, if I were asked to approve or disapprove, the entire
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
project as is tonight, I’d be inclined to vote against it. If I had a chance to get more
information, it might be the other way.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Mrs. Jenkin, please.
MRS. JENKIN-This is difficult. I think that the design and the solutions for the drain
water problem, you certainly have done your work there and it looks like it would be
greatly, greatly improved, especially on the southern side. I have concerns about what
would happen in the front of the house with that, and I also have a concern with
increasing the size of the house. I think if you’re rebuilding, it doesn’t mean that it would
have to increase. So at this point I would be against it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I think it’s a pretty nice plan. I don’t have any problems with that at
all, but I have a problem. Unfortunately I’m going to a three day seminar which includes
a lot of stormwater infiltration systems and stormwater protection, all that other business,
in October, but I don’t have that kind of expertise right now. Staff has made a comment
indicating that perhaps we should give consideration seeking input from the Planning
Board and Town Engineer relative to stormwater variances prior to deciding such
matters. Well, as you can see right now, I would suspect that if I had to call this for a
vote this evening, gentlemen, I would guess that it probably would be disapproved. So
we have several alternatives we could go with. We could go with a motion indicating that
perhaps we’d like to refer this to the Planning Board and also to the Town Engineer
relative to stormwater variances, and then have that information come back to us. I think
Mr. McNulty or the rest of the folks indicated we’d need more information, or we could do
a tabling at your request. So I’m a little flexible. So, I’m willing to listen to see what
happens, to see what you have to say.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think you should spell it out. If it’s going to go to the Planning
Board, we want them to look at the infiltration things, that seems to be the major hang
up.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And if they’re cool with that, if they sign off on it, then it can come
back to us.
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely, Jim. You’re absolutely correct, but I would like to hear what
the folks have to say.
MR. JARRETT-Well, as much as we’d like to get a positive feedback tonight, we kind of
envisioned that you might want to send it to the Planning Board for their
recommendation, since it is a stormwater variance, and you don’t see an awful lot of
those. We might want to clarify some of the structural issues.
MR. HODGE-I would like to clarify how the building is growing, okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. By all means.
MR. HODGE-Currently the building, if you go through the Floor Area Ratio worksheet, is
6,000 roughly square feet, and the next number over says 7,000 square feet. If you look
at the pure footprint of the building on that, if you go two slides forward, Craig. Thank
you. The light blue areas, one in the garage and one at the entry area, those are the
only additions to the footprint of the house, and they do not equal 1,000 square feet. in
fact, the impervious surface area is only increasing by I think 16, 13 hundredths of a
percent, .013, 1.3 percent. The square footage increase happens mainly where we’re
enclosing porches with screens, and we’re doing that twice. So the deck is already
there. The fact that we’re putting a screen on it causes us to add that square footage to
this, okay. So that’s already on the site, in other words. So the only addition is the
garage and the other blue portion at the entry, which is a really strange portion of this
house, and is actually one of the bigger problems. When you walk up onto the front
porch, okay, just before you go into the door, you’re standing on a concrete slab. You’re
actually standing over enclosed space in the basement, and it’s not a waterproof
condition, and that wall, that floor, that slab, get wet, and that’s another place where
water enters the building. So with that light blue area what we’re proposing is we take
that foundation wall and just extend it up, giving us a more generous entry, granted, but it
allows us to waterproof and control that spot in the building, okay. So we’re adding
square footage there, but only on one floor. It’s already there in the basement. So the
numbers are a little misleading with this house, because a lot of it is already there.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MR. JARRETT-And all the expansions are away from the lake.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. All right, ladies and gentlemen, do you have
anything else you wish to address? Do I have a motion of some sort?
MRS. JENKIN-Just one thing.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Joan.
MRS. JENKIN-If you didn’t increase the garage, would you still have to blast?
MR. HODGE-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-That’s to get everything away underneath?
MR. JARRETT-The rock is in the house itself. You’d have to get it out of the house.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Well, folks. I’m flexible. I’m willing to listen to what the Board suggests.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we just send it to Planning Board for their purview and
their comments and then they can get back to us. We can pass our concerns on to
them.
MR. ABBATE-Jim, I don’t have any problems with that at all. How do you folks feel
about Jim’s proposal? It looks like you have an agreement. Would you do a motion for
that for me, Jim, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2007 MATTHEW EMMENS, Introduced
by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
2 Highview Road. Include tonight’s minutes to the Planning Board with our concerns, as
also mentioned by Staff in the Staff Notes that they look at the infiltrators and whether
that situation could be improved or is it adequate as proposed here this evening. As far
as the size of the building, the Planning Board given feedback to the applicant. That the
Planning Board submit their recommendations to the Zoning Board in ample time to
th
place Area Variance No. 60-2007 on the agenda for the 24 of October 2007.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of September, 2007, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as the size of the building, I don’t know how the other
members feel about it. I mean, I think it’s been pretty much explained to us how much
they’re adding on to what’s already there. So I think that’s something that the individuals
are going to have to make their own decisions on. We can’t make that for them. So, I
don’t know if they want to give any feed back to them regarding that, you know, at this
point in time. So they don’t have to come back.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, do you have a specific time in which you’d like to have the
Planning Board get back to us?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, whatever works for you guys. I mean, you’re going to have to
get it on their agenda, right?
MR. JARRETT-We’re on the agenda for next week.
MR. ABBATE-You’re on next week? If you’re on next week, then, you know what we can
do?
MR. MC NULTY-We don’t know what the Planning Board is going to do with it.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, we don’t know, though.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MR. MC NULTY-That’s the other thought, while I’m interrupting, is do we want to put
anything specific in the motion about having a Town Engineer take a look at the
stormwater plan?
MR. ABBATE-Why not?
MR. JARRETT-Has it been referred?
MR. BROWN-But they’re going to do that anyway as part of Site Plan Review. As far as
the minutes to the Planning Board, Maria is the faster typer I’ve ever seen. I’m not sure
she can get the minutes put together and to the Planning Board for next Tuesday. Well,
maybe. It’s a relatively short meeting tonight, but we’ll do the best we can as far as
getting the minutes to the Planning Board next week. Will they have time to review them
and comment at that meeting, based on those minutes that they just got? I can’t answer
that.
MR. ABBATE-Would it be unreasonable to expect that we would have them back so we
could place them on the agenda for the end of October? Or would that give the Planning
Board ample opportunity? They’re meeting when with the Planning Board did you say?
th
Next Tuesday. So if I were to schedule them for October the 24, that would certainly
give them plenty of opportunity to get back to us. Is that okay with you, gentlemen?
MR. JARRETT-Sounds good to us.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. We’ll request that the Planning Board submit their
recommendations to us in ample time to place Area Variance No. 60-2007 on the ZBA
th
agenda for the 24 of October 2007, and I’m going to ask that the Zoning Administrator
please let me know whether we can meeting this deadline for the Planning Board.
MR. BROWN-Well, I thought I just tried to answer that question. They’re going to get the
minutes to this meeting next Tuesday. They’re going to not have a chance to read those
minutes until after the meeting. So they’re not going to make a, they may make a finding
based on their review that they’ve done, you know, on their own and what they talk about
at the meeting. They may come up with a resolution. I’m sure the applicants that sit
before you tonight are going to try and explain everything that they’ve explained to you
tonight, so the Planning Board doesn’t have to read the minutes, so they can get a
recommendation out of them next Tuesday, but I just want to let you know, it probably
won’t be based on the minutes, because they’re not going to have a chance to read
them.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So it would be more logical to have them at the first meeting in that
we have in November?
MR. BROWN-No. I think if these applicants can convey all the same concerns that
they’ve expressed to you and what your concerns are to the Planning Board, they can
probably get a recommendation from the Planning Board.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So is it next Tuesday?
MR. BROWN-It’s next Tuesday.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll go to the meeting.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Frankly, you’re opening it up to the Planning Board to comment on
stormwater, and that’s essentially what you’re saying in your motion.
MR. BROWN-That’s what they’re going to do anyway.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So tentatively, then, when I do the agenda for October, which is
th
going to be this Friday, I will schedule you folks tentatively for the 24 of October. How’s
that? Okay?
MR. JARRETT-That’s good. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Is that okay, Jim, with you, as part of your motion?
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s fine with me.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Before you vote on your motion, I’d like to find out whether our comments
have ameliorated some of the concerns with the structure. Because we’ve got to decide
how to handle that between now and next month.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s a fair question. Ladies, gentlemen.
MR. GARRAND-Well, I think a large part of what I have a problem with is you’re, literally
you’re increasing the size of the structure, which is also going to increase the stormwater
runoff. I’m not sure if what you’re putting in place, the procedures you’re putting in place
are going to mitigate the problems with stormwater. That area is very, very prone to
runoff and problems with runoff. By putting swales in, it’s not necessarily going to
alleviate the problem. Potentially the problem could be exacerbated by an increase in
floor area.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a one percent, is that what you said?
MR. JARRETT-It’s less than.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Less than one percent?
MR. HODGE-Yes. Currently, our percentage of impervious surface is .228 right now,
and we’re taking it up .013. So we’re only increasing it by 552. We’ve decreased a lot of
our paving surfaces, as we’re adding roof, okay, and roof is going over deck. So we’re
not really increasing the impervious surface by very much at all. It’s, in my opinion,
pretty negligible.
MR. JARRETT-And we’re decreasing the driveway area by 80 feet, I believe. Lastly,
we’re not really putting in swales, per se, for stormwater. We’re putting in what we call
rain gardens or bio retention areas, which are literally retention areas with vegetation,
and a sand filter to treat it. Very extensive system. It’s not just a swale. So, I think that
needs to be recognize.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just so they understand, that that means like it’s trying to replicate
the woods. So you’ve got moss and you’ve got stuff that holds the water.
MR. JARRETT-Exactly. Not a complete replication, but it’s on that.
MR. ABBATE-But it’s an effort in that direction. Okay. Anything else, gentlemen? Okay.
MS. GAGLIARDI-If you’re going to table this, do you want to leave the public hearing
open?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. The public hearing will remain open. Thank you very much.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote to move Area Variance No. 60-2007 to 24 October 2007 pending
the results of recommendations from the Planning Board is six yes, zero no. Area
th
Variance No. 60-2007 will be moved to the 24 of October 2007 hearing date. Thank
you, gentlemen.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you. We’ll see you next month.
MR. ABBATE-This hearing is closed.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/19/07)
Charles Abbate, Chairman
32