2008.02.27(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 2008
INDEX
Area Variance No. 4-2008 Robert & Bonnie Napoli 1.
Tax Map No. 289.13-1-11
Area Variance No. 5-2008 K-Twin Holdings/Daniel W. Krueger 12.
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-9 and 10
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 2/27/08)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, ACTING CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
ALLAN BRYANT
ROY URRICO
RICHARD GARRAND
JOAN JENKIN, ALTERNATE
BRIAN CLEMENTS, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
CHARLES MC NULTY
JOYCE HUNT
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 on February 27, 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 quasi-Board, the mandated legal requirements we are
guided by, and the procedures for a hearing before this Board. As a quasi-judicial
Board, we are dictated by the laws of New York State in terms of procedures and
evidence, and at times it may be uninspiring to follow those dictates of law, however I
respectfully remind all of us that it is the law that binds us all together. It is the
framework of our lives, and crucial to due process guaranteed under our constitution for
each one of you sitting here this evening. Noteworthy is the fact that our procedures and
decisions are subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court. 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. The 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 zoning officer’s decision, and in doing so, the Board will
either permit or deny the requested relief. If the appeal is for an interpretation, this
Board’s decision will be based upon 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 appellant. Other than
administrative items, public comments will be invited on each appeal, however, in the
interest of time I ask that you 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, and 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. Mr. Secretary, I’m going
to ask that you please monitor the time, and, Mr. Secretary, do we have any
correspondence that we should be reading into the record?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t have any, no.
MR. ABBATE-We have no correspondence. Any other comments from the Board
members? All right.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT & BONNIE NAPOLI
AGENT(S): N/A OWNER(S): ROBERT & BONNIE NAPOLI ZONING: WR-1A
LOCATION: 13 CHESTNUT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE
EXISTING DOCK (DECK SURFACE CURRENTLY 78 SQ. FT.) WITH A NEW DOCK
SURFACE OF 240 SQ. FT.) RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS MAXIMUM DOCK WIDTH LIMITATIONS. CROSS
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
REF.: BP 2008-003 DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.17
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-11 SECTION: 179-5-050
ROBERT & BONNIE NAPOLI, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2008, Robert & Bonnie Napoli, Meeting Date:
February 27, 2008 “Project Location: 13 Chestnut Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 240 sf dock.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback
requirement on both sides of the proposed dock. Specifically, 6 feet of relief on the south
side and 5.80 feet of relief on the north side is requested. Additionally, relief is
necessary for the 14 ft proposed width as the maximum allowable width is 8 feet.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would gain additional lakeside recreation area.
2. Feasible alternatives:
As the extension of the property lines creates a minimal area for a compliant dock, it
would appear that most proposals would require relief in some degree. It does appear
as though a narrower dock of the same length would not require as much relief as is
currently requested.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for approximately 6 feet of setback relief from the 20 foot requirement on
both sides of the proposed dock may be interpreted as moderate to substantial (30%).
Additionally, the oversized dock width may also be interpreted as significant relief when
viewed cumulatively.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
No letters of support were submitted with the application materials.
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:
The proposed dock appears to be an attempt to center the dock on the property and
improve the non compliant setback issues with the existing dock.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good evening, and you are?
MR. NAPOLI-Robert Napoli, and my wife Bonnie.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and would you just hold for a second, because I have a question for
the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Brown, I notice here on your notes here, you indicate that
a stamped signed survey is required. I didn’t see one in there. Did they submit one?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it looks like it.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
MR. ABBATE-They did. Okay. So I can just cross that out. Okay. So as far as you’re
concerned, everything else is okay?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Great. All right. Again, let’s go back to you. You have
identified yourself, and you’re not represented by counsel?
MR. NAPOLI-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Have you been before us before?
MR. NAPOLI-No, I haven’t.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, let me explain to you what we do here. It’s quite simple. It’s
not very complicated at all. Since you’re not represented by counsel, obviously we take
a little different approach. Everything we do is, of course, on the record, and in the event
that, during the course of our hearing this evening, you say to your wife, you wife says to
you, we may have forgotten to say something, stop us. We’ll be more than happy to
listen to what you have to say. So the Board, we’re here to serve you. If there’s anything
you don’t understand, all you have to do is stop us and ask us and we’ll do everything in
our power to explain something to you that you don’t understand. So far okay?
MR. NAPOLI-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Are you ready to proceed?
MR. NAPOLI-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would you please do so.
MR. NAPOLI-Okay. My name’s Robert Napoli. My wife Bonnie is also with me, and
we’re proposing replacing our dock with a new dock which is much larger than what we
have, and we will need a variance for relief on both sides.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. NAPOLI-I do have a letter from the neighbor on one side of me who e-mailed it to
us, and their phone number is on it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. If you’d give this to our Secretary, he’ll be happy to read it into the
record. I’m assuming that’s in support of your appeal?
MR. NAPOLI-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. Give it to Mr. Underwood and he’ll be more than happy to
read it into the record for you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does anybody want to ask questions?
MR. ABBATE-Well, do you want to wait and hold that and then read it into the record
later?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I’m not going to read it until the public hearing.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, we’ll wait and hold off and then go on from there. Okay. Is
there anything else you’d like to add at this particular time?
MR. NAPOLI-The dock that we’re proposing to construct, the company that we are going
to use, they constructed a dock on the opposite side of the lake this past year, and I do
have pictures from the company in front of that home of what the dock will look like.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Start it down at that end, and we’ll be more than happy to take a
look at it, and while we’re looking at it, if there’s anything else you’d like to say, while
we’re looking at it, please put it on the record.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
MR. NAPOLI-In the paperwork that you had sent me, there’s a statement in there that
possibly the width of the dock, you know, it would be more acceptable if it was a little
narrower. I’m not objected to that, but I would still like the same length of the dock.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So let me make sure I interpret you correctly. So what you’re
saying is basically this. You really would like to have what you requested approved,
however you’d be willing to negotiate, is that what you’re saying?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let’s just wait and see what happens. All right? Okay. Members
of the Board, do we have any questions for the appellant?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume, Craig, that’s because of the “T” shape of the dock,
out on the end, that creates that, that’s what you’re measuring is the wider?
MR. BROWN-As far as the excessive width? That’s correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the actual lane of the dock going out is within the parameters
of what we have.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-I had a question for Craig, because I haven’t seen this before, and the
extension of the property lines. It doesn’t go out straight from the property line, it’s in?
MR. BROWN-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-And I looked at the Zoning Code, I couldn’t see anything, and I wondered,
what is that, can you explain that to me, please?
MR. BROWN-Yes. The method is one of two ways, whatever’s most restrictive to the
property in question, and it’s either an extension of the property line or an extension of
the property line at a right angle to the shore, whichever is most restrictive to this parcel,
but on the south side, the extension of the property line’s the most restrictive, and on the
north side, the right angle is the one that’s most restrictive to this parcel. So that’s why
they don’t go straight out.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Right. Okay. I understand that now.
MR. ABBATE-Good question, Joan, and thank you, Craig, for the explanation. Do we
have any other members of the Board who have any questions? Rick, please.
MR. GARRAND-Question for the applicant. Would you be willing to construct the exact
same dock that’s there? That would require considerably less relief.
MR. URRICO-It’s six feet by thirty-two feet.
MR. NAPOLI-Yes, that dock is larger in length than what I have.
MR. GARRAND-Okay, but it’s considerably smaller than in length, which would.
MR. NAPOLI-The runway is six feet versus the eight that I was proposing. If it was to
reduce that to the six feet, you know, that would help me out. I don’t need to go any
longer. I don’t need to go 32 feet, you know, the 25 feet is fine, but, you know, if
reducing that walkway to six feet and gaining the two feet, you know, if that would help, I
don’t have a problem with that.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, because basically with those two sections together, according to
the picture, it’s six and six which would be roughly twelve feet, I think it’s twelve feet
wide, instead of the fourteen feet that’s proposed.
MR. NAPOLI-Yes, like I said, I’d like to get this dock. So, you know, if it’s a matter of
taking two feet off of there and giving me that six foot runway, you know, I can live with
that.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other questions, folks? No other questions?
MR. CLEMENTS-I just had one quick question. The wood dock that’s in there now, is a
stake dock, is that correct, it’s not a crib dock?
MR. NAPOLI-No. No.
MR. ABBATE-Allan, please.
MR. BRYANT-By eliminating the “L”, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, then you’re
not going to need any relief on the south side, is that correct? Because it’s six feet. So if
you eliminate that, you’ll only need the relief on the north side.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Then there’s no relief on that side.
MR. ABBATE-I see. Okay. I understand.
MR. BRYANT-You see, the reason I mention that is because this Board technically is
instructed to give the least amount of relief necessary, and you’ll still be able to achieve
your goal of having a new dock, and require a lot less relief, because six feet on one side
as opposed to six feet on two sides, you know, is a little bit less. Do you follow my drift?
MR. NAPOLI-I’m not quite understanding you. I mean, the runway that comes out is
eight feet width proposed at this point in time.
MR. BRYANT-Right, and if you eliminate the “L”, that’s six feet, okay, and then you’d
meet the setback on the south side. Okay.
MR. NAPOLI-I understand what you’re saying.
MR. BRYANT-And you would still need the 5.8 feet, whatever it is, on the north side, and
that’s understandable. The property is, you know, you don’t have room to really build a
compliant dock. So we would be granting less relief than you’re requesting, you see,
and that’s why I asked that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re concerned with the part going out being too wide, too?
MR. BRYANT-No, I’m concerned with granting the least amount of relief necessary, and
if, the applicant has already stated that they would build a smaller dock or whatever. My
point being that it requires six feet of relief. If you eliminate the “L”, that you don’t need
relief on the south side. You only need relief on the north side, which is the 5.6, 5.8
whatever it is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What is the actual distance from the proposed dock over to the, I
guess it would be Babcock’s property on the other side there? Their dock’s quite a ways
away, right?
MR. NAPOLI-Their dock?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It doesn’t show it on.
MR. NAPOLI-No, it doesn’t show that. Where their, where it shows on the surveyor’s
print there, their wood deck, and the stairs coming down.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I see that.
MR. NAPOLI-Their dock is actually pretty close in line with those stairs. It might be over,
you know, a few feet, but it’s pretty close in line with that, and it does runoff on that angle
is the way the stairs are going off.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, in actuality, the dock that you presently have would be much
closer than the dock you’re proposing? I mean, this dock is going to be more conforming
in regards to the centerline of your property. That “L” wouldn’t even, if you look at the
schematic, doesn’t intrude any closer towards.
MR. NAPOLI-I’m actually further away from him, because the way his dock goes out on
an angle.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s on an angle going that way.
MR. NAPOLI-He’s coming in on an angle. So that “L” is not encroaching. I mean, we
need a variance, but it’s not tight to his side at all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. What I’m going to do is open up the public hearing for
Area Variance No. 4-2008, and do we have any members of the public who would like to
address that? If you’d be kind enough to raise your hands, I will recognize you and ask
you to come to the table. Yes, sir, and would you, sir, come up to the table, speak into
the microphone, and identify yourself, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PHIL BATTISTE
MR. BATTISTE-I’m Phil Battiste. I own the land on the north side of Mr. Napoli.
MICHAEL BATTISTE
MR. M. BATTISTE-I’m Michael Battiste, the son.
MR. P. BATTISTE-And it seems the variance is coming my way, the six feet. I’m not
here to shoot down the dock, and my dock’s been there 65 years. We are not here to
shoot down Mr. Napoli’s project, but I am here to object to the variance. The variance he
is asking for, I see no reason why he cannot complete the project in compliance with the
present Code. The variance is asking the Board to extend his space, which in this case
will cut down on our space. It’s his property, I understand that, but it’s cutting the space
of the code. Do you understand?
MR. ABBATE-I’ll make every effort to, yes sir, please. Go ahead.
MR. P. BATTISTE-This would be unfair to us. With this variance in effect, I have
calculated that the 20 ft. code now becomes 14 feet. Place a boat next to the dock and it
would use up approximately another 10 ft. A boat is only seven or eight feet wide, but
you can’t sneak a seven foot boat in a seven foot space. You need space on both sides.
Subtract the 10 ft. from the 14 ft. and that leaves 4 ft. from our property line. Subject to
10 feet, and that would be 10 feet more. Now, at that point, from 14 feet, that leaves four
feet from our property line. So that boat’s going to be four feet from our property line.
My pontoon boat is on the other side of the line. As I see it, this becomes a safety
concern, as our boats would be too close together. Unfortunately, this will leave us, as
neighbors, in a very impossible situation and will create a hardship forever. I only hope
the Board will reject the variance so Mr. Napoli can then review his plans to meet the
present code. After all, isn’t that why the code exists? Now may I add just this here, this
is just a point to consider. He has as much property as we all have in the front, but we’ve
been there 65 years. So whoever left the stairs there, they’re there, period. Our boat’s
been there ever since we bought the place. Not the pontoon, but a boat. Now, if you
consider, Mr. Napoli’s got an eight foot dock. Why I speak is a dock, not a deck, a dock
running into the water. If that was eight feet, he would have eight feet wide. He would
have twenty feet on each side of that dock, twenty feet, which would have plenty of room
for the boat or whatever he wanted to put there. If the boat came in there, I would have
10 feet over there instead of 4 feet, and I think that’s about all I have. Now, if I didn’t use
up my time, as for the conditions, there are no obstructions such as a rock pile, a sand
bar, which would be a reason for a variance, which I would agree to at that point. Mr.
Napoli has a full front to revise his plan to stay with the code. That’s all I’ve got.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question? Which side of your dock, do you put your
boat on the side towards Napoli’s property?
MR. P. BATTISTE-No, the opposite side.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re on the opposite side. Okay. So that’s your swimming area
on that side there?
MR. P. BATTISTE-Yes. No, everything’s on the left side.
MR. M. BATTISTE-If you take a look, you’ll see where dad’s property is. The dock as it
is, the boat is placed on the right side of the dock.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Looking off shore?
MR. M. BATTISTE-Looking out to the lake from the shore.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s on the Napoli’s side?
MR. M. BATTISTE-It’s on the Napoli’s side.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, Craig, if you’re taking the interpretation of the shoreline being
this way, that’s the way you’re measuring the 20 foot setback line?
MR. BROWN-For this parcel.
MR. UNDERWOOD-For this parcel, and would that apply also to the parcel of Battiste
next door? Because it looks to me like their boat’s going to be over their property line
when they park it in there, 14 feet.
MR. BROWN-Right, as far as the extension of the property line for the Battiste property,
the most restrictive method for theirs would be a straight extension of the property line
into the lake. So that’s what would be used on their property, if they were constructing a
new dock. We’re talking about, I think they said, 65 year old dock here, though. So it’s a
pre-existing condition.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, but I mean if you’re measuring from this proposed dock over
to that actual extension of the property line off shore, it’s 20 feet, by looking at the
diagram there.
MR. BROWN-At the shoreline. At the shoreline it looks like it’s 20 feet, but when you go
out to the end, it’s 14.2.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because you’re getting closer to their dock.
MR. BROWN-With the property line.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. BROWN-On the Napoli property. That’s correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, sir, you had something you wanted to say?
MR. M. BATTISTE-No. It was, the point that my dad was making concerning the safety
is backing in and out of there is a very narrow area when you’ve got two boats. Based
on the configuration of the dock, there’s only one place that he could put that boat is on
that side. So therefore now you’ve got two large boats within the same area. Backing in
and out is a chore on a good day. On a windy day, it’s dangerous. So that’s my only.
MRS. JENKIN-So what distance is your dock from the property line?
MR. M. BATTISTE-From the property line, our dock?
MRS. JENKIN-It’s right on the property line, is it not, your dock?
MR. M. BATTISTE-The boat is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The boat is over the line.
MR. P. BATTISTE-The boat is but the dock isn’t.
MR. M. BATTISTE-When the Napoli’s bought the property, we actually moved our dock
eight feet inside our property, knowing that there were new neighbors. Previous to that,
our dock had been there for thousands of years, ever since we were kids. So the dock
was always at the end of the steps, and the boat was next to it on the Napoli side. When
the property was sold from Mr. Powers to the Napoli’s, we actually, being good
neighbors, moved it in eight feet because we knew we couldn’t keep it there forever.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
People buy 50 foot of frontage for the frontage, and our boat took up 10. It’s just that the
previous neighbors never used it and didn’t care.
MRS. JENKIN-So your dock is not a 65 year old dock?
MR. M. BATTISTE-Well, the dock itself is. We just replaced the pieces and parts as it
wore out.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But you moved it over.
MR. M. BATTISTE-We moved it in eight feet when they bought the property to
accommodate our new neighbors. Historically, it was right on the line, right down the
steps. It was the only access to the lake.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So yours used to be right on the property line, your dock?
MR. M. BATTISTE-Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Craig, is it a pre-existing?
MR. BROWN-Yes, this is a seasonal dock that’s in in the Spring and out in the Fall?
MR. M. BATTISTE-Yes. Well, the section of the dock that runs perpendicular to the lake,
okay, is permanent. The section that is the dock itself, we move in and out.
MR. BROWN-Right. So I would say, yes, that’s still a pre-existing situation. It’s a
seasonal dock.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I understand. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So what year did you move it over?
MR. M. BATTISTE-When they bought the property. We moved it into our property by
eight feet to accommodate them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Was that recently?
MR. M. BATTISTE-Since they owned the property.
MR. UNDERWOOD-How long ago was that?
MR. P. BATTISTE-I don’t know. A couple of years.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
MR. ABBATE-By all means, please.
MR. BRYANT-When the Napoli’s were at the table, I had made the recommendation that
they eliminate the “L” portion of the dock. Wouldn’t that give them the opportunity of
putting the boat on the other side and then would you object to the six feet or 5.8,
whatever it is?
MR. P. BATTISTE-They wouldn’t need it if they put the boat on the other side. They
wouldn’t need it. We’re complying, the boat would be on this side.
MR. BRYANT-Well, it would still need relief at the present. If they eliminated the “L”
portion of the dock, they’d still need relief on your side of their property. Okay. So my
question is, wouldn’t that give them the opportunity to put the boat on the other side of
the dock?
MR. P. BATTISTE-Well, we’d be all for that.
MR. M. BATTISTE-Yes, but, you know, that’s a temporary thing. My biggest concern, in
looking at this, is most of the docks are looking out into the center of the lake. If the
footprint were even changed, were a reconfig of that dock, it would probably be more
adequate.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but based on the way they measure, they project the property line,
you look at it and there’s almost nowhere on his property where he could build a dock
eight foot wide and not affect.
MR. M. BATTISTE-I understand. Well, let me say this if I could.
MR. BRYANT-Am I right or wrong, Mr. Brown?
MR. M. BATTISTE-Yes, that makes sense. The neighbors on the other side, the
Babcocks, have no problem with it. So, your point is, if the boat was on that side, yes, it
would make a lot.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, it would eliminate that extra 10 feet.
MR. M. BATTISTE-It would eliminate the safety issue also.
MR. BRYANT-And the boats wouldn’t be next to each other.
MR. M. BATTISTE-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is there anything else?
MR. P. BATTISTE-One thing. I just wanted the gentleman over there to understand the
point I made before. If the dock went in the center of his property and was eight feet
wide, he would have twenty feet on each side, which wouldn’t need a variance.
MR. BRYANT-Well, yes, if the property line were extended, you know, if the extension
was a real property line, you’re right, but the way it is at that angle, even if he put the
dock, right now the dock is in the center of the property. Even if he tilted the dock, it
would create more of a problem for the south side, and, yes, he might be compliant on
your side, and then we’d have another situation on the south, because there isn’t enough
room, based on the way they extrapolate the.
MR. P. BATTISTE-Okay. I agree with you, if the boat was placed on the south side,
there’s no problem. Then the boats wouldn’t be eight feet apart.
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. P. BATTISTE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Is there anything else you’d like to add, sir? Thank you very much. Do we
have anyone else in the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 4-2008?
Would you raise your hands, please, and I’ll recognize you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have some letters.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
nd
MR. UNDERWOOD-This one was received on February 22. “To Whom It May
Concern: Please accept this letter in opposition to the zoning variance request of Robert
& Bonnie Napoli, seeking relief from the side setback requirements on Glen Lake. All of
the lots along this area of the shoreline are fairly narrow. Unlike the other side of the
lake, most of the camps here are the original structures, as are the docks. Some of the
docks have been replaced over the years, as time and the elements have worn away the
original wood, but the placement or position remains the same. Many of the docks are
located close to the property line and it is my understanding they are considered
“grandfathered” under the current zoning requirements. If the Board were to grant the
proposed variance application, I believe it would create a domino effect, as each
adjacent landowner is forced to move their dock from its time honored position, all to
accommodate the placement of the applicant’s dock. Given the limited available
shoreline of these lots, the neighbors may be forced to seek variances themselves. At
the very least, they will be put to the time, trouble and expense of having to move their
docks just to be able to maneuver their boats in and out. This detriment to the nearby
property owners outweighs any hardship to the applicant and his request should be
denied. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Teresa Dickinson #7 Chestnut Road” The other
th
one was received on February 25. “Dear Mr. Underwood: This letter is in regards to
th
the public hearing scheduled for February 27 to discuss the request by Robert & Bonnie
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
Napoli to replace an existing dock on Glen Lake. Our personal opinion is that the Board
of Zoning has an obligation to adhere to the codes and regulations as written by the
Town of Queensbury. A change in square footage, the shape, and the angle of the dock
would appear to be a more practical solution to keep the dock consistent with
neighboring properties. Thanks for your consideration to this important matter.
Sincerely, Dominic and Grace Fallacaro 9 Chestnut Road Glen Lake” And the last one.
“To Whom It May Concern: My wife and I are writing this letter in response to Bob and
Bonnie Napoli’s request for a new dock at their property at 13 Chestnut Road on Glen
Lake. We have no objections to their request. Sincerely, Tom and Missy Babcock 15
Chestnut Road Lake George, NY 12845” They’re the people to the south on that side.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Would you folks like to comment?
MR. NAPOLI-I’m a little confused by some of the things we’ve been talking about here. I
mean, if it’s a matter of putting the boat on the other side, why couldn’t some part of that
“L” be reversed? I mean, the whole object of that is to be able to sit out there. We don’t
have any landing, any patio down there. It’s just all grass, and the whole object of
putting an “L” was to be able to sit down there by the waterside. So if the boat becomes
an issue, and I have more room on the other side, if I reduce the runway to six feet, and
put the six foot wide “L” on the opposite side, there’s no boat there, and it’s going to shift
everything over. So no one has to worry about a boat being driven in there and banging
into theirs.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we ask the Battistes to come back up and comment on that?
MR. BRYANT-Well, before you do, see, I think there’s a combination of two things that
he’s saying, okay. He has a problem with the boat on that side. Apparently your
neighbors to the south, Babcock, they have no problem whatsoever, okay. He’s making
an issue about the placement of the boat, and I understand what you’re saying about
moving the “L”. If you move the “L” to the other side, though, you’re going to need more
relief. You’d eliminate the relief on one side, but you’re going to need more relief
towards Battiste’s property. So, my question is, is it possible that we might be able to
change the angle of the dock and then maybe move the “L” on the other side and then
kind of get the same relief, keep the boat away from his property? I mean, is that
possible?
MR. NAPOLI-This drawing, when I came in and spoke with Craig, and he came up with
that angle, this is how that dock ends up being, when you go to the surveyor’s office and
they draw it all out. So we’re going by the angle that Craig had given me here.
MR. BRYANT-No. I understand. You’re talking about the property line or are you talking
about the dock itself?
MR. NAPOLI-Another way, trying to center that dock to stay away the best you can on
each side.
MR. BRYANT-I know, but you see, the reason he did that is because of the “L”. I mean,
it’s logical and I understand exactly what he did. If the “L” were on the other side, you
could easily change the angle of the dock. Correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Brown, couldn’t
he change the angle of that dock, as far, you know, more perpendicular with the
shoreline, and then move the “L” to the other side and still accomplish the same thing?
MR. BROWN-Mathematically it looks like that would work, yes. I mean, if you’re going to
keep it the same size and just mirror image, I think you could probably fit it in the same
setbacks.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s the same angle as the dock that’s presently there.
MR. BROWN-Closer to that angle there.
MR. BRYANT-Because, you see, because I think the reason you suggested this angle
was because of the “L”, okay, because if he had it straight out with the same, like the old
dock, okay, is perpendicular to the shoreline. If he were perpendicular to the shoreline
with the “L” on the south side, it would create, you know, a real setback problem, and
that’s why he suggested that angle. My suggestion is move the “L” portion over. I’m not
even concerned about making the dock, you know, the runway six feet. Eight feet is fine,
but if you move that “L” to the other side, and angle the runway itself, the same way your
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
existing dock, then you’re not going to be as intrusive on the Battiste property with your
boat. You can put your boat on the Babcock side, and everybody will be happy. You’ll
still need relief, and we understand that, and that’s not a problem. Do you follow my?
MR. NAPOLI-No, I understand what you’re saying. I mean, if that’s the case, I mean,
naturally we don’t have a drawing here that’s correct. So, you know, I don’t want to walk
out of here and just have this, you know, find out that I’m denied. I would rather table it
and get it re-drawn and come back again.
MR. ABBATE-I certainly don’t have a problem with that. That’s your privilege. If you feel
that you would, after listening to what we had to say, after listening to what your neighbor
had to say, if you feel that you would be more comfortable re-thinking all of that and
coming back with a new drawing, that’s your option, and I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. NAPOLI-No, I mean, what this gentleman is saying here, you know, reverse the “L”
and these people here don’t have a problem with it, that’s great, but it’s just that if.
MR. ABBATE-So you’re uncomfortable with it right now.
MR. NAPOLI-No, no, no. I’m comfortable with flipping that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. NAPOLI-All right, but the thing is, I mean, I don’t have a drawing here showing it.
So, if it’s agreeable with everyone, and they’re fine with that, that’s great.
MR. ABBATE-Why don’t we find out. There may not be a problem.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think you’d want to make sure it’s okay with the Babcocks,
too, since you’re going to be closing in on them on the other side.
MR. NAPOLI-Correct. I mean, the boat originally has been parked on their side, but they
didn’t see a drawing, you know, showing it that way now, and I would rather, you know,
bring it to their attention.
MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting, then, you are requesting us to table your appeal?
MR. NAPOLI-Yes, I would rather do that and then have it re-drawn.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have any problem with that at all, if that’s what you wish to do, all
right. So you’re officially asking this Board to table your appeal and to give you an
opportunity to revise whatever has to be revised. Fair enough?
MR. NAPOLI-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then I’m going to move a motion.
MR. BROWN-Could I just ask a question before you get that far?
MR. ABBATE-By all means, go ahead, Craig.
MR. BROWN-Just for consistency for the applicant, if there’s any other issues that the
Board may have.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, I was going to ask about the 12 feet wide at the “L” shape on the
end of the dock. That would also reduce the need for some of the relief on here also. Is
that a problem?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that they’ve been trying to achieve having like a deck out at
the end of the dock.
MR. NAPOLI-Correct.
MR. URRICO-The picture they showed, though, shows a six foot by thirty-two foot dock,
the one you show.
MR. NAPOLI-Well, the length going out on that dock there was 32 feet.
MR. URRICO-Right.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
MR. NAPOLI-But it has a six foot runway and it has a six foot wide platform attached to
it.
MR. URRICO-And I think what he’s suggesting is cutting it down from eight to and eight
which is sixteen to six and six which would be a twelve.
MR. NAPOLI-Well, I think my drawing in that showed it a total of 14. So if the runway
was cut down two feet all the way to the end, it would bring that “L” at the end there to 12
feet.
MR. URRICO-Yes, and then in addition to that flipping it over.
MR. NAPOLI-Because we’ll take the two feet off of that one side.
MR. ABBATE-So that’s going to be part of your consideration when you come back to
us.
MR. NAPOLI-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other issues that the Board members have so that
the appellant knows exactly what we’re doing? None? Okay. This is what I’m going to
do, then. I’m going to move a motion to table, at the request of the appellant, Area
Variance No. 4-2008.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2008 ROBERT & BONNIE NAPOLI,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
13 Chestnut Road. At the request of the appellant, and move the appeal to the first
meeting in April 2008 with the stipulation that you take into consideration what we
discussed this evening.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. ABBATE-How much time do you think you would need? You would have to get that
th
to Craig by the 15 of February, and then we’d be more than happy to put you on.
th
MR. BRYANT-It’s already past the 15.
th
MR. URRICO-It’s already past the 15.
th
MR. ABBATE-Sorry about that. The 15 of March.
MR. NAPOLI-I’ll have that in.
st
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and we’ll put you on the 1 hearing in April. Is that fair enough?
MR. NAPOLI-That’s fine.
MR. ABBATE-You have no objections with that?
MR. NAPOLI-None at all.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-And the vote is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance No. 4-2008 is
scheduled to the first meeting in April. Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II K-TWIN HOLDINGS/DANIEL W.
KRUEGER AGENT(S): RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): K-TWIN
HOLDINGS/DANIEL W. KRUEGER ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: WEST SIDE
MEADOWBROOK RD., NORTH OF QUAKER RD. INTERSECTION APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,329 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING WITH
ASSOCIATED SITE DEVELOPMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
WETLANDS CLEARING REGULATIONS AND RETAINING WALL HEIGHT. CROSS
REF. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT SPR WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
FEBRUARY 13, 2008 LOT SIZE: 0.22 AC.; 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-9
AND 10 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-6-060
RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2008, K-Twin Holdings/Daniel W. Krueger,
Meeting Date: February 27, 2008 “Project Location: West side Meadowbrook Rd. and
north of Quaker Rd. intersection Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 4329 sf professional office building and associated site improvements.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 49.83 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback
requirement of the Highway Commercial (HC-Int) zone. Additionally, the applicant
requests 25 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirement. Further,
as the proposed retaining wall is planned to be in excess of 16 inches in height and
along the wetlands boundary, relief is needed for the planned 72” wall height.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be develop and operate the property as desired.
2. Feasible alternatives:
As the required shoreline and front yard setback lines overlap within the bounds of the
property, it appears as though any proposal for this property would require some relief.
Feasible alternatives that would allow the applicant to achieve the desired outcome
appear to be very limited.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for 49.83 feet of relief from the 75 foot shoreline requirement may be
interpreted as substantial (66%) as might the requested 25 ft of relief from the 50 foot
minimum front setback ( 50%). The requested retaining wall / sea wall height of 72”
equates to 450% above the 16” maximum. Cumulatively, the requests for relief on this
project may be interpreted as substantial relative to the code requirements.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
No letters of support were submitted with the application materials.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
Difficulty would appear to be present with any planned development of this site due to
the current setback requirements.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None applicable
Staff comments:
Nearly 99% of the proposed project is located within the 100 ft adjacent area of a
designated NYS DEC wetland, thus requiring a Freshwater Wetlands Permit from the
Planning Board. Additional components of this project requiring review and approval
from the Planning Board include the planned vegetation removal within 35 ft of the
shoreline of said wetland as well as the planned paving/hardsurfacing within 50 feet of
the shoreline.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
Initially, this application was identified as a Type II SEQR action. Further review reveals
that an UNLISTED classification is more accurate and the same should be considered by
the Board. As this project requires review and approval by the Planning Board, the
Zoning Board of Appeals and NYS DEC, a Coordinated SEQR review might be
appropriate. At a minimum, consideration may be given to seeking a recommendation
from the Planning Board on the project prior to entertaining the variance requests, if
Coordinated SEQR review is not performed.
SEQR Status:
Type: Unlisted”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, would you be kind enough to
identify yourself, please.
MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones, architect for the project, and
sitting to my left is Dan Krueger from K-Twin holdings.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You’ve been before us before.
MR. JONES-Yes, we have.
MR. ABBATE-You know our procedures.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Are you prepared to proceed?
MR. JONES-Yes, I am.
MR. ABBATE-Please do.
MR. JONES-Basically we’re proposing to construct an office building on the parcel of
property approximately 4300 square feet in size. The parcel itself is a very small parcel.
It is not extremely deep. It’s about 141 feet on one side, and a little over 135 feet on the
other side toward the NiMo right of way on the Quaker Road side of the property. There
is a delineated area of wetlands, a DEC wetlands, which runs along what would be the
west property line, the rear property line of the property. It is not a wide parcel, but it
runs the entire length of the rear of our property. This backs up to the Midas Muffler
shop which is on the opposite side, the property owner directly behind us. Because of
the setback requirements not only to the wetlands but the front yard setback
requirements for the building itself, it’s a very difficult parcel to develop. It is zoned
Highway Commercial Intensive. The use that we’re proposing is a conforming use for
the site, and in order to make any type of development work on the site, as Staff had
indicated, we really need variances to be able to do that. We know that some of the
variances tend to be on the excessive side, but with the grades that we’re looking at at
the property, and trying to protect the wetlands at the extreme west side, the rear of the
property, we need to be able to develop the retaining wall to retain basically the earth on
the front side where we’re leveling the property to be able to do our development. We
are controlling stormwater on site. We’re taking every means possible to protect the
wetlands, and the adjoining and adjacent property owners as well. In looking at the front
yard setback, the properties that run down through on Meadowbrook, on either the west
side or the east side, the setbacks to the property lines run anywhere from 25 to 40 feet
on some of the existing properties. So we feel that we are asking for a variance of
approximately 50%, but we feel that based upon the adjoining neighbors that it’s not an
unrealistic request for that. The deeper we push the parcel or the proposed building
back on the parcel, the greater impact we have on the wetlands on the rear side. We are
attempting to basically minimize the amount of site development. We are not looking to
place a dumpster outside. We’re going to be placing small container dumpsters inside of
the building. We realize that the site is minimal in size, and we did not want to have
those types of impacts to deal with outside of the building. The basic building itself is
proposed to be a single story wood framed office building. It will be residential in
character. I believe we had provided you with an elevation of what we’re looking at for
the building. It would be basically something that would lend itself and blend itself with
the character of the other residences and small commercial buildings that currently line
Meadowbrook Road. As you go to the north along our property, the adjacent property is
owned by the Town of Queensbury. Then there are some adjacent properties to that
which basically right now have storage units. In the development of the Midas Muffler
behind our property, some filling was done on the wetlands, but that parcel was
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
developed probably over 30 years ago. The fill that has been placed has created kind of
a dead end wetland area. It is flowing toward Quaker Road on one side and to the north
on the opposite side. Basically the wetlands, we have had them delineated by DEC.
They’ve been out there. We have had them mapped by Van Dusen and Steves, and we
have provided you with a copy of that as well. We have done some initial consultation
with DEC, and we are in the midst of starting the application process with them for our
wetlands permit from DEC as well. With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve just got a question. Given all the constraints and the fact that
you’re going to have to jump through a lot of hoops with the Planning Board, would you
think it more prudent to approach them first before us? I mean, I don’t know what your
feeling is on it.
MR. JONES-Yes, and I think Craig and I had discussed this initially, and I really think
that that’s something that needs to be considered. We wanted to be able to present all
of our information to you tonight, get it on the table. We know that there’s a lot of
information that needs to be considered. There are a lot of variances that need to be
addressed, and there are not a lot of viable options for K-Twin to be able to develop this
site and actually be able to use it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I assume you’re going to go on to sewer there because you’re in a
sewer district?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, is that the Queensbury land in the back there? Is that
sewer line back?
MR. JONES-Yes. To the north is, I think it’s the sewer, sewage pumping station.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I certainly would concur, but I want to go through the procedures
anyway. I would concur, and unless there’s objections from the Board, I’ll move a motion
that we go to the Planning Board for recommendations and not address any kind of a
decision this evening until we receive information back from the Planning Board. I think
Staff Notes concur with that, and I agree with that as well. So let me continue on. Board
members, do we have any questions at this time? Because I will have to be opening the
public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would think they’re going to look at it very severely because
of the, you know, you’ve got rock outcrops on there and, you know, to claim that you’re
going to infiltrate is one thing. I mean, you’re not really going to affect that neighborhood
per se because of the drainage ditches that are present on site there, but I think that
probably you ought to go. I don’t know if we want to listen to the public tonight.
MR. ABBATE-Quite frankly, I think it would be appropriate to get public input, and then I
would ask Staff to take the minutes of this meeting and present that to the Planning
Board as well. Opening up the public hearing, I think, is crucial. I certainly don’t believe
we should be making a decision tonight, but I think we have to open up the public
hearing. So do any other Board members have any questions before we go on?
MRS. JENKIN-This is one question, which is probably premature, but you say that
there’s running water, or there’s water drainage on the west.
MR. JONES-The rear of the property.
MRS. JENKIN-The rear of the property. How were you planning to contain that?
MR. JONES-It is an existing wetlands area that we are building a retaining wall along
that area going from what would be the south property line toward the NiMo right of way.
If you look at Drawing SP-1, right along the bottom of that you’ll see it starting here. It
actually comes along and then goes along the edge of the parking.
MRS. JENKIN-And you were going to fill that in behind the wall?
MR. JONES-Everything in front of the wall towards Meadowbrook would be filled.
Everything behind it, wetlands wise, would stay.
MRS. JENKIN-So then would that go into the muffler business?
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
MR. JONES-No. Currently that, we’re not impacting anything beyond our property line
on the rear.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. GARRAND-A lot of this entails taking permeable area and making it impermeable.
With that, this stormwater simply infiltrating it into the ground is not going to solve any of
the stormwater problems that are down in that area. The Town has had repeated
problems with the Meadowbrook area in the past. They actually went and did a study on
north Meadowbrook Road related to some of the problems that we’ve had down there.
Also, even a minor storm that we get in this area floods that whole area out. What do
you propose doing with the on site runoff from all the impermeable area you’ve put in
here?
MR. JONES-Basically we’ve developed a stormwater system on the, what would be the
north side of our parking area, and basically we are collecting everything around the
perimeter of the building and we’re infiltrating in those areas. We have retention and
infiltration in that general area. We’ve basically gone through infiltration calculations for
the entire site and have that provided as part of our submission which went to the
Planning Board.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. Because my concern is any small storm down there produces a
lot of flooding. Simply putting it back into the ground, I’m not sure if that’s going to solve
the problem. At any point I think it might exacerbate some of the problems down there.
The muffler shop floods out quite a bit. Their ground is basically a swamp with even a
small rainfall. Other properties around the area flood out considerably, and what we’re
talking about now is you’ve got a lot of permeability there now. We’re having flooding
problems with it permeable.
MR. JONES-Well, we feel that the system that we’re proposing will maintain our
stormwater on site and not create runoff or outfall problems off of the property, and that’s
based upon the design that we have provided as part of our stormwater management
system.
MR. GARRAND-All right. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now if there are no other questions, I’ll open up the public hearing.
Okay. I will open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 5-2008, and those of you
in the public who would like to address this issue, raise your hand and I will recognize
you, ask you to come to the table, speak into the microphone and identify yourself. Sir,
please. Have a chair and be kind enough to tell us who you are, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN ENGELBRECHT
MR. ENGELBRECHT-My name is John Engelbrecht. I live at 113 Meadowbrook Road,
which is right next to Joe.
JOE VALENTI
MR. VALENTI-My name’s Joe Valenti. I have the Meadowbrook Self-Storage. I used to
own Midas Muffler. So I’m familiar with, in fact I know Brian. We had Midas. We built it
back in the late 70’s, and we’re familiar with that little stream that turns into a roaring
brook when we do get heavy rains. This man next to me has a bigger problem than I
have. We have a 36 inch culvert that goes through so we don’t really have a real serious
problem, unless we get heavy rains. Last year we had a real heavy rain, I think it was in
the wintertime, it actually went over the culvert on the blacktop. Our buildings are
elevated. Thankfully we don’t have a problem with that, but having been in that area for
over 30 years, right on that site, I can tell you how bad it really is when you get a little bit
of rain, a little storm like this gentleman said, it could be a small storm and you could
have some serious problems. If you, would you like to show them those pictures, John,
kind of get an idea, he has docks built in his backyard, docks like you would have on the
water, just to get to the back yard.
MR. ENGELBRECHT-I have four photos here that I have, I’ll just bring them over there.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you guys agree that’s kind of the, this lot is the high point of
the neighborhood there, so to speak? I mean, I used to live down in that same
neighborhood, so I’m familiar with it.
MR. VALENTI-Right. Bob Nolan had it, we had an opportunity to buy there was really
nothing we could do with it, because it seemed like there was just nothing that he could
do with it, and they’re going to blast. I don’t know if these gentlemen are going to blast, if
they put it in there, they already did that with the pumping station next door. That shook
the whole neighborhood. So we hope we don’t have to go through another situation with
blasting.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Is there anything else you’d like to add at this time?
MR. ENGELBRECHT-Yes, I’m concerned for the property being built like they’re
proposing. I know they’re taking every precaution they can. That culvert beside our
house that goes underneath Meadowbrook, that thing just, if it floods, it’s not big enough.
It can’t handle the storms as it is. So either, I don’t know, if they do build, they need to do
something with that culvert. We’re going to get flooded.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m sure that the Planning Board will take these things into
consideration. That’s why I’m going to request that the minutes of this meeting go to the
Planning Board as well. So your concerns will be addressed, gentlemen.
MR. BRYANT-Can you just basically tell me what these photographs are that are coming
down?
MR. ENGELBRECHT-Yes, the one photograph where it shows the little steps in the
back, I built a little boardwalk back there to get to my other half of the property, and that
one photo with the little steps, that’s where that little creek runs through there. Now that
creek flows most of the year. Sometimes it will dry up, but most of the year it does flow,
and it’s pretty small, but whenever it rains, and you see the next photo there, I’ve
extended out a boardwalk all the way out to my high ground behind my deck, and about
once a year or once a summer, I should say, we’ll have a flood like what you see on that
one, and everything floods, that whole area. In fact that one picture you see with the little
white building, that’s the neighbor’s shed back there. That’s also flooded. That goes all
the way back to behind Nemer Ford.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re on the west side north of the storage center, right?
MR. ENGELBRECHT-I’m just right north of Joe’s place, right next to the storage unit
place. Then that one photo there looking towards Meadowbrook with the Volkswagen
Beetle, that’s from my garage looking towards the road, and that’s what happens.
MRS. JENKIN-Has your property always flooded like that?
MR. ENGELBRECHT-Severe rain it’ll get up that way. I’ve never had the garage come
in with water, but that’s about as close as I’ve gotten, but, yes, generally that’s about
what it does. That one’s pretty severe here, but quite often we’ll have at least one or two
rains we’ll get up that high. Quite often the whole back area does flood, and I’ve got a
crawl space under the house. I could go swimming in my crawl space quite often, and
that’s just a continual problem there. I wish they hadn’t built the house there way back
when, but they did.
MRS. JENKIN-You built the house?
MR. ENGELBRECHT-No, it was built back in ’52, from what I understand, and I suppose
if they waited a few more years, they probably would not have allowed them to build it,
but it’s pretty wet.
MRS. JENKIN-I hope you bought it in a dry season.
MR. ENGELBRECHT-I probably did.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do you have anything else you’d like to add?
MR. ENGELBRECHT-No.
MR. ABBATE-If not, then I’m going to ask if there’s any other folks in the audience who
would like to address Area Variance No. 5-2008? Okay. If not, then would you
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
gentlemen please come back to the table, and I guess there is an agreement, unless I
misinterpreted you, that we will not make a decision this evening, and we will request
that this go to the Planning Board and I’ll come up with a motion for that. Do you agree
to that?
MR. JONES-Yes, we’re in agreement.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, before I do a motion, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I’d
like some specific concerns, so that the Planning Board knows what our concerns are,
and I will include that into the motion. So if we have specifics and guidelines for the
Planning Board, that would help them come back with recommendations.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a question before you get to specifics.
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I know you want to have a close to square building there. Is there
anyway that you can re-design it so you can mitigate this wetlands issue? I mean, from
looking at your SP-1, it looks like if the building were longer than wider, maybe you could
do something there. Do you know what I’m saying?
MR. JONES-Yes. I think, Allan, what happens is as soon as we start making it longer,
we start pushing the parking lot that we have on the north side closer to the north
property line, adjacent to the Town of Queensbury property, and we lose our infiltration
area and our retention area for our stormwater. In reference to the wetlands that are
here, as you go towards the north, the adjacent property to the north is the Town of
Queensbury pumping station. The next parcel are the storage units. The storage units,
the wetlands were actually interrupted there, and the culvert that they’re talking about
connects the wetlands on the side toward the Queensbury Town property and the
property on the north side of the storage units. So the culvert that’s there is actually
restricting the flow of the wetlands. So the wetlands on the rear of our property are going
to the north. The Midas Muffler shop that’s built to the west side I believe is within 10 to
15 feet of our rear property line, which means that when they did that, they probably filled
wetlands, which in essence pushed the wetlands further onto this parcel of property. So,
yes, there are wetlands there, but the flow going to the north is restricted by that culvert,
and I’m not sure who put the culvert in, or when it was put in, but that basically is two
properties down from where we are right now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would your recommendation be that you would want a larger
culvert put in? I mean, I know they’re looking for a regional solution to the neighborhood
problem there in the long term.
MR. JONES-The ideal scenario we would love to see a culvert start on our north property
line adjacent to NiMo pipe this thing to the north, but I’m not sure what that would do to
the properties on the other side of the storage units.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because now it looks like it’s going towards Quaker from the one
side.
MR. JONES-Part of it on the front side, on our south side, is heading toward Quaker.
There’s a culvert that comes through, and then a portion of it goes along Quaker, but the
majority of our rear property line is heading north. So it’s all going toward the property
that the Town owns, and then it’s going into that culvert and heading north toward the
adjacent property where the landowner is.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So do you want some concerns, then, from us?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Here’s what I’m going to ask. Let me start down at the end. I would
like to provide the Planning Board with some concerns, but also I want to ask the ZBA,
we have to now consider a Lead Agency and a coordinated review, in view of the fact
that this now has been changed to Unlisted. So do any of you have a problem if I include
in my motion that the Planning Board take Lead Agency in the coordinated review?
MR. UNDERWOOD-None at all.
MR. ABBATE-Can I include that in there, then, is that okay?
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me start. Rick, you have specifics for the Planning Board, in
one sentence, because I have to write this down. Go ahead.
MR. GARRAND-Look at what can be done with the stormwater created by the addition of
this building and the permeability we’re losing by putting this building here. Something
has to be done to get the stormwater out of that area before anything is built here, so that
we don’t flood out.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Got you covered. Roy, please.
MR. URRICO-That would be my suggestion.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Were you planning to blast the rock?
MR. JONES-No.
MRS. JENKIN-That rock will stay the same, then?
MR. JONES-Right. We actually removed the ingress into the property to the north end of
the property to avoid any of the outcroppings that are there.
MRS. JENKIN-So then that would be, the same would be my.
MR. JONES-Yes, and we have dug test holes on the property toward the rear where the
building is going, and we did not hit rock in that area, and I believe we went down, and I
know the logs are on here, four or five feet and did not hit rock.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what I would like to see is that the Planning Board, you know,
really has to get on top of the situation. That whole corridor there, you know, with all the
car dealerships, you know, up, going to the west there, you know, and you’ve got all the
water coming across from south into Glens Falls, you know, and that originates all the
way up in Notre Dame Street. In all due respect, that’s where the drainage basin is, but,
you know, it’s not to put all the onus on you guys because you’re a small component of
the whole problem there, but I mean, I think it’s worth a severe look from the Planning
Board. They’ve got to come up with a solution that includes a lot more than you guys.
It’s not going to be your fault that’s going to add that much greater a problem to what’s
there, but I think that the Town has sort of put their head in the sand on this for a long,
long period of time, and we can’t keep doing this. I mean, we have that pending project
down at Minogues where they’re changing over the drainage down there because
they’ve had problems in the past, and it’s obvious to me that most of the drainage on that
whole corridor is wholly inadequate for the volume of flow that you’re dealing with, and
the Planning Board’s going to have to figure out a solution.
MR. ABBATE-I’ll put that in a couple of words.
MR. ABBATE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I agree with Mr. Underwood. I’d like to know what the cumulative
effect of this project is going to have on the overall stormwater picture. I mean, too many
times we allow projects down the road, not recognizing what the cumulative effect. I
mean, I’m a classic example of that, so I’d like to know that. The other thing I’d like to
know is, you mention your filtration systems, and the Planning Board is way, way more
qualified to review that than we are. I’d like to know if they’re adequate for the
conditions, the existing conditions, the wetlands area, you know, I mean, face it, anything
you build on that property, and not to say that you shouldn’t build, okay, but anything you
build on that property is going to have an effect on the current condition, okay, that that
whole area is experiencing. So, is your filtration going to actually manage the
stormwater on the property, or is it just a band aid, okay? So those are the two issues.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’ve got it, and again, let me do a motion, folks, and if there’s any
changes you want me to make, you know I’ll be more than happy to do it, but I think I
may have it. Okay.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2008 K-TWIN HOLDINGS/DANIEL W.
KRUEGER, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Allan Bryant:
West side of Meadowbrook Rd. north of Quaker Rd. intersection. Pending the receipt of
written recommendations from the Planning Board addressing specifically some of the
following issues that are concerns of the Zoning Board of Appeals: Number One, we are
concerned with the cumulative effect of stormwater, and also of the permeability impact,
possible impact that may result. Also we’re concerned with the filtration system and
whether or not it is considered to be adequate. In addition to that, I’m going to request
that the Planning Board be Lead Agency in a coordinated review. Based upon those
recommendations, and in accordance with New York State Town Law Section 277
Paragraph Six, it is requested that the Planning Board address the issues in this motion
and submit in writing to this Board as soon as practicable, and hopefully we can have
this on the agenda by May. Another concern of the Zoning Board is will the retaining
wall as proposed by the appellants have any adverse impact. Also, indicate in the
recommendation concerning any adverse ramifications that may affect the health, safety
and welfare of the community as well. Upon receipt of written recommendations of the
th
Planning Board, hopefully we will be able to place Area Variance No. 5-2008 on the 15
May agenda. Please provide the Planning Board a copy of the transcript of this hearing.
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. ABBATE-Based upon those recommendations, and in accordance with the
provisions of New York State Town law Section 277 Paragraph Six, it is requested that
the Planning Board address the issues in this motion, and submit in writing to this Board
th
by the 15 of May, 2008, is that what we agreed to, 15 May?
MR. BROWN-I think this application is on for the March Planning Board agenda.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-I think you made it for that draft agenda. So the earliest that the Planning
Board could have any comments to the Zoning Board would be an April submission.
However, if they agree to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review and they seek Lead
Agency status, that timeframe may go out the window. There’s a 30 comment period,
and then they actually have to.
MR. ABBATE-Well, let me say this, what if I say 15 May? That would give them some
flexibility, or I could say April.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m not sure, I mean, you can do what you want, but I’m not sure that
you want to have a motion that says we need to have comments by this date.
MR. ABBATE-By a certain date? Okay.
MR. BROWN-You may want to have a control date to get an update from either Staff or
the Planning Board by a certain date and then you can further table this, but realistically
it’s probably going to be a couple of months before you get anything, and more than
likely, if they do the coordinated SEQRA review, what you’re going to get a SEQRA
Findings document.
MR. ABBATE-Sure. Okay. Well, I change that. I won’t give a specific date, then, I’ll just
say as soon as practicable, okay, and hopefully we can have this on the agenda by May.
Fair enough.
MRS. JENKIN-One other thing, I would like to know if the retaining wall would have any
adverse effects to the neighboring property, too.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me add that. Let me add that other concern.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, one other point. I don’t think you covered this cumulative
effect, and I don’t know if it’s something that, really, the Town Engineer has got to review.
Because, frankly, that’s such a sensitive area with the current condition that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, but if we say to the Planning Board we’re concerned with this
cumulative effect, I would suspect that they’re bright enough. I have enough confidence
in the Planning Board that they’ll probably go to the Town Engineer. Certainly they will
be receiving a copy of the minutes of this meeting.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’m satisfied.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. So then what I’m going to do is that, be submitted
to this Board by the Planning Board as soon as practicable.
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 5-2008 to temporarily the May 2008
hearing is seven yes, zero no, the motion is carried. Staff, part of this motion, would you
please provide the Planning Board a copy of this motion and a transcript of this hearing.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
MR. JONES-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re most welcome. Okay. Now, are there any other comments before
I close the hearing this evening?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You had some people that asked to speak.
MR. BRYANT-You have the minutes to approve.
MR. ABBATE-Let me do the minutes from the meeting. Okay.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 16, 2008
MR. ABBATE-I do have a question I would like to address to Ms. Gagliardi, please.
Under members present, I would appreciate if we could change the minutes of this
meeting to reflect the proper protocol, such as the Chairman’s name, the Vice
Chairman’s name and the Secretary’s name in that order. Could you do that for me?
MS. GAGLIARDI-I can. This would be the first time I’ve done it, but I can.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but that’s the proper thing. I see that you’ve left off completely who
the Vice Chairman is.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 16, 2008 WITH MODIFICATION, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-And the vote, with modifications, to approve the January 16, 2008 minutes
of the meeting is five yes, zero no.
January 23, 2008:
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 23 2008, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
th
Duly adopted this 27 day of February, 2008, by the following vote:
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
MR. ABBATE-And again, I would request that proper protocol be placed when it shows
members present, you list the name of the Chairman, you list the name of the Vice
Chairman, and you list the name of the Secretary.
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-And the vote to approve with modification the January 23, 2008 minutes of
the meeting is five yes, zero no, and, gentlemen, I believe you asked to be heard this
evening. Mr. Salvador, would you like to go first, please. We’ll give you five minutes.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Or until you’ve heard enough. What I’d like to do is share with the
Board tonight the comments I made to the Town Board Monday evening, and if you take
the trouble, you’ll see that I watched the T.V. 8 presentation of that Board meeting today,
and it’s all there, but in any case, I took the trouble to address this conflict of interest that
was alleged in the article appeared in the Post Star. Remember that?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’ve read it.
MR. SALVADOR-Dealing with Mr. Caimano accusing Tanya Bruno of misfeasance and
complete disregard the ethics of her job, and it’s also stated in this article that Caimano
states it’s wrong, despite being legal, for Bruno to oppose a project when she has been
appointed to the Board, that is the Planning Board, and as a result of receiving this, the
Town Supervisor states here that he sent the letter to Town Counsel but he had yet to
hear back from him. The alleged conflict of interest that’s talked about here, I’ve got to
tell you, from the statements and the phraseology that’s in this article, I believe Mr.
Caimano has a ghost writer, okay. The very careful choice of the word misfeasance is
almost a word most people haven’t heard of. It’s certainly not a household.
MR. ABBATE-That’s a legal term.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s a very legal term, and it takes really some thought here. The
Planning Board Chairman confirmed in this article that he didn’t believe his Board had
any problem with Mrs. Bruno’s conduct. I’ve attended every one of those Planning Board
meetings on that subject and I have never heard the applicant complain about this, okay,
and most people you talk to on the street today about this article can’t understand it.
Can’t understand. What did she do wrong? She recused herself, and she came and sat
on this side of the table. That’s done many times, maybe you folks have even done that
on occasion, don’t know, and how can something be wrong if it’s legal? And then of
course the letter to Town Counsel hasn’t been answered yet. Now, the Monday’s
meeting we discussed this, and I got Mr. Stec to promise that he would pursue this and
get an answer from Town Counsel, and I’m here tonight to ask you folks to get behind
this, because I really think we need clarification. You could find yourself in jeopardy as
well. You recuse yourself, and you decide to comment on a project, and all of a sudden
you’re being accused of a wrongdoing. The Public Officer’s Law allows a person to bring
a petition to the Appellate Division for the removal of a public official for misfeasance.
It’s one of the terms they use, and my point is that every elected official or appointed
official in this Town is faced with this same dilemma, and I really think we need an
answer. We need an answer, and we need it fast. You know it could very well be that
the applicant in this case will bring a lawsuit against the Town, and it wouldn’t surprise
me if this issue isn’t the centerpiece of that lawsuit. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit. I really
think this is a setup. I really think it’s a setup. So I would encourage you folks to get
behind the issue of demanding an answer and getting it fast. I will be at the Town Board
meeting Monday night, and I will be asking again for the answer. Now, Mr. Schachner
himself attends all these meetings. He was coaching the Board every step of the way,
what they could and couldn’t do, what they had to do. In addition to that, you should be
th
aware that prior to the meeting on the 7 of February when the Planning Board voted
four to three to demand this full SEQRA review, that evening there was, on very short
notice, a workshop session held, just outside here in this room, was conducted by the
Town Counsel, Mr. Schachner, and present in that were the full Planning Board,
including Tanya Bruno, the Staff members that were there that evening, and none other
than Mr. Caimano, okay, Mr. Caimano was sitting in the room. I don’t know of any
complaints brought that night before, before the vote. I don’t know of any complaints
brought by anyone, including Mr. Caimano, concerning Mrs. Bruno’s conduct. This letter
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
th
was written on the 8, the day after the vote. Got it, the day after the vote the letter is
written. Had the vote gone the other way, and we all know that Mrs. Steffan’s was the
swing vote in that whole affair, had the vote gone the other way, would this letter have
been written? Would there have been a need for it? I doubt it. Not only that, Mr.
Caimano’s not stupid. He’s not going to rile the Board with a criticism of one of its
members before the vote. He’s not going to do that, especially in the case of Mrs. Bruno.
So there’s just too many things here that, in my estimation, and you know, I have these
tendencies to be paranoid. I feel that if we don’t get this answer and get it quick, okay, I
think that we’re heading for trouble in this Town. Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. I appreciate that. Yes, sir.
DOUG AUER
MR. AUER-Thanks. I’m one of the folks that very much appreciate what you all do. I
don’t often come before the ZBA. It’s serious business what you do, as it is for any
elected or appointed official, and it’s unfortunate that there are people here, and the
reason I’m here, is first of all to thank you for what you do, but secondly, and you know
that I had put in a FOIL request because there are some things that I had heard in what I
would consider potential interference of your duties as ZBA members, and I recognize
that you are an adjudicated body, and of all the bodies in this Town, you probably have
the greatest amount of weight under the law, in terms of what you do, and the fact that
you do deliberate, and, you know, I may not agree with all of you on the decisions, but
this is process. This is what America is all about, and I’m concerned, and also, so some
of you may or may not know, I’m no longer in the employ of Richard Schermerhorn, for
several reasons, but I now have nothing at all to restrict me from taking a very, very
active role in looking at what I see as some pretty glaring problems within the Town, and
it has to do with interference, and that is going to stop, and I’m sad to see that the
Chairman is not here, McNulty, Chuck McNulty. He’s my neighbor, because I’m
absolutely appalled at the fact that he walked out of a meeting. You all took an oath, I
believe, as ZBA members, you sign a sworn document, and the essence of that
document is that you will uphold the laws and the rules of the Constitution of the United
States, the laws and Constitution of the State of New York and Town and whatever. I
don’t know the exact wording of it, but you all essentially swear or affirm to that. Now,
that’s serious business. I appreciate what you do, and I do not appreciate the fact that
someone walks out of a meeting. The only difference, as someone once said, between a
good man and an extraordinary man, and I mean this as a gender neutral thing, because
there’s a lady on the Board, but this is gender neutral. The only difference between a
good man and an extraordinary man is that sometimes the good men run to danger. The
extraordinary men always run to danger, and we have, unfortunately, people who are the
exact opposite. They run toward publicity and they run away from danger, and one of
the things I’ve also heard is that there are people that are considering resigning, you
know, I can’t tell you what to do, but I can tell you this, and this is something very, very,
very near and dear to me, when you put your hand up and you become an appointed
official, that’s part of doing the people’s business, and there are great degrees to which
we do this, and I’ll share something with you. This has never come out in public before,
but these are medals that have been awarded to my dad. These are, I’m drawing a
blank here for the right words, they don’t give these away. These are conferred on
people. If you want to talk about heavy lifting, the folks, and there’s hundreds of
thousands of people that have done heavy lifting where our government recognizes what
they do, okay. These were given to my son by my dad before he passed away. My son
immediately took them, and he cleaned out his sock drawer, and he put them into his
sock drawer because that was the safest place he had. Okay. Seventeen year old boy.
He understands what this is all about. I think you folks do. It is cowardice for someone
to get up and walk out of a meeting. You stand here, you sit here and you take it, and if
you can’t take it anymore, you resign, and you can still go home to a nice warm bed,
three square meals a day, and a roof over your head. The people who sacrificed so
much before us didn’t have that. Think about the weather last night. Think about
sleeping out in that kind of weather, and then getting up the next day, if you can get up, if
you slept. You didn’t sleep. You might have caught a few zzz’s. The next day the
people that are going to greet you are going to want to kill you. All right. This is not
heavy lifting. It’s real work, but it’s not heavy lifting. So I implore you, if you’re
considering resigning, think about that. Think about the real heavy lifting that people
have done before you. We stand on their shoulders, and this is important, you know, I
can’t do what you do. I try to do what I can. I’ve been volunteer, I sat on the Recreation
Commission for 10 years here in this Town. So I know a little bit about volunteerism, and
again, I appreciate what you do, and I wish you luck and you keep doing it, because
people like this have sacrificed a hell of a lot more for us. So, thank you.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/27/08)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-All right, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any other
business? If not, this hearing is closed.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Acting Chairman
24