2008.08.20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 20, 2008
INDEX
Area Variance No. 9-2008 Gregg Brown 1.
Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7; 239.7-1-6
Sign Variance No. 45-2008 Ed Moore d/b/a Log Jam Outlets 1.
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-17
Area Variance No. 47-2008 William Resse & Kathleen Herold 3.
Tax Map No. 302.8-2-40 and 41
Area Variance No. 48-2008 Mary Lee Gosline 7.
Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1
Area Variance No. 49-2008 Kristin and Jesse Howarth 27.
Tax Map No. 302.14-2-76
Area Variance No. 50-2008 Doug Livingston 30.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-7
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 08/20/08)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 20, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO
JOYCE HUNT
JOAN JENKIN
BRIAN CLEMENTS
GEORGE DRELLOS
RONALD KUHL, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’ll call the August 20 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning
Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures
once again for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application I’ll call
the application by name and number. The secretary will read the pertinent parts of the
application, Staff Notes and Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into
the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present
to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant. Then we’ll open the public
hearing. The public hearing’s intended to help us gather information and understand it
about the issue at hand. It functions to help the Board members make a wise decision.
It does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on
all speakers. We will allow speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to
speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if after listening to the other
speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and, Board
members, I’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the
speaker with questions while they’re speaking. Rather we should wait until the speaker
has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the
speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will
have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members will
then discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members
will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and then the public
hearing will be closed or left open depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate a
motion to approve or disapprove will follow. As far as items this evening, we have two
Administrative Items to go through.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II GREGG BROWN AGENT(S):
STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): GREGG BROWN ZONING: WR-1A
LOCATION: 31 KNOX ROAD & 29 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A
BOUNDARY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TRANSFER
180.88 SQ. FT. OF PROPERTY TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. REQUEST TO BE
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 2008 MEETING . CROSS REF.: SUBD. NO. 11-1991
SUNSET HILL FARM/MODIFICATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 12,
2008 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.63 AC.; 0.62 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 239.7-1-7; 239.7-1-6 SECTION: 179-4-030
MR. UNDERWOOD-Last month, we moved this to our September meeting. It was
originally supposed to be on here in August. So that’s why it won’t be heard this
evening. It will go to one of the first, either the first or the second meeting in September.
We haven’t set the agenda which will be set tomorrow.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 45-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED ED MOORE d/b/a LOG
JAM OUTLETS OWNER(S): ED & ED T ENTERPRISES, LLC ZONING: HC-INT.
LOCATION: 1476 STATE ROUTE 9 REQUEST BY APPLICANT TO RE-HEAR
APPLICATION THAT WAS DENIED. APPLICANT REQUESTS RE-HEARING TO
OCCUR IN SEPTEMBER 2008. APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF
ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS FOR SEVERAL TENANTS IN THE PLAZA. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS PER BUSINESS IN A
BUSINESS COMPLEX. CROSS REF.: SV 69-2006; SV 40-2004; SV 10-2004
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 9, 2008 LOT SIZE: 4.51 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 288.12-1-17 SECTION: 140-6
ED MOORE, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-And we heard this last month. Now last month we did spend some
significant length of time on this item, and it didn’t work out for the applicants. They did
receive passage of two or their requests, but the third one was denied, and it was one of
those all or nothing deals, ultimately, that got voted down. So I will read the letter that we
received from them. It’s addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Town of
Queensbury. “Mr. Chairman and Fellow Board members: Our Sign Variance
application, 45-2008, was heard on the evening of Wednesday, July 23, 2008 to no real
resolution. The Board should re-hear my application due to the unclear nature of the
th
resolution on August 20 or its earliest convenience. My application was heard and
voted on favorably, but then denied with no real direction of what we can and cannot do
as far as our application. We would like the opportunity to have this matter cleared up
and move forward. Thank you in advance for your time. Sincerely, Ed Moore” So I
guess what we’ll do is I’ll just have a brief run by with the Board. We will not be
discussing this this evening, the application. What we will be discussing, just amongst
ourselves, is whether we would wish to re-hear this, and I’ll remind the Board members
that for a re-hearing to take place, it has to be a unanimous vote of the Board in the
affirmative. Otherwise they don’t get a second bite at this.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, the applicant can argue or inform you as to why he wants
to be re-heard.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Are they here this evening? Do you guys want to come up?
MR. CLEMENTS-Mr. Chairman, they can also re-apply?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, they can re-apply. That’s the other option.
MR. CLEMENTS-If they have some changes to it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think we’ll listen to them first.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MR. MOORE-How are you doing, I’m Ed Moore. I don’t know if you guys remember, we
met last month on the application to take down the pylon sign and put the signs up on the
building, and then to also have four signs in the north side facing. I guess when they
were both voted on they seemed to both get approved, but on the totality of the project, it
was voted down, by one vote. What we’re looking to do is eliminate the four signs on the
north, facing the north, and just taking the pylon sign down, and adding the signs on the
façade that was approved. So we’d like to have that re-heard, and if that’s possible that
would be great.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It sound reasonable to me. I don’t know what the Board members
are feeling on it.
MR. URRICO-I feel, the way it evolved last month, the fair thing would be to re-hear it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t think any of us felt like you got a fair shot, you know, it
was sort of like you got everything and then you got shot down at the last minute.
MR. MOORE-It was very confusing, and I apologize, the application was, we tried to go,
rather than keep on going back, just try to get everything all done in one shot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think what I’ll do is I’ll make a motion, then, to approve re-
hearing this in September, and we’ll put you on for, you know, the first one, if we can get
you in the first one there.
MR. MOORE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And because it’s, because we’re familiar with it, I think we’ll just
come back and just have a quick review of what we had done before, and then have the
Board re-vote and see what you get a result of it.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. MOORE-Because we’re not going to ask to add anything. We just want to take
away.
MR. URRICO-It’s the same application. Nothing has changed, as far as the application.
MR. MOORE-Well, we’re taking away. So the four signs that were facing north, we’re
just going to take, we’re asking for less relief I guess you could say.
MR. URRICO-So it is changing. Okay.
MR. MOORE-That was a big source of contention. It was pretty much agreeable on the
rest of it.
MRS. JENKIN-Four extras, the extra ones.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are Board members happy with that request?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO RE-HEAR SIGN VARIANCE NO. 45-2008 ED MOORE d/b/a LOG JAM
OUTLETS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Joyce Hunt:
1476 State Route 9. To be re-heard on the first meeting in September.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’ll see you guys in a couple of weeks.
MR. MOORE-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure thing.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2008 SEQRA TYPE II WILLIAM RESSE & KATHLEEN
HEROLD AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE
OWNER(S) WILLIAM RESSE & KATHLEEN HEROLD ZONING SFR-20 LOCATION
12 SARGENT STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE 325 SQ. FT.
GARAGE AND 500 SQ. FT. SCREEN PORCH. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT
PROPOSES THE ADDITION OF 671 SQ. FT. OF LIVING SPACE AND A NEW 575 SQ.
FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2005-448 INGROUND POOL; AV 49-2005
WARREN COUNTY PLANING: AUGUST 13, 2008 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY:
N/A LOT SIZE: 0.18 AC.; 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-40 AND 41 SECTION:
179-4-030
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; BILL RESSE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2008, William Resse & Kathleen Herold, Meeting
Date: August 20, 2008 “Project Location: 12 Sargent Street Description of Proposed
Project: Applicants to raze existing 448 square foot two story garage and existing 546
square foot screened in porch. The applicants then proposes to construct a new 612 sq.
ft. garage and a +/-1340 sq. ft. addition for living space.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 10.5 feet of front setback relief and 5.5 feet of rear setback relief
per 179-4-030 for the Single Family Residential 20 (SFR-20) zone.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance; Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result
of this proposal. The change may be considered beneficial as the screened porch
has reached the end of its usefulness and the garage is in need of replacement.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
The applicant could build in a more compliant location or decrease the size of the
project in order to be more compliant. However, an area variance is required for the
submitted proposal.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial; The request for 10.5 feet or 35%
of front setback relief and the request for 5.5 feet or 27.5% of rear setback relief may
be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district;
Minor effects concerning impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created;
The difficulty may be considered self created. However, the size of the lot and the
existing conditions of the house will require this project to have some form of front
and rear relief as proposed.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
P86-239 Screened Porch Approved 5/16/86
P20050448 Inground Pool Approved 6/23/05
Staff comments:
The southern edge of the parcel for the proposed project partially straddles the City of
Glens Falls and the Town of Queensbury’s common border. The lot closest to the city is
fenced in and without any structures. The applicants must consolidate the two parcels
associated with this project in order to avoid side a setback relief request.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 13, 2008
Project Name: Resse, William & Herold, Kathleen Owner(s): William Resse & Kathleen
Herold ID Number: QBY-08-AV-47 County Project#: Aug08-28 Current Zoning:
SFR-20 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition
of a 325 sq. ft. garage and 500 sq. ft. screen porch. Further, the applicant proposes the
addition of 671 sq. ft. of living space and a new 575 sq. ft. attached garage. Relief
requested from rear setback requirements. Site Location: 12 Sargent Street Tax Map
Number(s): 302.8-2-40 & 41 Staff Notes: The applicant proposes demolition of a 325
sq. ft. garage and 500 sq. ft. screen porch. The applicant proposes to replace the
demolition with an addition of 671 sq. ft. of living space and a new 575 sq. ft. attached
garage. Relief is requested from the rear setback. The front setback is to be 19 ft. 6 in.
where a 30 ft. setback is required, and the rear yard is to be 14 ft. 6 in. where a 20 ft.
setback is required. The information submitted shows the existing building and the
proposed addition. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information
submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law
Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County
Planning Board 8/19/08.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to tell us about your project?
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. HALL-Certainly. Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I’m a partner with Rucinski
Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Bill Resse. The project is pretty straightforward.
It’s a single family residence. It is on a lot in the Town of Queensbury, and it sits right on
the Town and City border. The southern end of the property is in the City of Glens Falls.
Bill and Kathy have lived there since ’94. Apparently the screen porch was added. It
looks like, according to Staff comments, the screen porch was put on in the late 80’s.
The garage was part of the original structure. It’s a one and a half story garage, one car
garage. It’s very small. Neither of the vehicles that they own will actually fit in the
garage, and the screen porch has kind of reached the end of its useful life, as you can
see by some of the pictures that we’ve provided with the application. The intent is that
the, everything from the end of the existing residence back be torn down, and be
replaced as it’s indicated on the overall site plan and the building plans that we’ve
provided. There will be a family room, a small bedroom, a three-quarter bath, a two car
garage and laundry room area, and then a small screen porch next to the pool. The
relief that’s being requested is for 5.6 feet. What that does is it basically lines up the
back of the new addition with where the back of the existing garage shed is now. So we
wouldn’t be any closer to the property line than what the existing building is right now,
and the front relief that’s requested, obviously, is because, when the building was built, it
was built prior to the zoning, and it sits over what the front setback is. Outside of that, it’s
a pretty straightforward project. The combining of the lots is underway. Mr. Resse’s
been up to the County, and we’re in the process of getting that done right now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do Board members have any questions at this time?
MRS. JENKIN-I guess that was my question, but I think you just answered it, because it’s
because, you’re asking for front setback relief because it’s a nonconforming.
MR. HALL-Pre-existing, nonconforming.
MRS. JENKIN-Pre-existing, because all the building is going to happen in the back.
There’s nothing coming forward.
MR. HALL-Correct. No. It’s the building is over the front setback to begin with. I think
that’s just some paperwork and just cleaning that up.
MRS. JENKIN-Now what about putting the two lots together?
MR. HALL-They’re in the process, Mr. Resse’s in the process of doing that right now,
through Warren County.
MR. RESSE-If that’s required, then that’s no problem with us.
MR. HALL-Yes. It’s a combination of deeds. That’s all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from Board members? Okay. I’ll open up the
public hearing then. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD- Any correspondence at all?
MR. URRICO-I believe there is one letter in here. No, no letter.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you want to add, or do you want us to just see
what the Board feels?
MR. HALL-No, I think it’s a pretty straightforward project. I don’t think we’re seeking a lot
of relief. It’s basically what’s there now, so we’re trying to maintain as best we can
without going overboard.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. I guess I’ll start with you, Roy. Do you want to go
first?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think the applicant has answered all the requirements, as far as I
can see. There’s not going to be any addition to the current setback as it exists. I think
what he has asked for is reasonable, considering the condition of the units that he’s
replacing. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MRS. HUNT-I think this is pretty straightforward. The largest amount of relief is the front
setback, which is pre-existing. It’s a beautiful neighborhood. I really like it. It’s pretty,
and I think it’s a good project. I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with what Joyce just said. I have nothing against it. It’s making
it better.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George?
MR. DRELLOS-I would agree, too, Jim. Anything you can do a new addition would only
enhance the property. So I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think it definitely is a positive change in the neighborhood, and
especially for yourselves, what you have there is, really could be used to be much better,
and to improve it. Your addition will be a positive benefit for you. I don’t think there’s any
other means that you can achieve, that can be achieved to get the project going. I think
that you kept it to a minimum of what you need and what would be positive for you. So I
would agree with this. It’s a good project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I also think it’s a good project, and I think it’s a good idea that you’re
going to consolidate the two pieces of property there. So I would definitely be in favor of
this also.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I, too, am in favor of it. I think your project, you know, a project of
this scope is probably going to definitely be a benefit to you, obviously, as well as the
neighborhood, and, you know, it’s a tired structure, long overdue, and I don’t think there’s
any problems that I foresee with this. Plenty of these smaller lots down there we grant
relief on all, just about every re-do that’s done in that neighborhood, and I don’t think any
of us have a problem with that. So, does somebody want to make a motion on that?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2008 WILLIAM RESSE &
KATHLEEN HEROLD, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded
by George Drellos:
12 Sargent Street. The applicants are proposing to raze the existing 448 square foot
two story garage and existing 546 square foot screened in porch. The applicants then
propose to construct a new 612 square foot garage and a plus or minus 1340 square foot
addition for living space. The applicant requests 10.5 feet of front setback relief, and 5.5
feet of rear setback relief per Section 179-4-030 for the Single Family Residential, SFR-
20 zone. Whether this benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the
applicant. Considering that the garage is pretty old and it needs repairs and that it’s not
large enough, I don’t think so. Would there be an undesirable change to the
neighborhood character or to nearby properties? I think there’d probably be a beneficial
change. It would look better in the neighborhood. Whether the request is substantial?
The largest request is for front setback relief, which is a pre-existing condition, and the
5.5 feet of rear setback is really minimal. Whether the request will have adverse
physical or environmental effects. I don’t think so, and it’s self-created only in the fact
that they want to put in a new garage and addition. One condition is that the two parcels
associated with this parcel be combined.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MRS. JENKIN-Do we have to have a condition with the joining of the lots or not?
MRS. HUNT-Well, they already said they were doing it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, they already said they were.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I know they said they were.
MR. HALL-If you’d like to attach that as a condition, we’re amenable to it. That would be
fine.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we’ll just add that in there also. That’s fine.
MR. HALL-Sure, that would be fine.
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. HALL-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Sure thing.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II MARY LEE GOSLINE OWNER(S)
MARY LEE GOSLINE ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 21 BLIND ROCK ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF A PORTION OF THE PARCEL INTO A
FENCED-IN AREA FOR A DOG PARK/KENNEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE
200 FT. SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THIS TYPE OF
COMMERCIAL OPERATION. CROSS REF.: SPECIAL USE PERMIT 30-2008; BP 99-
771 SFD; BP 2000-101 SHED; SPR 18-2005; SP 4-08; SP 11-97; SP 73-96; SP 36-96;
SP 67-95 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 13, 2008 LOT SIZE: 20.58
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-1.1 SECTION 179-10-060C
MARY LEE GOSLINE & JOHN POLUNCI, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-2008, Mary Lee Gosline, Meeting Date: August
20, 2008 “Project Location: 21 Blind Rock Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes the fencing off of a portion of property to incorporate a for profit dog
park. Additionally, the project includes a kennel for 20 dogs that is proposed for the
same property. The total amount of fenced area has yet to be determined. However, the
proposed placement will be within the 200 foot minimum setback per 179-10-060c and
the exact placement will be within 30 to 50 feet of the applicant’s property line. The
applicant owns both properties affected by this area variance.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 150 to 170 feet of relief from the minimum 200 foot setback per
179-10-060c.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance; Moderate effects on the community may be anticipated as a result
of this proposal. Further, this proposal will be incorporated with a Dog Kennel on a
total of 20.58 acres and the code calls for a ten (10) acre minimum for this usage.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; While there
appears to be ample area for compliant construction, the applicant states that the
proposed location is the most conducive for a dog run as it is flat and there are no
areas where an animal can be out of sight.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial;
The request for 150 feet (75%) to 170 feet (85%) of relief may be considered severe
relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district;
Minor effects concerning impacts to physical or environmental conditions may be
anticipated for the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created;
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. However, the applicant claims to be
limited in the placement of the fence due to the undulating nature of the parcel.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 18-2005 Filling Operations Approved 4/19/05
Multiple Parcel Splits and consolidations (14) from 1989 to 1996 resulting in the current
20.58 acre parcel.
Staff comments:
Applicant will need to clarify the size of enclosed area and type of fencing to be used.
This proposal is part of a proposed kennel to be placed on the property and managed by
the applicant’s daughter. The applicant proposes to allow customers to run their dogs
during daytime hours. The access to the property may be considered under engineered.
The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to consider seeking a recommendation from the
Planning Board in regards to the location of the dog park.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 13, 2008
Project Name: Gosline, Mary Lee Owner(s): Mary Lee Gosline ID Number: QBY-08-
AV-48 County Project#: Aug08-24 Current Zoning: RR-3A Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicant proposes development of a portion of the parcel into a
fenced-in area for a dog park/kennel. Relief requested from the 200 ft. setback
requirement from the property line for this type of commercial operation. Site Location:
21 Blind Rock Road Tax Map Number(s): 289.15-1-1.1 Staff Notes: Area Variance:
The applicant proposes the development of a portion of the parcel into a fenced-in area
for a dog park/kennel. Relief is requested from the 200 ft. setback requirement from the
property line for this type of commercial operation. The fenced in grass area is to be
located 30 ft. from the side property line. The information submitted shows the location
of the grass fenced in area requiring the relief and the area for kennel facility. The plans
show the parking area the existing driveway of a 350 ft. of paved area. The kennel
facility operation is also subject to site plan review where the submitted information
indicates there will be 4-prefab buildings with chain link fence areas, no more than 20
dogs, hours of operation 24 hours 7 days a week – additional information reviewable
under site plan. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted
according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L
applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County
Impact The Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact. Signed by
Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 8/19/08.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want to explain to us what you’re trying to
accomplish here?
MRS. GOSLINE-Well, what we’re trying to accomplish, we’re having a dog kennel, and
we want to have a very unique dog kennel. It’s probably going to be quite exclusive.
There’s a lot of dogs that need to run, that need exercise, and they’re not getting it in the
Town because everything is kind of closed off to dogs. We thought with this property we
have the opportunity to open that up to people so they could exercise their dogs. When
we first started it was going to be, it’s changed a lot. Now it’s just going to be the dogs
that are patronizing the kennel will be able to use the runs, and we’ll be running these
dogs in the kennel that will take them down from the kennel to run in these runs to
exercise them. So when you bring a dog to us, it won’t be sitting in a cage or just going
into a little run. It’ll be going into areas that will exercise them and keep them happy, and
that’s the whole secret of keeping dogs from being noisy, from barking, is keeping them
healthy, happy and entertained, and we’re only going to be able to take 20 dogs and
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
really be able to handle 20 dogs, well, if we get 20 dogs, but we’d be able to exercise
them and cater to them. So there won’t be any problem with noise.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you want to add at this time?
MRS. GOSLINE-My son-in-law.
MR. POLUNCI-Hi. My name’s John Polunci. I live right next to Mary Lee. We own
property on 5 Blackberry Lane. What we’re really looking for with this run is the change
of setback from the 200 foot, which is required for this Special Use Permit, to a 30 foot,
and it’s only going to be bordering our property lines. The reason we want to do this is to
keep it closer to us. So it actually gives us distance from Surrey Fields or any of the
neighbors near us other than ourselves, which we own that 10 acres there between the
two of us. What we’re trying to do is make it so that the dogs have plenty of exercise to
kind of keep them toned down. They’re not going to be unattended. It’s not like
someone’s going to be able to come there and just let these dogs run freely. My wife will
actually be taking care of them, and it’s going to be for a set time and pick up, meaning
someone would have to come and pick them up by scheduled appointments. So there’s
not going to be a whole bunch of people coming and going.
MRS. GOSLINE-We have a map here that we put together to show the placement of the
kennel, the placement of the fences, which I don’t even know if you’re going to be able to
see because it’s in the trees and things. It shows the placement here of the kennel, right
here. This would be the placement of the fences, and if you walk the property, you’d
know that there’s a big hill right here, it’s probably 75 foot high. This would be down in
this area here, which would buffer any noises also. This is our property here. So we’re
just asking for relief on our own property. Up here we meet all the setbacks, 200 foot
here, 200 foot here, over here and here and here. We’ve measured out the different
distances to the neighbors to show you that from here to Mr. Murtha’s house we go 300
foot in from our kennel from the property line, and then it’s another 500 feet to his house.
In this corner is Mr. O’Connor, and we, from the property line, we go 400 foot from his
property line, and then to his house from the kennel is 650 feet. Over here we have
Cedar Court. From where the fenced area would be, it’s 550 feet to the edge of the
property line, with another 250 feet to the nearest house. I mean, we’re not on top of
people. This is Surrey Field up here. We’re 200 feet back from them, and all we’re
asking for is the relief on our side.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-I have a question. With the dog run itself, there’s the big flat area, then it
goes down the hill towards your property. Where is your property line? Is that the
bottom of the hill? Is it back? Were you going to put the dog run down at the bottom of
the hill?
MRS. GOSLINE-My property line, if you came in here, you came in and you looked at
the, where it was so flat, my property line is probably another, probably almost 200 feet
back here. You had to go down through. There was a little road you could see. It’s
probably 150 feet back over here.
MRS. JENKIN-So the run itself is going to be down on the lower level? It’s not up on the
flats?
MRS. GOSLINE-No, it’s in the lower level. It’s in the lower level like in a cavern there.
MRS. JENKIN-But the kennel’s going to be up on the upper level?
MRS. GOSLINE-The kennel will be on the upper level, yes, up here, but this will be down
here, kind of like in a cavern, and I had it in the trees, because some dogs, they like to go
out and run in the trees, and I was going to have a, I gave a picture of the type of fence
we’d use. So they could go in and run and hunt and do whatever, and after about 20
minutes their tongues are hanging down on the ground. Another one I was going to try
to encompass this hill so they could exercise going up and down the hill.
MRS. JENKIN-But from your picture here and here, it looks like the kennels are directly
back from the, it doesn’t look like, or are the kennels right at the edge of the hill then?
MR. POLUNCI-They’re going to be no the flat spot.
MRS. GOSLINE-They’re on the flat spot up on the top.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MRS. JENKIN-On the flat, the top, the high flat spot.
MR. POLUNCI-Yes. We have to meet all the 200 foot requirements for the kennels.
MRS. GOSLINE-So we have all our setbacks here.
MR. POLUNCI-And we’re meeting every requirement for that, and we’re actually 300 feet
off the back side to keep it away from Mr. Murtha’s and Williams’, Williams’ house.
MRS. JENKIN-I’m still not understanding, then, about the dog run because it looks like
the dog run is behind the kennel on the top flat spot.
MRS. GOSLINE-No, it’s not. If you look at this picture here, it’s in here, right in this area.
See, this is all trees. This is down in the cavern. This is the flat piece up here. This
property was just all fill.
MRS. JENKIN-Is that where the wood was being, that flat, the lower area where your
husband was stacking wood and everything down there.
MRS. GOSLINE-We’re trying to cut the trees that were killed. We’re cleaning them all
up. We’re cleaning all the sides up. We’ve cleaned everything up. We’ve raked
everything. We’ve planted grass.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MRS. GOSLINE-And that’s this area down here.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay, that’s where the second grove is, then.
MRS. GOSLINE-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. I understand. Thank you.
MR. KUHL-And will these dogs be unattended in this run?
MRS. GOSLINE-Never.
MR. POLUNCI-No.
MRS. GOSLINE-Never unattended.
MR. CLEMENTS-Could I ask a question, go back to that first map that you had there.
MRS. GOSLINE-And there will be no dogs that aren’t in the same family in there. They’ll
all be, it’s just your own dog in the run.
MR. CLEMENTS-I want the, the request that you’re making, if you combined those two
properties of yours and the one where you want the run and the kennel in there, you
wouldn’t need a variance. Is that correct, Staff?
MRS. GOSLINE-That’s true.
MR. CLEMENTS-Maybe I ought to ask Staff that.
MR. OBORNE-What’s the question once more? I’m sorry.
MR. CLEMENTS-If you look at this map and you see where they’re looking for the
variance, if they combined those two pieces of property there, they wouldn’t need a
variance. Would that be true?
MR. OBORNE-I’d have to look at the map and see.
MR. POLUNCI-No, we actually would, because I own this property here, and we’re
looking to be able to, from this point back, to have the 30 foot setback between this
property and that property, both properties. So then I would have, I mean, we have to
incorporate my house into this whole process, too.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MRS. JENKIN-See, the problem is, if you sell that property in the future, the variance
goes with the property.
MRS. GOSLINE-Well, we’re not planning on selling it. We’ve had to go for eight years
listening to it being developed, and you want to talk about noise. For the last five years
I’ve listened to dump trucks for about every 15 minutes, you know, and bull dozers, truck
after truck after truck, and we’ve listened to it all those years. Now we’ve gotten the
property. We’ve been able to take it, recover it, try to bring it back to its natural state, to
a point, because it was a cavern. It was a large cavern in here. We’ve cleaned out the
pond. We’re going to put a fountain in here. We’ve planted grass up here. We’ve done
everything to try to bring it back to a more natural state. It was left just clay up here, and
just flat. It looked more like a runway for an airport, and we’re not going to be cutting,
we’re trying to keep all the plants that you saw, if you walked up there, you saw a lot of
natural plants, flowers. We’re keeping all that because we’d like to make an area where
people could come, where it’s just as nice for the owners as it is the dog, but we want a
quiet, very nice place to come, like a hideaway, you know, somewhere to get away from
the hustle and bustle. We’re not looking to make noise at all, and the point is, we
haven’t made any noise yet.
MRS. JENKIN-So it’s going to be a kennel. It’s not a dog park for people to come and
leave, but it’s a doggy daycare, is it?
MRS. GOSLINE-No.
MR. POLUNCI-No.
MRS. JENKIN-It’s not doggy daycare either.
MR. POLUNCI-It’s a kennel.
MRS. JENKIN-It is a kennel.
MR. POLUNCI-To use that run and shed you have to be a member of the kennel. You
have to do it by appointment. You can’t just come and drop your dog off. You have to
schedule a pick up, a scheduled time to pick up and drop off your dog, and also, we’re
also going to be offering delivery. We’ll drop your dog off at your house and pick your
dog up.
MRS. GOSLINE-But a lot of people hear a dog park and they picture a fenced in area
that’s maybe one acre. Anyone can come, let their dog into it, and they run. We’re not
going to do that. Our vet even said not to do that. A typical dog park would be just a
fenced in area where people just come and let their dogs in. The dogs that come to this
park have to have all, to this kennel, they have to have all their shots. They have to be
licensed, and we’re even screening the parents, or the owners, because sometimes
owners can be louder than the dogs.
MR. URRICO-And the main reason for you asking for this 150 to 170 foot variance is so
that it can be closer to your property?
MRS. GOSLINE-Yes.
MR. POLUNCI-Correct.
MR. URRICO-But you understand what we said earlier is that this goes with the property.
The variance stays with the property, and no matter what your plans are for the future,
we don’t know what the future is, and we need to protect the property for the future. So
that’s the issue we’re dealing with right now.
MRS. GOSLINE-Well, we’ve already had offers on the property, that people want to build
a home there.
MR. URRICO-That doesn’t protect the property.
MRS. GOSLINE-But I mean, they wouldn’t want to put a kennel in. They want it for their
home, but we plan on doing this for quite a few years. I hope that, after I can’t cut hair
anymore, I’m a barber, I could do this as a retirement. I’m not going anywhere. I’ve
been here, in this house, 21 years, 23 years, and I’m the ninth generation here in Town.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. POLUNCI-I also understand what you’re saying that once you change the variance
it’s changed, but by us doing this, I mean, if we meet, like with a Special Use Permit,
when we go for that, we get approved for that, if we put that run up within the 200 foot,
we can fence it in, in that area, but what it does is, it actually gets us closer to the other
property lines or the people that would actually have a problem with this. If we go
towards our property, we’re putting it closer to our property, to eliminate noise going,
traveling farther to people that could be against it or not for it.
MR. URRICO-Can you be more specific about where it’s going to be located? Because
right now we’re sort of dealing with a 20 foot swing, the way we have it set up here.
MRS. GOSLINE-All I can show you is on the picture. Did you walk the property?
MR. URRICO-Yes, but we’re still wondering where the fencing’s going to be.
MRS. GOSLINE-Do you know where, did you see the garden on the hill?
MR. URRICO-Yes. That doesn’t help me. I need measurements.
MRS. GOSLINE-The fences would be behind the garden in the woods. I’m going to
clean out all the brush in the bottom. I’m not going to cut any trees. I’m just going to
clean some of the brush out, not a lot of it, but just some that like there’s prickers in
there, raspberry bushes and such, that you don’t want your dog tangled up in it, and the
other run would be coming down the side and going up a hill and coming down, but it will
all be below that hill area.
MRS. JENKIN-So you’re planning on two runs, then? That’s what the line is for?
MRS. GOSLINE-I would hope to make the one run in the woods, and the one up the hill,
but they would be encompassed in the size that we have there.
MR. POLUNCI-It would be the same outer perimeter fence with one divided up in the
middle, eventually, that way we can separate, so we can separate maybe a smaller dog
from a bigger dog.
MRS. JENKIN-So then this fence is going to come up to the top of that top plateau area?
MR. POLUNCI-Top of that ridge, correct.
MRS. GOSLINE-On one side.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. POLUNCI-And as far as the, it could start at the 30 foot, I believe, from our property
line, 30 foot from Mary Lee and my property line and up.
MR. CLEMENTS-I think that’s what the question was. It says 30 feet to 50 feet. Would it
be 30?
MR. POLUNCI-We were going for 30, is what it would be.
MR. CLEMENTS-I think that’s what you’re asking.
MR. URRICO-Well, I’m referring to the, just the comment by Staff, which is asking for a
clarification of the size of the enclosed area and the types of fencing to be used.
MRS. GOSLINE-I think we put down here last night it was 300 feet in front.
MR. POLUNCI-Yes. It would be 300 feet of front, and then it would be, as far as type of
fencing, we have a picture of it. I believe you have it.
MRS. GOSLINE-And the fencing is a wire fencing with a board on the top. It’s six foot
high, but if any deer want to jump over it, they’re very capable of jumping over it because
there’ll be no structure behind it. They can jump six foot very easily.
MRS. JENKIN-It’s a game fence type? It’s not chain link.
MRS. GOSLINE-No, no. It has a board on top.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-A wire fence.
MRS. GOSLINE-It’s a two by four wire. They kind of blend it into the woods very.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the general response you’re getting from your neighbors on
this?
MRS. GOSLINE-My neighbors on my side are all for it. I mean, they know me. I mean, I
think a lot of it is just the people don’t know us. They don’t understand us or they know
nothing about us. So, but our neighbors know us, and they said that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Williams is the one that would be most affected?
MRS. GOSLINE-Williams, yes. He’s on board.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MRS. GOSLINE-And the rest of the people you see in that area are on board. I have
one neighbor, Mike Wild, who’s uncommitted, noncommittal, but the rest of them said
fine, go ahead, try it. The whole thing is, if we don’t try it, we’ll never know, and
everything is, nothing’s permanent.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members any other questions, or I’ll open up the
public hearing.
MR. KUHL-I have one question. What is your specific use? These dogs are going to
come on a 24 hour basis, overnight, or are they going to be dropped off in the morning
when the person goes to work?
MR. POLUNCI-The kennel is going to be a 24 hour service. It’s 24 hour. That means
they’re going to be boarded there overnight.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MRS. GOSLINE-Vacations.
MR. POLUNCI-Vacations. If you were to leave Town and you wanted to leave your dog.
MR. KUHL-Right.
MR. POLUNCI-The fenced in area that we’re talking about down here, what we’re
looking to do, that’s only going to be during daylight hours, to let the dogs come out and
run.
MR. KUHL-Your boarded dogs?
MR. POLUNCI-Our boarded dogs. Now, if you are a member of the kennel and we have
an opening, now we’re only asking to have 20 dogs when we applied for the Special Use
Permit. Twenty dogs maximum is all we want to have, and that is going to be less,
depending on the size of the dog. If I have three Great Danes there, it’s going to limit the
amount of space that I have, if we only have three spots to keep them. So what we’re
going to try to do is have it so that if you are a member of our kennel, you visit us, you
can come and walk your dog, unleashed in the fenced in area, but it has to be by
appointment, so that if we have spots not, if our kennel’s not full, you have use to come
and use that fenced in area.
MR. KUHL-So you’re stating that there’ll never be more than 20 dogs?
MR. POLUNCI-There’ll never be more than 20 dogs on the property as part of the
kennel.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MRS. GOSLINE-And by letting the dogs come and walk there, when their owners are
with them, it familiarizes them with the area and when they do come they feel very much
at home.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. KUHL-But I get confused, because if you’re at capacity and you’ve got a person that
uses your facility for their vacation January/February, and then they’re here in June, are
stnd
they going to come in and they’re going to be the 21 dog or the 22 dog?
MR. POLUNCI-No.
MRS. GOSLINE-No.
MR. POLUNCI-It’s by appointment only, and 20’s our limit.
MR. KUHL-You’ll control what comes through the gate?
MR. POLUNCI-Yes, and that’s our whole thing is we want to put as much control on this.
That’s why we had picked the 20 minimum on, the 20 on the property, is because that’s
one, we did a lot of research and that seems to be where the cutoff is is where things
start to get out of hand. Twenty dogs is what we’re looking for.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-So you have the capacity to board four dogs over night, is that it?
MR. POLUNCI-No, not four days. What I’m saying is we’ll be able to hold 20 dogs,
depending on the configuration of the size of the dogs. We’re going to have one story. If
you look at the kennels on top, they’re four individual sheds. They’re going to be 16 by
12 sheds. They’re Amish sheds. They’re not going to be permanent structures, and a
fenced in around, that whole area you see up there is the picture of the whole kennel.
So the kennels are going to be inside that fenced in area on top.
MRS. JENKIN-Four sheds.
MR. POLUNCI-Four sheds. One of them’s going to be for storage, meaning dog beds,
dog food, cleaning supplies, that sort of thing. The other three are going to be for
actually just the boarding of the dogs, meaning they’ll be able to stay overnight in those
places, and it’s going to be very, we’ll be able to move them around, depending on
configuration of the dog. Like if we have one big dog, we might only put one big dog in
that kennel. We’re going to be able to move the stuff around inside.
MRS. JENKIN-So the sheds themselves will house up to five dogs, then, is what you’re
saying?
MR. POLUNCI-Correct. Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, more than five, if one is going to be storage.
MR. POLUNCI-Right. It all depends on the size of the dog, right. Because sometimes
you might get like Italian Greyhounds. You could get three Italian Greyhounds that may
sleep in the same, that might be brothers and sisters, and they might sleep together.
MRS. JENKIN-So you’re going to use crates inside the sheds?
MR. POLUNCI-They’re going to be movable walls inside there, three foot walls, so that
we can move them up. It’s all going to be tile, like cubicles, inside the facility.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody wishing to
speak on this matter? And I think maybe what we’ll do, because I know there’s probably
a lot of people here, it looks like. We’ll start over on the left side there. Anybody over on
the left side? Raise your hand. Okay. Do you want to come up? Please identify
yourselves and where you’re from and speak into the mic so we can get it all recorded.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CLAUDE & KITTY TROIANO
MR. TROIANO-Thank you. My name’s Claude Troiano. This is my wife Kitty. We
purchased the home from Jeff and Petrina Lehland on Mannis Road, and we had our
closing in October. We moved up here from Ulster County. The reason we sold our
home is because 300 yards away was a kennel that had eight dogs, and I don’t care how
many setbacks you have or how far you go, when a dog barks, and it’s that right time of
the barometric pressure or call it whatever you want, it’s very upsetting, and it just
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
disturbs everybody. There’s a lot of beautiful homes in the area. I think this would be a
detriment. I think this is very irresponsible. I love dogs. I’m a pet owner. When we had
our dog up here, we don’t have one anymore, we brought our dog to Rondack, over by, I
guess it’s Wilton, and they had dog runs and they boarded dogs, and every time we were
there, the dogs were outside running around, or some inside, and the noise was
unbelievable, and they’re back in the woods, and there’s not a lot of neighbors around.
We just feel terrible about this, and, you know, you have some beautiful homes,
Blackberry Circle you’ve got some nice homes, all along Blind Rock Road, Mannis. On
the other side you have senior citizens. You have apartments. I think this is very, very
irresponsible. As I said, I love pets, too, but this is a very, very far outreach of doing
something like this to the people in the area.
MRS. TROIANO-Like my husband had said, we lived it, and we love dogs, but there
were eight dogs, sometimes up to fourteen dogs, and it was like feeding, every time you
came out, they came out to feed the dogs, it was like a feeding frenzy. It was
unbearable. We couldn’t entertain or anything. It was just awful, and I would hate like
heck to see this happen to this beautiful area, and I do love dogs.
MR. TROIANO-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Okay. Somebody from this side of the room over here.
Raise your hand if you want to speak.
LINDA DEL SIGNORE
MS. DEL SIGNORE-I’d like to speak on behalf of the neighbors who are closest to Mary
Lee. Linda DelSignore, 2 Blackberry Lane. We are closest to Mary Lee and my mother-
in-law is right next door to Mary Lee. The neighbors on Blackberry Lane don’t have a
problem with this. Mary Lee’s thoroughly explained to us what’s going to happen. I don’t
have any worry about noise. If you know Mary Lee, and if you know the type of business
she runs, you know that she has impeccable business expertise and she, when she does
something she does it right and she does it well. We are very comfortable with what she
plans to do, and we’re very close to it. I know what she’s going to do with this, and I
don’t believe there’s going to be all kinds of noise, because she’s let us know that there
wouldn’t be, and her word is good. So the neighbors on Blackberry Lane and Blackberry
Circle and Blind Rock Road are very comfortable with this, and I think we’re the closest
to her. So, as representative of the neighborhood, I would just like to speak for Mary
Lee.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Just to remind everybody who’s going to speak here
this evening, there’s two things that are going to happen here, and that is that our Board,
specifically, we’re operating under very narrow parameters, and that is the only thing that
our Board is going to be deciding tonight is whether the applicant’s request for, it looks
like 170 feet of relief, this will be from their own property line, this is the setback for the
proposed dog runs that are part of this kennel application here. Just to remind
everybody in the audience, though. They are going to have to go to the Planning Board,
and I believe that’s next week that they’ll be going to the Planning Board, and because
this is a Rural Residential Three Acre zoning district, they’re going to have to apply for a
special permit review with the Planning Board at that point in time. So, although we
understand your comments that you’re making here tonight, the comments that you
should be making should be germane to our question, in other words, the distance from
their own property, all right, in other words, the forum here, it’s okay for you to tell us that
you don’t want a kennel, if that’s what you want, or that you do want a kennel, that you
can live with a kennel, but specifically we’re only going to be dealing tonight with the
relief, and that’s relief from their own property. So we have to keep that in mind, even
though we’re taking your comments to heart also at the same time. So somebody from
this side of the room?
VAN DYKEMAN
MR. DYKEMAN-My name is Van Dykeman. I’m President of Surrey Field’s
Homeowner’s Association. I’d like to read a prepared statement of the Board. The
Board of Surry Field Homeowners Association, representing the residents of the Surrey
Field development in Queensbury, is opposed to any setback variance granted to Mary
Lee Gosline of 21 Blind Rock Road, Queensbury, by the Town of Queensbury, that
affects the Surry Field Homeowners Association setback rights. We are very concerned
that once we give the setback, it’s lost, and we have no idea actually what the business,
if the business goes one way or the other, we’ve lost that setback right. Our property is
right next to theirs. It’s considered forever wild, in that particular section, and we’re
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
roughly located east and north of their property. So we’re very concerned, and we do not
want to allow the setback.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Okay. Somebody from this side of the room, raise your
hand, please, from the back.
DOROTHY SEHLMEYER
MRS. SEHLMEYER-Dorothy Sehlmeyer, and I live at Cedar Court, and what, the noise
definitely concerns me, day and night. I moved to my home six months ago, and I’m very
upset about this, but what really concerns me is that, as you said, when you give the
variance, it stays with the property, and life changes. I lost my husband in an accident
and I didn’t expect that. I don’t know what’s going to happen to this lady, as good as her
intentions are, that something may change and once that setback is given, that variance
is given, and she can establish this business, the person who comes in after her may not
be as ethical as she is, and I really don’t know how she can say she’s going to keep
these dogs quiet. So I object to the variance, the setback variance, on the grounds that,
as you’ve said, it goes forever with the property. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Somebody from the other side of the room, over
here.
BOB MURTHA
MR. MURTHA-Hi. My name’s Bob Murtha. I live at 28 Fitzgerald Road, and we put a
petition around, and we have 81 names that are opposed to Mary Lee’s variance. Our
main issues are concern of noise, wildlife, property values, and environmental. Do you
want me to read this entire thing? I’ve given you a sheet?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you don’t need to read the names on it, as long as, you can
read the gist of it, what people agreed to.
MR. MURTHA-Okay. With noise, the proposed dog paths and runs would be open from
dawn to dusk, seven days a week. The kennels will be operational 24/7. This will be a
business set in the midst of a primarily residential perimeter. The infringement on the
quiet, peaceful buffer between any and all the adjacent interested property owners will
be compromised, with what dogs do naturally and are expected to do, that’s bark, and
they also bark when they’re happy. It will be practically impossible to impose a quiet
time with the dogs. With the wildlife, the tranquil environment this geological buffer now
provides has also become a natural refuge for wildlife, as those of us living here can
attest to nearly every day. The possibility of dogs barking 24/7 will doubtless impact the
current presence of wildlife in this area creating an interruption of in the balance of
nature now existing in this natural habitat. This disruption will also affect the enjoyment
experienced by the property owners who have come to appreciate the presence of those
animals and birds. Property Values – what are you going to say to a prospective buyer
while walking through your yard when he hears all the barking? Of course, you’ll have to
tell him there’s going to be a kennel next to your property. Yes, it’s back in the woods,
but it’s still there and still within easy earshot. Somehow, that might not seem as
attractive as the serenity your wooded surroundings might have originally appeared to
offer. Environmentally – as mentioned natural habitat exists between the buffer zone
surrounding residential and commercial populace. The influx of vehicles and people,
along with the addition of dog excrement and dog noise, will ultimately have a negative
effect on the overall environment, including the forever wild area designated as part of
the Surrey Field development. With these issues foremost in our minds, we, the
undersigned, are asking that you not grant the variance requested, and that you re-
consider the possible commercial zoning purposes for the lot designated on the above-
noted variance application. Rest assured, there are many dog lovers on the perimeter of
this property and in adjacent homes. There is no intention or implication these issues
have any bearing on one’s like or dislike of dogs. Thanks for your consideration.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. You want to submit that to the secretary so he gets a
copy of it.
MR. MURTHA-Okay. You have enough copies, right?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Yes. The copies you gave me are addressed to the Planning Board,
right?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. MURTHA-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Okay. We’re the Zoning Board. Do you have a separate petition for us?
MR. MURTHA-Can I give them to you tomorrow?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, if it’s on the record, we can copy the one. I’m sure it’s the
same exact thing that you sent to the Planning Board. So that’s probably why we got
cc’d a copy of it.
MR. MURTHA-This is marked to the Zoning Board.
MR. URRICO-Okay. One of the copies I have say Planning Board on them.
MR. MURTHA-Ours is the one that’s the yellow highlight.
MR. URRICO-Okay. I have it. Thank you.
MR. MURTHA-Okay.
NANCY MURTHA
MRS. MURTHA-I’d like to read a letter from Bob and ourselves. “Dear Board Members:
We would like to use this letter to convey our interests in the requests put forth in the
aforementioned Public Hearing Notice. Our property adjoins the entire western property
line of the acreage being considered in this request.” My letter is with each of you, and
attached is a picture that, and I’ve circled where our property adjoins this property that’s
in question. “It is our understanding that the proposed project would place the location of
the kennels at this westernmost border. With that in mind, we feel we have a stake in the
outcome of this project as it will have a direct impact on our current residential lifestyle.
Our concerns are multiple. One of those issues is the increase in noise generated by the
quantity of dogs which would constitute a successful kennel/dog park business. At this
point in time, sitting on the deck of our house which faces this acreage, but has the
summer growth of trees and foliage right now, we can, and do, hear dogs barking in the
vicinity of the Gosline’s homes. The location of the dog park/kennel would place that
noise even closer to our property. And the addition of many more dogs would increase
the scope of that noise level and the extent to which it occurs. We intentionally chose
this property for our home due to the seclusion and the serenity provided by the vacant
acreage surrounding it. The peace and quiet we now experience and enjoy in our own
backyard would be compromised should a kennel/dog park be permitted to exist in this
otherwise tranquil environment. Another aspect we feel strongly about is the abundant
wildlife which inhabits the buffer zone between the perimeter of residential and
commercial properties. It has become a sanctuary for multitudes of animals and birds.
We are not alone in having many stories to share with neighbors and friends about those
animals and birds. We feel the existence of a kennel and the dog runs with excited dogs
would not only diminish the population of the wildlife in this area, but would create an
imbalance of nature as it has evolved here, and is appreciated here. A serious concern
we firmly judge a valid one is the reduction in the value of our home and the probability of
difficulty reselling it should we want to do so. As much as people love dogs, there is a
limit to their tolerance. Many would draw the line at having a kennel with dogs barking
24/7 within earshot. A primarily residential community does not provide the ideal
location for this type of business and we feel it would ultimately affect the personal
financial investment we have in our home. We urge you to take our thoughts into
consideration when making your final determination about variances and/or the approval
of this project. And thank you for giving us the opportunity to voice our apprehension
regarding this project. Sincerely, Bob & Nancy Murtha 28 Fitzgerald Road Queensbury,
NY”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. MURTHA-I also have another letter from another neighbor. You have copies of it
as well. They couldn’t be here. So you can read that in.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. If they’ve been sent in, Roy will read them into the record. So,
thank you.
MRS. MURTHA-Yes. Thank you.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Somebody from this side of the room, on the end.
DIANA COTE
MRS. COTE-Hi. My name is Diana Cote. I live on Cedar Court. I have still another
petition with 42 additional names on it. You all have copies of that. Unfortunately, I put
the Planning Board on the top of that. It goes to the Planning Board and the Zoning
Board. Okay. I’d like to read the petition. That, we, the undersigned, present this
petition with 42 signatures to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals and
Planning Board to request a negative response from the said Boards regarding the
variance requested by the Gosline family, to build a dog park kennel behind our property.
The land that is proposed for this business sits directly in the center of residential homes.
This property is filled with wildlife and is a natural landscape buffer that abuts many of
the Surrey Field/Cedar Court residents. There are several issues at stake here. The first
issue is the destruction of the quiet neighborhood that we currently enjoy. We all bought
our property with the understanding that this is residential living and zoned as such. We
certainly might have thought twice before purchasing a home that would be disturbed
24/7 with barking/howling dogs. There is no possible way that the Gosline family could
guarantee that our peaceful neighborhoods would not be disturbed with these canines.
This would certainly reduce the value on our homes as prospective buyers would be
negatively influenced by the presence of a dog park kennel within hearing range of their
yard. Please don’t get us wrong. We are dog lovers but, the only thing that is more
annoying than a barking dog is a group of barking dogs. The second issue would be the
reduction in the wonderful wildlife that currently resides in that area. We see deer, fox
and numerous bird species in the woods that abut our properties. That peaceful setting
for this wildlife would surely be disturbed. The third issue would be the vehicles and dog
owners who would populate the area behind our woods. This is a wildlife buffer that
would become commercialized with owners driving their pets to and from the kennels
and the noise from the cars and the people would be a stabbing intrusion into our
peaceful setting in Surrey Field and on Cedar Court. And the final issue is the pollution
of the stream that runs behind some of the homes on Surrey Field and Cedar Court.
Regardless of how diligent the owners may be about removing feces from the property,
they will not be able to collect it all along with the urine deposited by these canines.” And
what happens to the wastewater when the kennels are cleaned? “Again, we request that
the Board reject any proposal that would change the current residential zoning on this
property. With noise pollution invading us on all sides, please allow us to be able to
continue sitting on our Queensbury porches and in our beautiful yards and hear nature
without the interruption of barking/howling dogs. Thank you…..”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you.
MR. URRICO-Now you also submitted a separate letter that I’ll read in also?
MRS. COTE-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Somebody from the other side of the room over here? Raise
your hand, please, anybody wishing to speak? Okay. We’ll go back on this side of the
room. Anybody left? On the end.
RUTH FRANK
MRS. FRANK-I hope everybody can hear you because it’s not very good hearing back
there. It seems to me there should be some reasonable alternative for placing a
commercial venture such as this, other than in a residential, from which I moved from
New Jersey to come to a quiet residential area. As I moved from New Jersey to be in a
nice, quiet residential area, I never thought I would be faced with this. Earlier one of your
members stated that tonight was just for variance, and it seems to me that we, the
people, should come first before any variance, and why haven’t there been other
alternatives, like the empty building, the SPCA over by the Airport? That’s empty, well
built for any kind of a venture like this, and secondly in one of the memos we received
that we would not be disturbed by noise of the dogs. Where is the proof? The only proof
is you have to build the dog kennel first and then test it, and any rocket scientist will know
that that can’t be done. So there’s no proof that we will not hear animals. Thirdly, I lived
in with my son in Galway, and a similar position came in like this. It had to do with firing
of guns and target practice, and the memo went out that nobody would hear it. We were
in a nice secluded quiet Galway lake area. Every Sunday when I was there I would hear,
it would echo miles, bang, bang, bang, every Sunday so you couldn’t sleep. You’re
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
trying to tell me that not one dog is going to bark? If one dog is barking another one isn’t.
So, if this is a residential area, of all the places in Queensbury, they can’t find another
place for a commercial venture like this? That’s all I have to say. We should be
considered first, not the variance. Secondly, the next time when we come to a Board
meeting, shouldn’t all the people be able to see these maps as we’re, that’s what we’re
here for, and we have no idea what they showed. Another suggestion is, if you put the
table on the end where people could hear, because we cannot hear with everybody’s
talking with their backs. So if it was sideways, you could hear, we could hear, and
people should have the right to look at all pictures, just like the Board does, and we
people should be considered first, not the variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Could you just give us your name?
MRS. FRANK-I’m sorry. Ruth Frank at Cedar Court.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead.
RICH DEL SIGNORE
MR. LONGWORTH-Hi. I’m Rich DelSignore. I live at 2 Blackberry Lane. I’ve been a
citizen of the Town my whole life, and years ago I liked living in Queensbury because
there was no Surrey Field. There was no Hunter Brook. There was no build up on
Mannis Road and all along Glen Lake, and it was quiet here, you know, but it’s not like
that anymore. There’s boats on Glen Lake. There’s ATV’s from some of the people that
have complained about noise that go on to the exact property that Mary Lee is looking to
build on. Another option on that property is to open it up for development, for cars, for
houses, for children, and for dogs, in those houses. The thing is people move into this
area because they like it. So that’s the way it is. That’s life. When I was a kid, Bay
Road and Blind Rock Road were quiet, and now you have semi trucks, you have a
College, you have a lot of buildings, you have a lot of residences. The traffic on Blind
Rock Road drowns out even the dogs that bark across the street from me. So maybe
you shouldn’t grant the variance, because if you don’t grant that variance, they’ll have to
push the kennel a little closer to everybody’s buildings and lawns, and their places.
Okay. I just, my point is, let’s be real about this. You guys have to worry about the 30
foot variance, and that’s really all you have to worry about tonight, correct?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. DEL SIGNORE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody else?
WILLIAM LONGWORTH
MR. LONGWORTH-I’m William Longworth at 52 Surrey Field Drive, Queensbury. I just
wanted to put our objection into this business also, in that changing of the variance, they
told us it was going to be from 200 to 100 feet. We’re still against that. We want to
protect our property values. There’s 42 homes in Surrey Field, which comprises this
property that they border. We have 80 acres, roughly, and we’d like to keep the property
value the way it is, and we do not want to see the reduction in the footage of the
variance. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody else? Way in the back.
MIKE SWAN
MR. SWAN-My name is Mike Swan. I live at 55 Mannis Road, which is kind of behind
this property. First of all, I’d like to say I don’t have a problem with what they’re trying to
do there, and secondly, I must be living in a different neighborhood than these people,
because I sit on my back porch, I hear the boats on Glen Lake, I hear the dogs all around
the neighborhood that are barking now. I listen to, every morning at 6:35, the PA system
at the Glens Falls Country Club wake me up as they’re calling the order for the golfers to
go out. Mannis Road was named after my mother. That was her maiden name. We’ve
been in that property in and on Glen Lake since 1880. You talk about, Mr. DelSignore
talked about how the area’s changed. I’ve seen it change, too, and it’s, I wouldn’t say it’s
a quiet neighborhood now. I do enjoy the deer and everything else that wander in my
yard, but that’s, you know, the noise factor is a fact of life.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else? Way in the back.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MICHAEL O’CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m Michael O’Connor. I live at 74 Fitzgerald Road. I believe that the
granting of this variance will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood. They could
comply if they decided to. They don’t really need the variance. The requested relief is
75 to 85%, depending on whatever they finally decide on. I went and looked at the
application today, and it varied from 30 to 50 feet. I didn’t see anything that was
professionally done there. The application was hand drawn. Their comment earlier that
it was 400 feet from my house, that’s best guess because it certainly hasn’t been
measured by any quantitative means. I question are they asking about accessory
structures or principal structures? It’s going to be limited to 100 square feet. It’s an
accessory structure, and that’s about it. I’m opposed to the granting of the variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Betty?
BETTY MONAHAN
MRS. MONAHAN-Betty Monahan, Lake Sunnyside. I had no intention of speaking
tonight, but I’m sitting there getting madder and madder and madder, and this is not in
my backyard. I’m another one of these people. My family helped settle Queensbury. I,
myself, have lived here almost 85 years. I’ve seen the changes. These people that have
come here objecting to this don’t realize what they did when they had their places built
and the destruction of wildlife and the environment and so on and so forth. My
calculations is they could probably put six houses up on that property. What do the
people think that would add to noise and construction and the pollution, what it would do
to the environment, the destruction of wildlife, the destruction of the natural environment,
the plants. I see so much selfishness here that it just distresses me to think that
Queensbury has come to this type of thing. It really does. They talk about they want to
protect the wildlife. They want to protect the wildlife on somebody else’s property and
they want somebody else to pay the taxes for it. Nothing that they’re going to do is going
to harm the wildlife. They worry about the pollutions from the dogs and the streets and
ponds. What do they think happens with the wildlife that’s running there? Have they
ever heard of beaver fever? I mean, this has gotten to the point of ridiculous, as far as
I’m concerned, the stuff that I’m hearing here, and I’m ashamed that this is going on in
the Town of Queensbury. We who’ve lived here all of our lives, opened it up and
welcomed the strangers to come here. Now the strangers come here and it’s not in my
back yard. I’m going to have not only my property but I’m also going to have the benefits
of yours because I don’t want you doing anything with your property. Frankly, I’m ticked
off at what I’ve heard here tonight.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Way in the back.
MIKE WILD
MR. WILD-Good evening. My name is Mike Wild. I am an adjacent neighbor. I live on
11 Blackberry Lane. I happen to also agree very strongly with the last speaker about the
fact that when people do buy property, it’s their responsibility to recognize what can
happen around them, and if they don’t own the adjacent property, they can’t control it,
other than enforcing zoning regulations. Now, as Mary Lee mentioned before, I am on
the fence about this project, and the only reason I’m on the fence about this project is
because I have an investment in property on there also, and Mary Lee has told me that
she is going to control the noise. Well, I have two dogs who tend to make a lot of noise,
and I understand that Mary Lee and her family have dogs also, and I can’t hear them
because they’re down in a hollow. So, I guess the point that I’m really trying to make is,
is that should it be open for a trial period? Now, from a variance standpoint, there’s also
one other thing that I noticed when I was reviewing the paper work downstairs is it
appears as though the math is wrong, on the variances on the back property line. If you
take a look at the overall dimension of the width of the property line, I think it was 530
feet, I don’t have it in front of me, but if you take that dimension and you compare it to the
setbacks and the dimension of the kennel, it doesn’t add up. I don’t know if somebody
has a copy I can look at, I can.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s something like 400 feet wide, the whole in-fill area back there.
MR. WILD-Can I approach the?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you can come up and look at the survey if you want. You’ve
got 532 up on, this is.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. WILD-I’m sorry. There was a sketch with some dimensions on it with setbacks.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This is the west end, 532, you know, so that gives you an
approximation.
MR. WILD-It was this dimension, this dimension, plus this dimension didn’t add up to
532.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. WILD-And I’m not sure it was with the application. So, I’m sorry, I can’t point it out,
because it wasn’t the same document that I looked at when I was looking at the notes
downstairs, but if there is a variance issued, and you’re considering 30 feet, you also
might consider that also. Maybe it was just an oversight, maybe it was a math error, but
it should be something that should be looked at also. So, basically, again, I appreciate
your time, but I do want to support any way to try to make this happen, because I truly
believe that they will do whatever they can in the best interest to try to make sure that it
doesn’t disturb the neighbors in the area. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Way in the back.
LEO COTE
MR. COTE-My name is Leo Cote and I live on Cedar Court. I live in the Woodlyns and
am strongly opposed to the project within our residential area. This area is currently
zoned Rural Residential, and as stated in Section 179-3-040 of the Comprehensive Plan,
quote, the Rural Residential districts are intended to enhance, I’ll emphasize that word,
the natural, open space and rural character of the Town, not enhance the commercial
character of the Town. I base my objections on granting any variance or special permit
on the following criteria. First, it is totally out of harmony and incompatible with the
current character of the area, and does not promote the general welfare of the residents
who are affected by this project. It violates Section 179-10-050, Paragraph B, entitled
General Standards for Special Use Permits. I know that’s not what you’re dealing with
tonight. It also violates Paragraph E of the same Section because of its negative impact
on the noise detrimental to the, quote, noise detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare, unquote, and finally the project violates Paragraph F of that Section because of
the negative effects on the long term community character of the surrounding properties.
I request that you deny approval regardless of the scope of the project or the assurances
from Mrs. Gosline that her dogs won’t bark, or that her project will have no effect on the
contiguous neighbors. This issue comes down to a question of property rights in a Rural
Residentially zoned area, and with over 125 signatures on those petitions, I feel that the
rights of the petitioning neighbors and others surely outweigh those of a single applicant.
I hope that you’ll respect our request for denial.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? In front. You wanted to speak.
KIM POLUNCI
MRS. POLUNCI-My name’s Kim Polunci. I live at 5 Blackberry Lane. We are not here
tonight to talk about the kennel. We do live in a Rural Residential area which you are
allowed to open a kennel if you have 10 acres. We have 20 acres. All we want is the
fence variance. We are not going near Surrey Field. We are not going near Cedar
Court. We are not going near Mannis Road. My mother showed you the map. That’s all
we want. We’re not planning on selling our property. We want to stay there. If we did
ever sell, the fences can come down, but we are not planning on going anywhere. We
just want an answer for the fence variance. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else?
KATHY SONNABEND
MRS. SONNABEND-My name’s Kathy Sonnabend, I live on Cedar Court. I have very
mixed feelings about this. I consider Mary Lee to be a friend. She’s contributed greatly
to our community over the decade, well, many years. I recognize the problem with new
developments and the new people wanting nothing more to change. Obviously I’ve
benefitted by Cedar Court being built, and we definitely have impacted the environment
ourselves. One thing, though, I think that’s troubling me is once a variance is given, as
you’ve said, it’s done, and while I believe Mary Lee would do everything possible to be a
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
good neighbor, I don’t know what a future owner of that property would do. So when her
daughter mentions that the fence could come down if they sell, I’m wondering if that
could be a condition, that there be no future expansion of this, and that once they sell the
property, they dismantle it. I don’t know if that’s even appropriate to be asking you here,
but that might be one way of alleviating some concerns. I also want to point out that, and
I could be wrong about this, but I remember when Rich Schermerhorn was bringing all
that, those dump trucks in, the noise was definitely bothering our neighborhood. We
were hearing these trucks sometimes at 6:30 in the morning clanging going up the hill to
dump their load, that he made an accommodation and agreed that there could be no
more than I think one, at the most two homes built on that property. I think that’s a
restriction of the deed. So when someone says that there are going to be six homes up
there, I don’t think that’s true, and certainly one or two homes would be a lot less of an
intrusion on the environment and noise potential. So, like I said, I’ve got very mixed
feelings, but I do know that in my community the age ranges from 50 to 100 years old,
and the average age is probably in the low 70’s, and some of these people, most of them
are retired. They’re home during the day and some of them, they’re not in the best
health. So if the noise does become a problem, that’s definitely a problem for the people
that are already living there. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Roy, do you want to do the read.
If you get tired, pass them over and I’ll take over for you.
MR. URRICO-No. I’ve got it. The first letter we received is, “My name is Louis Briere of
24 Surrey Field Drive Queensbury, N.Y. 12804. My wife and I bought this home for our
retirement home. We like the quiet peaceful area we are in and would like it to stay that
way. Rita and I want to vote in opposition to this variance. Thank you. Louis Briere”
This is Margaret Aileen Kane, “Dear Sirs: This letter is being written in regard to the dog
runs and kennel being proposed for property on Mannis, Fitzgerald and Blind Rock
Roads. While I think this is a fine idea. I am not in favor of this location. There are many
homes that border on or are near this property. The noise will certainly affect the
residents and their property values. This is also one of the few undeveloped areas in this
part of Queensbury. In the Spring and Summer it is home to many birds and small
animals. This will be a loss of habitat for them. Barking dogs will frighten them away. I
do not mean this as a sign that I do not like dogs. That is not the case but I feel that
there must be another spot for this project where so many people and animals will not be
affected. Yours truly, M. Aileen Kane” This is addressed to the Planning Board, William
Longworth. Can I read this in?
MR. LONGWORTH-Yes, please.
MR. URRICO-“This correspondence is in response to the Public Hearing Notice issued
for August 20, 2008 regarding changing the 200 feet setback to 100 feet between the
properties of 21 Blind Rock Road and Surrey Field Home Owners for use as a dog
kennel and dog park, and to a Public Hearing Notice on August 26, 2008, for the
Planning Board approval of said business to go forward. These requests are not in the
best interest of the Surrey Field Home Owners, of which we are a member. We strongly
object to changing the established setback and the opening of a dog kennel and dog
park in this heavily residential area for the following reasons: 1. This type of operation is
a 24/7 business that would create noise pollution and reduce property values of
surrounding properties. The noise would also have a very negative impact on the quality
of life for residence in adjoining properties, which are mostly residential. This does not
only impact Surrey Field, but Woodlyn, Fitzgerald Road, Mannis Road and the apartment
complex on Blind Rock Road. 2. There is also an environmental issue regarding the
wetlands that this business would be adjacent to with respect to dog waste and cleaning
chemicals seeping into the wetland and into Glen Lake. This seepage could cause
negative impact on drinking water and wildlife that relies on this system for basic
survival. We have also signed, along with the majority of our neighbors, a Petition
against this project that will be presented to the Board by other concerned citizens. We
need your understanding and support in keeping our neighborhood a great place to live
and enjoy as an environmentally safe and peaceful community. Among our
neighborhoods we pay thousands of dollars in property taxes and want our voices to be
heard and for the Town Board to turn down these proposals. Sincerely, William B.
Longworth Sandra R. Longworth 52 Surrey Field Drive Queensbury, NY 12804-8708”
This is a petition, and it reads “We will have fenced in areas for dogs to run off leashes.
The areas will be from one, to one and a half acres in size. The fenced in areas will be
for different sized dogs and ages of dogs. There will also be walking trails for owners
and leashed dogs to exercise. We hope to be open from 7 a.m. to dusk 7 days a week.
We want to keep the property as natural as possible, grass, brush and wooded (no
paving) so as to give the feeling you’re away from the hustle and bustle of life. This
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
property located at 21 Blind Rock Rd. is 20.5 acres, it runs concurrent to my home and
my Daughter’s home. We will have a total of approximately 30 acres between our 3
adjacent properties. We are asking for a variance to relieve us of the required setbacks
of 200 feet, just for fenced areas, (dog runs for daytime use) which would be the only
case from our neighboring property lines. Considering all the property to the North of
this parcel is heavily wooded and established as forever wild, as part of the Surrey Field
Subdivision, we would ask for 100 ft. setback relief (again for fenced areas). The owner
to the South Dan Williams, who’s home is 350 feet back from my property line has stated
he has no problem with our request of a 30 ft. setback for fences on his south side
property line. Since my daughter and I are the only other property owners to the North
we would also ask for the same 30 ft. setback.” This is signed by, I guess, 14 people.
Some of them have comments on them. So I’ll read the ones that have comments on
them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Brenda Griffin at 3 Blackberry Lane “I have no doubt that it
will be done in good taste and that it will be a delightful little oasis in our area.” Beth
Povie, 9 Blackberry Lane “I’ll be one of their first customers.” I don’t think I can read
this name, Peter Thorne, maybe, 32 Blind Road Rd. “I think it’s a great idea and I’m all
for it.” Michael Swan, 55 Mannis Road, “Summer hours may be 8:00 p.m.?” And then
there were, there’s a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Cote, “We received a letter from the Town
of Queensbury, last Wednesday, notifying us that there would be a public hearing in front
of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, on August 20, 2008, regarding the request
for a dog park/kennel on the property of Mary Lee Gosline, 21 Blind Rock Road in
Queensbury. The attached petition had the Planning Board heading as we circulated for
signatures. Attached, you will find this petition as it was circulated among the residents
of The Woodlyn’s at Cedar Court. We are aware of similar petitions in the Surrey Field
development and the neighborhood on Glen Lake, adjoining Mrs. Gosline’s property.
We live in The Woodlyn’s and are strongly opposed to this project within our residential
area. This area is currently zoned Rural residential and as stated in Section 179-3-040
of the Comprehensive Plan, ‘The RR districts are intended to enhance the natural open
space and rural character of the Town….’ We base our objections to the granting of any
special use permit on the following criteria. First, it is totally out of harmony and
incompatible with the current character of this area and does not promote a general
welfare of the residents who are affected by the project. This violates Section 179-10-
050, paragraph B entitled, “General Standards for Special Use Permits”. It also violates
paragraph E of the same Section because of its negative impact on the, ‘noise
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare’. And finally, the project violates
paragraph F of that Section because of the negative effects on the long term community
character of the surrounding properties. We, the undersigned neighbors of this petition
request that you deny approval regardless of the scope or the assurances from Mrs.
Gosline that her dogs won’t bark or that her project will have no effect on the contiguous
neighbors. This issue comes down to a question of property rights in a rural residentially
zoned area and with over 90 signatures, we feel that the rights of the petitioning
neighbors and others surely should outweigh those of a single applicant. We will be at
the meeting Wednesday evening and hope that you will respect our requests. Sincerely,
Diana D. Cote Leo F. Cote” And they have a petition here signed by 42, I believe, 42
signatures, and there was an earlier petition read in by one of the people that came to
the microphone, and that was, that’s Mr. Murtha, and it was signed by 81 petitioners, and
I think that’s it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Would you like to make any response to any of the concerns
that were raised?
MRS. GOSLINE-Well, with Surrey Field, I was talking with Mr. Dykeman, and I told him I
didn’t need the setback on his side, and if you walk the property, it’s all driveway. So
we’re not asking for a setback on their side at all.
MR. URRICO-But in the petition it does mention.
MRS. GOSLINE-That was written up at the beginning and things have evolved, you
know, and changed. So I’m sorry for that. We would very much agree to a limited
variance. We have no problem with that at all, and these subdivisions, aren’t they on
Town water? Not that the dogs would pollute their water, but aren’t they on Town water?
I mean, they’re saying we’re going to pollute their water, and this a permitted use in this
zone. I didn’t write the zoning. We’re applying, we’re doing everything that we’re asked
of, and that’s where we are. So I don’t know what else to say.
MR. POLUNCI-I just want to make it clear to everyone that we’re just going for a setback
variance to our own property line, not Surrey Field, not any, we’re actually making it
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
closer to us, so it would be farther away from any of these, the Surrey Field, Cedar
Court, Bob Murtha, O’Connor. It would actually put us farther away from them with the
dogs, in that aspect. As far as the Special Use Permit goes, that would be for next week
on that, on, you know, those setbacks for the kennel. We’re not looking for a setback for
the kennel itself, just that particular run. As far as, if you were to build a house back
there, I don’t think you’d have to be 200 feet from the fence, I mean, from your property
line. I think you can go closer than that. So it would have to apply to the Special Use
Permit, if I’m right on that. I don’t see how this is going to impact any animals. They can
come and go over those particular fences. They can jump and clear those fences. If
anything, it’ll keep maybe a cat out and that’s about it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think what I’m going to do here is this. What I want from
you Board members is a little bit of discussion here, and then I’m going to make a closing
statement here, and I’m going to make my recommendation to you, and you can give
me, tell me if you want to go where I’m going with this or not, but here’s what I’m going to
recommend. We’ve got two things that have to happen here. Number One, you’re going
to have to go to the Planning Board and it’s going to be necessary for you to obtain that
Special Use Permit from the Planning Board, and I think that the concerns of the
neighborhood, both pro and con, and everybody’s made some valid commentary here
tonight. This Board is not disposed to be negative about this or positive about this at this
point in time. I think that what we’re going to do is we’re going to send this on to the
Planning Board. My recommendation is going to be to send this on to the Planning
Board so you appear before them and see what the status of your Special Use Permit is
at that point in time. I’m going to remind everybody here in the room, this is a permitted
use on Rural Residential Three acre property as is recognized by the Town, by the Town
Codebook. Our narrow parameters are that the only thing we’re looking at here is the
narrowness of their setbacks from their own properties, all right. As far as the setbacks
from your property, Surrey Field, everybody over on Mannis Road, everybody on
Fitzgerald Road. They meet the requirements for those setbacks from your property for
this usage here. Nonetheless, these are the comments that I’m going to make, and I
don’t know if you Board members want to make any comments prior or not. So why
don’t I go down through. Brian, do you want to start?
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I agree with everything that the Chairman’s said here tonight,
and I feel the same way. It’s a permitted use in this zone. You need 10 acres. You have
20. The only thing that bothers me is that this could either be moved, and I know that
you don’t want to do that because of the area that you want to be able to run the dogs
through. So the other possibility would be, as I see it, to make the minimum relief
required, would be for you to join those two pieces of property, the one where the dogs
are going to be and the one to the north of that, Mary Lee Gosline’s property. That would
reduce the amount of relief requested. Now it wouldn’t matter from the Gosline/Polunci
place, but it would be less relief than you’re asking for now, and one of the things that we
have to do here is to decide what would be the minimum amount of relief. So it would be
my suggestion that it either gets moved, which it looks like you don’t want to do, or you
join those two pieces of property to get the minimum amount of relief.
MRS. GOSLINE-If I joined those two pieces of property, I wouldn’t even have to have
any setbacks.
MR. CLEMENTS-It could be.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think you do have two different zones there, though. I mean,
you’re one acre zoning. I believe along the road is three acres?
MRS. GOSLINE-No, they’re the same zone. So I wouldn’t have any setbacks or
anything. I could put it anywhere I want.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, in order to do that, you would have to go before the
Planning Board, because the acreage that you were planning this kennel on is part of a
previous subdivision. So you can’t just do an administrative line change. So you’d have
a few more hurdles to go through with that.
MRS. GOSLINE-But it is possible, right?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It’s not a magic wave of the wand though, by any chance. All
right. Joan, do you want to give some comments?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I’ve listened to all the people in the room tonight, and there’s valid
reasons for both sides. It’s tough, but as we here on the Board are only looking at the
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
variance, the fence variance. That’s all we can do. My suggestion, you could change
the shape of the fencing, and in that way increase the space between your property and
the fence a little bit by elongating it and bringing it, and you would just cause a little bit
more distance between the property line. You could do that, and that would minimize the
amount of variance we had to give, but I feel quite strongly that I would like to hear what
the Planning Board has to say. I hate to table, to recommend tabling a variance like this,
because obviously it’s just a fence variance and it’s not just a fence variance, but it is a
fence variance, but I would recommend, I would follow our Chairman’s recommendation
that we wait and hear what the Planning Board has to say, and then you have to come
back. I’m sorry.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George?
MR. DRELLOS-Yes. I would like to hear what the Planning Board has to say myself. I
think, but they might change a few things on these plans anyway, but if we say no to this,
to the people out there, actually, this would move closer to your homes. So, that’s what
I’m looking at. If we say no, this will actually be closer. So, in a way you might want it
closer to your property, and let you hear the dogs or whatever. So, you know, I don’t
know if there’s a win situation for you. If we say no, it might be worse, for the people
sitting out there. That’s the way I see it, Jim. So I don’t know.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. You could change the shape or you could combine the two pieces of
property, and you wouldn’t need it, but it’s the use, well, anyway, that’s all I have to say
about the fence variance. Everybody stated what they were stating, and, I don’t know,
maybe nobody’s ever gone down and seen how these are. I happen to have a friend
that’s got one, that’s got six buildings, and they’re not that noisy, but anyway, that’s my
own personal experience, but as far as this fence variance, you could combine the
pieces of property. You could change your dog runs, and you’d need less relief or none
at all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I would like to see what the Planning Board has to say. That may
change the variance they’re asking for. I would like to see it go to the Planning Board.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think it’s actually a simple question here right now. You can either
put it in the location that does not need a variance, and be done with it, or you can do
what you’re doing and try to put it away from everybody’s property line, which is what
you’re trying to do, and ask for a variance, and that’s what you’re doing. I want to remind
everybody, this is a permitted use in this area, and they have the space to put it in the
location that doesn’t require a variance. Because what you’re asking for, I’d like to know
exactly where the location is going to be and the Planning Board is probably going to
suggest where might be the best location for it. So that’ll affect the footage and before I
say yes or no, I want to know what we’re permitting.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I moved to Town here in 1990, and I live down on Mannis
Road, but I’m outside the notification area for this project. So I feel like I can make some
comments here, and I think that, you know, in general, anybody who’s moved into the
neighborhood, people that have lived here for generations of their families, there’s pro
and con to both situations here. I mean, I remember when I could go for a run back there
in the woods and run around Doc Barber’s property before Surrey Field came in, before
Cedar came in, before Richie filled in the whole wetlands and totally wiped it out, and
you guys had to live with years and years of dump trucks dumping slop over into the frog
ponds that used to be out there. A lot of things happen that we never anticipate, and a
lot of those things probably never should have happened or they should have happened
in a more proper manner, but things spin out of control here, and I think it’s important for
us to send this to the Planning Board. I think that’s going to be our recommendation
from the Board. You’re going to go there seeking your Special Use Permit. As far as I’m
concerned, it’s a permit that, you know, you should be able to obtain. They’re going to
listen to everybody, pro and con, on this project. It’s going to be up to them what they
decide, and people can whine and scream if they don’t like it one way or the other, but
that’s why we have a Planning Board so it addresses the problem in totality. As far as
our Board goes, once we get the signoff from the Planning Board one way or the other,
we’ll be more than happy, probably, to grant you the variance. I see no reason why a
variance that you’re granting to yourself is any great burden on the rest of the
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
community. I think there’s other things that are side issues here, and that would be the
dog barking, but every single person in here, probably 90% of the people here have dogs
of their own that bark, but the big question for you is going to be whether the Planning
Board actually agrees with you that a few more dogs in the neighborhood are going to
trip the balance and ruin life for everybody on planet earth. I doubt that’s probably going
to be the case. So I’m going to make a recommendation here tonight that we pass this
on to the Planning Board. Do we need to make them Lead Agency Status on this?
MR. OBORNE-This is a Type II.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This is a Type II. We don’t need to bother with that. I think that you
should specifically have parameters. It looks to me like you’re going to be 30 feet from
your own property lines here.
MRS. GOSLINE-Yes. If you want it 50, it’ll be 50.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, all I’m saying is just to the people that are out there, the further
you move it away from your property line, the closer it’s going to be to their home. So
that’s going to be the thing. So I’ll make that recommendation.
MOTION TO PASS AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2008 MARY LEE GOSLINE ON TO THE
PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brian Clements:
21 Blind Rock Road. The Planning Board will get back to us, and once we find out what
they’ve decided, we’ll get back to the applicant.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
MRS. GOSLINE-And we’d be more than happy to go with a temporary variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, we can’t give temporary variances. When we give a variance
it’s for good. All right, then I think what I’m going to do is I’ll keep the public hearing
open, in case you come back here and in case there’s anymore commentary, but that
commentary that we will listen to, as far as our Board is concerned, will only deal with the
setback, you know, to the dog run pens as you requested here this evening.
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MRS. JENKIN-May I ask just one more question of you, and this is about the dogs?
Where is your water supply is going to come from?
MR. POLUNCI-The water supply is actually coming from 5 Blackberry Lane, my well.
MRS. JENKIN-You’re going to put pipes up?
MR. POLUNCI-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-And then the other thing is, because it’s such a wide open area up there,
it’s a very hot area, it can be hot. Are you planning to plant trees or anything so that
there will be shade for the animals?
MR. POLUNCI-Yes.
MRS. GOSLINE-I was thinking about planting locusts, because they’re a fast growing
tree, and we’d like to put many trees on the top, and make it shadier, and bring it back to
some type of a condition that it was originally.
MRS. JENKIN-And that also helps with noise pollution, too?
MRS. GOSLINE-Yes, it does, and where I want the runs, they’re in the woods.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. What we will do, too, is we will reschedule you for the first
meeting after the Planning Board deals with this item. So they can get back to us.
You’re going to se them next week I would assume anyway. So hopefully next month we
can put you on the first or second one.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. POLUNCI-Okay. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II KRISTIN AND JESSE HOWARTH
OWNER(S): KRISTIN AND JESSE HOWARTH ZONING: SFR-10 LOCATION: 10
BULLARD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 110 FT. LONG, 6
FOOT TALL STOCKADE FENCE IN THE NONARCHITECTURAL FRONT YARD.
RELIEF FROM HEIGHT AND STYLE RESTRICTIONS FOR FENCES IS REQUIRED.
CROSS REF.: BP 2003-838 INGROUND POOL; BP 2004-174 SEPTIC ALTERATION
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.14-
2-76 SECTION: 179-5-060
KRISTIN & JESSE HOWARTH, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2008, Kristin and Jesse Howarth, Meeting Date:
August 20, 2008 “Project Location: 10 Bullard Avenue Description of Proposed Project:
The applicant wishes to erect a 6 foot tall stockade fence in the non-architectural front
yard.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from placement and height restrictions per 179-5-060.
Specifically, one (1) foot in height and a style change.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created
by the granting of this area variance; Minor effects on the community
may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. Further, the applicant
has a dense hedgerow that will screen the fence along the north side
of the property.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by
some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
According to the applicant, the height and style change is for safety purposes only as
her two children continually jump over the 4 foot fence currently installed and run out
on the road. Further, the parcel is located on the corner of Bullard and Park Place
and as such the configuration of the parcel adds to the need for a variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial;
The request for one (1) foot or 16.7% relief and a change in style may be considered
minor relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact
on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district’ Any possible physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood may be
considered minor.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created
The difficulty may be considered self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
P20030838 Inground Pool Approved 10/14/03
P20040174 Septic Alteration Approved 4/13/04
Staff comments:
The proposed northern run of the fence is screened by a six to eight foot wide
deciduous hedgerow from May through October. The applicant will install the
proposed fence in the same footprint as the current four (4) foot high chain link fence
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
that currently resides there. Further, the applicant has indicated that the fence will be
comprised of Northern White Cedar.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Tell us a little bit more. We’ve all read your narrative, and
anything you want to add?
MR. HOWARTH-Well, as it’s stated, thank you for the time. It’s much appreciated, and
as it was stated in the application, this is for a health and safety issue. If you want me to
expand on that, I can.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I think we’re, I mean, my understanding is your two sons are
like the wild men of the west out there, and you need to corral them in there with a more
substantial fence.
MR. HOWARTH-Yes, correct. As well as they are affected by autism, which makes their
safety awareness relatively low, compared to typical children, as well as their receptive
language. So if they’re running down the street, they don’t stop. I mean, as they grow,
obviously, you know, they get faster and stronger. So we felt necessary to install the six
foot, non climbable stockade. We chose, obviously, a design that would be pleasing and
now there’s a four foot chain link fence which is not necessarily pleasing to look at, and
so this is, as it was stated, a white cedar fence. I think that, unless you want to add to it.
MRS. HOWARTH-We do have petitions from our neighbors that are in agreement with
our application, and I think that we have a new one here that wasn’t here when I turned
in the packet, and both of, there’s three new neighbors that have signed it, and both of
them are neighbors that face the actual variance where there would be a change in
height.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. You can just give that to the secretary. He can read it
in when we open the public hearing. Thanks. Okay, Board members, any questions at
this time? Everybody pretty much understand the situation?
MRS. JENKIN-I have a couple of questions. The side which is the, I guess it’s the south
side of your house, there’s some shrubbery there now. You have the shrubs on the
north side that are really quite dense, and then on the south side there are shrubs there,
too. Do they have to be removed in order to put the new fence in, or no?
MRS. HOWARTH-Some of them may have to be.
MR. HOWARTH-Yes, some may.
MRS. HOWARTH-They’re growing in through the fence.
MRS. JENKIN-Do you, yes, with this chain link. Would you plan to plan to plant more
shrubs there to kind of hide the fence at all? Were you planning to do that, with your
neighbors on that side?
MR. HOWARTH-Absolutely, yes, and actually the neighbor to my south has asked for
the brochure for the fence because he’d like to continue it, along the east side of his
property.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So he may be here for a variance.
MR. HOWARTH-I don’t know what that’ll entail, but yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. HOWARTH-If it does go through, he likes the idea of having a fence. He’s also got
small children, him and his wife.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, and then the other question was just inside your yard. The fence
that you have around your pool, does it circle the pool now? Does it continue to go all
the way around the pool?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. HOWARTH-It meets the corner of the house, and the chain link.
MRS. JENKIN-It meets the chain link.
MR. HOWARTH-Yes, at a perpendicular.
MRS. JENKIN-So the boys can’t get in there without?
MR. HOWARTH-No.
MRS. JENKIN-And that will stay the same, that metal?
MRS. HOWARTH-Absolutely.
MR. HOWARTH-Correct.
MRS. JENKIN-Thank you. That’s all the questions I had.
MR. URRICO-Do you have a picture of the fence?
MR. KUHL-Is it going to be wood or is it going to be plastic?
MR. HOWARTH-It’s wood. It’s white cedar.
MR. KUHL-White cedar.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Standard white cedar fence, right?
MR. HOWARTH-Standard white cedar, tongue and groove, it’s double faced.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Square top on top?
MR. HOWARTH-Correct. It’s got a four inch board, neighbor friendly so both sides look
the same.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Anybody else got questions?
MR. DRELLOS-As long as the neighbors have signed off on it, I don’t have a problem
with it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-I see nobody. Roy, we have one letter or two letters?
MR. URRICO-“Dear Chairman and Zoning Board members: We are writing in support of
an Area Variance submitted by Kristin & Jesse Howarth at 10 Bullard Avenue,
Queensbury. As neighbors of the applicant (within 500 feet of the proposed activity) we
have reviewed the proposed request and have found it to be acceptable to us. The
proposed fence replacement will in no way have any negative impacts on our property or
the surrounding area/neighborhood. It is a fence that will, for the most part, not be visible
from the road (Park Place) and will not be in a different location from the existing fence
which they are replacing. It will be located behind an existing row of shrubs and other
vegetation and is well back from the road and any intersections. Additionally, this street
is sparsely traveled and does not generate much vehicular traffic. This proposal is
necessary for the safety and welfare of the residents of the property but this proposal
does not create any adverse impacts on or around the site or the neighborhood. It
protects the neighborhood character of the area as well as preserving the property
values of the area and the subject property. This is a project that clearly meets the
standards established in Town Law and case law for the requested variance and
represents a workable solution. Sincerely, Daniel & Charlene Kane 21 Linden Avenue
Queensbury, NY” And where is that in relation to your property, just for the record?
MRS. HOWARTH-It runs parallel to Bullard.
MR. URRICO-Okay, and then there’s another petition. “We, the undersigned, are in
support of variance request at 10 Bullard Avenue Queensbury. We have no objections
or concerns about the proposed project.” And Charlene signed this one as well, Tammy
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
Harvey, Janel Martinez. Tammy Harvey is at 18 Linden Avenue, and Janel Martinez is
at 7 Bullard Avenue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, then.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody on the Board have a problem with this one?
MR. URRICO-No, not at all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll let somebody make the.
MRS. JENKIN-I could do that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2008 KRISTIN AND JESSE
HOWARTH, Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by
George Drellos:
10 Bullard Avenue. The applicant wishes to erect a six foot tall stockade fence in a non-
architectural front yard. The relief required, the applicant requests relief from placement
and height restrictions per 179-5-060, specifically one foot in height and a style change.
In making the determination, the Board is considering the following criteria. Whether an
undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment
to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this Area Variance. Minor effects
to the community may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. Further the application
has a dense hedge row that will screen the fence along the north side of the property.
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible
for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. According to the applicant, the
height and style change will be made to ensure the safety of the applicant’s children.
Further, the parcel is located on the corner of Bullard and Park Place, and as such the
configuration of the parcel adds to the need for a variance. Whether the requested Area
Variance is substantial. This variance is considered minor relative to the Ordinance.
The 16.7% relief is considered minor. Whether the proposed variance will have an
adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district? Any possible physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood may be
considered minor, and according to the neighbor this will be a positive for them, because
they are going to add to it if they can. The difficulty may be considered self-created as
they are concerned and want to protect the safety of their children. So I move to
approve Area Variance No. 49-2008.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set.
MRS. HOWARTH-Thank you.
MR. HOWARTH-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II DOUG LIVINGSTON AGENT(S):
JOE ROULIER OWNER(S): DOUG LIVINGSTON ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 303
CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN 838 SQ. FT.
SEASONAL COTTAGE AND REPLACED BY A NEARLY IDENTICAL 838 SQ. FT.
STRUCTURE. THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE OFFERS AN INCREASE IN OVERALL
HEIGHT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. FURTHER, FLOOR AREA RATIO RELIEF IS
REQUESTED. CROSS REF.: BP 2008-066 RESIDENTIAL ALTERATIONS; BP 2008-
376 DEMOLITION; SPR 32-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 13, 2008
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-
1-7 SECTION: 179-9-030; 179-13-10
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
JOE ROULIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-2008, Doug Livingston, Meeting Date: August
20, 2008 “Project Location: 303 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant to raze existing 1194 sq. ft. three (3) bedroom seasonal camp and replace with
similar yet taller three (3) bedroom seasonal camp on same footprint.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 135 sq. ft. of relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements for
structures in the Waterfront Residential 1 acre zoning. Further, the applicant requests
6.1 feet of front setback relief, 0.5 feet north sideline set back relief and 2.3 feet south
sideline setback relief per 179-4-030.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created
by the granting of this area variance; Minor changes will be created
as a result of this proposal as this is the elimination of a rundown
structure. The majority of the lots in the neighborhood are small and
close together.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by
some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area
variance; With the condition of the house and the restrictions that the
lot offers, alternatives to the applicant appear to be limited.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial;
The relief request for 135 square feet or a 0.243 Floor Area Ratio from the 0.22 Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) requirement for the WR-1A zone per 179-4-030 may be considered
minimal. The request for front setback relief of 6.1 feet or 20.3% may be considered
minimal to moderate in relation to the ordinance. The request for the side setback
relief to the north of 0.5 feet or 4.16% of the 12 foot side setback requirement may be
considered minimal and the request for side setback relief to the south of 2.3 feet or
19.2 % may be considered minimal to moderate in relation to the ordinance.
FAR calculations:
1430.59 sq. ft (area of building) / 5885 (area of lot) = 0.243FAR or 0.023 more than
the 0.220 requirement.
5885 (area of lot) x 0.023 (area exceeding code) =135 sq. ft. of relief requested.
The requested increase in FAR in percentage terms = 2.3%
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact
on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district;
Minor physical and environmental effects may be anticipated as a result of this
project.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created;
The difficulty may be considered self created. However, the limitations of the lot may
be a contributing factor for the requested variances.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2008-066 Residential Alteration
BP 2008-376 Demolition
Staff comments:
The applicant attempted to restore the structure but it was found to have large quantities
of mold and water damage. The applicant decided to demolish the structure and rebuild
on the same foot print. The proposed structure is to be modeled after the old, however,
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
due to Town Building Code regulations, the ceiling heights must be higher. The result is
a taller and updated version of the original 3 season house.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 13, 2008
Project Name: Livingston, Doug Owner(s): Doug Livingston ID Number: QBY-AV-08-
50 County Project#: Aug08-26 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of an 838 sq. ft. seasonal cottage
and replaced by a nearly identical 838 sq. ft. structure. The proposed structure offers an
increase in overall height. Relief requested from front and side setback requirements as
well as relief from the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Further, floor area ratio
relief is requested. Site Location: 303 Cleverdale Road Tax Map Number(s): 226.12-1-
7 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes demolition of an 838 sq. ft.
cottage and replaced by a similar 838 sq. ft. structure. The proposed structure offers an
increase in overall height. The front setback is to be 23 ft. 9 in where a 30 ft. setback is
required; the side yard setbacks are to be 9 ft. 7 in and 13 ft and 13 ft where a 20 ft
setback is required. Relief is requested from front and side setback requirements,
expansion of a non-conforming structure and the floor area ratio. The information
submitted shows the location of the home on the site including septic area/holding tank,
elevation drawings, and internal layout of the home. Staff recommends no county impact
based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS
General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning
Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren
County Planning Board 8/19/08.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Roulier.
MR. ROULIER-Good evening. How are you? Going back to Staff Note Number Three, it
says 1430.59 square feet, area of building. That’s the area of the buildings. There’s a
small garage on the property.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. That includes the structure, the total square footage, and the
garage.
MR. ROULIER-And the garage. The building that I’m working on, the proposed building,
will be 1195 square feet. Okay. Just to give you a little background, what happened is
that it was an older three season camp up on the Cleverdale Road, and, have all of you
been to the property?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. ROULIER-Okay, and I originally met with Craig Brown up there, and Craig, because
it was older, it was setting down on the grade. It had to be raised up and the footings
underneath the property were either sunk or totally destroyed. So at that point Craig told
me that I could apply for a building permit, which I did, and the proposal was to put a
series of 20 sonotubes underneath the building, jack it up, so that we could work
underneath it, put 20 sonotubes underneath it, put the building back down on the new
floor surface, and then simply do a renovation of the existing building. At that point he
told me that I could also tie into the existing septic system, although quite honestly, we
weren’t sure what the septic system was. So what happened was that once we started
to work on the building and we took off the board and batten siding, and we took off
metal roofing system, we discovered that it was grossly under built. It had mold. It had
rot literally everywhere that had been disguised both by the roof and paneling on the
inside of the house and the board and batten on the outside. So at that point, I had Dave
Hatin and Craig come back up to the site, and I said that there’s really not too much that I
can do with this building. There’s not much left to be salvaged, and Dave said to me
what we should do is really go back for a variance, take down the building, and I applied
for a demolition permit at that point. I took down the balance of the rotten structure that
was there, and then I subsequently, we’ve develop almost an identical plan, the same
footprint will be identical, because we already have established that, and build a new
structure that will conform with all of the current Queensbury Codes, but to accomplish
that, we now have to literally just raise the roof of the structure, so that when you’re
internal in the structure we can meet now the requirements for staircases and head
requirements on the second floor. So I’m not, I’m still building in the same footprint as
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
the original house is depicted on the survey that’s been provided to you, and basically
what we’re doing now is looking to raise the roof approximately about four and a half
feet, so that we can then bring the structure into the current Building Code requirements.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you doing that with knee walls or are you doing that with the
pitch?
MR. ROULIER-We’ll be doing it, what we’ll be doing is raising the pitch of the roof and
centering the peak of the roof between the rear and the front of the house itself.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. ROULIER-A question that I brought up to Keith earlier today. Even though we
exceed the Floor Area Ratio of approximately, I think it’s 135 feet, okay, we are, because
it’s, in my opinion an older structure, that 135 square feet was already there. Even
though we’re applying for it now, that was already, should already be grandfathered into
the existing structure, okay. I’m not actually increasing the square footage of the house.
We do need the relief from the front, only because that’s where the existing footprint is,
and of course the two side lines. One of the questions that was asked is is it going to
have any environmental, detrimental effect in the neighborhood environmentally, and I
think, in my own personal opinion, because it’s, that area of Cleverdale is a fairly wet
area, what we did is that we went to the Town Board and we requested for a septic
variance, and the Town Board unanimously approved holding tanks for that particular
location. So I think that alone is a significant plus for Cleverdale. Secondly, because it is
a wet area, I think that we’ll be able to use gutters on the house, divert some of the water
into some catch basins on the property, so that hopefully we can mitigate some of the
runoff in that particular area. So I think from that, environmentally, I think it’s going to be
a huge plus. Is it going to affect the character of it? We won’t be any higher than the
adjoining properties. The home will be built almost identical to the home that we had
there, with the exception of it being slightly higher.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Did they, they also stipulated it was only going to be seasonal
usage until November or December, something, because you said you couldn’t do water
in there anyway, as is.
MR. ROULIER-That’s correct. One of the stipulations for, as you know, for putting in the
holding tanks is that it then becomes a seasonal property. It was a seasonal property
before we started the project. It will remain that. All of the plumbing, as you can see
from the way the, and I do have some pictures that I’d like to share with you. It’s raised
up on the sonotubes. So all of the plumbing anyway will all just be exposed. We’ll
probably put lattice in around the base of it. It won’t be enclosed or heated. I even, I had
asked Dave, I said, in the prior structure there was a propane heater in there, and he
said, well, if you wanted to put in a propane fireplace or something like that, that would
be acceptable. So I went back to my client and I offered that to them, and they said, no,
they don’t need that. All they want it for, really, is just to come up, use it as a three
season home, and then close it right down. Okay. If you want, would you like to see
some of the pictures that I ran into?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly.
MR. ROULIER-Or some of the problems and some of the pictures.
MRS. JENKIN-Is your front door going to be, it’s not going to be on Cleverdale Road?
MR. ROULIER-The front door, right now the proposal is to have it on the north side of the
house. There’s a crushed stone driveway right there, and we want to bring it in from that
side.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So this picture here is the way it’ll appear on Cleverdale, with the
two windows, and that’s actually the side of the house.
MR. ROULIER-This would be the Cleverdale Road side.
MRS. JENKIN-Right. That’s what I mean. Okay. So your front door isn’t here. It’s on
the side. Okay, and where are the catch basins going to be? You said the runoff from
the gutter will be?
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. ROULIER-What we’ll do is that there’ll be gutters both on the west side and the east
side of the house, and our proposal then will be so that the leaders will go down and dive
into a catch basin.
MRS. JENKIN-On either side over here.
MR. ROULIER-I think we’ll probably put one to the north and then the other one
somewhere to the south.
MRS. JENKIN-And then the septic is in here.
MR. ROULIER-So now you know the purpose of why I’m here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. If there’s no more questions from Board members, I
will open the public hearing, and I don’t know if we have any correspondence at all. Do
we?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Nothing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do Board members have any questions at all, or any
concerns on this one?
MR. KUHL-Basically it’s going to stay as a seasonal cottage.
MR. ROULIER-Yes, it is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You don’t have to go back to Planning Board now or you’ve still got
to do Site Plan Review with them or not?
th
MR. ROULIER-No, I’m going to do Site Plan Review on the 26.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. ROULIER-But Warren County took No County action, which I expected.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, based upon the fact that you’ve got so many of them along
that whole stretch there sort of sets the tone for the other ones eventually being
replaced, the other junkers up there on that street. I mean, I would, most of them aren’t
in too bad of shape, though, right?
MR. ROULIER-Every one of them has been worked on. To be honest with you, this was
probably the first structure that was placed there, no doubt by Howard Mason years ago
as a barn. Some of the structures, there’s a couple of seasonal camps there still. Some
of them have been converted year round, but for the most part they have a water issue in
that they can only get water for maybe seven, eight months out of the year.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because you’re pulling out of the lake for everybody.
MR. ROULIER-Yes, they’re pulling out of the lake, so I don’t think, because of this
variance, you’re going to see a rash of variances coming in there, because I just don’t
foresee it. This is really the last hurrah of junkers.
MR. URRICO-Is this for the record here, can we hold on to these?
MR. ROULIER-Yes, you can.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll poll the Board and start with you, Brian.
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. Yes, I think this is a good project. It looks like it’s clean and it’s
on the same footprint, and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-And I feel that it’ll definitely add to the neighborhood. It’ll look a lot better
than what it did before, and I would be in favor of the project myself.
MR. UNDERWOOD-George?
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. DRELLOS-Yes, I also, too. I like the idea it’s on the same footprint. That’s a good
thing right there, and it’s definitely a plus for the whole neighborhood. I think it’s going to
be a nice project.
MR. ROULIER-Can I just make one comment, because the Board members are going
this way. After you look at the pictures, I mean, when I put down that there’s a potential
fire hazard, it was a fire hazard, and I think that, by granting this and then going through
the Planning Board, meeting the current Codes and all the safety requirements that we’ll
obviously have to meet, will just be a huge plus for the immediate neighborhood.
MR. KUHL-What’s the height of it going to be?
MR. ROULIER-The height of it is approximately 22 feet.
MR. KUHL-So it’ll be under.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it’s still under the 28.
MR. ROULIER-It’s under the 28.
MR. KUHL-I agree with what everybody’s said.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes, I think this is a good project. It’s on the same footprint and it’ll be a big
improvement to the community.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-It’s one of those applications where you’re sort of mesmerized by all the
variance requests until you look at them and realize they don’t amount to a hill of beans,
so to speak. So I don’t really have a problem with any of them. I think it’s a good project.
MR. ROULIER-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think, too, you have to recognize that the Board of
Health, you know, by putting it on a holding tank, keeps it as a seasonal residence. It’s
not going to growing into like some year round palace up there, you know. It’s a small
structure. It’s been there for many years. The new one shouldn’t be any more of a
burden on the lake than any of the other ones are on that street that are on small tiny
little lots. So does somebody want to make the?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I’ll make a motion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2008 DOUG LIVINGSTON,
Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos:
303 Cleverdale Road. The applicant is proposing to raze existing 1194 square foot
three bedroom seasonal camp and replace it with a similar yet taller three bedroom
seasonal camp on the same footprint. The relief required is applicant requests 135
square feet of relief from the Floor Area Ratio requirements for structures in the
Waterfront Residential One Acre zoning. Further, the applicant requests 6.1 feet of front
setback relief, .5 feet north side setback relief, and a 2.3 foot south side setback relief
per 179-4-030. Whether an undesirable change will be produced to the character of the
neighborhood. Minor changes will be created as a result of this proposal as this is an
elimination of a rundown structure. The majority of the lots in the neighborhood are
small and close together. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved
by another method? With the condition of the house and the restrictions that the lot
offers, alternatives to the applicant appear to be limited. Whether the requested Area
Variance is substantial? The relief request for 135 square feet or a 0.243 Floor Area
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
Ratio from the 0.22 Floor Area Ratio requirement for the WR-1A zone per 179-4-030
may be considered minimal. The request for front setback relief of 6.1 feet or 20.3% may
be considered minimal to moderate in relation to the Ordinance. Also the front setback is
similar to the ones in the neighborhood. The request for the side setback relief to the
north of 0.5 feet or 4.16% of the 12 foot setback requirement may be considered
minimal, and the request for side setback relief to the south of 2.3 feet or 19.2% may be
considered minimal to moderate in relation to the Ordinance. Whether the proposed
variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood, minor physical or environmental effects may be
anticipated as a result of the project, and will certainly be not a detriment to the
neighborhood but will help the neighborhood. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-
created? The difficulty may be considered self-created. However, the limitations of the
lot may be a contributing factor for the requested variances.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of August, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. ROULIER-Thank you very much.
MR. OBORNE-See you next Tuesday.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Before you guys go, what I want to do, let’s go back, for a
minute, to Gosline, all right, the kennel thing, because we’ve got to specifically ask the
Planning Board, we’re going to, specifically we’re going to task the Planning Board with a
couple of questions we want answered, all right, and that is, I would assume, by the fact
of the commentary that was made, that everybody feels that it’s reasonable to put this
kennel as close to the Gosline’s property as is remotely possible. They’re talking 30 feet
from their property line. If we moved it out further, 200 feet away, as it’s supposed to be,
it would be closer to all the other affected parties that were complaining here this
evening.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, the thing is, you were there, and the plateau’s up here, and they
want to put the dog park down below.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Down in the hole, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-There is quite a bit of room down there, and especially, he was doing
wood or something a little farther along, and they could push it that way, elongate the run
a little bit, and it would, that’s why I was saying, they could push it, if necessary, away,
because the variance does go with the land, and we’re supposed to be doing the least
possible.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Here’s the other thing, though, that we can do, is we’re
granting a variance for a dog, you know, exercise area, so to speak, and you’re thinking,
if they were to sell the property to somebody else and they kept it as a dog park down
there, the only place they’d have the dog park would be where we stipulated it was going
to be, you know, and Roy had asked for specific information from them, when they
present it to the Planning Board, exactly where this thing is going to be, and if the
Planning Board agrees with us, that it belongs down in that low spot, it makes more
sense to me to put it down there than it does up on top on the hill where it would create
more of a nuisance. The noise would travel further.
MRS. JENKIN-Absolutely. The noise is going to be contained in that low area.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. So, in other words, we’re going to keep on track with what
we were doing there. The other side issues of how the neighborhood is affected, that’s
the Planning Board’s job to determine that. We’re not going to make that determination.
We can listen to everybody, and there’s valid points, pro and con, on that, but it has
nothing to do with what we’re doing, all right.
MR. URRICO-The Staff Notes are specific about the Planning Board (lost words).
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I was going to recommend that.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that the Zoning Board of Appeals is going to consider
seeking a recommendation from the Planning Board in regards to the location of the dog
park, and that’s specifically the walking area. Okay. The kennel area, that’s a whole
different thing. That’s not our.
MRS. JENKIN-Is it possible to put a, someone from the audience suggested this, and I
didn’t know whether to put a condition in that if the property was sold the fence is taken
down?
MR. URRICO-Can we do that?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. You could put a condition on that.
MRS. JENKIN-Then the variance is gone.
MR. KUHL-Which property? Where she lives?
MR. OBORNE-The property the fence is located on.
MRS. JENKIN-No, no, the kennel. Because it could be sold as a kennel to someone
else.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Exactly, you know, and that’s the thing, you know.
MR. CLEMENTS-And the other piece of property that’s close to it could be sold, too,
right?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, in other words, they have their lot out on the road. They have
their son’s and, or daughter’s and son in law’s lot next door, and then there’s the next
one up. It appears to me, just in general conversation, that most of the people, most
directly affected by it, aren’t concerned about it, you know, and it seems to be people that
are further off. I mean, you’re talking 700 feet away to Surrey Fields, you know, through
the woods.
MR. URRICO-She brought that on herself because in that petition, she mentioned the
setback.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. URRICO-That’s why, if she didn’t mention that, they probably wouldn’t have been
here tonight, Surrey Fields. They were brought in by the wording in that petition,
because we had a situation years ago, remember, Upper Sherman, Dennis Brower’s
sister applied for the same kind of kennel up there. Then the business went belly up
and, you know, we had nothing stipulating that they couldn’t sell it to somebody. They
ended up taking it down I think, but it could have been a disaster up there, too.
MRS. JENKIN-The other thing is, too, and this is an issue not for us, but it is the Planning
Board, where the barking is going to come from, it’s from the kennels. It’s not from the
runs.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Exactly.
MRS. JENKIN-They’re not going to be, when they’re running and having fun and playing
and, you know, they’re not going to be barking. It’s the barking up in the kennels when
it’s feeding time, as they say, and that’s a limited amount.
MR. KUHL-I’ve got friends that have one, and they have music in the houses. They have
music. The dogs don’t bark. They love to go back to their houses.
MRS. JENKIN-They aren’t your friends on Vaughn Road and Dean Road?
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-I go past there all the time. I never hear a sound. Never a sound.
MR. KUHL-They’ve got t.v.’s in each cabin. They’ve got a microwave.
MRS. JENKIN-I thought that they were going belly up because there are no dogs there,
but somebody said they’ve got a waiting list.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. KUHL-They are booming.
MR. DRELLOS-So we could put a condition on that, if they sell that land.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but we don’t have to do it until it comes back to us.
MR. DRELLOS-Right, no, I understand that, because that would work out well because if
they sold that land, maybe the son would sell his land.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And then we can just say it’s a discontinuance thing. If it’s
discontinued use, then it reverts back to what it was previously.
MR. OBORNE-That would be under the purview of the Planning Board, and it would be a
requirement of the Special Use Permit, absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So maybe you can, will our minutes be typed up in time for
the Planning Board to read or? Do we just want to send that specific. Maybe you could
type up the specific recommendation of what we’re looking for. We think the location
closer to their property line makes sense.
MRS. JENKIN-Is appropriate.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is appropriate, and if they concur with us, then we’re willing to grant.
MR. OBORNE-Well, if that was the case, you should have granted it, then, I imagine.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but, I mean, you’ve got to give those people some say, too. In
other words, they’re going to go in and whine and complain about noise, whatever they
don’t like about dogs.
MR. DRELLOS-It’s just going to make it worse for them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I’d like to send it clean to the, the recommendation is clean and, not to,
you know, point to myself, but, I mean, basically to comment on the location, the
proposed location of the fence, and then have them come back to you with whatever it is,
and then you decide.
MRS. JENKIN-And then we make the condition.
MR. OBORNE-If that works for you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. That works for me. All right.
MR. OBORNE-I have one other item. Earlier on, Gregg Brown, you’re going to need to
table him.
MR. URRICO-We did that last month.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We did last meeting.
th
MR. OBORNE-To August 27.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, no. We tabled him to September last meeting.
MR. DRELLOS-It’s in the minutes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MS. GAGLIARDI-In the minutes from last month.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. I mean, I have it right here on the agenda, request to be tabled
th
until September. Because they were due to be on the 27.
MR. URRICO-It’s in the minutes from last month. In the minutes it says a September
meeting.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/08)
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We’re all set, then, guys.
MR. OBORNE-Did you decide on what date?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, because I’m going to go in tomorrow and do that, set the
agenda with Craig for September, the two meetings.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Yes, we’re almost done with that, too.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I only got the preliminary, and I know a couple of them were
questionable whether they were going to be in on time, but we’ll even it up. It looked like
it was going to be five and five or six and six. Okay. Thanks, guys.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
39