2000-03-22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 22, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ROBERT MC NALLY
ALLAN BRYANT
CHARLES ABBATE
PAUL HAYES
MEMBERS ABSENT
NORMAN HIMES
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2000 TYPE II SR-20 DONALD N. CARLINO, JR. OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 43 PEACHTREE LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 14 FT. BY 28 FT. IN GROUND SWIMMING POOL AND
SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 121-15-68 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES
SECTION 179-19, 179-67
DONALD CARLINO, JR., PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2000, Donald N. Carlino, Jr., Meeting Date: March 22,
2000 “Project Location: 43 Peachtree Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 14’ x 28’ inground pool and seeks setback relief. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 3 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement for pools as
outlined in Accessory Structures and Uses, §179-67. Criteria for considering an Area Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be
permitted to construct and utilize the preferred in-ground pool in the desired location. 2. Feasible
alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller pool. 3. Is this relief substantial relative
to the ordinance?: 3 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to
moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The
difficulty may be interpreted as self created. However, a portion of the difficulty may be attributed to
the lot configuration. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 96-563 c/o
issued 11/13/96 Staff Comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of
this action. The common area behind this property may help soften if not eliminate any impact this
project may have on other residential properties. Much of the difficulty may be attributed to the size
and configuration of the lots within this subdivision. Most of these 10,000 sf lots with reasonable
homes meeting setback requirements may require setback relief for pools. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Mr. Carlino, do you want to talk to us? Anything more you want to add to your
application?
MR. CARLINO-Not at this time. Everything seems to be in order.
MR. STONE-The common ground behind you, is that Association owned or something?
MR. CARLINO-It’s Association owned, correct, Sherman Pines.
MR. STONE-Has any comment been made by them?
MR. CARLINO-No. Actually I went to the Board, since I am on the Board of Sherman Pines, and
got approval, through Ruth DeRoo Associates, Sherman Pines, and received a letter signed by one of
our people on our Board that there has been no one opposing the issue.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. STONE-Would you like to enter this into the record, give it to the Secretary, we can read it in
during the public hearing.
MR. CARLINO-Sure. Okay. The letter states, “There being no objections raised by Owners of
homes in the immediate vicinity of 43 Peachtree Lane, the Board of Directors hereby approves
Donald Carlino’s plans for the installation of an in-ground swimming pool, conditional upon Town
approval of his application for a setback variance and all construction and enclosures meeting Town
and Health Department regulations. SHERMAN PINES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Valerie Blackburn Randall, Secretary”
MR. STONE-Thank you. Any questions of the applicant?
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate if Mr. Carlino perhaps would submit a copy
of that letter to the Secretary, please?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. CARLINO-I brought you a copy as well.
MR. STONE-Good. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Any other questions?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, the common area is the wooded area?
MR. CARLINO-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-Are you going to go into that, is part of that wooded area your lot?
MR. CARLINO-No, I’m not. I just need a three foot setback, and we’re not going into the common
area.
MR. STONE-The three feet of relief from the 20 feet that you need back there.
MR. CARLINO-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-How deep is this common area?
MR. CARLINO-Well, the only way you can see the nearest house behind me is if they have a light
on in their back yard. You actually cannot see their house with the wooded area that I am in.
MR. STONE-So minimal is a good word.
MR. CARLINO-Not a problem.
MR. STONE-I have one question, Craig, and I looked through the book, and I don’t see it. I see
this pool extends slightly beyond the width of the house. I know we always say it has to be in the
back yard, directly adjacent to the front door. Somewhere in the back of my mind, and I may be
wrong, but we’ve always said it had to be totally behind the house. Am I wrong in that
interpretation?
MR. BROWN-Kind of. Yes, basically the rear yard is any portion of the yard behind the back plane
of the house.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what I read.
MR. BROWN-You may be thinking of a corner lot. It’s a little more restrictive on a corner lot.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it doesn’t come into play at all. I didn’t think it did.
MR. BROWN-No, and I discussed this with Mr. Carlino, and it could be just the way it’s drafted on
here, too. It does appear to be over the garage a little bit, but I remember in our discussion he
thought it was going to be more in line with the garage.
MR. CARLINO-After measuring it since we last spoke, it is approximately about one foot, two feet
past the house, tops.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. STONE-Okay, but it could be further than that I’m told, and that’s the way I read it, and I just
wanted to be sure that what I read was not, was different from what I heard. Any other questions.
If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor?
Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any other correspondence besides this one letter?
MR. MC NULTY-No other correspondence.
MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Are there any other questions of the applicant by Board members? If not, we’ll start
with Chuck. What do you think?
MR. ABBATE-Well, Mr. Carlino has a nice home there and a nice lot, and Lord knows that we have
to have as much family togetherness as we possibly can, and it would seem to me that such a way to
ensure cohesiveness among the family would be with an in-ground pool, and, quite frankly, I’m all in
favor of it.
MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-Basically, I feel the same way. I think the back yard is protected by the common
area. They can never build in that common area. Is that correct?
MR. CARLINO-No.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. The back yard is protected by the common area, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Mr. McNally.
MR. MC NALLY-I would be in favor of the application. There would be minimal effects on the
neighborhood. The three foot of relief from the 20 foot setback is minimal relief. I spoke to the
applicant about the fencing that he proposes, and that’s not going to be obnoxious. I see no reason
why we shouldn’t pass this.
MR. STONE-Does that mean it’s going to conform to the zoning, by not being obnoxious?
MR. MC NALLY-We’ll find out. We’ll see.
MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes?
MR. HAYES-I agree. It’s certainly minimal relief, and who wants a smaller pool, right? Not me. So
I’m in favor of the application, for the reasons already stated.
MR. STONE-Mr. McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-I agree. The only concern that I would have at all is if several pools were put in
with a bunch of houses, the effect that a series of fences would have, but that’s not the question
before us, and nobody’s objecting, and as far as the setback goes, as the other Board members have
mentioned, I think the common area pretty much totally mitigates the reason and the need for that
setback in this location, and the three feet, in that sense, is very minimal.
MR. STONE-Hearing Mr. McNulty’s comment, are you going to use an open fence, or a closed
fence around this pool?
MR. CARLINO-Well, along the sides of the two adjoining yards I’m going to have a five foot
stockade fence, but along the back, I have purchased a black chain link fence, four foot, so I can still
have the ability to see into the woods, keep it open.
MR. STONE-See the light through the trees. Okay. Having heard that, I certainly have no problem
with this thing. I think this is what variance applications are supposed to be. It’s very simple. You
need something that doesn’t quite meet the requirements, and you’re asking for minimum relief, and
fortunately you have a good open space behind you so the impact is definitely minimized. Having
said that, I’ll call for a motion.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2000 DONALD N. CARLINO, JR.,
Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
43 Peachtree Lane. The applicant proposes construction of a 14 x 28 foot in-ground pool and is
seeking setback relief. Specifically, he is seeking three feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear
setback requirement for pools as outlined in the accessory structures and uses, Section 179-67. In
considering this, the benefit to the applicant would be that the applicant would be permitted to
construct and utilize the preferred in-ground pool in the desired location. Feasible alternatives may
include a smaller pool. The relief is minimal, relative to the Ordinance. Three feet of relief from the
twenty foot requirement is minimal, especially considering the fact that there’s common area behind
the house to insulate houses on the other side from the pool. The effects on the neighborhood or
community, minimal effects on the neighborhood should be anticipated as a result of this action,
again, because of the common area behind the house, and is the difficulty self-created? It is self-
created. However, I’ll agree with Staff that the portion of the difficulty can be attributed to the lot
configuration. Therefore, I move that we approve this variance.
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2000, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes
MR. MC NALLY-Enjoy your pool.
MR. STONE-Enjoy your pool.
MR. CARLINO-Thank you very much, gentlemen.
MR. STONE-Get the proper permits, though.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2000 TYPE II SFR-10 KEITH & KATHLEEN SWEET
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 39 MALLORY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES
COSNTRUCTION OF A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AND AN ATTACHED 2-CAR
GARAGE AND SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. TAX MAP NO. 117-2-5 LOT SIZE: 0.13 ACRES
SECTION 179-20, 179-79
KEITH & KATHLEEN SWEET, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-2000, Keith & Kathleen Sweet, Meeting Date: March 22,
2000 “Project Location: 39 Mallory Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a second floor addition and an attached garage and seeks setback relief and relief for
the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 11.61 feet of
relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the SFR-10 zone, §179-20. Further,
since the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, relief for the expansion, in
excess of 50%, of a non-conforming structure is requested per §179-79 Criteria for considering an
Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant
would be permitted to construct the desired addition and gain additional living space as well as an
attached garage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include offsetting the garage to
meet the front setback requirement. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 11.61
feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. However, the bulk of
the addition, 2 story and garage will be located at a 24.39 foot setback from the right of way, which
nd
may be interpreted as minimal. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to
moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this
difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. However, the existing
porch is being downsized to be more compliant with the front setback requirement. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 90-547 11/7/90 pool deck
BP 90-240 11/2/90 pool
AV 94-89 8/23/89 pool in side yard tabled
Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
proposed construction will be 3 feet further from the road than the existing home and the side yard
area appears to be sufficient for the expansion. SEQR Status: Type II”
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Sweet, I assume? Anything else you want to tell us about your
application?
MR. SWEET-No.
MR. STONE-Nothing to add. What about, I gather that you now own the lot to, let’s say the north?
MR. SWEET-Yes, the next three, actually, three lots.
MR. STONE-You own 93, 94 and 95?
MR. SWEET-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. When you’re through constructing this, assuming we give you a variance, are
those lots going to be made to look more attractive?
MR. SWEET-Yes.
MR. STONE-That’s the nicest I could be.
MRS. SWEET-That was my first thought.
MR. STONE-That was your first thought. Okay. How about the shed in the back?
MR. SWEET-It’s going.
MR. STONE-It’s going. Good, that takes care of two of my problems. Any other questions of the
applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-That’s the deed that you conveyed lots as one parcel, that you submitted to us?
MR. SWEET-We took one lot and deeded it to the other one.
MR. MC NALLY-So there’s a single deed, now, for all those parcels?
MR. SWEET-Not for all of them, where the house and the garage is, yes.
MR. STONE-So they’ll be joined for tax purposes?
MR. SWEET-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Was that a wood stove furnace on the one corner?
MR. SWEET-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that tied in to the house underground?
MR. SWEET-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Hot water?
MR. SWEET-Hot water.
MR. STONE-That will stay?
MR. SWEET-It’s questionable. I’m not sure, but it gets rid of the wood that’s around the yard there.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m glad you asked the question. I was wondering what it was.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s not a shed. That’s a somewhat kind of a high tech wood stove.
MR. STONE-I assumed it was, yes. I knew it wasn’t low tech.
MR. HAYES-I’m presuming that you’re keeping the garage in line for aesthetic reasons, versus their
suggestion of setting it back. That makes sense.
MR. STONE-And you are actually going to increase the setback by the new porch, slightly, and the
11’ 6” is with the new porch, Craig, right?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Yes, because it don’t see that on the drawing. They’re just downsizing it.
MR. BROWN-He’s cutting it back, I think, three feet.
MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what it looks like. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Hearing
none, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor?
Anybody opposed? Any letters at all in the box, correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-I see no letters.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any further questions of the applicant? Okay, Allan, you’re first. What do you think?
MR. BRYANT-I think that the construction will actually enhance the appearance of the building.
The setback requirements really relate to the existing structure and have nothing to do with what
you’re building now. I would be in favor of the proposal.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of the proposal. The house needs reconstruction badly, and anything
you do to that house is going to need rebuilding. It’s an old house, and it’s worn down and broken.
You’re not living there now?
MR. SWEET-No.
MR. MC NALLY-No way.
MR. STONE-But you have started work.
MR. SWEET-We’ve gutted it, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. You can do that without a variance.
MR. MC NALLY-They have a choice of putting the garage back further, but I think it’s
architecturally more aesthetic to have it in line with the rest of the house. It’s certainly more pleasing
to look at. I don’t see the relief as substantial relative to the Ordinance. This is going to be a
betterment to the property, by far, and the existing house is close to the road, not too bad, .though.
The proposal is a little bit further away, and that’s a betterment as far as I can tell. The only effect on
the neighborhood or community is that there will be an improvement, and for these reasons, I’m in
favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree with Bob and Allan. I think when homeowners invest their time and money
and energy to recycle properties, particularly ones that really need to be recycled, that we ought to
help them in any way that we can. All I can see is an improvement in the neighborhood, and an
overall good thing to the project. So I’m totally in favor.
MR. STONE-Chuck Number One?
MR. MC NULTY-I guess all I can say is ditto. I think given the existing house and its location, I
don’t see how anything else could be done, short of tearing the whole house down and rebuilding. It
makes sense to put the garage where it’s proposed. I don’t see that it’s going to bother the neighbors
to the side at all, given the amount of space. So I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Chuck Number Two?
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have any problems. You folks are to be congratulated for taking this project
on. I have one question for Craig, though. I’m assuming that they have ownerships to all three
parcels now, 93, 94 and 95? Correct? Based on the deed that I have here in front of me? Is this
correct now?
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. These are still considered three separate entities, though, are they not, Craig,
these parcels, or are they all considered one now?
MR. STONE-Well, they’re joining two for tax purposes.
MR. BROWN-I think it’s 195, and a portion of, did you do all of 194 or a portion of 194?
MR. SWEET-All of 194.
MR. BROWN-All of 194, and 193 and the other lots that they own are separate.
MR. STONE-Yes, but the setback is, there’s no problem, since they’re on 194 and they own it, it’s
going to be made one lot.
MR. BROWN-Correct. Does that answer your question?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. If it’s going to be made one lot, because my question was, I’m assuming that
there are provisions in the Town to co-mingle two separate entities, if they were two separate entities,
but based on what you folks are telling me, it’s going to end up with one entity? In which case
there’ll be one provision that will cover it all, but if these were three separate entities, I guess my
question is this, would we be co-mingling Town Ordinances?
MR. BROWN-I’m not sure if I understand the question. If they weren’t, let me put it this way. If
they weren’t combined, consolidated for tax purposes in one parcel, they’d be requesting setback
relief because there’s an existing property in there.
MR. STONE-Yes. There would be zero setback on two different sides.
MR. BROWN-Right. So that’s the reason for the consolidation.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s the only thing that was bothering me, but other than that, I don’t have
a problem with it.
MR. MC NALLY-Their deed’s already filed.
MR. ABBATE-The deed’s already filed. Okay. It’s a done deal.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s a done deal.
MR. BROWN-That also includes, on the drawing on your file, it says unknown owner strip there.
MR. STONE-On the other one, yes.
MR. BROWN-On the other side. So that’s included in there as well. So that increases those six foot
setbacks.
MR. STONE-It is?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STONE-The unknown owner is included?
MR. BROWN-In the new deed that was filed. Is that correct?
MR. SWEET-Yes.
MR. STONE-How did you get title to the land if the owner is unknown?
MR. SWEET-Well, my parents used to own the parcel before, and the lawyer took care of it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-I just wanted to point that out. That’s why there’s no relief asked for on that side of
the house.
MR. STONE-I understand.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. STONE-I agree with the rest of the Board members. This is a totally win/win situation,
particularly when I hear a willingness to take down the shed, which is an eyesore, and leaning, as you
say, and to clean up the lot when you get done, and I saw Mrs. Sweet say you better believe we’re
going to clean this lot up, and I think you’d be applauded, as some of the members have said, for
taking a property that is in need of renovation, recognizing that the neighborhood around could also
use it, but saying we’re going to go ahead and we’re going to do our bit to make this a better
neighborhood, and I applaud that. Having said that, I’d call for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2000 KEITH & KATHLEEN
SWEET, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
39 Mallory Avenue. The applicant proposes the construction of a second floor addition, and an
attached garage, and seeks setback relief and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure.
Now, specifically, the Sweets asked for 11.61 feet of relief from the required 30 foot minimum front
setback requirement of an SFR-10 zone, that is Section 179-20 of the Town Zoning Ordinance.
Also, since the existing structure does not meet the setback requirements, the applicants are
requesting relief for the expansion in excess of 50% of a nonconforming structure, pursuant to
Section 179-79. I move that we approve this variance on the following grounds. First, the benefit
to the applicant is apparent. The building is in very poor shape and needs reconstruction badly.
Second, there really are no feasible alternatives. You might be able to offset the garage, but in all
honesty, it makes more sense to have it in line with the proposed new construction. The relief is not
substantial to the Ordinance, given the fact that the property is already closer than the proposed
setback from the front of the house. They’re actually moving the front porch further back. So I
some sense there’s a lessening of the existing encroachment. Moreover, I don’t see any effect upon
the neighborhood or community. It’s not going to bother anyone, given the fact that these people
own the property around them and have made an effort to purchase or acquire land so that they
would have minimal effects on their neighbors. For all these reasons, I move its approval.
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2000, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. SWEET-Thank you.
MR. MC NALLY-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2000 TYPE II SFR-1A PATRICIA D. GREEN OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 48 OAKTREE CIRCLE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION
OF A SWIMMING POOL ON A CORNER LOT. APPLICANT REQUESTS SETBACK
RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM YARD PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS. TAX
MAP NO. 93-5-133 LOT SIZE: 0.25 ACRES SECTION 179-67, 179-20
PATRICIA GREEN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2000, Patricia D. Green, Meeting Date: March 22, 2000
“Project Location: 48 Oaktree Circle Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of an in-ground pool and seeks setback relief as well as relief from the yard placement
requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5 feet of relief from the 35 foot minimum
setback requirement for a pool on this lot. Per §179-67, B.(5), a pool on a corner lot shall be located
in the yard opposite the architectural main entrance of the principal structure. Criteria for
considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired pool and gain an additional
outdoor recreation area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of
the pool to a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 5
feet of relief from the 35 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects
on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 91-520 7/18/91 deck
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
BP 91-358 applied 5/28/91 above ground pool not issued
BP 90-040 c/o 5/16/90 single family dwelling
Staff Comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
yard is currently screened by a pre-existing non-conforming stockade fence which should address any
visibility issues. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Mrs. Green, any things you want to add?
MRS. GREEN-No. I think that’s all. I bought the house last summer, and I bought it, you know,
hoping that I would be able to, not knowing that I needed additional permission. I bought it hoping
that I’d be able to put a pool in the back yard.
MR. STONE-When you bought the house, was the fence up?
MRS. GREEN-Yes.
MR. STONE-The fence is, technically, illegal, is that right?
MRS. GREEN-’92, right?
MR. STONE-That’s what I was going to ask, when it was built.
MR. BROWN-The current fence ordinance, that type of fence would not be permitted. Prior to
1993, it was not prohibited.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-My understanding, it was installed pre-’93.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, the house was built, what, in ’91?
MR. BROWN-’91.
MRS. GREEN-’90, March of ’90.
MR. MC NALLY-In ’93 the new Ordinance was amended. There was an Ordinance beforehand.
Did they allow stockade fences in front yards on a corner?
MR. BROWN-In front yards they did.
MR. STONE-So you’re saying it’s nonconforming, but it’s legal, because it is pre-existing?
MR. BROWN-Correct, pre-existing, sure.
MR. STONE-Okay. So that was a concern I had. One of the concerns I have, quite frankly, in your
neighborhood is that in an effort to get privacy, and I recognize people’s need for privacy, there are
so many fences in that neighborhood, it’s like each house is an individual fortress. I’m going too far.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, if you look around that neighborhood, there are no trees. There are
no sizeable trees at all in that neighborhood.
MRS. GREEN-Right. I don’t have, I have one tiny tree in my yard that I planted.
MR. STONE-I noticed it. It’s one of those things that it bothered me. On your drawing here, you
show the septic tank and then two distribution boxes. Is that what these round things that the pool’s
going to sit over?
MRS. GREEN-Yes, leach beds.
MR. STONE-Those are leach beds. So the pool’s going to sit on one of those, go into one of those?
MRS. GREEN-No. One of them can be moved. One of them can be moved they told me. I’ve just
had the septic tank taken care of just last week.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. STONE-Okay. If one can be moved, why can’t they both be moved and move the pool closer
behind the house?
MRS. GREEN-I don’t know.
MR. STONE-That’s a concern that I have, looking at this thing, that you’re asking for relief.
MRS. GREEN-Actually, they did say that they could put the pool on top of one of them. They did
say that because I had two of them they could do that.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t know if that’s the wisest thing in the world.
MRS. GREEN-Mr. Sprague is in Florida, and he hasn’t come to look at the property yet.
MR. STONE-I mean, one of the reasons you have a leach field is evaporation, and if you put it under
something which is impermeable, it doesn’t evaporate very well.
MR. BROWN-Right. The Health Department Code doesn’t prohibit it. It doesn’t recommend it. I
think in this case it’s going to be unavoidable to have to relocate it because it’s an in-ground pool,
and unless that drywell is 12 feet in the ground, which I’m sure that it isn’t.
MR. STONE-Well, then if you’re going to move one, I’m wondering why we can’t move both, and
take the leach field back into the other part, further away?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, of course the stockade fence is going to shield the pool anyway.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-Regardless, as long as she puts it within the existing stockade fence and leaves that
up as a stockade fence.
MR. MC NALLY-When you drew your diagram, did you have a survey you drew it from?
MRS. GREEN-Yes, well, kind of.
MR. MC NALLY-Or was that from a tax map. Do we really know where the boundaries are?
MR. BROWN-It was the map that I prepared for you. It’s from a tax map or from our GIS maps
that we create.
MRS. GREEN-Yes. Right.
MR. BROWN-Similar to your site maps that I gave you in the Staff Notes, similar, but just a
different scale.
MR. MC NALLY-I mean, this application you’re asking for five feet of relief on the thirty foot side is
that?
MR. STONE-Yes, on the Oaktree side.
MR. MC NALLY-And we’re to assume that’s the property line? The fence looks awfully close to the
street. Does she own up to the street?
MRS. GREEN-This is the map that I got with the house. This is the surveyors map.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s got 36 feet to the side of the house, there.
MR. STONE-These are dedicated roads, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Town roads, absolutely.
MR. STONE-Fifty foot wide, three rods. The old famous three rods, forty-nine and a half foot.
Because it looks as if, on the tax map plot here, that the property extends out into the right-of-way.
MR. BROWN-It appears to be on the corner, the southwest corner.
MR. STONE-I think Bob raises a good point. Where is the relief being sought? On this diagram, it
looks like, well, it’s 30 feet to the edge of the pool, not to the edge of the deck, which the deck
counts, too.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. HAYES-Is it going to be a deck? It’s an in-ground pool, so it’s going to be cement.
MR. STONE-Cement, but does that count?
MR. BROWN-No. We’d count to the water’s edge.
MR. STONE-The water’s edge. Okay. So it’s 30 feet, but from the fence. Is the fence the property
line?
MR. BROWN-I don’t know that.
MRS. GREEN-I don’t know. I didn’t have it surveyed.
MR. MC NALLY-You can look at it approximately.
MR. BROWN-I have a scale, if that would help.
MR. MC NALLY-We can just grant relief from the property line, and if she gets it wrong, then that’s
her problem. Because it looks like, when I looked at your application, it looked as if you were asking
relief from your fence. Everything’s measured from the fence. It should be from the property line.
It looks about right.
MR. BROWN-That’s a dimension 36 feet from the property to the house, and that’s to this back
corner, and I would guess that that’s 36 feet. It’s labeled 35 to the front. I would say the fence is on
the property line.
MR. STONE-I mean, it’s usually imperative that we know where the property line is.
MR. BROWN-I would think that the fence is on the property line. It appears to be, from the
dimensions on the survey drawing.
MRS. GREEN-I have in-ground sprinklers outside the fence that I use, that are installed.
MR. HAYES-Well, they could be in the Town right-of-way, though, too.
MR. MC NALLY-Craig says he’s happy.
MR. STONE-You’re happy with the five foot of relief. You think that adequately describes what
we’re seeking here.
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. MC NALLY-If there’s a resolution, the relief is from her property line.
MR. STONE-Of course, we’ve got to say from the property line. Any other questions? If not, I’ll
open the public hearing. Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
TIM RILEY
MR. RILEY-Tim Riley. I live at 50 Oaktree Circle, and I’ve not actually met my neighbor. She only
moved in last summer, our paths have not crossed. I actually had come with a concern as well as
some interest in this. As you can see from the drawing, our side yard, if you will, is only roughly 20
foot from the existing stockade fence.
MR. STONE-Now which property are you?
MR. RILEY-I’m, right on the edge of the paper is me.
MR. HAYES-The one with no windows facing that side?
MR. RILEY-Exactly. So my first comment is, I’m in favor of it staying where it is, because where it
is, it’s centrally spotted right across from the side of my house where I have no windows. If it goes
the other way, my back deck overlooks. If it goes the other way, my front porch overlooks. So this
is perfect. So I would appreciate it if you don’t make her move her other drywell and go with that.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
My other concern, however, is the fence, in that I just heard that it was illegal to have a stockade
fence of that height, to have another one. Obviously, hers was there before, but from our
perspective, being that close, that fence is very much a bonus. Now, what happens, 10 years from
now, 20 years from now, you win the lottery and move to Florida, someone else moves in, they don’t
want that fence. That fence, in my view, is a very important part of the neighborhood.
MR. STONE-We can’t force a future owner to leave the fence up. If they took it down, we can
prohibit them from building it six feet high, as it is now, but we can’t do anything about saying you
can’t.
MR. BROWN-In this case, I think you can make it a part of the variance that the pool be, the
screening be maintained for the pool, especially on a corner lot. That’s required in the Ordinance.
So, you can if you want to.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. RILEY-Given where it’s sited, that would certainly be our interest. We love the way it looks
now, and if it would stay that way forever, that would be great. Because we are very close on that
side.
MR. STONE-All right, but all we can say is that it be screened. We can’t say a stockade fence. We
can’t say six feet.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. RILEY-But, from my perspective, that would be better than someone putting a four foot chain
link, or something up there.
MR. MC NALLY-That would be lawful.
MR. STONE-That would be lawful. I mean, if she were building the pool without a fence, the most
she could do would be put in a five foot fence on that side, that every other slat was missing, let’s say,
of a stockade fence. That would meet the Code. That’s the most screening they could put in,
starting from scratch.
MR. RILEY-And the least screening would be, essentially, a chain link or something like that?
MR. STONE-Well, it’s got to have a fence around it.
MR. RILEY-Right, I understand, from a legality issue.
MR. MC NALLY-Mrs. Green’s fence, where it abuts your property, along that side of your house, is
lawful. It’s permitted.
MR. RILEY-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-The fence so close to the road would not be permitted today.
MR. RILEY-I see.
MR. STONE-Or so high, or the type of construction.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-But as far as next to your deck, that’s in her back yard and your side yard, not in
any front yard, and therefore, I’m sure either you put one up or she’ll put one up.
MR. RILEY-Right. Okay. I was more curious about, down the line, what were the ramifications, but
we’re certainly thinking where it is is the best spot it’s going to be, and they’re nice neighbors, and
hopefully my daughter will be splashing in there this summer.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. RILEY-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anybody else in favor? Anybody opposed? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-If not, I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any further questions of the applicant? Okay. Bob, do you want to start?
MR. MC NALLY-Honest, I’m not a fence person, and that fence is something that screamed at me
when I went by there, saying it doesn’t belong so close to the road and the front yard. You’re on a
corner lot. So you’ve got a disadvantage, but I can’t do anything about that, at least not now, and
otherwise the relief that you’re asking for is minimal. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree with Bob. In fact, we had an application awhile ago where there was a picture
of that fence, as a piece of evidence in favor of their application, but I think that’s a totally moot
issue at this point. It’s there, and we really have to deal with the relief for the pool, and I don’t see
any problem with it. I think it’s minimal, and I think the desire to have a pool in your back yard is
perfectly natural, and I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m basically in favor, too. I think, especially considering that the fence is there, so
it does provide screening for the pool, and I think I would like to see something in the motion that
requires continued screening, but as long as there’s something in there that requires maintenance of
screening around the pool, if the fence is ever removed, I’m fully in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-I don’t, I wish you well, Mrs. Green. I don’t have a problem with that, and as all the
colleagues have indicated, some object to the fence, but the fence really is a moot point. I have no
problems with the pool.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I also have no problem. I don’t like fences. I think it really is a plus in this case,
because it will shield a view from the corner area. I just wish that neighborhood would plant some
more trees.
MR. STONE-Well, I certainly, I concur with the concern about the fences. It is something that, in
the Town of Queensbury, it has become a problem in many neighborhoods. Many are pre-existing.
Unfortunately, not all are pre-existing. We do have some illegal fences out there, and it’s a process
we’re trying to do something about, but it does take time, and I certainly recognize the value to your
neighbor of having the fence, and to you to having a fence that high. Having said that, I certainly,
though, have no problem with the minimal amount of relief sought here. Having said that, I need a
motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2000 PATRICIA D. GREEN,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
48 Oaktree Circle. The applicant proposes construction of an in-ground pool and seeks setback
relief as well as relief from the yard placement requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests five
feet of relief from the property line, from the 35 foot minimum setback requirement for a pool on
this lot, per Section 179-67B(5), a pool on a corner lot shall be located in the yard opposite the
architectural main entrance of the principal structure. Criteria for considering such a variance, one,
the benefit to the applicant. The applicant would be permitted to construct the pool in the desired
location. Feasible alternatives. I believe that feasible alternatives are limited, based on the fact that
it’s a corner lot, and there is an existing septic system to be contended with. Is the relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance? Five feet of relief from the 35 foot requirement, I believe, is minimal in
this particular case. Effects on the neighborhood or community. I believe that it’s very minimal
impact on the neighborhood. There’s an existing significant stockade fence, and there is still 30 feet
of setback for the edge of the pool in this particular case, and we also, in addition, have positive input
from the most impacted neighbor, in this particular case. Is the difficulty self-created? It’s certainly
self-created in that the desire for the pool and to locate it where she would like, but I believe that the
corner lot and the existing septic system contribute to the problem as well. On balance, therefore, I
think the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I move for its approval. I’d like to make the motion
contingent on maintaining significant screening of the pool, in regards to a fence and some
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
vegetation, if the stockade fence is ever removed, significant vegetation, since it is a corner lot, and
there is concern from the neighborhood.
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2000, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes
MR. STONE-Go build your pool.
MRS. GREEN-Thank you very much.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 21-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A ALDI, INC. OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT WISHES TO MAINTAIN AN
EXISTING “RELIEF” SIGN ON THE NORTHERN FAÇADE OF THE ALDI FOOD
STORE SIGN ON QUAKER ROAD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 3/8/00 TAX
MAP NO. 105-1-3 LOT SIZE: 2.24 ACRES SECTION: 140
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 21-2000, Aldi, Inc., Meeting Date: March 22, 2000 “Project
Location: Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant wishes to maintain an
existing “relief” sign on the northern facade of the Aldi Food Store on Quaker Road. Relief
Required: Applicant requests relief from the Sign Ordinance; §140-6 B.(3),(c) for an additional wall
sign. A business shall be permitted 2 signs; one wall and one freestanding or two wall signs. This
request is for a second wall sign while maintaining the freestanding sign. Criteria for considering a
Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant
would be permitted to maintain an existing “relief” sign and continue to have additional visual
recognition. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include removal of the freestanding
sign in favor of a second wall sign. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: A
second wall sign, when only one is permitted, in this instance, may appear to be significant relief;
(100%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action as no public opposition has been noted to
date. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel
History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Notice of Appeal 1-98 1/21/98 withdrawn
Sign Permit 97-3048 5/14/97 freestanding sign
Sign Permit 97-3049 5/12/97 wall sign
Site Plan Review 44-96 9/17/96 ALDI, Inc. food store
Area Variance 65-99 8/21/96 ALDI, Inc. food store setback relief
Sign Variance 66-99 8/21/96 ALDI, Inc. food store freestanding sign size
Staff Comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. No
public opposition to the sign has been noted to date. Notice of Appeal 1-98, appealing whether the
“relief” sign in question was a sign or not, was withdrawn by the applicant/agent and it was agreed
that the sign would be removed/remedied by Spring 1998. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. MC NULTY-And we have Warren County comments. “Warren County Planning Board
Project Review and Referral Form 1 March 2000 Project Name: Aldi, Inc. Owner: Same ID
Number: QBY-SV-21-2000 County Project #: Mar00-11 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant seeks a variance for a “relief sign” located on the façade
of the Quaker Road Aldi building. Site Location: Quaker Road Tax Map No. 105-1-3 Staff Notes:
The applicant requests a sign variance for an “A” built into the gable end of the store facing Quaker
Road. If the variance is not granted, the applicant will move a back lit sign currently facing west to
the northern façade to cover the “A”. Staff identifies no impacts to the variance significant at the
county level. However, due to the Board’s empirical position on variance requests from the sign
ordinance, staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): According to the applicant’s
attorney, the local ZBA had determined that the relief emblem constituted a sign under Queensbury
Zoning Code. The Town recently contacted Aldi & indicated that the store had 3 unapproved signs
including the relief sign. County Planning Board Recommendation: NO COUNTY IMPACT”
Signed Teri Ross, Warren County Planning Board.
MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, I assume you’re representing Aldi?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. LAPPER-Yes, sir. Good evening. I guess I would ask, to start with, if my cover letter to the
Chairman could be read into the record, as well.
MR. MC NULTY-Sure. It’s a cover letter from Jonathan C. Lapper, addressed to Lew Stone, Acting
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals “Dear Lew: On behalf of Aldi, Inc. I hereby submit an
application for a sign variance for the “relief” sign located on the Quaker Road façade of the Aldi
building. Previously, the ZBA determined that the “relief” “A” emblem in the stucco façade
constitutes a sign under the Queensbury Zoning Code. Craig Brown recently contacted Aldi and
indicated that the store had three unapproved signs including the one described above. It is my
understanding that the other two signs have now been removed. There was no intention on the part
of applicant to violate the Town Zoning Code. Aldi never assumed that the “relief” trademark
would constitute a sign when the building was constructed. Moreover, as I have previously discussed
with Chris Round, it is my understanding that the building permit application included this “relief”
trademark and therefore the construction of this “sign” in reliance upon the building permit
constitutes a vested right if not appealed with sixty days of the issuance of the building permit. Aldi
therefore must respectfully reserve its right to impose a vested rights defense while it alternatively
submits to the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board for this variance application. The rationale for
granting the requested sign variance is because the building and signage look better as presently
constructed in comparison to conforming with the Ordinance and relocating the back lit wall sign on
the western façade to the Quaker Road façade to cover up the “relief” sign. I’m sure the ZBA will
agree that the “relief” sign is rather subtle and less imposing than the relocation of the western facing
sign would be. Please place this matter on the agenda for one of your March ZBA meetings. Very
Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper”
MR. STONE-Having the applicant place that letter into the file, I would like the Secretary to read the
minutes from the January 21, 1998 meeting, and also a letter written by a representative of the Aldi
Company. Starting with Notice of Appeal.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. “NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-98 ALDI, INC. APPLICANT IS
APPEALING THE DETERMINATION BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THAT
A RELIEF OR SCULPTED DEPICTION OF THE ADLI’S CORPORATION LOGO ON
THE NORTH FACADE OF THE FACILITY IS A SIGN AS DEFINED IN THE TOWN
OF QUEENSBURY SIGN ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 240). TAX MAP NO. 105-1-3
WEST OF HANNAFORD’S GROCERY STORE ON QUAKER ROAD
BARBARA POND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MS. POND-My name is Barbara Pond. I’m the Store Manager. An hour or two ago I was presented
this paperwork from Lew Kibbling, who has to be in Syracuse at 7:30 for another meeting of a
problem with the store. So I’m really out of my element here, and I just read this while I was sitting
here. We do want to, however, comply with everything that the Town wants. What they were
asking, though, is, because it is like a sandstone etching, it would be very difficult right now to do
that work without bringing in, I guess, a heated tent, and it would tie up traffic by the handicapped
area that is over to the left of that building, and we would like to have time, I guess in May is when
the weather is permitting to be able to do that without the cold, to maybe have that work done then
and maybe to waive the fine. I read in here I guess it’s $250 a day, and the reason why the sign was
put up in the beginning is our contractor, who Lew had been dealing with, we hadn’t received the
Sign Ordinance yet, and he was using a contractor that was supposed to have been aware of all the
regulations. We received the Ordinance after the fact, and now he has all that information, and we
want to comply totally with it, but we’re asking for Spring to do so.
MR. THOMAS-What do you think, Chris? Well, you’re on the other side of the fence. You sign the
letters.
MR. ROUND-Yes. All the Town is looking for is compliance with the Ordinance. We thought the
point of contention was that they didn’t interpret it as a sign. If they’re agreeing that it is interpreted
as a sign, we can show that on the record, and that they will be compliance, and we’re more than
happy to extend them the courtesy until May, in order to bring that into compliance.
MR. THOMAS-There was a letter that came in from Aldi’s, or that you wrote to Aldi’s.
MR. ROUND-Well, that was just to give you some background, because we don’t typically give you a
lot of information. I guess you could read it into the record, just to clarify what the discussion is.
MR. THOMAS-Yes. It’s part of the application. So it has to be read into the record.
MRS. LAPHAM-Should I do that now?
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. THOMAS-Well, wait until Chris gets done talking.
MRS. LAPHAM-Okay.
MR. ROUND-But, basically, if you’ve seen the site, our Sign Ordinance reads that anything, it’s a
very, very broad definition of what signs are, for better or for worse, and it came to our attention that
there was a corporate logo on the building. They already have what they’re permitted. The
Ordinance permits two signs on the property. They’ve got a freestanding sign and a wall mounted
sign. This would be a second sign. They could either apply for a variance for this additional sign, or
remove the sign, and I said, well, you also have the option to contest that you don’t believe it’s a sign,
and I thought that was, you know, I gave them all the options. They chose this route, but now if
they choose to bring the store into compliance, we don’t have a problem.
MR. STONE-Chris, don’t we have to rule on the appeal, though, since it’s a formal?
MR. ROUND-Yes, I would. I mean, I don’t know if this is what Ms. Pond, if she’s withdrawing the
appeal, then it’s not necessary. I think that’s what I’m hearing, is that they don’t contest that it’s a
sign.
MR. THOMAS-Yes, you know, if you would like, you can withdraw the appeal, and then you and
Chris.
MS. POND-And the reason they were under the assumption it wasn’t was because of the contractor
they said they were dealing with.
MR. ROUND-I don’t have a problem, whatever the issue is.
MS. POND-And they do really want to comply, and they’re going to take that one down, versus the
one that lights up because of the reasons there, and they just said that it would be a little more
difficult right now to do that.
MR. STONE-This was the subject of a variance application back when the signs were to be put up,
for the size and number I think it was, wasn’t it, Chris?
MR. ROUND-Right. Previously the same location.
MR. THOMAS-So, if you’d like to make a statement withdrawing the notice of appeal, then we can,
everything’s said and done, and you and Chris, you can fight it out as to when it’s got to come off,
and he can send a letter.
MR. ROUND-Yes. I’d be happy to, that it’s our understanding that it will take place during the
earliest construction schedule, and we can set a date, whether it’s April 15 or the month of April is
th
typically the start of construction season, and give you a time line. All right?
MS. POND-Okay. So I just withdraw the appeal?
MR. THOMAS-Yes. Just state that you would like to withdraw Appeal No. 1-1998.
MS. POND-Okay. I’d like to withdraw the Appeal No. 1-1998.
MR. THOMAS-There you go. It’s close enough.
MR. ROUND-If you’d give me a call, give me a call tomorrow.”
MR. STONE-Just for the record, reflect the record that Mr. Round, who is currently the Zoning
Administrator, at the time held the position now held by Mr. Brown. So that it was not the Zoning
Administrator sitting at that spot. It was the enforcement officer. Is that right, Craig, as I believe?
MR. BROWN-I think he wore several hats at that time. He may have been the Zoning
Administrator.
MR. STONE-Okay. There’s one further letter I’d like you to read in, from Mr. Kibbling.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Here we go. Okay, this is January 26, 1998, letter to Mr. Chris Round,
from Louis C. Kibbling, Director of Real Estate, Aldi Inc., Center Valley Division, “Dear Chris:
This letter confirms our understanding that we will remove the logo constructed from dryvit on the
North face of our Canopy on or before May 1, 1998. If you have any further questions please
contact me at your earliest convenience. Thanks again for the extended period of time. Sincerely,
Louis C. Kibbling Director of Real Estate, Aldi, Inc., Center Valley Division”
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. STONE-Now, Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. I guess a procedural discussion is probably in order, to start with, before we
get to the substantive discussion about whether or not the variance is a good idea and whether or not
it’s appropriate under the standards for a Sign Variance. What happened, after that whole discussion
what was read into the record, was that I got involved, and as a result of that, nothing’s happened for
two years, but there’s a reason for that. In April of ’98, the issue was either the sign come down or a
Sign Variance has to be filed before this Board, and that came to be in the Spring of ’98, after the
Board determined that it was a sign, and of course there’s no dispute that under the Sign Code it’s a
sign. The sign definition is very broad.
MR. STONE-Is this a contract, too, this letter? Does this represent a contract on the part of Aldi?
MR. LAPPER-No, because that is one of the options available. Taking the sign down is an option,
and requesting a variance is still, that doesn’t waive the right to request a variance.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-And that would have happened two years ago, and what’s happened since then, I got
involved at that point, fortunately or unfortunately, and corresponded to the Town Attorney, on
April 29 of ’98, just raising the issue that because it was, which is a technical, legal issue that because
th
it was on the building plans, and I have a copy of what I believe to be building plans, that shows,
none of which is an issue tonight for this variance, just in terms of, these guys haven’t been sitting on
their hands two years, so to speak, but I have building plans that show the letter “A”, because I
believe that there is a legitimate issue whether or not it was on the building plans and whether there
are vested rights because it was signed by the Building Inspector, even though that would have been
incorrect for him to have done that because it is a sign, and it would have required a variance, but I
sent a letter in, and didn’t have a response back for a long time, and then after I got a response back,
I think verbally, from Chris, that they wanted us to apply for a variance, I asked for copies of the
minutes of all those meetings, and things just sort of languished for a while in the Town Planning
Department, and then it sat on my desk for a while. So it wasn’t that the applicant was not dealing
with it. It was just that there was sort of no pressure to deal with it, and then it was brought to
Craig’s attention, and Craig corresponded. So it was always the intention of Aldi, or for the last two
years, to come before the Board and deal with it, and here we are. Whether or not that’s an excuse
for wasting time, it’s not, it just wasn’t their intention to challenge the jurisdiction of the Board. It
just didn’t happen until now. In terms of the, however it got there, it’s there, and in terms of the
impact on the neighborhood, I think that it’s a legitimate application for an Area Variance, in terms
of this Board’s traditional dislike for extra signs, I think that there’s justification that you want to
incentive somebody from doing something that is, what I refer to as a subtle sign. Because it’s not
lighted, you don’t see it at all at night, and it’s rather attractive, just as this corporate logo built into
the façade. The reason why I put in my letter that they would just move the back lit sign to the front
is because, rather than hire a mason to come and mess with the front of the building, the simplest
thing is just to move the sign, and as any retailer in Town, they would rather have more signs in front
rather than fewer. So if this has to come down, they’ll just move their box sign, and I have a
photograph of what a more typical Aldi’s looks like, with a sign.
MR. STONE-Yes, it’s got two signs, a more typical Aldi’s.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Exactly.
MR. STONE-One on each corner.
MR. LAPPER-Right, and here it would just be that we would have the sign, and I’m sure you can
picture what that would look like, the sign in front, and I would just argue that when you drive down
Quaker Road, it looks better that you don’t see it at night, and during the day, it’s just nicer looking
to have this, even though absolutely, technically, it is a sign, and it requires a variance, and I’m,
therefore, here requesting such variance.
MR. STONE-Well, you know where I stand. I’ve been upset for two years, regardless of all the
machinations, because to me, if somebody states that it’s going to come down, they didn’t say I’m
going to make a variance. It’s going to come down, and the letter to that effect, that seems to me
that, in good faith, it comes down, or immediately a letter is written, and it’s still three months. You
ought to read that into the record if there is, in fact, a letter. Why don’t you read that into the record.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a letter addressed to Mark Schachner, Esq., Town of Queensbury,
from Jonathan C. Lapper, dated April 29, 1998. “Dear Mark: I represent Aldi, Inc. with regard to its
Quaker Road store. As you may be aware, an issue has arisen with regard to the corporate logo
located on the Quaker Road façade of the building. The logo is a part of the façade and is slightly
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
raised in a “relief fashion”. Prior to my involvement in this matter, there has been a determination
by the Zoning Board of Appeals that the logo constitutes a sign under the Town’s sign code. It is my
belief that Aldi’s right to maintain the façade logo is vested because the logo was indicated on the
building plans which were reviewed and approved by the Town and subsequently constructed in
accordance with the building permit. I hereby request a determination by you with respect to the
issue of vested rights. If you disagree with my interpretation, Aldi can then submit an application to
the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. Chris Round has indicated that no fine will be assessed
by this request is pending. Please contact me once you have had a chance to consider this matter.
Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper”
MR. BRYANT-What is the date of that letter?
MR. MC NULTY-April 29, 1998.
MR. STONE-Did Mark get back to you in a timely fashion?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t have a record of a written response, but perhaps Craig does.
MR. STONE-Do we have anything in the file on that? Because I wasn’t even aware of this letter. I
mean, I would have said, I know at one point you talked about that you were representing Aldi. I
was never aware that it was in April of ’98, but time flies when you’re having fun.
MR. LAPPER-On both sides. So I just want you to understand that there’s not an issue that they
didn’t recognize that they had to deal with this, and that’s why I wanted that correspondence on the
record.
MR. STONE-But even having said that, if you wrote this letter in April, and you accepted it was a
sign, I know you were fighting another battle, but why couldn’t you go get a variance at that point?
Why did we have to wait two years?
MR. LAPPER-Because the Town Attorney could have said, we agree, you have vested rights. It was
on the building permit. You built it in accordance with the building permit. So you don’t need a
variance. So I was waiting.
MR. STONE-You have no idea when he got back to you, or did he get back to you?
MR. LAPPER-I think what happened was that, months later, Chris called and said look, Mark just
said that it’s not really his job to make a legal interpretation, and the best thing for you to do is apply
for a variance. At which point I said to Chris, okay, can you send me the whole file so I can see, just
to educate myself, because I wasn’t representing them and wasn’t at all the meetings, just send me
copies of all the minutes. I was busy. The Planning Department’s been very busy, as you know, and
it just took a while for them to get it to me, and when they got it to me, I took a look at it, and set it
down and started doing other projects, and it wasn’t until, and you and I have had discussions, sort
of tongue and cheek, about this for the last year, knowing that this was something that would
ultimately be addressed, and then Craig sent a letter out which brought it to the front burner, and
here we are. So it just wasn’t an attempt to avoid jurisdiction.
MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, when my time comes, and I’m going off to my maker, I need you to give
me two years, at least. We’ve got two years here.
MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry that so much time has passed. I’m sure that some of it is my fault, and it’s
merely that nobody was pushing the issue, and other issues were more pressing.
MR. STONE-Any comments by the Board? Any questions on the Board’s part? I recognize that
three of you were not involved in this, and three of us were, at the time, going back two years ago.
I’m not asking for where you stand. We’ll do that after the public hearing. Are there any questions?
Do you have a question, or do you have a position?
MR. ABBATE-I have questions.
MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, I like your letter. You’ve covered all your bases. You are reserving your
right to impose a vested rights defense.
MR. LAPPER-Which I don’t want to impose.
MR. ABBATE-Well, it’s in writing.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. LAPPER-Okay, but I want to just get the variance, and be done with it.
MR. ABBATE-Can we officially delete this from your letter? You don’t want to impose it?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t want to impose it because I don’t want to have to impose it, because I’d like to
get the variance, and then it would not be necessary.
MR. ABBATE-So if you don’t get the variance, you want to impose it?
MR. LAPPER-No. I think if we don’t get the variance, it’s not worth the fight, and what would
happen is the sign’s just going to move and that’ll be done with it.
MR. ABBATE-I just wanted to clear that up, because I wasn’t quite sure. You had me confused
there. I like your letter.
MR. LAPPER-I was just being careful.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You’re right. The sign is not lighted, and it is subtle, and it’s not very
intrusive. I looked at it. I don’t have a problem with the sign, but I have a problem with the
timeframe, and I’m going to direct this to you and to you, as the representative of the Town.
Somewhere along the line, someone has to share some responsibility here for not following through
on this thing. Now I don’t know who it is. I’m not going to point fingers, but this is not the way
you should operate. This should have been addressed, and addressed immediately. Now, also, there
are some documents in here which indicate that Aldi’s said, okay, we’re going to take the sign down,
in 1998 I think it was, and you explained why that didn’t happen, lack of communication between the
Town, etc., etc. So I’m concerned with that. You say that your applicant had no intention, there was
no intention on the part of the applicant to violate the Town Zoning Code, and I’m sure that there
probably wasn’t, but one of your arguments, one of your defenses was that this sign was on the
prints, on the blueprints, construction prints submitted to the Town, and you are basing part of your
defense on the fact that since there was no objection from the Town, based on the blueprints, there
was an inherent permission granted to Aldi to have this there basically. Correct?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and you have a point. Least intrusive, probably so, but at the present time, as I
understand it, based on the documents here, that what you are requesting, and correct me if I’m
wrong, Craig, is that he’s requesting 100% relief. Is this correct? Based on the fact that you only
allow two and he wants three. Based on the fact that everybody agrees, including Counsel, that it is a
sign.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-I would argue that it’s less than 100%, only because that is not a full sign, if you will, a
typical back lit lighted sign. It’s somewhat less than a traditional sign.
MR. ABBATE-Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
MR. LAPPER-No question.
MR. ABBATE-No, but I understand your position. You’re going to do your job. That answers my
questions. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing.
Anybody wishing to speak in favor? In favor? Anybody opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BETTY MONAHAN
MRS. MONAHAN-Hi. Betty Monahan, Lake Sunnyside. This is really not in opposition, but I just
would like a little history here. Back in I think the early 80’s, there was a very famous zoning case,
that kind of relates to his argument about the prints being put in to the Building Department, and I
believe if my memory serves me right, this was in the early 80’s. It’s down in New York City. The
building plans called for a building, again, I’m doing this from memory, 20 stories higher than the
Ordinance allowed, okay. Whoever issues the permits down there issued the permit. The building
went up, somebody found it was in violation of their Ordinance. It went to court, and the court
ruled that the owner must take those 20 stories off, that the building department is not obligated to
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
say that everything on that plan is completely correct, and I just wanted to bring that history up of a
zoning case that did go to court.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. That was interesting.
MR. LAPPER-I think that case is called EFS Ventures, and I successfully used that case to argue
when I was representing this Zoning Board years ago, in the famous Marina case. I think the way I
would distinguish it is the reason why this had to come for an interpretation is that there’s a sign and
a sign, and if was a typical lighted sign, that would have been clear, but here there’s some gray area as
to whether this really is a sign because it doesn’t scream out as a sign, but Betty’s right that that is a
good argument as well.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak for or against? Is there any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No other correspondence, other than what we’ve read in.
MR. STONE-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any further questions of the applicant? To me, it’s a sign. It’s clearly a sign. It’s been
a sign for two years. Okay. Hearing none, Jaime, where do you stand on this thing?
MR. HAYES-Well, I was a little bit troubled when I counted backwards and realized I was going to
speak first on this one, but certainly I’m relieved to hear the explanation of the delay that was
involved. I think that was obviously something that was going to be on everybody’s mind, of why it
took so long, and was it an attempt to circumvent the authority of the Town or this panel, and I
don’t get that feeling, to be quite honest with you. Outside of that fact, I think it’s difficult to
interpret this application, based on all the history and the letters back and forth, is it a sign, isn’t it a
sign. So I’m going to go right, go back to it cleanly and review this as if it was a current application.
I think it’s the best way to look at this application. It’s the best way to make a good decision. So I
think, going right to the test in this particular circumstance, the benefit to the applicant is obvious.
Anyone on a high visibility or a high traffic street like Quaker Road is looking for more signage.
They’d be a fool if they weren’t. Feasible alternatives. This is a difficult one, because obviously a
feasible alternative is to simply remove the sign, but it’s my belief, and the applicant’s agent has put
forward, that, in reality, the alternative will be to remove the existing lit sign from the other side and
put it on the front, and go without a sign on that side. It’s what I would do. It’s the smart play, and
is that a better alternative to the existing circumstance? I agree with the applicant’s argument that, at
this particular time, that sign does not stick out. It’s not lit at night. There’s been no public
comment negative about the sign, and it really doesn’t look that bad. I understand Mr. Stone’s
attention to it because he’s up on the Code, and he’s very well versed in our Town Code, and that’s
to his credit, but I’m not sure the average citizen would view that as signage in the sense that the
Ordinance is trying to prevent, which is, you know, distasteful signs or too much signage. Is the
relief substantial to the Ordinance? I think it is. I think that double the amount of signage that
you’re allowed, or 100% relief, is substantial. So in my mind I think the test really balances on what’s
the effect on the neighborhood or community, and I think that, as I view Quaker Road, and certainly
as much as Lew is the Lake Czar, while Mr. Lapper, at this point, might be the Quaker Road Czar, I
think that I can agree with his argument that based on the other signage on Quaker Road, it’s a
benign sign. It is a sign. I don’t think there’s any doubt about the fact that it’s a sign, but it’s a
minimal sign. It’s minimal impact, in this particular case, and I really don’t want to see that other
sign moved to the front. So, I think, on balance, and again, on balance only viewing this thing as a
fresh application, I think it’s minimal relief. I would rather see the additional signage that we’ve
approved on Quaker Road, when we’ve approved it, be in the form of a blended façade sign, versus
additional lit signs, and with that in mind, I can not reluctantly, but just barely go along with this
application.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can look at this probably more easily as a fresh application, not having been
involved before. If I’d been involved before it might change my attitude a little bit, but it strikes me
that perhaps the designers did not intend that really to be a sign, given that they haven’t taken steps
to light it. I think they’ve probably viewed it, and I view it more as a building decoration. I think
the building is probably more attractive with it being there than if it were a plain front building.
Thinking about it, too, it strikes me that that building is probably one of the most attractive that
there is on Quaker Road. It bothers me what we’ve done to Quaker Road. We had a road there with
a nice wide overlay zoning, and it could have been a nice green, almost parkway type road, and
through a whole series of reasons, it’s become a gaudy strip, and I think Aldi’s is a step back in the
right direction. As I say, I think it’s really the best looking building on the road. I’d also suggest that
maybe, they’re not asking for 100%, but maybe 50% increase, because they’re allowed two signs. It
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
can be two wall signs, or a wall sign and a freestanding sign. This is a third sign, and a third sign over
two is 50%, not 100%. For all those reasons, and as Jaime kind of indicated, I like the way the
building looks, the way it is. I’d be inclined to approve.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I agree with Chuck. I like the basis for his argument, and Counsel presents a
persuasive argument, he grabbed all the straws. If it were up to me, I would grant approval by
default. So I have no problems with whether it’s a sign or not a sign. I think that should have been
addressed initially, and there have been other applications approved by default, and I think in this
case, this sign in particular, which in my opinion is not very intrusive, and I think it’s attractive. The
building is attractive, and as far as I’m concerned, there should be approval by default.
MR. STONE-Okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I agree somewhat with what’s been said so far, but I think this is really a double
edged sword. I disagree that one letter and one telephone call in two years constitutes some action.
I believe that the owner, or you as the owner’s attorney, should have acted more aggressively to
resolve this. On the other hand, I couldn’t really disapprove of this, simply by looking at your
neighborhood. I mean, your immediate neighbor has two wall signs, which are lit, and a freestanding
sign, that’s Hannfords. Next to them CVS has two wall signs and a freestanding sign, and your sign,
your relief sign is not offensive. So I think on that basis I would go along with it, but I think
something should be said about the activity and the communication factor, and that maybe if another
issue arises, that we don’t have two years to wait for a resolution.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I like what Chuck McNulty and Jaime said, that the issue of whether this is a sign
or not’s kind of by the wayside. This is a variance application where Aldi’s is asking for a second wall
sign, and that’s how we should treat it, just as any new application, but I also start from the premise
that I think this Board, not necessarily just I have, always tried to strictly enforce the Sign Ordinance,
and as it sits now, this applicant is asking for two wall signs, and we can regulate their number, and to
some degree maybe their placement, but we could never regulate their content or whether they’re lit
or not lit or back lit or not back lit, or whether they’re bright and shiny or a dryvit that mixes in and
becomes a part of the façade of the building. So it’s not noticeable. Jaime said at this particular time,
this second sign is not bad, but Aldi’s could take its box sign, any time it pleases, and move it in
front. It’s got that right to do that. It doesn’t have to ask us or anything. It’s got a permit for it. If
we approve a second sign variance for a wall, nothing says that they can’t put up a second back lit
sign up there either, and even if they don’t, when it’s sold, whoever takes over this property is
entitled to two wall signs, whatever that may be.
MR. LAPPER-Can’t we address a condition?
MR. STONE-We could address that if we wanted to.
MR. LAPPER-Because that’s not the intention, certainly, but I think you can cover that with a
condition of an approval.
MR. MC NALLY-See, that would be my concern. You talk about Quaker Road being too much of a
strip, if we not carefully, it’s going to make it even more tonight, and to be honest, you look at the
criteria, I don’t see a substantial difficulty or an unnecessary hardship to modify the existing wall so
that there’s no longer a symbol there. What are you proposing, with respect to maintaining the
existing content of that sign?
MR. LAPPER-I think that as a condition, that the third sign would be allowed, provided that it
remain the way it is, as that “relief” sign, and not a back lit sign.
MR. HAYES-Only.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-I’m looking at the application. It says Sign Variance to permit existing noncomplying
relief trademark “A” on the north façade, and then down in the compliance with the Ordinance,
there’s where it says it’s a change in the number of signs, but it also says, existing, and the wording is
“A”. That’s what he’s seeking, and certainly a motion could limit it to exactly what is there, unlit.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes. If that’s to be the understanding, to allow a variance to allow a continuation
as it currently exists, I don’t think I have a problem with it, but whatever motion we make better be
narrowly phrased.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. STONE-All right. I think Mr. Hayes helped me the best by saying, let’s look at this as a fresh
application, a new application. I’m still troubled by the fact that we’re permitting a second sign,
when we have been pretty tough on second signs, but if the applicant is willing to concede we’re
talking about this dryvit, but this particular façade, this sand, like you see the sand in the nice hotels
in the cigarette things where they put their imprint every morning, and then it gets ruined very
quickly, if that’s the sign that we’re talking about that will never be lit, will just sit there like it is, I can
reluctantly go along with it, on the same balancing test that Jaime was using. It certainly, I mean, I’m
willing to concede that 99.9% of the people driving by don’t even see it or if they see it they say that’s
the building. I mean, I agree. No one’s going to say, the Town’s gone to heck in a handcart because
we put another sign in, and the only reason that I have been concerned about it is the fact that I felt
betrayed, quite frankly, by what we had gone through two years ago, and by the assurance that it
would go down, and I would go along with what Mr. Bryant said. It’s a long time. I mean, we can be
more diligent than that, which shows that it’s not very important to the applicant, I guess, maybe,
because he doesn’t really think of it as a very strong sign, or very strong statement. I know the
picture that you didn’t show us. I mean, I’ve seen other Aldi stores, and they have one each of those
signs on the corner. That’s the way they normally operate. We’re way better than that, and as long as
we can stipulate that the sign that’s there, I can go along with it, but before we make a motion, we’ve
got to do the Short Form. Correct?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Do you want to read this, Mr. Secretary?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Part II, Environmental Assessment, A. “Does Action exceed any Type I
threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?”
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NULTY-“B. Will action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6
NYCRR, Part 617.6?”
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NULTY-“C. Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following. C1.
Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,
solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?”
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NULTY-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?”
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree, no. “C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NULTY-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in
use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?”
MR. STONE-Yes, in terms of the Sign Variance, but it’s a modest, it’s not significant.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. STONE-It’s slight to moderate. Whatever the language is supposed to be.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So, no.
MR. STONE-Well, yes, but it’s slight to moderate. It doesn’t trigger an EIS.
MR. LAPPER-Not significant.
MR. STONE-Not significant, yes. Yes, write not significant.
MR. MC NULTY-“C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced
by the proposed action?”
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. STONE-No.
MR. HAYES-No.
MR. MC NULTY-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1-C5?”
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NULTY-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of
energy)?”
MR. STONE-No, since it’s not going to be lit.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. “D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics
that caused the establishment of a CEA?”
MR. STONE-No.
MR. MC NULTY-“E. Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?”
MR. STONE-No. Okay.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS
PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2000, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes
MR. STONE-Now we need a motion for the variance.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 21-2000 ALDI, INC., Introduced by Paul
Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
Quaker Road. The applicant wishes to maintain an existing relief sign on the northern façade of the
Aldi Food Store on Quaker Road. Specifically, the applicant requests relief from the Sign Ordinance
Section 140-6B(3)(c)(4), the existing dryvit, unlit logo sign that is on the façade of the building now.
It’s relief from that existing sign as a second sign. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would
be permitted to maintain that existing relief/logo sign. Feasible alternatives, I believe that there are
feasible alternatives, but they’re actually worse, if a lit sign is moved from the western side of the
building to the front. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? It certainly is significant,
being that it’s a third sign when two are permitted, but I think the test rotates on the fact that the
impacts to the neighborhood or community are moderate, if not minimal, based on the pleasant
appearance of the logo and the lack of any public objection to it. Is the difficulty self-created? I
believe that it is, but on balance, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I move for its
approval.
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2000, by the following vote:
nd
MR. MC NALLY-So I understand it, we’re approving a second wall sign, conditioned upon its
maintaining it’s current status and appearance as exists on this date, and the applicant consents to do
so?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-It’s unlit and just the way it is.
MR. LAPPER-Unchanged.
MR. STONE-No color. It won’t be painted.
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. I’m glad this is taken care of.
MR. STONE-Do we have any minutes? Yes, we had some.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
September 22, 1999: Page 49, near bottom, starts with Mr. Stone saying, Okay, Chuck, about 1/3 of
way up the page, then Mr. McNulty comments, then Mr. Stone asks for Dan’s comments, s/b Dan
Stec, not Charles McNulty
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 22, 1999 AS AMENDED, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2000, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Himes
October 20, 1999: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 1999, Introduced by Paul
Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2000, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Himes
November 17, 1999:
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 17, 1999 ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert McNally:
Duly adopted this 22 day of March, 2000, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Himes
MR. STONE-One thing should be said on November 17. The name Mr. Abbate ought to be
th
spelled the way he spells it, A-B-B-A-T-E, rather than A-B-B-O-T-T.
MR. MC NALLY-Do you have October 27 also?
th
MR. STONE-I think we did that.
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know. I’ve got it in my packet.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/22/00)
MR. MC NALLY-I’ve got it in mine as not done.
MR. STONE-No, I’ve got January 19 in here. I don’t have that one. That doesn’t mean anything.
th
MR. MC NALLY-Maria, maybe you can check and see later, next meeting, if they were approved.
MR. STONE-Did we do January 19?
th
MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just didn’t throw it away. All right. Do I hear a motion to adjourn?
MR. MC NALLY-So moved.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
25