2001-02-28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY
ROBERT MC NALLY
ALLAN BRYANT
CHARLES ABBATE
JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE
ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
LEWIS STONE
NORMAN HIMES
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2001 APPLICANT: RICHARD & CHRISTINE MOZAL
AGENT: MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR APPELLANT IS APPEALING
DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WHICH STATE
THAT USE AND AREA VARIANCES ARE NECESSARY FOR THE RECENT
CHANGES TO THE SITE AT THE DOCKSIDER RESTAURANT LOCATED ON
GLEN LAKE ROAD, OLD TAX MAP NO. 38-4-2; NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.09-1-87.
ZONING IS WR-1A AND IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA.
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Notice of Appeal No. 1-2001, Richard & Christine Mozal, Meeting Date: January 24,
2001 “Project Location: Glen Lake Road Description: The applicant is appealing Zoning
Administrator’s finding that both Use and Area Variances are required for the site. These
determinations were issued in correspondence dated November 27, 2000 and January 17, 2001
(copies attached). Information Requested: Applicant is appealing to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for clarification/determination of the following issues;
??
Designation of grass parking area Area “A”
??
Designation of 1002 sf of concrete walks, pads and patios to be offset by Area “B”
??
Factual dispute of area of patio expansion Area “C”
??
Determination of expansion of a non-conforming use
Staff comments: The determinations were primarily based on the 1990-91 submissions for Use
and Area Variances by the previous owner. Several detailed drawings and documents were included
with these applications. Site conditions at that time or conditions that may have been previously
documented served as benchmarks for the determinations.
?
Area “A”
The area identified has historically been utilized as parking. The change in type of parking surface
from grass to gravel constitutes an increase in the impermeable area on the site.
?
Area “B”
The total site impermeable areas have increased (as identified by the applicant) from those
documented in 1990. A net increase in impermeable areas cannot be offset by the acquisition of
additional lands (Area B). Allowing an impermeable area percentage other than that allowed by the
zoning ordinance requires a variance.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
?
Area “C”
The patio area is identified in 1989 Assessor’s records as 280 square feet. The current patio as
identified by the applicant is measured at 831 sq. ft. with additional paved areas of approximately 357
sq. ft. The owner/appellant has provided written affidavit that the patio measured 21.5’ x 22’ (473
sq. ft.) as observed in May of 1999.
?
Expansion of non-conforming use
The patio expansion (from 280 sq. ft. to 831 sq. ft. ) is utilized for patron seating/dining areas. The
growth of the patio dining area constitutes an expansion of a non-conforming land use requiring the
issuance of a use variance. An increase in the physical area dedicated to the conduct of the primary
non-conforming business on the site constitutes an expansion of the non-conforming use, requiring
a Use Variance. This is consistent with a previous finding of the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding
a similar issue with the Harris Bay Yacht Club. (attached resolutions)”
MR. HAYES-Okay. Chris, at this time, would you like to outline your findings?
MR. ROUND-I think the Staff notes did a good job. You should just note, on the application, you
did note the zoning for the property is Waterfront Residential One Acre, and it was misidentified or
misquoted in the application.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I thank you. Okay. Mike?
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor, from the
law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m here representing the applicant. With me at the table is
Christine and Richard Mozal, who are the owners of the property. The property is known as The
Docksider, and we’ve been working, I think, in a cooperative manner with Staff, since some time in
May or June, I guess June probably, trying to resolve the historical use or establish the historical use
for this property. This is a nonconforming property, and it is not something where the prior uses are
etched in stone, and they’re always problematic, particularly where you have a nonconforming use
that is set in a residential setting, and we recognized that when we started. We tried to come to some
understanding that we could live with, and go forward from that point. One thing that makes this so
difficult is that it is probably a very emotional issue for those that are involved in it, certainly for the
people that own the business, and as well as for the people that adjoin the business. Although, if the
last couple of weeks show us what we think is correct, we really are talking about a very limited
number of people that have a problem with this, and I’ve purposely submitted to you tonight a
couple of petitions that have been circulated, and I also, and I’ll get to those in a minute. I also
circulated with that packet a copy of the list of the owners within 500 feet who were given notice of
the application, highlighting those that we were able to contact, and you’re going to see a strong
percentage that we have contacted and who have executed the petitions that we have before you. We
have tried to get to a point where we can dimensionally measure as much as we can of the site, and I
think we have focused upon the permeability and the area of the patio as probably the two areas that
we are talking about. Those really don’t necessarily address all the issues, though, that maybe some
people have with the property. We would acknowledge, up front, although we believe that we have a
justified excuse and reason that we didn’t do it before, that we need to go through site plan review
for part of the patio that was constructed within 50 feet of the high water mark of Glen Lake. There
is a regulation that says that if you put hard surfacing within 50 feet of the lake, you will do it with
site plan review. That was not done, and I think we can explain why it wasn’t done, and it is
something that we intend to do. The problems that we have, whether they’re pointed at this set of
figures, that set of figures, whatever, really evolve around the fact that the property is much more
successful now than it has been in the past, and most of that is really something that doesn’t trigger
your review or Staff’s review. The turnover rate generates a lot more activity on the site. That is not
before you. We are not arguing about the number of seats. What we’re trying to do is give
dimensions to the areas that are used for seating. Likewise, not before you, although I think
probably a good part of the reason that we are here, is a subject of noise. We understand, at least
that’s some of the motivation. What we talk about, in dimensions, really has little to do with noise.
There are a couple of different approvals that have been obtained for the property, and the one
probably most germane is the 1987 approval for the deck. If you go back to the minutes of that
deck, there were no restrictions put on that deck, whether it would be used and how it would be used
or the number of people that would be on it, but, even given that, we recognize that we are in a
neighborhood, and although we may be addressing a limited few people, we are going to drastically
change some of our operation on a voluntary basis, as far as noise is concerned, and as far as the use
of outside bands, and hopefully we will be able to satisfy some of the people of the good intentions
that we have, that we wish to be neighbors, and that we wish to all, you know, live together. I have a
long argument to present to you. I’ve talked, in general, to Mr. Round, and I would suggest that we
simply go to the public hearing and you listen to the neighbors who have been given notice, so that
you can establish, on the record, a third party understanding of the historic use of the property, and
when that’s concluded, I know that there are other things on the agenda. I have no objection to
keeping your public hearing open, and going to another night where we won’t be holding everybody
up for two or three hours while we go through the argument that I think is necessary, based upon the
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
record that will be established by the testimony that you’re going to hear. So I’d like to go right to
people that wish to speak with regard to this project, or property, if that is all right with the Chair.
MR. HAYES-That’s fine, and before I open that public hearing, I just want to comment, we certainly
have a lot of people here tonight, and we want to hear from everyone. That’s what we’re here for,
but I would appreciate it, and the Board would appreciate it, if you kept your comments to the issues
that are at hand, which are the ones that Mike and Chris have basically outlined here, the
permeability, the patio, and the historical use of the property. So that’s the issue that’s at hand, and if
you could keep your comments to that, we would appreciate it. Having said that, I will open the
public hearing, and I would like to hear from anyone that is in favor of the Zoning Administrator’s
position. Just so we clarify that, that would be that the Zoning Administrator, is there anyone here
that’s in favor or agrees that the Zoning Administrator’s position is correct?
MS. RADNER-I think you better explain what you’re talking about.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I can do that. That’s no problem. Basically, this appeal tonight has to do with
the decision by Chris Round, the Zoning Administrator, as to certain factual elements concerning the
Docksider, and, one, he has found that certain areas, and you can correct me on any point if I’m
wrong, that certain areas, that the impermeability at the site has been increased, particularly in the
parking lots. Two, that the patio expansion represents an expansion of a nonconforming use, which
is not permitted under the Code at this time. So, those are the two big issues that are in place here.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think the bottom line is whether or not the applicant should be required to
apply for Area Variances for the permeability issue, and whether they should be required to apply for
a Use Variance because of the construction of the patio, and I’ve taken the position, on behalf of the
owners, maybe, I don’t know if people understand which is for and which is against. I’ve taken the
position, on behalf of the owners, that variances are not required, either for permeability or for the
patio.
MR. HAYES-Right, and Mr. Round has take the position that they, in fact, are, and that’s what we’re
trying to decide tonight. So, we’re starting, this is an appeal, so Mr. Round has made his
determination. So I start with those that are in favor of requiring The Docksider to have to file those
variances with this Board. Please come forward and state your name.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
SUSAN POPOWSKI
MRS. POPOWSKI-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I’m Susan Popowski. I’m from
Northfield, Vermont. My address is 367 South Main Street. My family owns property on Glen Lake,
about five properties east of The Docksider. My family has owned this property for about 70 years.
Over the years, I’m going to address, primarily, the historical aspects of this. We’ve been concerned
about the growth and the change in The Docksider since I appeared before this Board in 1990. I’ll
be as brief as I possibly can, and still try and lay out a history for you. If you go back to 1985, and
prior to 1985, this business was Sullivans, as some of you may know, and it was a small tavern. It
also had a small store, and we even went to church there when I was a child. In 1985, it was
purchased by the late Paul Barton. In 1987, and I need to clarify this point, it was mentioned a few
minutes ago. Mr. Barton sought to add a deck, through an Area and a Use Variance, and he said at
that time “There are 26 seats in the front room which fill up very quickly, and people have asked for
a deck”. There were questions at that meeting, and discussions about the noise, potential noise
problems. Two of the Board members asked him about this. He told them the jute box was inside,
and not to worry, there would be no jute box outside. So the noise issue was addressed at that point,
and the Board was assured that it would not be a problem. Also at this time, there was no septic
change to the property. We’re still dealing with a pre-’85 septic system. In 1990, The Docksider
submitted a proposal for a major expansion and upgrade, and at this point the neighbors, myself and
a couple of other neighbors, had two very primary concerns. They were the noise from the deck,
which was keeping us up at night, and the safety of everyone in the area because of the cars all over
Glen Lake Road, which is, as you may know, a windy, fairly dangerous road. At that time, the
number of seats that was represented to us in these meetings was 100 to 105, we were told, including
the 28 seats on the deck. Also, we are still talking about an old septic system, and I believe that some
of this determination has been made from the site plans of October 1 and October 29 of 1990. I
stth
am a little concerned because the site plans are very specific. Every tree is here. The drawings of the
septic tanks, however, there is no patio on the 1990 site plan that was submitted to the Boards. So at
that time, we were unaware that there was any patio at all. So I would ask the Board to please look
carefully at that. We’re also talking about an old septic system, again. In January of ’91, after many
meetings, the proposal was finally approved with some restrictions, and the restrictions were that
there would be no more than 127 seats. There would be a major new septic system to be built, an
entire redesign of the site drainage, removal of docks, parking restrictions, maximum of 44 seats on
the deck, and Mr. Barton said he would try to control the noise. He was very concerned and would
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
try to control the noise for the neighbors. None of this was accomplished within the allotted time,
which I believe was a year, and therefore all that has passed. Now, in the summer of 2000, we
suddenly have a lakeside patio, new tables and chairs on this patio, outdoor seating, which has
increased to something like 98 from 28, which was authorized, or at least we were told, in 1990.
Rock bands performing, parking allowed on a leachfield, which I believe is against the Zoning
Ordinance, and worst of all, we still have no septic system upgrade. So we’ve seen a drastic change
in the scope and nature of this business, historically, with no permits whatsoever, to my knowledge,
from the Zoning or the Planning Boards of the Town of Queensbury. In reference to this, we put an
addition on our property, in 1989, and we came before both Boards, as we were required to do, and
had our plans approved, and even though we are a seasonal residence that is used approximately
four, maybe six weeks of the year, we were required to put, in our back yard, 5,000 gallons of
concrete septic tanks. Now we did this, obviously, because we were good neighbors and we really
felt it was the best thing to do for Glen Lake. We received a letter, all Glen Lake residents received a
letter on March 1, 1989, from Attorney O’Connor, asking the lake residents, at this time, to object to
The Great Escape threatening to interfere with the quality of life in Glen Lake, and in his letter, he
stressed the following: surface drainage, water quality, noise levels, hours of operation, lights and
traffic. Now the same concerns all exist for us today, with a huge emphasis on water quality. What
we had to do for our property, and the laws applied to us. They also applied to Paul Barton, and I
really believe they need to apply the successors at this property. To go ahead without permits doesn’t
make it right, and I believe this Board deals with laws and ordinances, and certainly not applause
meters. With this increase in use and no septic system upgrade, the major issue before us, I believe,
is the pollution of Glen Lake. We are very concerned about coliform bacteria and effluent in this
beautiful, natural resource. To quote Attorney O’Connor in his entreatise to us in the 1989 letter, he
said, “The outcome of the matter will determine whether you and your children will be able, in the
future, to swim in or drink the water of Glen Lake”. I thank you very much for your patience and
for your courtesy.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the Zoning
Administrator’s position? Please come forward.
DENISE PADDOCK
MRS. PADDOCK-My name is Denise Paddock, and I, with my husband, own The Glenmore Lodge
on Glen Lake, next door to Susan, and my concern briefly, again, is the lake quality. The septic
system has not been upgraded. The increase in usage, the noise is also a big concern, and I guess I
would just like to reinforce basically what Susan has said. I am somewhat of a newcomer to Glen
Lake. We bought the Glenmore Lodge about five years ago, five and a half years ago. So I don’t
know the history of some of these things, but I do know that the noise has increased dramatically,
and the lake is, at this point, in a real danger of losing its wonderful qualities, with all the
infringements that are going on, and I would hope that the Board would look into these. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor?
MARIANNE MC NEAL
MRS. MC NEAL-My name is Marianne McNeal. I’m from Delmar, New York. We have a summer
place at Glen Lake Road near The Docksider. I really can’t believe I’m back here again. Ten years
ago we sort of did this. Now, when I think about Glen Lake, I recall, you know, the care and the
loving care that people have put into their residences, and I know that we’ve all wanted to do that
because we love the place. We love the lake, and I know how, particularly the Federal Government,
the State and the Local Government are about the environmental conditions, things that should not
be too close to the lake, how it would affect the quality of it, and an example of that is probably why
we’re all here tonight. We want to save the lake and we want to do what’s right for the lake. Because
it takes years to fix it, once it’s been destroyed. Last spring, a cement patio was laid on the grounds
of The Docksider, and that area has really caused my family and I a lot of distress, because, during
July and June and August and part of September, we’ve had the tranquility of the lake really taken
away from us. Our freedom of listening to music and not listening to music, we don’t have that
freedom anymore. This loudness is forced upon us, on Saturday and Sunday afternoon. Sometimes
there’s two groups that perform, and as a mother with children and grandchildren, I really find it’s
really like a health condition. It’s really not healthy for all of us. A couple of afternoons I’ve actually
had to leave. I’ve gotten a headache and I had to go some place to get away from it, because when
you come to Glen Lake, if you’re a Nor Easter, like all of us, you close your windows, you turn on
the heat, and you can’t enjoy the beautiful nature, but when you come to Glen Lake, you can open
your windows, and that’s what you want to do. You don’t want to put an air conditioner in to keep
the noise out. Now, this summer, I went down, last summer I went down and I talked to Chris.
Chris has always been very friendly when I’ve been inside her business, and I know many of us have
gone there and enjoyed good times. So my family and I have, too. So one afternoon I walked down
and I spoke to Chris, and she thanked me for coming down and saying it was nice that I came
forward and talked to her, and not went behind her back, and things like that, and I told her that, you
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
know, the music was really an annoyance for my family, and she said that she would come up to our
place, she would stand there and listen to the music, which she did. She was very cooperative in that
way, and then when she was finished she said, well, you know, she liked music. I like music, too, but
I don’t force it on other people. So the music continued and nothing really changed, and later on, I
found out that she did not have permission for this area where the band would play, and I was really
very disturbed about that, because I try to follow the laws. My family tries to follow the laws, and I
always thought that’s what everybody did, especially in this area. We’re not living in New York City.
So, basically, my biggest question is, if this continues, with the loudness, the cars being parked on all
the secondary roads. There’s a couple of secondary roads that now really you can just about get by in
a car because of the excess parking, and my biggest thing is, I know that, in order for a variance to be
granted, certain conditions have to exist, and I know one of the reasons you can’t grant the variance
is if you’re changing the neighborhood. To me, it is changing the neighborhood. Now, I don’t know
if any of you would like to go out every Saturday and Sunday afternoon, sit on your porch or in your
back yard or work on your garden or mow your lawn, you’d like to be hearing this music. So that is
one of my biggest contentions. Now I’m not a newcomer, either, because the family, our family has,
my husband’s family has been coming here since the 1940’s, when they purchased the camp at Glen
Lake, and everyone knew about the Sullivan’s Restaurant. Everybody liked it. It was like a meeting
place for people. No one cared. You didn’t even know it was there unless someone said there’s
Sullivan’s and you went inside and found out what it was all about. So, I’m just very upset that this is
happening right now, and it’s destroying the quality of life for myself and I really have a question. I
was wondering if a person or a business or a person constructs something that that have not been
granted permission for, I was wondering if there were any consequences or what the Board does
about that, if they have a right to do that. that was one of my questions.
MR. HAYES-Well, that’s one of the reasons we’re here tonight. I mean, Staff has assessed that, and
made some findings, and we’re determining whether those findings are correct, but there’s certainly
an action being taken at this time.
MRS. MC NEAL-Right. Thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the Zoning
Administrator’s position that The Docksider should have to apply for variances?
ANNE SULLIVAN
MS. SULLIVAN-My name is Anne Sullivan, and my family’s property adjoins The Docksider.
We’ve had the property for 43 years. So we’ve been next to a successful business for 43 years. So it’s
not that we’re against successful businesses. My concerns are the safety of the neighborhood.
Earlier we had passed out a packet that showed the parking, as far as safety of the neighborhood if
emergency vehicles had to get through. Again, there’s the neighborhood. So, safety of the
neighborhood. Also, too, with the parking, and again, we had the pictures in the packet. When Paul
Barton went to expand 10 years ago, my family supported him 100%, because he took the
neighborhood into consideration. My family also signed, because of the septic system Paul was going
to put in, we gave up our water rights and said that we would accept water from The Docksider
because we trusted Paul. We just had, you know, it was just a good relationship, and we knew he had
the neighborhood at heart. Since his death, though, we have rescinded that, because without our
approval, his building plan couldn’t have gone through. When Paul went to go through, it took him
over a year to get the variances, and he jumped through every hoop that Queensbury put in front of
him, because he followed the law, and that’s basically what we’re asking, is that they follow the law.
The patio that they had, that was at The Docksider when the Mozals bought it, that they did have
seating on, was put in after Paul passed away, because when that was put in, let’s see, Paul died in ’92,
so in ’93 or ’94, that was put in, because when that was put in, because of all the meetings I sat
through on the expansion of The Docksider, I knew about permeability. I knew about runoff. I
knew about everything. So I went down and talked to Jim Martin. Then I went and talked to
Jocelyn who managed The Docksider. Then I went back down and talked to Jim Martin again, but
again, because it didn’t affect the permeability, the parking didn’t seem to increase, I didn’t bring up
any problems with that because I feared that Barton had gone through enough with the loss of a son.
Again, it’s a nonconforming use. It’s in a Critical Environmental Area. You know all this. You’ve
been around it. Chris, you’re tired of hearing from us. So, because they didn’t go for the variances
ahead of time, you know, I’m asking that they follow the law, and, you know, as I said, our property
is the only property that adjoins them. On the other side is the Town right of way.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the Zoning
Administrator’s position?
DONALD MILNE
MR. MILNE-I’m Donald Milne. I reside at 25 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury. I’m speaking, not
personally, this evening, but I’m speaking on behalf of the Glen Lake Protective Association, as their
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
President. The Board has prepared a statement that was approved by the entire Board. “The
mission of the Glen Lake Protective Association is to protect the quality of water and the quality of
life for residents of Glen Lake. In that regard we ask that this Zoning Board very carefully consider
the fragile, environmentally critical areas of the Glen Lake Watershed. Such consideration should
include: (1) Adequate, working, and, where needed, updated septic systems for all buildings within
the critical environmental area; (2) Adequate and maintained runoff management systems, including
retention basins, drainage areas, deflection and diffusion techniques; (3) Adequate permeable to
impermeable surface percentages to reduce runoff, erosion and contaminants from entering the lake;
(4) Utilization of the Glen Lake Watershed Plan (Management Plan) as a tool for responsible
decision-making. It is the duty of the Association to protect all of our shared interests, including
water quality and the quality of our investments. If the Town follows and properly enforces the
rules, regulations and laws it currently has, then protection of our interests should be a built in
procedure. We respectfully request that when this Board considers variances to the current building
regulations, its pre-eminent concern should be for the effects upon the quality of the Glen Lake
environment.” Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the Zoning
Administrator’s position?
GEORGE GORE
MR. GORE-First of all, I’d like to apologize that I came in late this evening. George Gore is the
name. I live on Fitzgerald Road. I’m a new resident of Glen Lake. Some of the Board members
may remember me from all the variances that I had to request, and I’m sure that the Board will
undertake judicious prudence in its decision with regards to the request for the variance that’s being
asked for by The Docksider, in that all of us had to go through those procedures, and I’m sure that
there must be some understanding that that should have been done in the first place. The reason I
apologized was that I’m sure there were things said that I’m going to say again, but maybe I can add
some things that some of the other residents of Glen Lake don’t have exposure to that I do, which is
I’m on the opposite side of the lake from The Docksider, and my house sits approximately 200 feet
from the lakeshore. During the middle of the summer, while the bands were playing, going to bed at
10, 10:30 or 11:00, the band decibels were so loud that I had to close my window. Obviously, I just
heard someone mention something to the effect that that shouldn’t be so. That we shouldn’t have to
close our window in the middle of summer, that we live on a lake, that we’re supposed to be
enjoying. So I would like a codicil, if the Board does approve this variance at some point in time, a
codicil that the Board would consider that either a decibel level or a timeframe would be exacted on
this outdoor band playing being stopped at a certain point in time, so we may enjoy that blissful sleep
that we all deserve, you know, at a reasonable hour. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Sir?
PHIL SULLIVAN
MR. SULLIVAN-Good evening, everybody. I can’t tell you what a pleasure it is to be here. My
name is Phil Sullivan. I’ve lived at Glen Lake for 43 years. I’ve gone through all stages of adulthood
and puberty, and I never thought I’d be here, but here I am. I’d like to start off with the summary of
Use Variance criteria, if I could, okay, just to educate the audience. To allow a use not otherwise
allowed in zoning, an applicant must demonstrate to the Board unnecessary hardship. Such
demonstration includes all of the following for each and every permitted use. Number One, cannot
make a reasonable return/substantial as shown by competent financial evidence. Number Two,
alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or
neighborhood. Number Three, requested variance will not alter essential character of the
neighborhood, and Number Four, alleged hardship has not been self-created. By definition of our
neighbors, it’s been presented that business is booming there. I don’t see the need for any hardship.
MR. HAYES-Let me just interrupt you for one second, just for clarification standpoint. We’re not
entertaining a use or an area variance tonight.
MR. SULLIVAN-All right. Basically, I wanted to have this on record because I wanted the audience
to be aware of what was involved in applying for a variance, okay, I think that’s appropriate to
educate the audience.
MR. HAYES-Sure.
MR. SULLIVAN-Okay. I am a town official from another area. I’ve been involved in zoning and
code enforcement. I came up here in August and I saw a parking lot where the Dante Civic
Association used to hold their picnics when I was a kid. I saw a patio where there was none and I
saw hundreds of people using a 1,000 gallon septic system. I attempted to have dialogue with a
person I’ve know for 37 years. I went down to his bar. My call was not returned. So I immediately
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
started doing research. I agree, I’m not going to take up your time. I’m going to mention a couple of
things, and then I’m going to go quietly into the night. Number One, I’m asking everybody here to
follow the law. The law is very specific here. Okay. The law is very specific to every person that
lives in Queensbury, be it on the Boulevard or be it at The Docksider, okay. So what I’m asking is
for equal application of the law to every citizen in the Town. Number Two, I’d like to bring this up
to you, Mr. Chairman, if I could.
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MR. SULLIVAN-I didn’t think I was going to be bringing copies, but you can pass this out. Now,
this is the map of the septic, circa 1985. You can see the great detail that went into it, okay. This is
where the parking lot is now, right up here. At this end here, like tons of boulders have been placed.
There’ve been tons of subsoil and gravel placed up here, and this is where like all the 4-wheelers
come up to park, okay. Our camp is right over here. That’s the reason that we’re more than a little
interested, but, you know, this is where the septic system is, this is where the leachfields are, okay.
Now here’s an application for Mr. Mozal, okay, to run his business, where he said that at no time
would he have more than 63 people in his business. Now, Mr. Mozal and The Docksider were cited
by the Department of Health for having approximately 152 seats there, okay. Now you’ve got both
of those.
MR. HAYES-This says ’67. Is that what you meant?
MR. SULLIVAN-’67. I forgot. I’m losing gray brain cell matter. Mr. Round, Chris, has been very
diligent in the performance of his duties. I think if you study his material and if you go up and look
at the site, in good conscience, none of you can argue with his determination. It might be also noted
that since May, my family has been in dialogue with Mr. Round, Craig, Dave Hatin and three notices
have been sent out, requesting site plan reviews and variances requests, all of which were ignored.
Nothing was done, and the band played on, all summer long. What I did, because I’m Irish and anal,
my sister told me about a study that was done, okay, where the good people of Glen Lake tested their
septic systems. The Town of Queensbury/Glen Lake Watershed Management plan. Now this was,
they entered into a technical agreement with the Town of Queensbury, or not the Town of
Queensbury, but ACC. It was funded by the Town of Queensbury, through a grant from New York
State. They have data down at the College that I have obtained a disk of today, that I will be glad to
send a copy of to the Board, and on the lake, okay, according to this data, now these people received
technical training from DEC, so your study could meet standards, okay, and address the needs of the
lake long term. On the lake, there was one property, in 1997 and 1998, where the septic system was
totally defunct. The property was 38-4-2, The Docksider. Since that time, The Docksider has
expanded by maybe 30 cars up on the upper plateau. They’ve come here tonight and announced,
now, they’ve announced that they’re going to be putting a 14 foot extension, with DEC permission.
I didn’t know whether they had to go to the Zoning Board or not, but I kind of thought that they
did, but I’ll do follow up on that, but what my piece is, is that I will research this, and I will submit it
to the Department of Health for further monitoring, but, again, not to be redundant, I’m asking you
guys to follow the law. Everybody should be treated the same in this Town. If it were somebody
else, I don’t think three notices would have to be sent out. I think there’d be almost immediate
compliance. I love this area. I’ve lived here the majority of my life, and I hope to come back here to
retire, okay, but, you know, if the findings from this study which your Town funded and the Board
verified are true, my daughter’s been swimming in sewage, okay, for the last 13 years. I have a 1,000
foot septic system for a family of three, okay, three. Now, even if the system is pristine, and that area
has been in existence for 70 years, when I was a child with Eddie and Jill Sullivan, who’s back here. I
don’t know what her married name is right now, and Nancy Sullivan, and the Kellys, who I used to
go to church with, you know, there was this little patch of water out in the front of the pavilion,
okay, and it would come up and periodically it had a smell, but in those days times were different,
and what that was was that was the septic system that was kind of exercising its rights as far as direct
dispersal into the lake. The same thing is happening under the ground. I wrote a very specific letter.
This is in a sensitive, environmental area. To speak bluntly, in capricious terms, people came,
without doing a SEQRA, without doing a DEIS, and literally just dumped tons of soil and rock at
their disposal. Their permeability right now is at 38%. When Mr. Barton was negotiating with the
Town, I believe it was at 52%, okay. All I’m asking is that the Board do the right thing. I have no
objection to the Mozals or The Docksider making a profit. There’s been a lot of spin control that it’s
a neighbor against neighbor thing and some people are resentful against other people making money.
I could give two squats who makes what. The main thing that really made me angry is that I went up
there, and my 82 year old mother, who’s deaf in one ear, by the way, gentlemen, and ladies, had to
leave the premises because the music was so loud, and because there were no noise ordinances, I
started nosing around and I came up with this additional information, and it is verifiable. Now you
have a chance to, Glen Lake has come a long way. It’s an exclusive area now. People flock to get
there, okay. It’s a little piece of Americana that’s still left intact, and I’m requesting that you consider
this and leave it intact, and again, I’m requesting that you follow the law, and I want to thank your
for your time.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the Zoning
Administrator’s position? Okay. Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the
Zoning Administrator’s findings?
BETTY KELLY
MRS. KELLY-Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is Betty Kelly, and I started going to
Glen Lake in 1934, to a camp that my Uncle George had built, and that’s what Phil Sullivan’s family
owns today. All those years at Sullivans, we had all kinds of dances, picnics, parties, you name it, and
the parking was up and down the roads, whatever. The mean time, my family, or myself, as a
teenager, grew, we made a lot of friends. We all went back to Sullivans year after year, and the
parking would be up and down the roads, and all I can say right now is where the outdoor area for
eating is now used to be the pavilion, and as the years went by, and Mr. Barton bought the place,
everything was improved. Everything that’s been done there has been an improvement, and I just
want to say the area outside of Sullivans is without a doubt the most beautiful place that I’ve seen in
a long, long time. I don’t know about the grandfather clauses and things, but I was just wondering if
there’s any of these new areas that would have applied to bringing in the grandfather clause for
everything that went on. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to
the Zoning Administrator’s position?
MARYBETH CASEY
MRS. CASEY-Good evening. My name is Marybeth Casey, actually it’s Marybeth Kelly Casey.
That’s my mom. So I have a long history with Glen Lake as well, and the reason I’m here is I live at
46 Nacy Road now, which is on the lake. Two years ago May we were looking to buy a home and
didn’t really have a spot in mind. Well, I saw this house on Nacy Road and looked right across the
lake, and there was the camp I grew up in, and it was like, I’ve come home, and it was just like, this is
wonderful, and the very first year we were there was two summers ago, which was the absolute most
wonderful summer, weather wise, that we’ve had in probably 25 years. So, we were able to be out
and about every single day. So we had a little boat that came with the house. So every night we’d go
out and we’d do our slow tour, which everyone on Glen Lake does every single night. It’s a given.
It’s like a cocktail hour tour. So we would do that every night. We started going to The Docksider.
We would stop in, sit in a lawn chair, if we would chose to, and I thought, you know, this is really
coming home, because when I was a child, we used to keep our fingers crossed that there would be
an event going on at Sullivan’s Pavilion, because it was a Pavilion, it was a gathering place, it was a
dance hall. There was a great, big center with a great big jute box, and there were screen doors and
screen windows, and boy, I’ll tell you, that jute box was loud, and it was three songs for a quarter, so
I’m dating myself, and it was just, that’s how you hoped to spend your Saturday and Sunday, and you
got there early, because if you didn’t, there wasn’t a spot to be had, either at any of the picnic tables
or on the grass, which was where you would put your towels, because at that point there was a little
area for swimming, and, as someone else had mentioned, you’d go to church there. Father Falcone,
Father Circa or Father Sinisky would come up from St. Mary’s and do mass. Well, you’d keep your
fingers crossed you were late, because you still heard mass if you were outside on the lawn. So, in the
mean time, this big, huge Pavilion was full of people, and the priest, and they would do their mass,
and then that would disperse, and then whatever event was going on during the day would come in,
and when the Sullivan’s had it, the original Sullivan’s, they would host clam bakes. So there were
always cars. Up at the top of the plateau, that was where the cars would park, with their boat trailer,
so that the other parking lot was freed up for just cars. As a matter of fact, the Sullivans were very
nice and they always let my parents, any time we went over, put our boat at their dock, and now
they’re equally gracious to friends of mine who, if they’re going to an event at The Docksider, have
been given permission by Mrs. Sullivan to park their cars there. They’re two close friends of mine
that are also close friends of hers. So they have an unwritten, open invitation to park their cars in
Mrs. Sullivan’s back yard, for any event that’s going on at The Docksider, and it’s just, it’s a gathering
place. You can go there on any given evening, and we’re talking summer season, and you’re going to
see everyone that you haven’t seen all winter long, which is just what it was when we were kids. I
mean, there was always an event. You talk about the cars. I can remember as a child, we would have
to go, if we were on the lakeside, and we wanted to go over to the playground side, we would have to
go and get a parent, walk us to the road, who would get a hold of another parent over in the
playground area, and say, we’re crossing children, and the two adults would stand in the road, to be
sure the children crossed, because that’s how intense the parking was up and down Glen Lake Road,
and it was just, that was, it was summertime, and you expected it, but that was the same time Route 9
was backed up three hours. So, you know, parking and walking into Sullivan’s Pavilion, Sullivan’s
bath area, was not a big deal, and we all did it and we loved it and we had wonderful times and met
wonderful people, and now, 40 years later, I’m back and I’m sitting and I’m meeting a lot of the same
people I knew then and I’m meeting their children, and it’s a place where, I mean, I guess I don’t
understand the question with the noise in the evening. Because there really usually isn’t an event
there that we don’t, in some way, participate in, and I’ve never known there to be music at The
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
Docksider, after eight o’clock at night, and that’s only one night a year. Any other time, it’s in the
winter and it’s indoors and it’s enclosed. Anything that happens throughout the course of the
summertime happens during the day, and to be honest, we’ve come up in a boat, and until you get
almost to the area where you’re going to dock, you don’t hear it, because we’ve thought of dropping
anchor and just listening to the music, and you can’t always hear it. So, I mean, there may be some
bands that you can, on any given day, but, you know, there are many, many times that you can’t, and
you have to either pull in or go in and actually sit there, and as far as the Mozals go, I mean, I can’t
think of people who have done more to enhance anything they have ever known. We’re not talking
an unknown entity here. These are the people that bought a dilapidated building in the City of Glens
Falls, totally renovated it, restored it, and turned it an absolutely fabulous piece of property that
totally upgraded South Street. They also bought a piece of property in the City of Glens Falls that
was about to become whatever any drug dealers or whomever chose to make it. It was the area
behind Kiley’s Drug, what used to be Kiley’s Drug store, and now it’s that labor ready building.
Well, that particular piece of property could have gone to Hell in a handbag, to tell you the truth, real
quickly, but the Mozals, because they have a vested interest in that area, took it upon themselves to
buy it and maintain it, and I know that Chris and Rich have been very, very active. What the Glens
Falls Protective Association said, I don’t disagree with, because you do need to be careful with what
you do, but I think you also have to be careful who you throw stones at. We’re talking about people
who have a proven track record. These aren’t people who are here to make money in the summer
and then head to New Jersey, and as far as the variances go, I don’t see why they ever had to apply
for them in the first place. I mean, it isn’t any kind of a change of use. That pavilion was the
Pavilion, and because Paul Barton, through health, because of health reasons, didn’t chose to use the
business to its fullest potential, doesn’t take away the potential he could have used. I graduated with
Paul, and when I went up there, he chose to run it as a tavern. It was never a tavern. It was
Sullivan’s Pavilion, and a pavilion implies exactly what it is, a gathering place, and if you think 115 or
120 people is a lot of people, then you did not see it in its days, when it was the gathering place on
the Saturdays and Sundays for everybody and their brother. Every fundraiser was there. Field day
was just an event that you can’t even imagine how many people came. I mean, there were people, we
used to get angry, as kids, because these outsiders were coming in and winning all the prizes, and it
was like, wait, time out here, this is supposed to be the Glen Lake field day, but I just, I think before
you jump to conclusions that you have people who are trying not to be good neighbors, look at who
the people are. Look at the good neighbors they’ve been, in their already established places. These
people live on the lake. Chris has been an active member in the Glens Falls Protective Association
for years. I mean, they talk about this quality water program, she was its president during part of the
time they were working on it. I mean, you’re not talking about people who are going to take the
money and run. You’re talking about people who have a little bit of history with business, and
they’re very good, because whatever they do they come in and they do 100%. It’s nothing slipshod.
So if there’s anything, if there were even the slightest doubt, in either one of their minds, that that
septic system was even close to doing anything to hurt the integrity of that lake, they would fix it,
because they are on that lake. They live on that lake. Their property value is just as invested in that
lake as mine is. I mean, I wouldn’t sit here and promote a non variance need if I thought it was
going to put my potential income or my potential ability to sell my home at risk. I wouldn’t do it. I
mean, nobody in their right mind would do that. So, I mean, you need to look at the big picture.
What was the establishment? It was Sullivan’s Pavilion. How busy was it? It was very busy. Did it
have a history of music and large gatherings? Yes, it did, back to when I was a kid, and again, I’m
not going into great detail about how old I am. So you don’t need to know how long that’s been,
but, I mean, I haven’t had to learn to be tolerant to flatlanders, because my dad met my mom there,
and he was from Brooklyn. So, you know, you learn to be tolerant of a lot of people, and Glen Lake
gave me a lot of history, and a lot of realization that, you know, when I moved up there I thought,
I’m moving out of the City, and I love the City because I loved the neighborhood, but, you know
what, Glen Lake is a neighborhood. The people who live there, especially the people who are there
year round, I mean, they are a neighborhood, and The Docksider happens to be where we
congregate. That happens to be our park, and if our friends choose to come and join us at our park,
that’s what it’s been, that’s what it is, and I hope that when you look at all of the information in front
of you, you’ll take what I have to say for what it’s worth, which is they should not have needed
variances in the first place, because they’ve never changed the usage. Thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the Zoning
Administrator’s position?
MARY SICARD
MRS. SICARD-My name is Mary Sicard. I’m a lifelong resident of Glen Lake, and I’m here just to,
basically, address the historical use of the area in and around the deck. I’m the captain of the softball
team that’s been sponsored by The Docksider for about 13 years, back when Paul Barton was the
owner, in the interim period since his death, and since the Mozals have purchased it. In all that time
that we’ve been with The Docksider, we have been, every Friday night we would go there after the
games, and we would be seated out at the picnic tables, due to the size of our group. They couldn’t
accommodate us on the deck, because of the size of the tables and everything, but we were always
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
seated at the picnic tables, and we were always served out there, and we’ve always had a great time
there, and it was always a very busy location on Friday nights, and I just basically wanted to let you
know that that use hasn’t changed, in the 13 years that we’ve been sponsored by The Docksider, and
I’d also just like to say that I’d echo Marybeth’s remarks that I think they’re good neighbors. I think
every piece of property that they’ve had, they’ve done their best to improve. They’ve put a lot of
money into it, a lot of hard work and effort has gone into making improvements to The Docksider,
and I think it’s in the best shape that it’s been in since I’ve been at Glen Lake. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the
Zoning Administrator’s determination?
JILL SULLIVAN PETERSON
MRS. PETERSON-My name is Jill Sullivan Peterson, and my parents, or my grandfather is the
former owner of The Docksider, when it was Sullivan’s Pavilion. I have several points I’ve written
here, and I’m hoping I can keep organized and on topic. First of all, I’ve heard a lot about noise, and
though I don’t think there’s anymore noise than there’s ever been, except for maybe one or two
nights a year, noise is not the issue, and it’s not what’s before the Board, and it appears to me that
noise is what is motivating people to have opposition, when that is not really a factor of what this
variance has anything to do with. I know, as a kid, it was noisy, because I lived right across the
street, and I would try to sleep and the Irish singing coming from that place would keep me awake
until three o’clock in the morning. The noise hasn’t changed, but the noise is not the issue. The
septic, when I was a kid, was terrible, and on really busy days, on really busy clam bake days, the
smell in the front yard was unbelievable, and mostly there was a lot of puddles and mud. If you’re
talking about runoff, I would say that there is much less runoff than there ever was. I would say the
septic system is better. If Christine’s information to me is correct, I think they have it pumped once
a month. I don’t think my grandfather ever had it pumped until it smelled really bad. I think that
Phil probably had more trouble when he was swimming when he was a kid than his daughter has
now. I also am wondering, people are talking a lot about Christine and whether she’s a good
neighbor, and whether she’s following the laws, and I think Christine had some verbal conversation
with some people over here at the Town, when she put her patio in and when she put her sidewalk
in, and I think she was told, verbally, that she didn’t need a site plan. I think, and I know that
Christine is under the impression that she did what she was supposed to do. I don’t think that
Christine or Rich would break the law on purpose. That’s not the type of people that they are, and
so, when you’re talking about holding people to the law, I think they felt, when they did this, that
they weren’t doing anything improper. As far as I know, the pitch of the sidewalk is away from the
lake. The pitch of the path used to be toward the lake, and I think there’s less runoff. I haven’t seen
any evidence, except for Phil mentioned something about The Docksider and the number of the plot
it was and that, I haven’t heard anybody come through with any recent testing that says that the lake
quality is any worse. I have a kayak. I go swimming. I use the Town’s right of way to get into the
lake. There’s a lot less swimming, a lot less stirring up because swimming is not allowed like it used
to be. There used to be tons of people on that lake. Also, the boat launch is not used half as much
as it used to be. As far as I know, it’s mostly people just from the lake putting their boats in there.
Christine doesn’t really want to run this as a boat launch. She’s in the business of restauranting. So,
I think she allows the Glen Lake people to put their boats in, our of courtesy, which shows that she’s
a really good neighbor, and I don’t think there’s as much pollution going into the lake from all the
boats that come from other places that might bring zebra muscles or might bring, I don’t know what
else, but I know that, you know, milfoil or whatever that comes in on boats, I don’t think we’re
getting boats that come from other lakes back and forth so much as we used to get. Christine has a
home on the lake. I think she is concerned about the lake quality, and certainly her business
wouldn’t be good if the lake quality wasn’t good. I own two year round houses up there. I own the
house directly across the street from the lake and I own a house that is on a rise above the lake on
the opposite side, and the noise does come up to me, but it’s not very often, it’s only a few times a
year, and, like I said, I think it used to be way worse. The aesthetics of what she has done, however,
have really, I think, increased the value of my property that is right across the street. I rent that
property right now to year round residents, and I think when Paul Barton was there, they had a
wonderful little grease thing, I mean, we’re talking about water pollution, but there was some air
pollution going on because I couldn’t stand the grease smell. I’d go down there to do yard work, and
the grease smell was really awful, and since Rich and Christine have owned it, they’ve improved the
quality of the fans, or whatever, that come out of the kitchen, and that’s like way better. As far as the
parking goes, I know the top of the hill where Phil is saying now there’s four-wheelers parked, I
think that’s employee parking. I think that’s to keep that parking part of it down, that’s employee
parking, and maybe that will help to keep the cars off the street, which, historically, has always
happened, and I don’t think there was ever grass on the top of that hill. I used to work at those clam
bakes, and there was pretty much hard packed. They’d drive, we’d drive vehicles up there with the
clams and, you know, there was always a ramp to get up there. It was always used to be driven on. It
was not a grassy area ever. There was no grass. As a matter of fact, the grass in the front, now is
way better than the grass used to be, because I don’t think my grandfather ever did anything to
improve the turf out there. I mean, we hardly ever had to mow because hardly anything grew, and I
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
think there’s topsoil out there. I think that the drainage, you know, the look of the place is way
better. The walkway being cement, I think, is an improvement, not a detriment, to the property, and,
personally, I’m really glad to have Rich and Christine owning The Docksider, and my mother can’t
be here, because she’s in Myrtle Beach, but she also owns a property right across the street. I know
she’s written a letter to the Post Star in favor of what’s happening with the business, and I’m sure
that if she was here, she would agree with me and wish she could speak. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MRS. PETERSON-The walkway was the same place it always was. It’s cement now, pitched away
from the lake, and like I say, I don’t think it’s a detriment, and I’d like to see somebody have some
kind of water quality test to prove that the runoff is worse, or that the quality of the lake is worse.
MR. MC NALLY-Excuse me. What did the walkway consist of beforehand, before it was concrete?
MRS. PETERSON-It wasn’t pavement, it was mud, clay.
MR. MC NALLY-Just dirt? Plain dirt.
MRS. PETERSON-Clay, not permeable.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, Jill, may I ask you a question on the record, just for the purpose of
the record? You’ve got to come back up here so it gets recorded. The area that we’re talking about,
where the walkway is, comes from the back parking lot around to the deck? Is that correct?
MRS. PETERSON-Well, I’m also talking about, there’s a pavement now or a paved walkway that
goes from the parking lot to the side of the deck. Okay.
MR. HAYES-That’s 235 square feet on the survey?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MRS. PETERSON-Right. That was always a hard packed walkway, a hard, dirt packed walkway. It
was never grass.
MR. O'CONNOR-And it was used by people as a walkway before?
MRS. PETERSON-Always. Because that’s how you could get into the dance hall. That’s how you
got to the front where the swimming was. That’s how you got back and forth to the store.
MR. O'CONNOR-And it was compacted by their travel way?
MRS. PETERSON-Definitely.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. No other questions. I may speed this up a little bit here, Mr. Chairman, if
you want. I can ask a couple of questions. I know, historically, what I’d like to establish for your
record.
MR. HAYES-That’s fine. Certainly everyone has the right to speak as they’d like, but if it’s going to
speed up the testimony, that’s fine.
MR. O'CONNOR-How about Nancy?
NANCY SULLIVAN QUILLINAN
MRS. QUILLINAN-Hi. My name is Nancy Sullivan Quillinan. I’m Jill’s sister, also the
granddaughter of Jim Sullivan who used to own The Docksider. Basically, she took all my notes. I
wrote the notes, and then she took all of them, but anyway. Pretty much in terms of the use of the
place, I don’t see a big change, only that Chris and Rick are running a better business. My
grandfather used to close if he thought it was going to be busy. Actually, that was my uncle. I take it
back, that was my uncle. That was after my grandfather owned it, but way back then, I, too,
remember that on weekends, I heard somebody say that they hardly noticed the place. They may not
have been there on weekends, because on weekends there were probably two or three hundred
people at a time coming up for these clambakes that they used to have, and parking was always a
problem. Right now, as a matter of fact, parking is way better, because you’re not parking so much
along the main roads, and a couple of instances, I think they’ve had problems where they’ve had to
have an ambulance, and, you know, ambulances didn’t have any problem getting down in there.
There’s plenty of space to get around. Like I said, I remember the parking back then, much, much
worse.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. O'CONNOR-Is parking on the hill area any different than what it has been in the past?
MRS. QUILLINAN-No, I know Paul used it for parking for employees and for, like overflow
parking, and like Jill says, you’ve always been able to drive up there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Was that area ever very grassy?
MRS. QUILLINAN-The top of the hill was never grass.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Was it basically bare, compacted gravel?
MRS. QUILLINAN-Very compacted. As a matter of fact, you couldn’t walk up there with bare feet
because it was stones and it was a mess.
MR. O'CONNOR-The area in the front by the patio that was talked about, was that an area that was
occupied by a smaller patio, picnic tables used for dining on a regular basis in the last 10, 15 years
that you’re aware of?
MRS. QUILLINAN-There have always been picnic tables out there. I mean, I would say, if
anything, more of the area was used for dining, if you want to call it that. It was picnics or, as I
recall, there used to be about 25 or 30, minimum, picnic tables. I mean, if you’re going to seat a
couple hundred people at a clambake, there had to be at least that much seating. There were picnic
tables up near the, you know, up next to the Sullivan’s property, down closer to the lake.
MR. O'CONNOR-In the general area where we show a patio now, I’ve shown (lost words) that was
occupied by picnic tables on a regular basis?
MRS. QUILLINAN-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-And you own property in the immediate vicinity of this?
MRS. QUILLINAN-I own property across the road. I own two year round houses. I’m a year
round resident of Glen Lake.
MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask a couple of questions?
MRS. QUILLINAN-Sure.
MR. MC NALLY-The area above the septic system where the cars park, four-wheel drive vehicles
and what not, you said that consists of dirt and gravel?
MRS. QUILLINAN-Okay. I’ll tell you, I don’t know exactly where the septic system is.
MR. MC NALLY-That hill area where the cars park on top of that, that consists of dirt and gravel?
MRS. QUILLINAN-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think the actual septic system, Mr. McNally, is short of the area of the parking.
It’s not that far back.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Let me ask. The area on top of this hill you said is dirt and gravel, not
grass?
MRS. QUILLINAN-It always was dirt and gravel, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Did your family ever add gravel to the surface, trucked in gravel to that section,
not the other parking area, but that section.
MRS. QUILLINAN-To the top.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes.
MRS. QUILLINAN-Because my family didn’t. I don’t know whether Paul did. I think Paul did, but
we didn’t.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and to your knowledge, did any other owner ever do that?
MRS. QUILLINAN-No, but I’m talking my family owned it 25 years ago.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. MC NALLY-I know, a long time, but in your recollection, do you recollect them ever doing
that?
MR. HAYES-As a neighbor.
MRS. QUILLINAN-As a neighbor, I know Paul had, the top of it was graded, I believe.
MR. MC NALLY-Graded, and when they had picnic tables in the front along the lake, was that on
the grass, did the set the tables on the grass, whatever it was, along the ground?
MRS. QUILLINAN-Just all over.
MR. HAYES-Randomly?
MRS. QUILLINAN-Yes, totally randomly.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-There were picnic tables on the grass, there was a lot more grass then, too.
MRS. QUILLINAN-Well, there was a lot more area. There was a whole section that’s been washed
away by the lake.
MR. MC NALLY-And the patio that Mr. O’Connor talked to you about, where the picnic tables
used to be placed, or around that area, there wasn’t a patio there, or, what do you remember as to
when there was a patio there and what that patio consisted of?
MRS. QUILLINAN-I remember there was a cement slab there, at some point, it was not there, of
course, it wasn’t there when my family owned it because at that time there was a whole, an enclosed
dance hall, basically. There was an area, there were entrances to both ends of this dance hall. What
I’m trying to get at is one of those entrances was on the side where now that patio thing would be,
and I do remember there was like a cement slab where the entrance was. Now I don’t know whether
that’s the same cement slab that they’re talking about. That I don’t remember.
MR. HAYES-Go ahead, Mike, continue.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m fine. If you have anything else to say.
MRS. QUILLINAN-Christine and, they’ve been great neighbors. The place looks way better than
it’s ever looked. The grass and stuff is way better than it’s ever been. I mean, somebody’s actually
taking care of the landscaping so that it looks nicer. There seems to be less runoff. Like I’m not any
kind of an expert on anything, but there are fewer puddles in the parking lot. My grandchildren swim
right next to the place, and they wouldn’t be doing that if I thought that there was a problem. Like I
said, well, Phil remembers, during the summers, the septic used to seep up through the grass, right in
the front, which couldn’t have been more than 20 feet from the lake. I mean, back then there
weren’t any, I don’t know, laws that said you couldn’t do that. So, in the summer, you always knew,
you didn’t put your towel there because if you did, it would stink. So you stayed away from it. I
mean, there’s nothing like that now. There’s no septic smell. There’s no runoff. There’s, the place is
way better, and I loved it as a kid, and I love it even more now. That’s it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-If you want to hang on, Mr. Sullivan, we’ll let everybody else speak, and then if you
would like to talk, for direct examination. Are you going to object at any point? Continue with your
examination, Mr. O’Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR-Is Rich Meyer here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just don’t want, I understand
the hour.
MR. HAYES-That’s why I’m allowing it.
MR. O'CONNOR-I know you’ve got other things behind you, and if you look at this thing here, half
of this file is probably minutes from meetings that took place in 1990, and just, it becomes a very
tough issue. So, I’ll try to expedite if I can. Rick, can you tell the Board where you live, and what
your relationship to the property is?
RICK MEYER
MR. MEYER-My name is Rick Meyer. I live on Bay Road here in Queensbury. I’m a 15 year
employee of The Docksider.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. O'CONNOR-Does that put you back to the summer of 1986?
MR. MEYER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Shortly after Paul Barton bought the property?
MR. MEYER-The year after Paul Barton bought it, I came to work for him.
MR. O'CONNOR-In the time that you’ve been familiar with the property, was there parking up on
the hill, as we’ve shown the parking on the plot plan?
MR. MEYER-Ever since I’ve been there there’s been parking up there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The surface up there has been improved with some crushed stone, is that
correct?
MR. MEYER-Correct, yes, it has.
MR. O'CONNOR-Prior to that, was it.
MS. RADNER-You know, Mike, if you’re going to ask him questions, ask him questions, but don’t
testify for him.
MR. SULLIVAN-I’d like to protest. People are supposed to be able to come up and make their own
statements, not be lead through this dialogue by an attorney. I would hope that everybody here
would have the intelligence to come before the Board and give their own testimony. This is not
Perry Mason. This is a hearing to determine whether the variances and the site plans are in order or
not in order, and I take umbrage of the fact, I think there’s a conflict of interest with Rick speaking,
because he works for the Mozals, okay, and I take umbrage of the fact that Mr. O’Connor’s been
allowed to sit there and interview each one of these witnesses and lead them through the questions
that is conducive to the enhancement of The Docksider’s position against the other citizens who, in
good faith, have come up and spoken from their hearts and have had their own prepared statements.
MR. HAYES-I certainly understand that, and Counselor’s point is well taken that Mr. O’Connor can
make his questions a little less leading, but he is expediting, he could speak after the fact and point all
these things out. If he’s expediting everyone’s testimony to get to the facts that need to be put on
the record, that they are here to put on the record, that seems like a reasonable thing, to me, but,
Counselor’s point is well taken.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a point, too. What was said is certainly appropriate,
but I think we should all understand that this is a quasi-judicial Board. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-I have the applicant’s right, and I’d take an exception to anybody that would
question the right to actually conduct this hearing or present evidence in the same fashion I would
before a full fledged court. You are acting in a quasi-judicial manner, and I think that the problems
that sometimes we have with the applications is that we don’t necessarily explore the record to the
degree that we need to explore it. I admit my questions are leading. I can ask the same questions
without them being leading, but that’s going to take us a lot longer time.
MR. HAYES-Let’s try and find a little bit more middle ground. Your objections are noted and on
the record, Mr. Sullivan, for the future.
MR. MEYER-The parking’s always been, there’s always been parking up there in that area, as long as
I’ve been there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Rick, are you familiar with the area shown on the plot plan for the patio that is in
question before the Board?
MR. MEYER-Yes, I am.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. What’s your recollection of the use of that area?
MR. MEYER-The area used to be, years ago, it used to be picnic tables out in that area, used for
serving anything from dinners, whatever, basically overflow from the deck, and the inside.
MR. HAYES-What was the surface area underneath those picnic tables like?
MR. MEYER-It was grassy, it was grassy area.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. HAYES-Grassy.
MR. O'CONNOR-Did there come a time when there was some patio put in there?
MR. MEYER-After Paul died, the patio was put in, the same time the sidewalk was put in, to go out
onto the deck.
MR. O'CONNOR-Did there come a time when that patio was increased in size?
MR. MEYER-When the Mozals had it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, recently, this summer?
MR. MEYER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-It was increased in size?
MR. MEYER-Right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and you’ve seen the mapping, did you ever actually make measurements of
the patio?
MR. MEYER-No, I did not.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s an area on the west side of the deck, where there’s a walk that leads to the
walkway that’s part of the parking lot. Are you familiar with that walkway?
MR. MEYER-Yes, yes, I am.
MR. O'CONNOR-Is that walkway in the same location where the dirt path was?
MR. MEYER-Yes, it is.
MR. O'CONNOR-And was the dirt path a compacted area that people used on a regular basis to
walk around to the front of the pavilion?
MR. MEYER-That was the way to get around the building, yes.
MR. HAYES-We have one question here, from several of the Board members. When did Mr.
Barton die, the Mozals take over title, just for the matter of record?
MR. MEYER-Paul died in ’92.
MR. HAYES-And the property was conveyed to the Mozals when?
MR. MEYER-1999.
MR. O'CONNOR-February 3, 1999.
MR. HAYES-Okay, and the owner in between there was?
MR. MEYER-It was left to his brother.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-It was operated by the Barton family.
MR. HAYES-All right. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-No other questions.
MR. MEYER-One thing I wanted to say is that I can’t think of two people more concerned about
the quality of the lake than the Mozals. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MC NALLY-Could I ask a question?
MR. MEYER-Sure.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. MC NALLY-You said the patio was put in after Mr. Barton died?
MR. MEYER-The patio on the side of the deck.
MR. MC NALLY-Could you show me which one you’re talking about? I’m not sure which one
you’re referring to.
MR. HAYES-We’ve got two labeled here. That’s why we need to clarify that. If you find the wood
deck, there you go.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s the patio to the right of the wood deck (lost words) right? Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Area C has been there, he’s identifying Area C, as it relates to our site plan. Let the
record show that.
MR. MC NALLY-Do you know if anyone ever took pictures of these areas? I mean, over 15 years,
you’d think someone would take a picture of a party from time to time.
MR. MEYER-I haven’t seen them. I would say probably.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? I have a question I’d like to address of
Counselor, if you don’t mind. We’re talking about Area C. We’re just talking about the patio. Is it
correct that, in 1989, the Assessor’s Record records 280 square feet?
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s what the Assessor’s Record records.
MR. ABBATE-That’s what they record. Okay, and the current patio, as identified by the applicant, is
measured at 831 square feet?
MR. O'CONNOR-If you include the areas that are walkways and fill-ins, that rectangular shape
would be 831 feet.
MR. ABBATE-And what about the additional paved areas of approximately 357 square feet?
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not sure how that was arrived at.
MR. ABBATE-But would you have any arguments with these figures?
MR. O'CONNOR-I have no agreements with those figures, and I think on the site plan that you’ve
been given, there’s a breakdown of the.
MR. HAYES-There is, how that’s arrived at.
MR. O'CONNOR-The 831 figure is the 45 fill-in area. The 127 feet of walk area behind the area
that’s used for service, and the addition to the patio of 186, and the prior patio of 473, and that’s how
you get to the 831.
MR. ABBATE-Now does this written affidavit by your client indicate that in May of 1999, the patio
measured 473 square feet? Is that correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That’s an affidavit that was submitted by Daniel Barber from Sherwood
Acres Corporation.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Lisa? Is Lisa here? Could you tell the Board who you are and what your
connection with the property is.
LISA STOMSKY
MS. STOMSKY-My name is Lisa Stomsky. I’m an employee of Chris and Rich’s. I’ve been at The
Docksider for nine years.
MR. O'CONNOR-And you’re employed there as a waitress?
MS. STOMSKY-A waitress/barmaid.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. O'CONNOR-Barmaid, okay. During that period of time, have you served people dinners on a
regular basis in the area that we’re talking about as the patio area?
MS. STOMSKY-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s off the deck, and it’s to the east of the deck?
MS. STOMSKY-Left of the deck, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-And that area was occupied by picnic tables that were, some of them were on the
ground or on the grass/ground, and some were on a concrete slab?
MS. STOMSKY-Right, correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and some, there were some picnic tables and I think there were also some
48 inch round tables.
MS. STOMSKY-There were round tables on the patio, and picnic tables beyond that.
MR. O'CONNOR-And there were picnic tables elsewhere, also, in and about that area?
MS. STOMSKY-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I have no other questions. Do you have anything you want to say? Or, let
me ask you, during the time that you’ve been associated with the property, has there been parking up
on the hill?
MS. STOMSKY-Yes. We’ve always parked on the hill, the last nine years I’ve been there.
MR. O'CONNOR-No other questions.
MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask a couple of questions? What is that period of time that you’ve been
associated with this property?
MS. STOMSKY-I’ve been at The Docksider for nine years.
MR. MC NALLY-At The Docksider. So you pre-dated the Mozals purchase of it?
MS. STOMSKY-Correct. I was hired by Paul Barton.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-And, Counsel, I’m assuming you’re attempting to set precedence on this?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MS. STOMSKY-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-I have no other persons I’m going to ask questions of, but I think there are
others. There are others that want to speak. Mark, are you going to speak? Mark, why don’t you
give your name and address for the record.
MARK BRONTO
MR. BRONTO-My name’s Mark Bronto. I live at 23 Marine Drive, South Glens Falls, and I’ve been
an employee of The Docksider for about 15 years.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, and who was your first employer there?
MR. BRONTO-Paul Barton.
MR. O'CONNOR-During that period of time, that full period of time, was there parking up on the
hill, the area that we show on the plot plan as parking?
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. BRONTO-Yes, we always parked up on the hill, employee parking.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. In the area that we show the patio, and the front yard, was there also
service of customers, at tables, for dinners or meals?
MR. BRONTO-Yes, sir.
MR. O'CONNOR-On a regular basis?
MR. BRONTO-Yes, sir.
MR. O'CONNOR-In the area where we show a walkway that connects the westerly side of the deck
to the parking area, was that walkway occupied by a dirt path that was compacted by people?
MR. BRONTO-Yes, it was.
MR. O'CONNOR-No other questions. Thank you.
MIKE MELUCCI
MR. MELUCCI-My name is Mike Melucci, 40 Laurel Lane, Queensbury, New York. I insured the
property when Paul Barton owned it. I insured it when the Estate of Paul Barton owned it. I insure
it now with Rich and Chris Mozal. The area that’s in question about the parking on the top has
always been parking. In fact, there was a charcoal grill there when Paul Barton owned it, made out of
cement block, and there was gravel all the way around that, picnic tables all the over the property, on
a cement slab. Paul was a personal friend. Since the Mozals have bought it and taken it over when
(lost words) was taking it over, it has gradually gotten better. The area has been 200% taken care of
since the Mozals have had it. I’m personal friends of them. It has nothing to do with insurance or
anything to do with the personal relationship. The question right now is that, was there gravel on
top? There was always gravel there, as long as I insured it, and it was always picnic tables on the
ground, and on slabs, as long as Paul Barton. Before that, I have no idea what it was before that, but
I know from, Paul Barton had it insured with somebody else, but he was a personal friend, and I
know that slab, there was a slab there. The parking lot is really not much different than what it was.
Paul always had the people park, if you’re looking from the Glen Lake, from the front of the building
to the left side, and the front near the road, for the people with the trailers, and Paul’s boat was
parked there along with the other trailers. So there was parking all around that, where basically it is
today, not much of it different. It may look different because it’s graded and cleaned up. I mean, I
think that’s a lot of what makes it look a lot different than what it was, but it’s cleaned up. There’s
not as much brush. There’s not as much overgrowth. I think that alone is something that makes it
more apparent that there’s more, because I don’t, I really don’t believe there’s much more. Other
than that, that’s about it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
SCOTT CARTIER
MR. CARTIER-My name’s Scott Cartier. I reside at 26 Reardon Road, on Glen Lake. First, my first
statement is as Vice President of The Glen Lake Association. The letter that Don Milne read to you
was neither for nor against this project at your hand. It was just a statement. Now, I’m speaking as a
resident, as an individual. Concerning the boats, if Chris Mozal is required to move her parking and
eliminate parking, she’ll have no alternative but to close her boat launch. She does a great job at
monitoring boats on and off the lake. If the boat launch is closed, there’s a public access boat
launch, which we have no control over. Sandy’s parties have been going on at that establishment, I
believe, since 1987 or 1988. Apparently, there was no problem then with the noise. I do know,
when there is a major party at that establishment, port-a-potties are brought in to help with the septic
issue, and she does pump out before and after that party. She was President of the Association, and
she would not, and I believe she would definitely not arbitrarily pollute that lake. She lives on the
lake. If the lake goes sour, so does her business. As far as parking in the street, I know at one point,
she made arrangements, when people complained that there was parking on the street, to have a taxi
bring those people to and from the Warren County Municipal building, to help alleviate the parking
on the street. She didn’t have to do that. She did that on her own. She doesn’t rent dock space
anymore, which is a big help, as far as polluting the lake. Who knows what people do at night after
they rent their dock space. You don’t know what happens when people leave their boats there or
they stay there overnight. You can’t control that. As far as the noise, there is no noise ordinance.
I’ve been there before when she’s had parties. I’ve never been there at 11 o’clock at night when the
band has been playing. Now, I do know there’s other people on the lake that have bands, Fourth of
July, graduation parties. It’s a summertime activity. Are we going to come down on everybody
around the lake that has a band or has a graduation party or has a birthday party? Runoff is a big
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
issue, not only by The Docksider, but around the whole lake. I believe the runoff at The Docksider
is not a problem. It is in some spots, but Chris has addressed those problems, and she’s going to do
what needs to be done to make it correct. The Town is working on those problems also. I just
know that Chris Mozal is not going to do anything that is going to disrupt the lake or hurt the lake.
She has only improved their business. As far as seating outside, when people seat outside during the
summer, she’s not seating people inside. Her kitchen cannot allow for people to be seated in both
areas. Because, quite frankly, she could not keep up. People would have to sit there two or three
hours just to get fed. So when people are outside, there’s nobody inside, and I think she just had a
big improvement on the lake. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-What is your name again, please?
MR. CARTIER-Scott Cartier.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You indicated that you’re a member of The Glen Lake Protective
Association?
MR. CARTIER-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-And do you have a position in that?
MR. CARTIER-I’m Vice President.
MR. ABBATE-You’re Vice President?
MR. CARTIER-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-And you made is unequivocally clear that the presentation this evening by the other
representative, who presented this to us this evening from The Glen Lake Protective Association, in
this statement, was not made as being objective?
MR. CARTIER-It is not either for the applicant or against the applicant. It was not supposed to be,
the Association was not taking a position on for or against.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, you cleared that up for me.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to the Administrator’s
position?
WALT RIVETTE
MR. RIVETTE-My name’s Walt Rivette. I live on 47 Birch Road, on Glen Lake. I was a personal
friend of Paul Barton’s, and when Paul Barton bought the Docksider, the little kids used to wallow
around and to piss out in front of The Docksider, and that’s exactly what it was. Because that’s
where the septic went, right out in front. As a matter of fact, I can show you where we planted the
tree, for Paul Barton, right in front, right in the middle of that, and while I was there, Mr. Barton and
I, several of his friends, put a brand new septic system in there, a pump up septic system, a thousand
gallon tank, with three 1,000 gallon tanks underneath the parking area up on top, where this problem
is. There was a whole bunch of cobble rocks up there. He did put some stone up there, and
knocked down, what they had was an outdoor fireplace where they used to do their barbecues and
they knocked that down and they leveled that off. From there on, we started building the deck, I
believe, in 1986. I was working 11 to 7 down at Finch Pruyn. I’ve since retired from there. We put
two additions on that outside deck, the wooden deck, to make it what it is today. Where he had his,
his wood shed out there and underneath his porch, there was a concrete slab poured there, because
that was the only handicap accessible side to the deck. I believe that was in 1987. Since then, they
have taken care of the septic system. They put a drywell in so all the sand doesn’t wash off the road
into the lake. As a matter of fact, I think everything they’ve done at The Docksider since then has
been nothing but first class. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to
the Administrator’s position?
RUSS PITTENGER
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. PITTENGER-Good evening. My name is Russ Pittenger. My family and I bought a camp on
Birdsall Road. It’s a seasonal camp. We live in Saratoga Springs. I just wanted to comment very
quickly about the interaction that I’ve had with The Docksider since Chris Mozal bought it. I think
that we’re all concerned about the quality of the lake, and the effects on the lake, and also the effects
on the lake that cannot be corrected, and specifically I think, in Chris’ management of the launching
site there, a couple of years ago, before Chris got involved in it, we had a lot of day travelers coming
in, and I think that a lot of that traffic has been reduced considerably by her management of the
launch for the residents more than for people passing by that didn’t want to pay the price on Lake
George, and I think that the Zebra Mussel problem that we have on the lake now, which we have
not, anyone’s identified a solution for, is a permanent problem that we have, that if they had gotten
involved perhaps The Docksider we would not have that problem now. We’ve certainly enjoyed The
Docksider, and they seemed to have done a very class job all the way, and we’ve seen marked
improvements in the operation of the restaurant in our 10 years that we’ve been there.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the Zoning
Administrator’s position?
BETSY ASHTON
MS. ASHTON-My name is Betsy Ashton. I live on Bay Road, right up the street here, and I have
been an employee with the Mozals since they purchased The Docksider, in the capacity as a waitress.
Prior to that, I was an employee under Terry Barton, as a bartender and a waitress, part-time. I just
want to say that the upper parking has always been there. I have always used that. I have waited on
people on the lawn, out front, at picnic tables. I have seen cabs run back and forth of the Sandy’s
party, taking people to the Municipal Center to avoid any problems with parking on the streets, and I
have also witnessed people using the port-a-potties, and I guess that’s about it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition?
SHARON LA PRAIRIE
MRS. LA PRAIRIE-Hi. My name is Sharon LaPrairie, and I live on Jackson Avenue in South Glens
Falls. I don’t own any property on Glen Lake. I’m not employee. My husband and I are good
customers of The Docksider. We’ve been going there since 1992. So we knew the place before the
Mozals purchased it, and I must say, there has been a great improvement. It’s a very pleasant place
to go to eat. Chris decorates it inside, so it makes a very pleasant atmosphere. We always sat out on
the deck in the summertime, and before Chris owned it, we witnessed that there were picnic tables
out there, which at times we sat on, too. There was always parking up on that little knoll. On one or
two occasions, my husband and I had parked up there ourselves, but mainly, if I recall, it was mainly
employee parking, but I just want to say that I think they’ve just added to the lake. It’s a beautiful
place to go. I love Glen Lake, and we go there every week for dinner. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the
Administrator’s position?
SKIP FINNEGAN
MR. FINNEGAN-My name is Skip Finnegan, and I can go back a number of years with the
Sullivan’s Pavilion, now known as The Docksider. I have done catering, for the last 25 years, and
have done a lot of it at The Docksider, or not The Docksider. At that time it was Sullivan’s Pavilion,
and I can honestly say that the comments that the various people have made here tonight are facts.
There was parking. There was picnic tables throughout the area up there, and I used to do my thing,
cooking, etc., and so forth on the north end of the picnic area, which they described as such. Since
then, as years went on, the Pavilion changed hands, is now owned by The Docksider and Chris and
Rich Mozal, and all I can say is, I live on Glen Lake, and I’ve lived there, like I said, for 25 years, and
all I can say is that one tremendous, remarkable improvement has been made on that place since
they’ve taken over. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thanks for coming. Would anyone else like to speak?
LINDA WHITTY
MRS. WHITTY-Hello. My name is Linda Whitty. I live on Glen Lake. I’ve lived on Glen Lake for
30 years or so. I’m actually speaking on behalf, as a Board member of The Glen Lake Association.
Since Scott was up here representing us, I would like to make a clarification. We support the
position, with the letter that you have received, and which was drafted by the Board of The Glen
Lake Association, to show unity with our position to protect the sensitive environmental area in Glen
Lake Watershed. Therefore, since Chris Round has made a decision which would ultimately protect
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
the lake, we chose to read our statement, which was, once again, unanimously approved by the
Board, in favor of Chris Round’s position. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-I thought this was testimony?
MR. HAYES-Well, everyone still has the right to speak. Is there anyone else that would like to
share?
LAURIE GRAVES
MS. GRAVES-My name is Laurie Graves. I’ve been a property on Ash Drive on Glen Lake since
1984. I have served on the Board of The Glen Lake Association with Chris, and I know, serving
with her, that first and foremost is water quality, and she has always stressed that, when anybody has
had a problem on the lake, water quality. She has a big investment in her business. She owns a
home on the lake, the same as I do, and she’s not going to do anything to jeopardize that. It would
be foolish. I know she brings in the port-a-potties when she has the parties, and they’re used. She
pumps out her system when it needs it. She’s made great improvements. When Paul Barton had the
restaurant there, we used the picnic tables on the lawn to eat. They were there before. It’s nothing
new. The size of the patio was increased. I don’t see where that has affected anything. She’s made
great improvements. The boat ramp has been improved. The boat traffic coming in to the lake has
decreased. She’s got limited parking for trailers. I think that has helped the lake, and I can’t see
what’s been going wrong. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Excuse me, please. Are you also a member of The Glen Lake Association?
MS. GRAVES-I am a member.
MR. ABBATE-You are. All right. Thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-At this point we’re really not sure what position they take.
MR. ABBATE-It is a little confusing.
MR. HAYES-But we’ll continue.
PAUL DERBY
MR. DERBY-Let me just clarify this, okay. I’ll take responsibility for that, because most of the draft
of that letter was mine. This was a draft that, my name is Paul Derby, by the way. I’m a member of
the Board of Directors. I’m a member of the Environmental Committee of the Glen Lake
Protective Association. The history of this is that actually both of these parties had come to the
Association to state their desires and what they were going to do here. Our position was that we
were not going to get in between what we considered to be a neighbor to neighbor dispute. So we
decided that we would tell you what our mission is, as The Glen Lake Association. That’s our
mission, water quality. Okay. We think that the duty of the Board is to make the best decision for
our interest, which is protection of the water. Now, if protection of the water and our environment
requires a variance to make sure that everything is done correctly, and that it minimizes the impact
on the lake water, and on our environment, then you should do that. That’s your job. All right. Our
job is to say, this is our number one mission. So, it’s not confusing, except in the fact that, you
know, we’re not saying that Christine is doing anything wrong. We’re not saying that. We’re just
asking you to make the best choices for the entire lake and Queensbury. It doesn’t look like it’s
helping you, but.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, are you in favor or against Mr. Round’s decision?
MR. HAYES-I think that he just said that he’s not going to take that position.
MR. MC NALLY-The Association is sitting on the fence when it comes to the decision that’s in
issue here. You want us as an organization, as a Board, to do what’s in the best interest of Glen
Lake, and to follow the law in that process?
MR. DERBY-Right. So my understanding is that this is an appeal made that determines whether
they’re going to be forced to have a variance or not. Now if it’s the opinion of the Town that a
variance is in the best interest of the lake, then, yes, we would support that position, but that’s the
job here of experts, all right, that deal with these issues.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. DERBY-Okay. Thank you.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor, or, excuse me, in opposition to
the Zoning Administrator’s position? Is that it? Mr. Sullivan, you’ve raised your hand several times.
MR. SULLIVAN-Could I get in the last word? I’d like to just bring up a couple of things.
MR. HAYES-Please come up and speak into the microphone and get on the record. We’ll allow it.
MR. SULLIVAN-Okay. Just a couple of observations. A number of my friends have come up here
and relived my golden years, were presenting their impressions of The Docksider pre-1990, when the
zoning law first took effect. Betty Kelly was a wonderful tenor when they sang “My Wild Irish
Rose”, okay. Their memories are rooted before zoning, okay. A number of the other people that
have come up here, okay, are employees of The Docksider. I think they should recuse themselves
for conflict of interest, okay, because obviously their interests are the Mozals’ interests to keep the
place flourishing, okay, and then if you’ll note, with the exception of my friends, the Sullivans, the
majority of the people that have spoken out against this live in close proximity. The majority of
people that have spoken for this, don’t live that close. Okay. They live over in the Bay. They live
across the lake, they live down by the casino. It’s easy to come up and support something when it’s
not right on your doorstep. Now as far as the gravel is concerned, I’ve walked barefoot over there
for probably 44 years, okay. The top of the surface was hard packed sand or clay, okay. This past
year, they’ve brought dump trucks up, and they’ve dumped gravel there. It’s an impermeable surface.
Now, somebody mentioned that they had picnic tables there, and that there’s a little gravel and you
could walk around. Well, I couldn’t walk barefoot up there with what they’ve got there right now,
and there was, a couple of the employees there did mention that there was “employee” parking.
Now, another thing that should be taken into consideration, we’ve lived there for 43 years. Okay.
We’ve lived through the field days. We’ve lived through the “Wild Irish Rose”, you know, “My Wild
Irish Rose”. You had a beautiful voice, Betty, by the way. We’ve lived through it all. We’ve lived in
cooperation with everybody there. All right. My sister went so far as to, 10 years ago, facilitate them,
all right, as far as the expansion of their business by giving up our water source and having water
piped over from the, you know, their facility to ours. Okay. So, I appreciate all these people’s
sentiments. I appreciate their kinship with the Mozals. Okay. I have no difficulty with that at all,
but, you know, I would hope that you guys would listen to those that, you know, it’s the concept, not
in my back yard. Okay. Well, unfortunately this is in my back yard, and everybody that’s come here
to speak before you has, you know, some of them are (lost word) in the back yard, but a lot of them
have other interests, and like I said, this mixed interest here, and I think a lot of this is orchestrated,
too. Okay. There’s people here that I have never met before tonight, when I came here. They came
out of passion for the lake and the fact they felt that for the last 10 years that this issue has been
going round, and round and round and round because nobody wanted to address it, okay, and it
doesn’t look like any of you want to jump right into it tonight, either. Okay, but I just want to assure
you that as an advocate of the lake, okay, and, you know, somebody that’s well versed in zoning and
code enforcement, neither myself nor my family will go away, and we will prevail. I want you guys to
follow the law. I want you to follow the law. A lot of these people are well intentioned, okay, as far
as their assessment and their interpretation of the situation concerned, but the law is very clear cut.
You apply for a variance before you bring a load of dirt up and dump it. You apply for a variance
before you put a load of boulders at one end of the lot. You apply for a variance before you have a
concrete patio, and that’s what the bottom line is. Now, I have to go, and I’m going to be traveling
back to Poughkeepsie, okay, but I want to thank you all for your time, and I apologize to all of my
friends here that I won’t be able to stay here and listen to the conversation, but I just hope you do
the right thing, and thank you for your time.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MRS. PETERSON-Let me just bring up one more thing I’d like to say. I think the reason that Phil
is not recognizing people here is because I haven’t seen him at Glen Lake in I can’t tell you when. I
live there every day. I go back there every day. He’s going back to where? I don’t remember where
he said he lives now. I’m not even sure if his name is on the deed to his property. I know his sister’s
name is and maybe his mother’s.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-He’s still a member of the family.
MRS. PETERSON-Yes, he’s a member of the family, but he doesn’t live there. We live there. We’re
their neighbors, and I am not here from any conflict of interest. I just own two properties up there.
My sister owns two properties, and her son lives in one of the properties, and my daughters probably
will soon be living in one of the other properties. My mother lives there. My uncle lives there. Two
or three uncles live there, and I also want to say that, yes, perhaps she did need a variance. She didn’t
know she needed a variance. I don’t think she knew she needed a variance, and if she asked for a
variance, I would say, give her the variance. I mean, she’s going to put more property out in front
and claim back the land that used to be there, which would set the building further apart from the
lake. If there’s a question of whether she should have got a variance or not, maybe she should have
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
got a variance, and she’ll be the first one to admit, if I should have gotten one. She didn’t know
about it. She thought she had verbal permission from somebody to do what she did, or it wasn’t
changing the existing format, or whatever. She’s a good neighbor. She lives in Glen Lake. She’s a
member of The Glen Lake Protective Association. I’m not so sure if Phil is or not. I don’t have
their records. I’m a member of The Glen Lake Protective Association. My mother is. My sister is. I
don’t go to all their meetings. I’m listening, but I do pay my dues, and I do think what they do is
worthwhile, and I think Christine does, too. That’s my last word.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
LYNN RUTNICK
MRS. RUTNICK-This will be quick. I didn’t want to speak. My name is Lynn Rutnick. I’m from
Albany, New York, but my family has had a camp up there since the 1940’s. I know a lot of the
people here, because I played with their kids. As a matter of fact, I dated Mr. O’Connor’s son, and
my first kiss was back there. I find it sad that it is pulling a lot of Glen Lake apart, but I do see, it’s
kind of unconscionable that this is becoming a popularity contest, and I do dispute many of the
things that the, Mr. Vice President said, because I’ve sat in that bar and watched people eat outside
and inside. On the table is not whether these people are good neighbors or, I completely think they
have beautified this space that they occupy now, but it worries me when someone does things like
put gravel places or build sidewalks and they don’t have enough common sense to say to themselves,
should I have a variance? I mean, those are the people that are making decisions about the lake that
I want my kids to be in, and that’s it. It’s not a popularity contest, you guys. It’s about what’s good
for the lake. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Mrs. Mozal? Please. Hang on one second. We have correspondence, Mike. Are you
making additional comments about the public hearing? Maybe we should save that for your
argument in whole.
MR. O'CONNOR-There are just a couple of points I think I would like to make tonight. So that the
Board doesn’t sit for a month with a very wrong factual impression.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Be brief, because otherwise you’re kind of beginning your case.
MR. O'CONNOR-Today I received a letter which I think accurately reflects the position of The
Glen Lake Association. I did go to a Board meeting with Chris, and we did make a presentation,
basically of our argument and why we thought we did not need variances. I gave them the history of
everything. What Chris did before any construction was done, and what advice she sought and from
who she sought the advice before she actually put this patio in that we, really starts this whole
business, but the Association wrote to me, dated today, “Dear Mr. O’Connor: The Board of The
Glen Lake Association thanks you for your information regarding the pending appeal regarding
Christine Mozal to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. The Board decided to uphold a
previous decision which limits in our involvement in neighbor to neighborhood disputes. They did
reaffirm the mission of The Glen Lake Protective Association to protect the quality of water and the
quality of life for residents of Glen Lake. As such, they agreed by consensus to present a statement
to the ZBA, any other agency or any other resident of the lake, that affirms this mission. The
statement also asks the Board to give priority to concern for the Glen Lake environment when
evaluating any project. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.” I think the record should
be clear that the Board took no position, either in favor of Mr. Round’s opinion or as opposed to
Mr. Round’s opinion. We have no problem with the statement of the mission of The Glen Lake
Association that Mr. Milne read. In fact, we support that. We think that we actively support it in the
manner in which we conduct the business on this premises. The other thing which I would like to
give you is a photograph, and they’re photographs we borrowed. So I haven’t taken them out of
how they were kept. The photographs which I would want you to see and take a look at before you
go away with other thoughts in your mind are particularly of the number of people that were dining
outside, in front of the area that we are talking about for the patio. Now, on this one here, only the
photograph, or I guess these two bottom photographs, are of The Docksider. The above
photographs are of another piece of property on Glen Lake. You can ignore some of the
photographs, but you can get a sense of (lost words). That letter, and I didn’t say, was signed
Sincerely, Donald Milne. I should have said that, and I’ll give you a copy of that for your record, but
it’s my only copy.
MR. HAYES-Please do. Are there any other comments you’d like to make, Mike?
MR. O'CONNOR-Christine wanted to make a comment, a brief comment.
CHRISTINE MOZAL
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MRS. MOZAL-I promise I’ll make it brief. My name is Christine Mozal. I own The Docksider
restaurant with my husband, Rich Mozal. After listening to several comments, I think we’d win the
popularity contest, if that’s what they’re calling it, but I would like to confirm the fact that I did go
ask permission to pour that concrete patio. The ice went out of Glen Lake on March 23, 1999, and
we had thoughts of spring. I went in and I talked to a person in the Building Department, and I
asked him what permits were needed to pour a concrete patio over an existing patio. I was asked, are
you going any closer to the lake? I said, no, we’re not. We’re following the line of the deck, and the
front line of the existing patio. I was told I did not need a building permit, and I was also asked the
approximate size. I remember recalling to him that we are going out as far as the large white birch
tree, but not as far as to harm the root system of the tree. No specific dimensions were given. I was
never asked for them. At the same time, I asked about the concrete sidewalk that now borders the
roadside of the building, could we put that in. No problem with that either. I also addressed a catch
basin that we put close to the sidewalk, before it gets to the lake, to avoid the runoff that comes off
Glen Lake Road. I have had conversation with Rick Missita. They have targeted this as a big area of
runoff. It goes into the lake, and they are addressing this in the spring. I have been at The
Docksider every day since February 3, 1999, when Rich and I opened that business. I have been
there every time we’ve had a band. Twice since we’ve owned that place, twice a year, we have had a
band, once until 9 o’clock, once until 7:30. I have a schedule that I will copy and give you of
entertainment that I’ve had, and the entertainment, by the way, has been in the Year 2000, not 1999.
The common hours were 2 p.m. until 6 p.m. Lots of times, because it ran into our busy dinner hour,
the band stopped at 5:30. I’ve never met Phil Sullivan. No one has ever approached me about a
problem they may have had. I am very approachable. I am there every day. Just a statement of fact.
I think it would be very easy to walk over to the property and ask me anything they might. Mrs.
McNeal did that. As she mentioned earlier, I thanked her for that. She’s the only one I’ve ever heard
from that had a problem with the bands. The 500 foot mailing that you mail, concerning variances
from the Zoning Board of Appeals, I walked around the neighborhood with a petition. It is enclosed
in that green folder. I think if you look at the yellow highlighted names, those are the people that I
either talked to by phone or had sign my petition. They had not many concerns with what we’ve
done. They approve of what we’ve done. I took into consideration a few of them mentioned the
bands, parking on the side roads. They said it was not a problem, and just one more thing. I was
President of The Glen Lake Association for the past six years. I was instrumental in bringing septic
awareness to Glen Lake, writing that watershed management plan, under my Presidency. I have been
involved, as a Board of Director, Vice President and President for 15 years. Rich and I live on the
lake. We do business on the lake. We would never do anything to harm this lake. We are going to
do everything to cooperate with the Town, and we have. I would like to give you a figure of the
money we’ve spent already complying with everything they’ve asked us to do, but I don’t want to do
that tonight. Thank you very much.
MR. O'CONNOR-The other point which I would address immediately is that we have never had a
notice, or the client has never had a notice that the septic system, in any manner, has failed. I don’t
know what Mr. Sullivan is speaking of. I know that there is an issue, but I think Mr. Round and I
have agreed that it is not an issue that is before this Board. Mr. Nace is looking at that issue. He is
filing the renewal permit with the Health Department, and I don’t even want to get into that right
now, but, I mean, there’s a historical thing that as to the number that was shown on that permit, that
has nothing to do with the use of the permit, either historically or in fact. So, I think, if you tell me
when you want us to be back. I’d like to be able to get the minutes.
MRS. MOZAL-May I say one more thing, Mr. Chairman?
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MRS. MOZAL-We’ve had the Sandy’s Customer Appreciation Party at The Docksider since
approximately 1987. We didn’t own it then, but we were very good friends with Paul Barton, and he
always accommodated our party. We did not go there in ’97 and ’98 because we patronized the K of
C, and when we owned it in the summer of ’99, we brought the party back. So we are very familiar
with how that place operated because of our Sandy’s party, and because we live on the lake, and
dined there many evenings, coming there by boat. We know there were picnic tables out there, and
we feel we’re running the place as if, as we saw it over those years. Thank you very much.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. MC NALLY-As I understand it, at least some of your argument when it comes to that patio, on
the right side of the deck, as you face it from the lake, you’re going to argue that basically there were
picnic tables used all along the shore, and this is just another way of putting outdoor dining?
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a change of surface only. It’s not a change of use. If there is a permission or
permit required because of the change of surface, we will make that application, but it is not a Use
Variance.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So you’re just addressing the Use Variance itself?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and an Area Variance, or another problem like that, you might have some
difficulty with? You might address it as it comes up?
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. There you’re going to get into the reclamation of the shorefront, which
was approved by a Zoning Board in 1990, where basically we are going to put the sea wall back
together. We have the DEC permit for it. We are negotiating or talking to the Army Corps of
Engineers. We’ve tried to get a sign off letter, and it’s just.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem with that, but I’m just trying to think this through, and I
know we’re not going to decide it this evening, but literally, you know, when I’ve been there, there
have been picnic tables in the front, and I’ve seen them, and it’s been used. Using your same logic,
what would stop The Docksider from expanding that slab anywhere along that frontage, because it’s
just a change of surface? I mean, literally, those tables are spread out, at one time or another, over
the entire frontage, and I’m just struggling with the idea, we can pave it without a permit because it
used to be used like that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The real control device on The Docksider is the kitchen, and it just won’t
serve more people. I think, logically, and if my argument is correct, we probably could expand the
patio if we could meet the shoreline setback requirements or the site plan requirement that you’re
required to meet.
MR. MC NALLY-And without concern for a nonconforming use or anything else like that?
MR. O'CONNOR-As long as we are not expanding the amount that we’re talking about.
MR. MC NALLY-The number of customers you’re referring to?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I mean, the parking lot’s the same, basically. The two control factors on
this property are the parking lot and the kitchen.
MRS. MOZAL-May I add to that, briefly?
MR. HAYES-Sure.
MRS. MOZAL-The reason why we increased the size of the patio, sir, is because we wanted to kind
of concentrate the dining in one area. It was very unsafe for the girls to carry trays of food out there
to the various picnic tables. We’re not seating anymore people. It just kind of consolidates it. It
makes it a lot easier for customers, also.
MR. MC NALLY-I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. I’m just saying, can you do these things without a
variance, and how far can you progressively do that in the future?
MR. O'CONNOR-I think my very first comments kind of addressed that issue. We’re trying to
establish a record here that the Town can enforce in the future, we can understand and live by in the
future, and we’re willing to abide by that. That’s why we kind of agreed to come to the Board, make
a record of this, make an enforceable permit or enforceable conditions. If we make a record of it, I
think then everybody can walk away satisfied. It is not a slippery hill. It is not something that
forever goes forward and forever is increased every other owner that comes along.
MR. MC NALLY-Now, are they going to be here next month?
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And we can discuss these things then? You’re planning on addressing some of the
questions we have?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I am.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. All right.
MR. O'CONNOR-My only request would be that I be on the second meeting, if you have two
meetings in March. I will be not in the area the 5 through the 10, I think, the 5 through the 9.
thththth
MR. HAYES-It’s the third and fourth Wednesdays of the month.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I just want to be on record.
MR. BROWN-The 21 and the 28 are the meetings.
stth
MR. O'CONNOR-The 21 would be good. I have an issues conference on the 28.
stth
MR. HAYES-Okay. I didn’t want to, there was somebody back there, Mrs. Sullivan, or somebody
that wanted to speak. Did you want to add anything, or are you satisfied?
MRS. SULLIVAN-I just wanted to clarify that in May, I did call and I spoke with Rich, on the
phone, and asked to meet with him because I had some concerns. He said I’d have to speak to
Christine. I gave the times I’d be available, and I did not get a call back.
MRS. MOZAL-I didn’t get the message.
MRS. SULLIVAN-Well, it’s your husband.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. MC NALLY-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-All right. At this time like to continue the public hearing by entering the
correspondence into the record. What I would like to do is stipulate, Mike I should see if you have a
problem. There’s a number of letters here. Can we stipulate that these letters are in favor and read
the names?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, you can.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would like to get a copy of them, please. I saw a summary list as of two o’clock
today, and even if there’s additions to that, I have no problem, as long as copies of those are made
available to all members of the Board and myself. Okay.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Public comments.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, why aren’t we concluding tonight?
MR. HAYES-Well, basically, Mike’s arguments would take another hour and a half, and it wouldn’t
be fair to the other seven applicants. So, he’s going to make a legal argument about every portion of
that case.
MR. BRYANT-Are you going to leave this public hearing open?
MR. HAYES-I am going to leave the public hearing open. Okay. Let’s go through the
correspondence, please. At this time we’re going to read the written correspondence, or summarize
the written correspondence for the record.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. For the record, we’ve got a number of pieces of correspondence, and I
will read the names from whom the correspondence was sent. All of these have indicated their
support of or in favor. Let me see which way it goes now, in favor of the Mozals. So they are
opposed to the Zoning Administrator’s decision. Okay. These people are opposed to the Zoning
Administrator’s decision. Mrs. William J. Sullivan, Redgewell and Karen Hay, Austin and Sarah
McCarroll, John M. Brown, Mr. Frederick Munk, Wayne Peter West, Elizabeth M. Shave, Terri and
Paul Shambo, James G. Behan, Phillip K. Whittemore, CPA, Betty Raymond, Eugene E. Choppa, Jr.,
Marianne and Larry Dickinson, Tom & Cindi Britt, and another 20 people from the Elder Share
Group that signed a letter. In addition, we have a letter signed by 59 Docksider patrons that says “I
have been a customer at The Docksider for at least 10 years. During these years I have observed a
poured concrete patio next to the deck. The size was never increased until 1999. My estimate of the
size of the patio is 20’ x 20’. It was definitely wider than 14’.” And we also have a petition that
reads, “We, the undersigned, live near the Docksider Restaurant. We understand the Zoning Board
of Appeals is considering certain questions about this property. We do not believe the present use of
the property is an expansion of prior operations. The place is busier, but that’s only due to better
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
utilization of the same facility. Dating back, earlier than 1900, the area to the east of the crushed
stone parking area, has been used for parking both near the road and on top of the hill. Dating back,
prior to last year, the area in front of and the east of the deck was used for dining on many picnic
tables. The area occupied by the tables was much larger than the combined patio area or the alleged
expansion of patio beyond 240 square feet. We believe the Docksider provides an important service
to Glen Lakers and should be permitted to continue to operate as same is presently operated.” And
how many did you have of those?
MR. HAYES-It was 89.
MR. MC NULTY-And we count 89 signatures on that petition.
MR. HAYES-Okay. At this point, I’m going to keep the public hearing open, for participation at the
meeting on March 21, which is our first meeting next month, and I guess, Chris, did Mike, I should
st
ask, Mike kind of clarified any last minute issues. Is there anything that he wants to clarify, or?
MR. BROWN-I don’t think so.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Then, having said that, I’d like to make a motion to table.
MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2001 RICHARD & CHRIS MOZAL,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Until the first meeting in March.
Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone, Mr. Underwood
MR. HAYES-Okay. We’ll move on to our next application.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2001 TYPE II STEVE MILLER PROPERTY OWNER:
STEVE MILLER LOCATION: 29 MARLEY WAY, OFF BIRDSALL ROAD
APPLICANT HAS RELOCATED TWO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON THE
PROPERTY AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ZONE:
WR-1A OLD TAX MAP NO. 40-1-19.2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-56 LOT SIZE: 0.18
ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79
STEVE MILLER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-2001, Steve Miller, Meeting Date: February 28, 2001
“Project Location: 29 Marley Way, off Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
has relocated two accessory structures on the property and seeks relief from the setback
requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 5 foot minimum side
setback requirement of the Accessory Structures and uses regulations; § 179-67. Also, the applicant
seeks relief from the 10 ft. minimum separation distances for accessory structures per § 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 maintain the storage sheds at their current
locations. 2. Feasible alternatives: feasible alternatives may include removal of one of the sheds
and relocation to more compliant locations. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance?: 4 feet of relief from the 5 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to
substantial. (80%) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 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.): Area Variance 53-96 res. 7/31/96 garage addition BP 96-711 c/o issued 12/8/97 garage
addition Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
attached 1996 survey map depicts the sheds on the property, in different locations. Apparently, the
construction of the attached garage addition necessitated the relocation of the sheds. Neighborhood
concern has been noted. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. HAYES-Mr. Miller, would you like your cover letter read into the minutes?
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. MILLER-That’s fine, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a letter from Steve Miller to the Zoning Board, “In 1996 I was
granted two variances which allowed me to improve my house located at 29 Marley Way. One
variance was to upgrade the septic the other was a setback allowing the construction of a garage. To
facilitate building the garage an existing gray shed had to be moved. The shed was moved in
November of 1996. When the gray shed was moved in 1996 a small existing red shed was moved
north about ten feet and the gray shed placed in the red shed’s footprint. This spring when the
neighbors came up to open their camp, a question was raised about the property line. A surveyor
identified the line and found that the gray shed was over the property line. I moved the gray shed so
that it was entirely on my property. At that time I was made aware that the shed had a set back
requirement. I am requesting a variance so that the shed can remain in its current position. Thank
you very much for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Steve Miller”
MR. HAYES-Mr. Miller, would you like to add anything to your application or clarify any issues?
MR. MILLER-If there are any questions. Basically, the shed was moved there, as I stated in the
cover letter, approximately four years ago, to what I thought was the property line. There was a big
iron pipe with red tape on it. That was in error. We identified the line, and I moved it back, and at
that time, I was contacted and made aware of the setbacks. So I’m just trying to comply with the
Zoning Ordinance, or asking a variance from the Zoning Ordinance.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Miller, the red shed, or brown shed, whatever color that shed is, was that always
in the same plane, you know, same distance from the property line?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-You just moved it down 10 feet?
MR. MILLER-It was just scooted over because the gray shed was hard to move and it was easy to
move just in a straight line. So that’s why the configuration landed as it did.
MR. MC NALLY-Did you anticipate doing something with the shed when you built your garage?
You were just going to move it over to that line and that was your plan?
MR. MILLER-I was just going to move it over at that time.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? Okay. At this time, I’ll open the
public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application please come forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
WILLIAM ANDREWS
MR. ANDREWS-My name is William Andrews. I live at the property just adjacent on the other side
of Steve Miller, and I’ve been there since 1974, and I’ve seen this property change quite a bit. I think
Steve has done a wonderful job in trying to improve what was there before. He’s changed it from a
summer cottage to his own home. This particular shed, we had a little disagreement back in the
beginning when the original variances were asked for because I was worried about the water runoff
of any change in the septic system. That was taken care of, and I was perfectly satisfied. When the
shed was moved to where it was now, it, to me, it felt as if this is where it belonged. I realize it
probably did get over the line, but this has happened to all of us, and this particular neighborhood,
the pipes for the boundary lines are marked with orange or red flags. Those pipes have been moved
almost religiously on a monthly basis, bi-monthly basis, or whatever you want. I can go out on my
own lot and I’ll find my pipe change from time to time. So, I don’t know where my boundary line is,
unless I get a surveyor in there and he puts something in permanent. So I can understand how he
could be over the line. He’s done everything he could to abide by the rulings and abide by the
surveyor’s marking. I think he should be allowed to leave the shed where he has it right now, which
is well within his line. I realize that there is a need for a variance because he’s not far enough in, but
he’s right at the edge of his driveway. I would have had the same problem with my property,
although the particular structures that were there were there before your zoning laws came into
effect, and I also bought the adjacent property. So now I have no problem at all, but this is not the
same for everybody in that particular area. As long as it doesn’t effect your neighbor, and doesn’t
effect the aesthetic view, I believe it should be left. Thank you.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this application?
Come forward.
SUSAN ANDREWS JONES
MRS. JONES-I’m Susan Andrews-Jones. I’m a new co-owner with William Andrews, and I have no
objection to, my father has already spoken as to his reasons why, and I am in total agreement. I have
no objection to allowing this variance.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. JONES-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone
wishing to speak opposed? Please come forward.
LINDA WHITTLE
MS. WHITTLE-Good evening. My name is Linda Whittle, and I’m a resident of Birdsall Road. To
say that I am incredulous over this request would be to be mild. I think that this request is very
purposely being made at a time of year when the people that it most effects are not here to answer to
it. Everyone in the neighborhood knows that Jane and Dick Bartis, who live on the other side of Mr.
Miller’s property, who are most effected by this, would be most effected by this variance, are not
here to speak to it, and I am deeply disturbed about that. This is not a moderate effect on the
neighbors to the other side of Mr. Miller, and, quite frankly, Mr. Miller probably wouldn’t be here
today if he hadn’t forced his neighbors on the other side of him to go through six months of making
requests of varying kinds before they were finally forced to hire an attorney and a surveyor to prove
that he did not have his sheds on his own property because he refused to do anything about it. So
they had to waste a lot of time and money and, quite frankly, they’re an elderly couple and they had
to go through a lot of heartache over that, and that’s basically why I’m here tonight, because I feel as
though there’s an injustice that could be happening here, and at minimum they should.
MR. HAYES-We have correspondence from them, too.
MS. WHITTLE-You do? Terrific. That’s great. This is not only not the only thing Mr. Miller has
off his own property, but, you know, he has really self-imposed this hardship on himself. I think
that, you know, we all follow the rules. You have property, you put your things on your own
property, and I just think that that’s fairly black and white, and when he built the garage, I don’t
know through who’s fault or whatever, or not caring, I think he should have been a little more
accurate with that, so that he would not be faced with this problem right now. Mr. Andrews spoke
to the fact that as long as this doesn’t effect a neighbor, well, it does effect a neighbor. Now I know
it’s not really under your jurisdiction or perhaps I’m not much of a Zoning Board expert, so you’ll
have to forgive me, but Mr. Andrews spoke to the fact that Mr. Miller has made improvements. He
may have made improvements to his home, but, quite frankly, it’s been devastating to the
neighborhood, the lack of improvement that he’s brought to the neighborhood, through fear and
intimidation tactics that, personally, I’m not longer willing to submit to, and that’s why I’m here
tonight, whatever the outcome of that may be. Thank you very much.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question, please?
MS. WHITTLE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Where do you live, you know, in relationship to Mr. Miller’s property?
MS. WHITTLE-I live on, actually, Mr. Miller’s, if we had a map, Mr. Miller’s property, it’s Marley
Way, but the back of it is on Marley Way, and the front of it is actually Birdsall Road. Great. I’m
looking. I’m sorry, I was just trying to get myself acquainted with this. So here’s Birdsall Road here.
So if you come around, that’s the lake, I’m sorry. I’m terrible at maps.
MR. MILLER-Actually, it’s around the corner of the lake, probably a quarter or a half mile down the
lake.
MS. WHITTLE-I’m sorry, so right over here.
MR. BRYANT-Right over where?
MS. WHITTLE-Right over there. So that’s four houses away from what we refer to as the beach lot,
which is directly across from Mr. Miller’s home.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MS. WHITTLE-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else here that would like to speak in opposition to the application?
RUSS PITTENGER
MR. PITTENGER-My name is Russ Pittenger. That was my wife, Linda. We do have a seasonal
camp on Birdsall Road, and own property on Marley Road, which is very close to the property in
question. Our seasonal camp does have a direct view into both Mr. Miller’s lots. So we are effected
by, you know, the structures along there, and I’m a landscape architect. So I do understand maps.
I’ll be happy to point it out to you if it’s on that map, the location.
MR. HAYES-It was on the bigger map. We’ve got a GIS map here. So I think we’ve got it.
MR. MC NALLY-I put an “X” at the parcel. Is that yours?
MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. We have a deck out here on the water. So our view is in right
here. This is the open lot here, although there is a house on this lot here.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. PITTENGER-I’m going to make this very quick. I think that certainly when the addition was
put on Mr. Miller’s house, he had a plan, and he was aware of where his property boundaries were. I
think that everyone up there, I’ve not really heard of too many pipes being moved, and certainly in
our are, but people are acutely aware of where their boundaries are, especially up at the lake, and I
think that, I sent a letter earlier that expresses my opinions on it. I think it’s a self-imposed hardship.
I think that the sheds can be moved and can comply with the required setbacks. If Mr. Andrews
doesn’t mind it, he could move the sheds over on Mr. Andrews’ side, but I do know, from my
discussions with the Bartis family, that they’d rather have that setback respected on their line.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Is there anyone else? Sir, I guess you can come back up.
MR. ANDREWS-I think you have to be aware of one thing in this area. There’s a lot of politics
going on. The beach lot that they’ve all talked about is owned by Mr. Miller. He bought that when
he bought the property that he bought, and put his home on it. He went back to the original rules
that were set up in our deeds when we bought, that is that lot would be open to certain owners, and
owners only, with beach rights to swim, amusement, boating, and so forth. He has returned to that
and allowed us those privileges, but restricted the beach to only the owners, and nobody else. This
was disputed in the beginning. I didn’t want to bring this up, but this is what’s back of all of this,
back of the complaint of Mr. Miller for the shed, and back of what’s been going on in that
neighborhood, and if there’s any discussion about it or any questions about it, you can talk with the
Sheriff’s Department. They have a history of it. There’s been a lot of it going on, and that’s why
when I say the boundary pipes have been moved, yes, they have been moved. I know, because I had
two sets, one that I put in, next to the original ones, and the ones that are now there with the flags on
it. They don’t match. I don’t care what anybody else says. Mine are still there, still there from 1974,
and the new ones are not matching it. They did when they were put in. I was there. I was there
when the surveyors came through, and the Town surveyors came through and put them in, and it
matched up, but a month later, it didn’t match. Now, something’s going on. I don’t think you
fellows need to get involved in it, and I don’t think you need to get involved in the politics there.
The beach lot, that’s a legal entanglement, and should be handled in the courts, or handled between
Steve and his lawyer and whoever wants to dispute it, but, as far as the shed is concerned, it’s pretty
hard to see it from a lot of angles, and I think you’d have to go out there yourself and look at what
they’re saying.
MR. HAYES-I’m assuming we all have.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. HAYES-That’s one of the suggested requirements.
MR. ANDREWS-If you take a look at it during the summer, it’s a heck of a lot different than in the
wintertime, I’ll agree.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, thank you, sir. Is there anyone else?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MS. WHITTLE-I just have one sentence. I just want to clarify, so there’s no confusion. We actually
own property on Marley Way and have beach rights, and I own frontage. So I don’t need the beach
lot. That has nothing to do with.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you for your brevity. That’s appreciated.
MR. MILLER-Just to put a timeline on the situation. This spring, when my neighbor called for a
surveying of the line between our two properties, where the shed is, the surveyors came out and at
that time said, you know, we think the line is not where this pipe is with the flag, and they did locate
the proper corner boundary or the peg or whatever. It had been run over, bent, or whatever he said.
This is a common thing. It happens all the time. So at that point, I asked the surveyor and the
Bartis’, supply with the map. Tell me how far it’s over and I’ll move it, and within two weeks of
receiving that map, and knowing where the line actually is, I moved the shed. There was no question
about that. I never questioned it. I said, give me the map. I’ll move it, and at that point, around that
time is when Craig had left a card in my door, and I called him within a couple of days, and we
started the process of finding out exactly what the requirements were, how to go about the variance,
etc., etc. There was no pre-meditated plan to do this whenever. I just tried to do it as soon as I
possibly could. I have had some physical handicaps. This summer I was in a pretty bad car wreck.
I’m still kind of on the mend from that. So, that’s kind of slowed me down a little bit, but basically
there has been no question of this. It was an honest mistake. I, personally, didn’t move the shed. A
contractor that I’d hired to do the garage moved it where it was. He thought it was on the line. I
thought it was on the line. The Bartis’ and I thought it was on the line for four years, because it was
never questioned, never even talked about, until a surveyor came out this spring and clarified the line.
So, as soon as I got the information, I moved it as soon as I possibly could. I just wanted to go on
the record and say that.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-Now, once you moved it, did you give any consideration to moving it beyond one
foot of the property line?
MR. MILLER-I tried to for a couple of reasons. For one, the little contraption that I built to move it
kind of collapsed where it is, and it was right on the edge of the driveway, and I could probably get it
out another six inches or a foot, but it would block backing into the carport that’s on the side of the
house, and, you know, at that point I probably shouldn’t have been doing the work I was at the time,
because of my physical condition. So I left it where it sat.
MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got two sheds.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got a garage.
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got a covered carport. Why do you need two sheds? What do you use it
for that makes it essential to your property?
MR. MILLER-Actually, the second red shed I don’t really use. It was just left there with the
property, and it was kind of out of sight, out of mind. I never really thought much about it, but I
would not be against removing that shed, but the gray one I do use for a snow blower. It is a non-
improved road. So, you know, a sizeable snow blower is kind of a requirement in the winter, and the
lawn equipment, but the red shed is certainly an option.
MR. URRICO-You said you would consider removing the red shed?
MR. MILLER-Yes. It was just put there, and I don’t really even use it. It was just moved to make
room for the gray shed, and I’ve never really done anything with it. I never really thought about, to
this point.
MR. MC NALLY-Craig, is that 10 feet of relief from the 10 foot separation requirement that they’re
asking for, or is it 9 or 8, what is it?
MR. BROWN-I had a conversation with Mr. Miller, at one point. I was going to go out and make a
measurement, and we agreed that I was going to do that. I never did that. I scaled it off the drawing.
It’s about four feet, is what’s proposed, from.
MR. MC NALLY-From the side line?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. HAYES-From each other.
MR. BROWN-From the 10 by 10 shed to the covered carport. It’s about four feet, and that’s the
separation relief. From the property line to the shed, it’s one foot. So it’s four feet of relief that’s
required.
MR. MC NALLY-Does there have to be any relief from the carport, the proximity to the carport?
MR. BROWN-Accessory structures are supposed to be separated by 10 feet from other structures,
attached or detached.
MR. HAYES-You scaled that off, and that looks okay?
MR. BROWN-I would defer to Mr. Miller and see if he agrees with that dimension. It’s scaled off
the drawing. If he’s comfortable with four feet, he lives there. He’d know better than I if it’s four
feet or more.
MR. MILLER-It’s pretty close. Craig and I did talk about it on the phone, and right after he said that
he would come out and measure it, I actually just put it out of my mind, but I would say it’s
anywhere from four to six feet, somewhere in that range. I don’t know exactly.
MR. HAYES-All right. Are there any other questions of the applicant, because I want to finish the
public hearing portion of the application. Okay. The one letter there that maybe should be read in is
the immediate neighbor, the Bartis’.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I was wondering whether we should try to read a lot of these or not.
MR. HAYES-No, just the Bartis’, and then you can stipulate the rest.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Why don’t I go down the list here of the letters we’ve received and then
we’ll read a couple, maybe Mr. Martin’s, too.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-We have, let’s see, it looks like we have about 12 letters, all but one of them
apparently are in opposition to approval of this variance. They’re from Russell Pittenger, James
Martin, I’ll read Mr. Martin’s letter in a minute, Linda Whittle, Susan Moosbrugger, John
Moosbrugger, Mr. and Mrs. Richard L. Bartis, Mr. and Mrs. Donald & Colleen Beadleston, Donald
and Margaret Berrigan, Leisha Cushing, Elizabeth Merritt, The Gwinup Family, and Maureen A.
Valenti, and the letter from Mr. Martin says, “I have been asked by several area residents to send
along a note regarding their concerns with the above referenced application. As you know, I hold
the autonomy of the ZBA in the highest regard, and do not become involved with applications
before your board. However, as a representative of the residents, it is my obligation to pass along
comments expressing their concerns regarding a pending action. I am concerned about preserving
the quality of our lake community neighborhoods and the potentially detrimental effects of poorly
planned development upon our recreational and natural resources. I contend that the interests of the
residents of the Town of Queensbury are better served not be increased regulations, but rather by
prudent enforcement of the guidelines currently in place. As you consider the merits of this request,
and in light of the concerns expressed, please carefully consider the detriment to the neighbors and
neighborhood if this variance is approved. Thank you for your consideration of this memo.”
MR. MILLER-Could I ask who was that?
MR. HAYES-That was the Ward 1 Councilman.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, James Martin.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Martin.
MR. MILLER-Okay.
MR. HAYES-The Bartis letter is the other one. That’s the most immediate impacted neighbor.
MR. MILLER-And just to give further background, because apparently they have done their
homework and gone out and campaigned a little bit, the Bartis’ and I, and the Cushings, have kind of
a pending civil action, or lawyers are talking to one another, as my other neighbor alluded to, Mr.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
Anderson. So, part of this resistance is probably associated with that, and again, that’s another
matter that I’ve turned over to my attorney.
MR. HAYES-And we’re going to treat it so. We don’t get involved with arguments between
neighbors. We’re just going to consider this on the merits.
MR. MILLER-Yes. It’s a long, drawn out thing.
MR. HAYES-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, could I ask the Secretary just one question? That was signed by
Martin, did you say?
MR. HAYES-Jim Martin.
MR. MC NULTY-Jim Martin.
MR. ABBATE-And he indicated he was representing a number of neighbors?
MR. MC NULTY-He was passing along the comment that they had concerns.
MR. ABBATE-Did he provide the names of the neighbors he was representing?
MR. HAYES-No.
MR. MC NULTY-No, he did not.
MR. HAYES-No, it was a general letter.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-But we have other letters that are against the application, but we have the most
immediate impacted neighbor, which is the Bartis’, which, we’ll have that read into the record, so we
can hear it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is the from Jane and Richard Bartis, dated February 26, 2001. “My
husband and I are in Florida and will not be able to attend the meeting. We are property owners that
will be affected. In the summer of 2000, I gave Mr. Brown (from your office of Buildings and
Codes) copes if (2) two surveys. One belonged to Mr. Miller. It showed where the (2) two accessory
structures were when he purchased the property. The second survey was one we had done in 2000
showing rocks Mr. Miller put in our “right of way for ingress and egress”, and the 10’ by 10’ shed Mr.
Miller had moved onto our property. Mr. Brown said he would notify Mr. Miller that the sheds had
to be moved according to the set back requirements. In the fall Mr. Miller moved the 10’ by 10’ shed
onto his property at the property line we share. We are affected. It is your duty to protect our
property rights as well. Please enforce the SET BACK REQUIREMENTS. Jane A. Bartis Richard
L. Bartis”
MR. MILLER-Just to clarify, the rocks are the civil matter, and the egress and ingress was never
blocked or altered.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Like I said, we’re really not empowered to consider that, and we can get into
hearing both sides, but right now we have a specific test for an Area Variance in our Town Code and
that’s what we’ll apply here. At this time, I’d like to close the public hearing.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, would you like to read in the names of the other people that are
opposed? Did we do that?
MR. MC NULTY-Didn’t I do that? I thought I did that.
MR. HAYES-Yes, we stipulated that they were opposed to the application.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Okay. At this time I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. HAYES-And I’d like to discuss it among the Board members. I’ll start with Bob.
MR. MC NALLY-The benefit to the applicant is certainly that he’d be permitted to maintain the
storage sheds at their current locations, and that’s pretty convenient to him to put his snow blower in
and what not. The second application refers to feasible alternatives. In this case, I think removal of
the shed, or relocation to a more compliant location, or perhaps the construction of an attached shed
that would fulfill the same function in a more compliant location are feasible. We’re not talking
about a house, but storage area. So those are alternatives that are possible. Is the relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance? It’s a relatively small lot, 72 by 100. Four feet of relief from the five foot
requirement is moderate to substantial, and certainly on other occasions we’ve been kind of strict
when it came to the minimum separation distances for buildings and accessory structures. The
effects on the neighborhood or community are difficult to judge. In some sense, this is just a shed.
It’s not going to kill anyone. Yet, by the same token, there’s a lot of opposition by the neighbors in
this community, and insistence that the Area Variance or requirements be met. We’ve heard from
the Pittengers and the Bartis’ and what not. The last factor I looked at is whether the difficulty is
self-created, and unfortunately, I do think that this is a self-created problem. You’ve constructed a
garage, and moved your shed to where it was. That was at your choice, and maybe you didn’t know
about the Code, maybe you did, but it’s something you could have anticipated. So the placement of
it where it is now, even though you tried to comply with your neighbor’s wishes to get it off their
property, it’s still too close to the line.
MR. MILLER-Actually, at the time, building the garage, I did show the site to the inspector at the
time, and I don’t know who it is, and I was never made aware of a setback for a shed. It was always,
well, that’s a 10 by 10. There’s no real ordinances or rules or regulations for it, and it was, yes, okay,
that’s fine, you know. It was always just kind of treated as almost a non-issue.
MR. MC NALLY-It probably wasn’t at the time.
MR. MILLER-And it probably was, and it was there for so long, it was just.
MR. MC NALLY-I think this is a close call, to tell you the truth. I’m leaning toward saying that I
would deny the variance, but I’d like to hear what the other Board members have to say, because I’m
not certain what I’d do.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with Bob on this. I think if you were willing to take down the red
shed and maybe move the gray one into more compliance, or at least closer to the, what the law
entails, I might be more in favor of it, but based on the current status of it, and where they’re located,
and using the weight of the criteria that we’re given to look at, I’d say that out of the five criteria four
seem to go against the application, and I would be against the application as it’s currently stated.
MR. MILLER-I’d be willing to move the red shed and try to move the gray one further. I can’t
guarantee a large distance, but I could certainly go out and move it, you know, where I could without
cutting off access, or not being able to maneuver in the driveway.
MR. URRICO-Would you be able to move it closer to the gravel driveway, or to the other side of the
septic?
MR. MILLER-It’s actually on the gravel driveway right now, but I could probably move it further.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, let’s continue to poll the application before we start horse trading on this
one. So, Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. No doubt in my mind that this is self-created. There is
opposition by your neighbors, and in particular Mr. and Mrs. Bartis object. However, I would, I’m
on the line as well. If you were to indicate to me that you would remove that shed and move the
gray shed to a more compliant area, I might very well favor this application, but unless those
contingencies were met, I would be opposed to it.
MR. BRYANT-I’d like to ask Mr. Miller a question, before I comment.
MR. HAYES-Sure.
MR. BRYANT-If, for example, you moved the gray shed to where your boat is, how much space do
you have from the garage to your property line, at that point?
MR. MILLER-I think it’s almost like 10 or 12 feet. It would still be a set back.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. BRYANT-You’d still have a setback problem?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-And you’d also have a problem with separating structures?
MR. MILLER-Yes, that would be true, and it would be on the slope, too. I’d like of worry about.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. There’s no place else on your property that you could put that gray shed, save
the front of the property toward the water view?
MR. MILLER-No. I think Craig and I covered the, the two possibilities were beside the garage, and
where it is, if I move it south, the property line actually narrows as you go south, so that’s, you know,
it would just make the matter worse.
MR. BRYANT-So you’d basically have the same problem, regardless of where you put the shed on
the property?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-You really don’t have a compliant place on the property to put that shed. Is that
correct?
MR. MILLER-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I, too, would be in favor of the application, but I’d
like to see something done with the red shed.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, in regards to it, I feel the same way. I think the red shed should probably
go, if you’re not really using it. It’ll lessen the impact of having two sheds on the property on the
same line, but at the same time, you know, you do have the lakeside to consider, and I think your
neighbor’s view does look kind of, you know, obliquely at that as they look out toward the lake from
the log house there, and if you could move the shed back toward your back road there where you
other access is, I don’t know if you have room to put it over on that corner there, on your driveway.
It looked awful narrow to me.
MR. MILLER-Yes, I could, but the property line actually starts to move in a little bit, thus the
confusion when it was originally placed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’m going to guess that your neighbors would rather have it back on that
road than out toward the lakeside, you know, it would be less in your face back there on that other
road I think.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I guess, bottom line, I’d be opposed to the application. Certainly, I’ll agree with
the other Board members that two sheds in this situation seems kind of excessive, but even
eliminating the red shed, I would like to see the gray shed in a compliant location. Whether that
could be moved or whether it has to be torn down and a new shed built, I think there’s some
alternatives that the applicant could use to either have a shed in a compliant location or attach it to
the house, which changes the situation. So I’m going to be opposed.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I think I essentially agree with Chuck, in this particular circumstance. As I
read the criteria for an Area Variance. It appears to me that four of the five criterion, I think, fall
against this particular variance. I believe there is a feasible location that’s available on this lot for the
gray shed. Certainly four feet of relief from a five foot setback, which is a very minor setback, is
significant. I mean, it’s 80%, and I think that’s substantial. As far as effects on the neighborhood or
community, I anticipated waiting to hear, because I’m not that familiar with this neighborhood, but it
seems to me that there’s a pretty strong indication, or undercurrent there that they would prefer, or
see this as a negative to their neighborhood, and I guess I would have to agree with them at this
particular time, and I think, I don’t think there’s any real doubt, as the other Board members have
said, that this difficulty was self-created, unfortunate as it may be in this particular case. So, I would
have to be opposed to this application as it is now. Having said that, is there a motion out there?
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2001 STEVE MILLER, Introduced by
Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
29 Marley Way. The applicant has relocated two accessory structures on the property and seeks relief
from the setback requirements. Specifically, Mr. Miller requests four feet of relief from the five foot
minimum side setback requirement of accessory structures and uses regulations, that is Section 179-
67 of the Town Zoning Ordinance. Also, the applicant seeks relief from the 10 foot minimum
separation distance for accessory structures under that same ordinance. Although a very close
question, and I sympathize with Mr. Miller, the variance should be denied for the following reasons.
First, there are feasible alternatives on the lot as it currently exists, for the construction of a storage
structure of some kind that would be compliant with the Town Zoning Ordinance. Feasible
alternatives also would include removal of one or more of the sheds, or actual relocation of them to a
more compliant location. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? In my opinion four feet of relief
from the five foot requirement, which the Chairman has indicated is a relatively minimal requirement
for a setback, is substantial. I think the relief is substantial. The effects on the neighborhood are
demonstrated by the comments of the neighbors throughout the area, to the effect that this is
something that they do not want, and particularly from the comments of the Bartis’, with respect to
the impact it will have on their property, being so close to their line. The difficulty was self-created.
The applicant has substantial storage structures on the plot, including a garage, which was
constructed and necessitated moving of the shed, the covered concrete slab, and two separate
accessory storage buildings. These were set on the line where they are now, in or about 1996, and
there should have been some anticipation of what the setback requirements were. For all these
reasons, I move the denial of the application.
Duly adopted this 28 day of March, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. HAYES-Does everyone understand the motion at this time? Do I have a second?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll second it.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I would just, just for clarification, (lost words) denial means that he
has to move it or come back with a different application, and that it’s going to require him to move it
to a compliant location in order, just for the record.
MR. HAYES-Do you understand that, Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER-Is there a common ground that we can come to here, an understanding and maybe
not have to go through the re-application process, to remove the red shed and possibly move the
gray shed further? Would that be, would that make the Board members feel better?
MR. HAYES-Well, it’s my understanding from the application that you only have to move it four
feet to be compliant, at this time.
MR. MILLER-To move it the entire four feet would cut off significant access to the driveway and
make the carport unusable. Is there an intermediate ground that, you know, another two feet is
probably possible.
MR. HAYES-I think at this time we have a motion on the table. I guess I want to be fair to the
Board members. Is there a strong feeling that, you know, a modification that would be acceptable?
In brief.
MR. ABBATE-In the interest of fairness, I would say that, yes, there’s probably some room here,
providing that the red shed is completely taken off the property and the gray shed is moved to a little
more compliant area. I would, yes, I’m flexible with that one.
MR. HAYES-How does everybody else feel about that? Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I could go with that.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-That’s the way I feel.
MR. HAYES-Bob, how do you feel? It’s your motion.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, what are you talking about, as far as relief? How far are you going to move
it? That’s the question.
MR. MILLER-I would say I could probably move it, I would shoot for two feet, because at that
point, it blocks the carport.
MR. HAYES-And remove the other shed?
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. MILLER-And remove the other shed.
MR. URRICO-You said you could move it two feet, though?
MR. MILLER-I think.
MR. URRICO-Two more feet, or two feet total?
MR. HAYES-Well, you understand that whatever relief we grant, that’s, you’ll be expected to comply
with that?
MR. MILLER-Yes, that’s it. I’m signing up for something here which I think.
MR. MC NALLY-Don’t sign up for it if you can’t do it.
MR. MILLER-I know. That’s why I’m trying to be careful here and think it through. The red shed I
can certainly remove entirely. That’s no problem. Probably another foot for a two foot, like against
the line, for the gray shed.
MR. HAYES-So you’re talking about moving it one foot?
MR. MC NALLY-Two foot.
MR. MILLER-I think so. I could probably further, and unfortunately, I didn’t measure that or look
at it before I came.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes.
MR. MILLER-But, I don’t know, do you think two feet’s possible, Craig? I shouldn’t put you on the
spot.
MR. HAYES-I guess we, you know.
MR. MC NALLY-Why don’t you move it just two feet. I mean, I could live with that.
MR. HAYES-All right. Why don’t you make that motion, and then if he can’t do it two feet, he’ll
have to come in for another.
MR. BRYANT-Before you actually make this motion, which may not be physically possible, because
the way I remember it, if he moves it forward, he’s going to be right on top of the carport. I mean,
two feet, if he moves it two feet, don’t you start to get even closer to the carport?
MR. MILLER-It does get closer, yes.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re correcting one situation, but you’re making the other situation even worse,
and I think, and that’s the reason I asked him the question, from the get go, if he moves it down the
driveway toward the main street, he doesn’t have the space to make the setback. So, you know, it’s
six of one, half dozen of another.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, I thought the other one was, if he wanted an attached shed, on the addition
from the garage, or something over there, there would be room for the snow blower and the
something else like that. I’d certainly be happier to grant a variance, even though it’s attached to the
primary structure, but, I mean, that gets rid of the problem.
MR. BRYANT-But I think there’s a problem with the slope there and the property line. I mean, you
were out to the area. You know exactly what we’re talking about at that point.
MR. ABBATE-Craig, in order to get closer to the carport, he would also require a variance there as
well?
MR. BROWN-Yes, correct.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, because even if it was a permanent structure, I think you’re still going to have a
setback problem. Is that correct?
MR. MILLER-Yes.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. BRYANT-The property line is actually on that hill. It’s not down by the road. So, I think he
has a problem with that. I would be more inclined, if he would remove the red shed, and leave the
gray shed in its current location. I mean that, to me, sounds more logical.
MR. HAYES-The thing that’s described as the covered, concrete slab, that carport, I guess,
essentially. Did you construct that after the sheds were placed where they’re at now?
MR. MILLER-No, that was with the house when I purchased it.
MR. HAYES-So you put the sheds in after, or the sheds were there?
MR. MILLER-Both sheds were on the property, and the gray shed is where the garage is now, and it
just got shifted like straight west, and the red shed got moved north. It was actually in the footprint
where the gray one was, or is now.
MR. MC NALLY-And that’s your boat storage? What goes in the shed, not the shed, the carport?
MR. MILLER-Well, I used to use it, but unfortunately in this past few months, I’ve had some
problems with flat tires. So the cars have to go in the garage now. So, we’ll leave that for what it is,
probably a bad coincidence.
MR. HAYES-Well, we need to get some consensus in a motion. We could debate this back and
forth.
MR. ABBATE-How about a contingency he removes the red shed and the gray shed, and we give
him a waiver on the gray shed, the gray shed remains at the present time?
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m still opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-So, I think, in order to get direction here, we have a motion on the table. If everyone
understands it, we’ll take a vote. If it doesn’t pass, then we’ll obviously have to go another direction.
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-So your application is denied. Which means you will need to move that shed into a
compliant location.
MR. MILLER-Okay. Can we talk about?
MR. HAYES-What you need to do, at this point, your application has been denied. What you need
to do is re-apply with an application that’s different than this one.
MR. BROWN-Or relocate the shed to a compliant location.
MR. HAYES-Or relocate the shed. One or the other.
MR. MC NALLY-There’s got to be ways of solving that problem in other locations and other places
with the sheds.
MR. MILLER-Any place the shed goes, there’s a setback requirement, variance requirement.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, but it’s only five feet.
MR. MILLER-Well, I’ve walked the property with Mr. Bryant today and Mr. Brown, previously, and
wherever I go, there was a variance requirement.
MR. HAYES-But you might find a more sympathetic Board to have relief from the carport versus
that close to the property line, if it’s impacting a neighbor that’s clearly concerned about that. I
mean, if you impact yourself, that’s, in my opinion, going to be less of a problem for me than
impacting somebody else to the tune of one foot.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. MILLER-Yes, well, the neighbors concern, I think, came from a different.
MR. HAYES-And I don’t disagree. I understand that, but unfortunately that’s really not part of our
consideration. Okay.
USE VARIANCE NO. 12-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED INDEPENDENT WIRELESS ONE
LEASED REALTY CORP. AGENT FOR PROJECT: MARGARET SMITH PROPERTY
OWNER: RAMADA INN, GLENS FALLS INN ASSOCIATES LOCATION: 1 ABBEY
LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY AND SEEKS RELIEF TO ESTABLISH A NONPERMITTED USE. C.T.
MALE ENGINEERING REVIEW WARREN COUNTY PLANNING ZONE: HC-1A
OLD TAX MAP NO. 97-2-6 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302-09-1-28 LOT SIZE: 5.11 ACRES
SECTION 179-23, 179-73.1
JACQUELINE PHILLIPS MURRAY & MARGARET SMITH, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 12-2001, Independent Wireless one Leased Realty Corp.,
Meeting Date: February 28, 2001 “Project Location: 1 Abbey Lane Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 120-foot tall wireless telephone tower/flagpole and
seeks relief to establish a non-conforming use. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the
allowable uses as outlined in the Highway Commercial zone § 179-23. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: There have been
several Court decisions addressing the standards by which a “public utility” is to be reviewed when
considering a Use Variance. The ability of the “utility” to provide reliable and “adequate” service is a
concern. Moreover, the burden upon the applicant to demonstrate the proposal to be of public
necessity, could, arguably, be the more difficulty test. It appears, from the information submitted,
that Sprint PCS provides reliable and adequate service to the public by covering a significant portion
of this corridor. The proposed tower appears to address relatively small “new” coverage areas. The
enclosed propagation maps depict considerable overlap as well as “gaps” in coverage, which could be
described as minimal, (di minimus) and that adequate coverage is currently being delivered. Does
adequate service mean 100% coverage? Are the propagation maps accurate? If so, why not develop
a “master plan” depicting future coverage areas at once rather than one at a time? If the maps are
not accurate, how much credibility should be given to these maps if they are just an “educated
guess”? is this proposed facility to geographic coverage or call capacity? No public comment has
been noted. Are there other feasible alternative means of delivery? (i.e. smaller antennae placed on
existing utility poles at more frequent locations). At what signal strength were the propagation maps
derived? Inside building strength, outside building strength? It is not clear whether the desire to
deliver signal inside a building is a “need” sufficient to warrant additional facilities. Several
recommendations are made, in the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, to minimize adverse visual
impacts throughout the town. The purpose of § 179-73.1; Telecommunications Towers, is to
promote telecommunications throughout the town while protecting the natural features and aesthetic
character of the town. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 14,
2001 Project Name: Independent Wireless One Owner: Ramada Inn/Glens Falls Associates ID
Number: QBY-UV-12-2001 County Project#: Feb01-16 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the construction of a telecommunications
facility and seeks relief to establish a non-permitted use. Site Location: 1 Abbey Lane. Exit 19 of
the Northway, left onto Quaker Road, first left onto Abbey Lane. Tax Map Number: 97-2-6 Staff
Notes: The applicant originally identified two sites in this area of Queensbury to achieve an
acceptable network coverage for cellular communications service, the Warren County
communications tower at Exit 20 and The Glens Falls water towers at Exit 19 (this Board
recommended approval of locating equipment atop the water towers). Both of those municipal
bodies, however, have rejected the notion of leasing their properties for this use, and the applicant is
looking elsewhere. To meet service coverage goals at Exit 20, the applicant’s provider has decided to
co-locate on the SBA tower off Route 149. To meet coverage goals at Exit 19, the applicant here
proposes a 120’ tower disguised as a flag pole on the site of the Glens Falls Ramada Inn. Site plans
are on file at the planning department and will be available for review at the meeting. Staff has
provided copies of correspondence, project descriptions, and photo simulations. Staff is curious if
telecommunications panels would be necessary atop the tower, or if the flagpole tower and small
base unit will itself contain the necessary equipment. Also, will a flag actually be flown? Staff
recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for
February 28, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Thomas E. Haley,
Warren County Planning Board 2/15/01.
MRS. MURRAY-My name is Jacqueline Phillips Murray. I am an attorney of Crane, Green &
Perrenti, in Albany, New York, and we represent Independent Wireless One and Independent
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
Wireless One Leased Realty Corporation. I’m here tonight with Margaret Smith who is a site
acquisition specialist who originally met with the zoning officer for the pre-application meeting. I
want to point out to the Board that this application is for a proposed use that is much different than
what Independent Wireless One or any other provider, for that matter, generally proposes. I’ve built
several hundred of these sites to date, and typically what is proposed, and I’m sure the Board is well
aware because I know that there are existing structures in the area, would be a mono pole or a lattice
type tower. With this particular site, we took into account the goals of the local zoning law,
particularly the part that was noted in the Staff comments, and that is why we proposed a flagpole,
which is a “stealth” means of meeting our objectives while also meeting the community’s objectives.
For that very same reason, we also selected, actually, I should back up a little. We are limited by the
topography of an area, in so far as we can locate a site, and, because of the topography in this given
area, as demonstrated by our propagation studies, we have a very limited area in which we can put
this site to fill gaps that are existing in our coverage. That being said, what we did is we started off
looking at existing structures. The only existing structure that was of sufficient height and structural
integrity, on which we could co-locate were the existing water tanks by Aviation Mall. The landlord
of those tanks was unwilling to grant us a lease, for various reasons that are unrelated to our
application. Apparently, they plan on expanding the use of that facility, or augmenting it in some
way, and they thought that this would not be a good accessory use on that existing facility. So that is
why we chose a site that was immediately across the street, because it was still within the vicinity of
the area where we need to locate a site in order to provide coverage for the areas where there
currently is none. What that means is that if somebody is driving in their car, or walking down the
street with their Sprint PCS phone, their call can be dropped, and this presents an extreme problem,
especially in emergency situations. It presents a problem to public safety when somebody’s driving
down the road, and they need to make an emergency call, and their call is dropped, and that is
precisely why the Federal Communications Commission has issued licenses to various providers
throughout the nation, including the one pursuant to which our client operates. Because the Federal
government has recognized the need for this service, to enhance not only public convenience and the
economy, but to enhance the public safety, and that’s really, in my mind, what is most essential about
filling these gaps in coverage that currently if the Board has had an opportunity to look at the
propagation studies that were provided. I know you’ve had a really busy night, but if you go to the
third study that was presented, it shows the coverage that we propose in blue. If you look at the
previous page, you will note that some of that blue coverage does overlap where there’s coverage that
we believe we can provide by co-locating on the new SBA Tower, but you’ll also notice that there are
several areas that are white, that remain white. Those white areas are the areas where there is no
coverage, even with our existing coverage, and with co-locating on the SBA Tower.
MR. BRYANT-You’re saying that the white areas you have no coverage at all?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-And that’s for the Sprint PCS?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s correct, and that, in fact, sir, the purple areas we currently do not have
coverage because we don’t have our equipment up on that pole yet that’s owned by SBA.
MR. BRYANT-Is that the one on 149?
MRS. MURRAY-Yes, and they’re building it right now.
MR. BRYANT-When your equipment is up on 149?
MRS. MURRAY-Then we’ll have what’s shown in purple.
MR. BRYANT-Then you’ll have what’s shown in purple.
MRS. MURRAY-That’s right.
MR. BRYANT-Let me ask you a question. Why is it that, I don’t have Sprint PCS, but at Exit 19,
I’ve got full coverage. I have full coverage on the Northway, all the way down to Albany. I’ve got
full coverage up to 20, around where the new tower is going. I lose it for about a tenth of a second.
I have full coverage in Glens Falls. Why don’t you use those same towers?
MRS. MURRAY-Well, first of all, we operate at a different frequency than whoever your provider is,
and I can’t speculate about where they have their antennas, how their system works. The PCS
system has its own design, it’s own way of operating, and we’re licensed to operate at a certain band
width by the FCC.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. BRYANT-I realize that you’re going up on a tower on 149 that is owned by Cellular One, or
one of their companies. Nextel is going to go up there. That’s my provider. So, my question is,
again, why aren’t you on those other towers?
MRS. MURRAY-I can’t speculate, sir, about where the other providers are, and I also want to point
out that their technology may permit them to send a signal in a different way than we can. I really
can’t speculate about how their coverage works. That very well could be why, they operate at a
different power level than we do, and they’re analog providers. Our service is a digital service, and
the technology is much different, and I’m not an engineer. I can’t explain that to you, but I can
assure you that we do not propose to build towers to provide coverage to a geographic area. This is
not a capacity tower, unless we absolutely need to, because it costs our client a lot of money to do
that, and we want to put up towers where we actually need them to provide service, and there are
plenty of areas that we can focus on, within this State and throughout this Country, to provide
coverage, and our plots show that we simply do not have coverage in the area that we seek to
provide it to at this time.
MR. URRICO-Where is your tower south of this proposed tower?
MRS. SMITH-That is Exit 18. There’s a tower down around there.
MR. URRICO-Okay, and then north of this proposed tower, other than the one that you’re putting
up at Exit, at 149, what’s the one north of that?
MRS. SMITH-We are seeking that. We’re looking for that right now.
MR. URRICO-So right now you really have no coverage north of Exit 18, whatever coverage you get
from Exit?
MRS. SMITH-After the French Mountain Tower, right. There’s a block in coverage. Actually, we
do have a site on the Travel Lodge in Lake George, as well, on the rooftop there.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-How large a tower is that?
MRS. SMITH-It’s not a tower, it’s a rooftop mount, but if you know where that Travel Lodge is,
when you come off, it’s at that high point of the valley. So it shoots out to the whole lake right there.
So we have the ground elevation that we need.
MR. MC NALLY-And that’s a different kind of antenna? It doesn’t require as much elevation
because it’s in the valley?
MRS. SMITH-No. It’s the same type of antenna, but we have the ground elevation that we don’t
need, that the tower gives us.
MR. ABBATE-Well, one of your arguments is that you folks are digital, and the others are analog. Is
that correct?
MRS MURRAY-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-That’s not necessarily correct, I don’t think. Because that SBA tower has digital
suppliers on there. So I don’t know if that argument is necessarily correct.
MRS. MURRAY-The one reason that I can tell you is that they operate at a different band width.
They have a different level of power at which they operate, which changes their coverage area. We
all have topographical barriers, but if we were in a world which was completely flat, we wouldn’t
need just one tower, because at some point the signal strength runs out, and we’re limited by that
through the FCC, because the FCC governs the level of signal strength that we can emit while
providing our services, and depending on the type of service that you’re providing, ours is PCS
service, and we use entirely different equipment than a company like Nextel uses. They use, I think
it’s called ESMR technology. We use PCS technology.
MR. ABBATE-Your argument, basically, is that those other towers are incompatible, am I correct?
MRS. MURRAY-The only other facility that exists, that we could have possibly used, that was within
the area where we needed to put some type of facility with antennas on it, would have been the water
tanks, and we did look at that. We tried to reach a lease agreement with the City, and they were
unwilling to lease it to us.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’ll go back to my original question, but the other towers that are currently in
existence, are incompatible?
MRS. MURRAY-They are not located at the appropriate location that we need, on which to install
antennas in order to provide service. So, to say that they’re incompatible, I think is not entirely
accurate, because incompatible, in my mind, means that our service would be interfering or
conflicting in some way with the service that’s being provided by the other providers. If there were a
tower that was located within the vicinity of the site that we propose, that had Nextel and Omni
Point, well, another Voice Stream, and Verizon on it, and there was space for us to go on it, and it
was structurally capable, that would be the first thing that we would look to, because it costs us a lot
of money to build a new site.
MR. BRYANT-I think that’s what Mr. Abbate is asking. He’s asking about the existing towers that
provide 100% coverage now, where are they located that could give you that same coverage?
MRS. MURRAY-I don’t believe that there are any that are located in a sufficient location that would
permit us to provide that coverage. We’ve sought to co-locate on all of the existing towers that are
within this vicinity that we can, or existing structures, if you will, because they’re not all towers, and
the only existing structure that’s within the area, the limited area, in which we put antennas, in order
to provide coverage to fill these gaps, the only existing one are the water tanks, and that’s the only
place that we could possibly go. It’s significantly limited by the topography.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t think, the question is not relating to structures. It’s relating to existing
towers. Other carriers who use the digital technology are giving us 100% coverage. Where are they,
and why aren’t you there, and that’s the question.
MRS. MURRAY-I question whether they are giving you 100% coverage, if you look at plots of an
area. It’s really difficult to determine that. I should disclose to you that I also represent Nextel. I
represent Crown Communications, which is a tower management company that all the providers go
on towers that are built on spec, and there is not one provider that is providing 100% coverage to
this area.
MR. ABBATE-Let me re-phrase my question, and make it easier. None of the existing towers, at the
present time, could meet your requirements. Is this correct?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s correct, for this particular coverage hole that we’re trying to fill.
MR. URRICO-The height of the antenna determines the coverage area, does it not? The higher up
an existing structure, the wider the radiuses?
MRS. MURRAY-That is correct to the extent that the signal can travel. After a couple of miles, then
the signal’s not going to travel much farther, and then you start losing the strength of your signal.
MR. URRICO-But if there’s an existing tower already, and some other carriers have beaten you to
the high spots, does that affect your coverage?
MRS. MURRAY-Typically what would happen would be we find that we can’t provide the coverage
that we need to by co-locating at the available space that’s on that tower. So say there’s a 150 foot
tower, and there’s other providers at 150, 140, 130, and the only spot that’s available is 120, but we
determine that if we went to 150, or higher, then we would be able to fill all the gaps in our coverage
without constructing a new tower, then what we would typically do would be first to see if there was
room on the platform where the top person is, and see if we can put a couple of antenna panels up
there. There’s a couple of issues that arise with that. One is interference, two is structural integrity.
The other thing that we sometimes will propose is to retrofit a tower. What that means is that we
will go to an existing tower where everybody else is, and if we know that we only need say a few
more feet, five or ten more feet, and then we can actually fill the gaps in coverage without having to
propose a brand new tower, we’ll first pose that to the Town, and say, you know, can we come in
and rebuild this tower, to make it strong enough and tall enough to hold our antennas? But there’s,
once you get over a certain height, there’s, you know, only so far your signal’s going to go, to the
extent that it does get over topographical barriers.
MR. URRICO-Now you also looked in to the tower that was behind the Warren County Municipal
Center? I noticed that on one of your.
MRS. MURRAY-That’s right, and we were told that we could not use that site, either.
MR. URRICO-So you were denied the water towers, and you were denied the other, two public
utilities structures you were denied use of?
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MRS. MURRAY-That’s correct. We could not get a lease for them. We never applied for zoning
approval. I just want to make that clear.
MR. HAYES-Is there anybody else that would be locating on this tower that you’re proposing?
MRS. MURRAY-This particular tower.
MR. HAYES-I mean, how stealth would it remain, do you know?
MRS. MURRAY-Actually, it’s quite fascinating what they do. They put the antennas inside the pole,
and there’s going to be, it’s going to be strong enough, and there’s going to be space to put antennas
of two more providers within the pole at lower levels. What could happen, if somebody said, we
want to go on that tower and all three spots are already filled, being us and two other providers, then
somebody might come in and apply to the Board for yet another application to maybe retrofit the
flagpole, but anything that the Board chooses, with regard to our application, has no effect on
whether or not they can retrofit down the road. The flagpole we propose because we think it’s the
best way to accommodate our needs while meeting the community’s interests in preserving the
aesthetic quality.
MR. HAYES-What’s the circumference of the flagpole, geometrically, how wide is this pole?
MRS. MURRAY-I’m going to have to look that up. A lot of times, that’s something those are, that’s
something that would be a manufacturer’s spec.
MR. HAYES-We’ve got a picture here.
MR. ABBATE-We have it.
MRS. MURRAY-Okay. Good.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s actually a picture, you know, mock up at the site.
MRS. MURRAY-The manufacturer doesn’t always put the specs on there. That’s something that’s
not on our plans.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MRS. MURRAY-We think it’s a manufacturer’s spec.
MR. HAYES-I didn’t go all the way through that far in my packet, but there it is actually.
MRS. MURRAY-Yes. Typically, even when we do a monopole, we can’t, we don’t know the exact
specifications for the foundation and for the pole itself. The reason being is because those are all the
manufacturer’s specs, and they don’t typically design the actual structure until an approval is
obtained, because it’s rather expensive.
MR. HAYES-We were trying to arrive at the definition of stealth, which, I guess that’s very
subjective.
MRS. MURRAY-Not the bomber.
MR. URRICO-Now it’s my understanding that, as demand increases, these types of cell sites are also
going to increase, that it’s not just a matter of area coverage, it’s a matter of accessibility by people
that have the service?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s right.
MR. URRICO-The more people that have it, the more towers that are needed, and the more cell sites
are needed. I read somewhere it’s going to be a, by the time we’re done, we’re going to have one
million cell sites scattered around the Country.
MRS. MURRAY-And a lot of that, too, is because of the Internet, because the economy is
demanding a wireless Internet. I read articles all the time. I’m bombarded with them on my e-mail,
and one of the most interesting articles I read was about the Country of Singapore, and how
Singapore did not have land lines for the longest time, and went directly to wireless, and their
economy is absolutely booming because everybody has wireless Internet, wireless service, and they’re
extremely productive, but getting to your point, you’re absolutely right. There’s two components.
There’s coverage, and there’s capacity. The purpose for this site is to provide coverage to areas
where we simply do not provide coverage currently, and that’s even taking into account the towers,
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
the tower, SBA’s tower on which we seek to co-locate. Actually, I should qualify. I believe we have
approval to co-locate on the existing SBA tower. We just haven’t put our antennas up yet. You’re
absolutely right. In the future, there may be a need to increase capacity. That has not happened in
this area yet, because the population isn’t as dense as when you go to some place like New York City
where capacity sites are all over the place, because everybody has a cell phone, and people are already
using the wireless Internet on mass.
MR. URRICO-But these stealth poles are being used more and more in other parts of the Country.
MRS. MURRAY-Absolutely.
MR. URRICO-I mean, I’ve seen trees, I’ve seen sigoral cactuses.
MRS. MURRAY-There’s Palm trees.
MR. ABBATE-They’re more aesthetic in appeal.
MRS. MURRAY-That’s right, and our thing is we don’t know how the technology is going to change
in the future. So we would rather propose a stealth pole at the outset and then, you know, five years
down the road, we find that we need more capacity, or the technology changes, then we’ll have to
come back to the Board. It’s not something that we want to speculate about what the needs are
going to be, at the detriment of the community.
MR. ABBATE-Let me ask a question. I’m not even this is appropriate. How many folks are
currently affected by the fact that you do not have an antenna in this area?
MRS. MURRAY-I can’t even estimate that, because we, I wish I could for you. I wish I knew, but it
really depends on who.
MR. ABBATE-One?
MRS. MURRAY-No, not at all. I mean, it depends on who’s traveling in the area. Because a lot of
our customers are not only local people, but they’re people that are traveling to and from, you know,
wherever, up and down the Northway, through the City.
MR. ABBATE-I just thought you might have it at your fingertips. That’s all.
MRS. MURRAY-Yes. I really couldn’t even estimate that. I could guarantee you it’s more than one.
MR. ABBATE-I was just being a little facetious there, that’s all.
MR. URRICO-I have one more pragmatic question. Who maintains the flag?
MRS. SMITH-It’s an unmanned site, but a cell technician goes out there once a month, to check on
the equipment, and they’ll maintain the flag as well.
MR. URRICO-I mean, does somebody raise and lower the flag?
MRS. SMITH-No. The flag will stay up the entire time. What we don’t have on the plans, we have
supplementary that we’re going to, I can submit even tonight, is that it does have to be illuminated.
So we have a spotlight that we’re going to put in, because after dusk it has to be illuminated.
MRS. MURRAY-It won’t be lit at the top with a flashing light, like some of the radio towers that you
see. It won’t be for that reason. It’s actually by Federal law that if you have a flag flying, you have to
have a spotlight.
MR. ABBATE-And of course you have a maintenance agreement for the American flag when it
becomes frayed and what have you, that’ll be removed and replaced? I’m serious.
MRS. MURRAY-Yes. Well, that’s something that we typically, with these types of poles, we have
inspection contractors that we hire out to make sure that the facility stays as it is the day that it’s
approved. That’s certainly something that, if the Board wanted to impose that as a requirement.
MR. ABBATE-It seems to me it should be part of any contract.
MRS. MURRAY-Yes. I think that’s perfectly reasonable.
MR. ABBATE-You don’t want a flag up there that’s torn in half.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MRS. MURRAY-Absolutely, and I think that that would be a reasonable restriction on any proposed
use there.
MR. MC NALLY-C.T. Male indicates that the coverage gaps at 100, 110 and 120 feet is about the
same, and that the coverage is essentially the same with the towers. Why can’t you go with a 100 foot
tower instead of a 120 one?
MRS. MURRAY-If I could refer you to the plots, there are red areas that are outlined, showing the
main gap that we really want to remedy by getting that extra 10 feet, or, I’m sorry, extra 20 feet.
MR. MC NALLY-Which map are you referring to?
MRS. MURRAY-The one that’s outlined in red, where it says “coverage hole”. There’s several areas.
MR. MC NALLY-Wait, I want to make sure I get on the right map.
MR. HAYES-There’s a coverage hole right there.
MRS. MURRAY-That would result in a dropped call.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Start from the beginning again. What is this coverage gap?
MRS. MURRAY-There are several coverage gaps in the area, but the one that we see that is
significant, if we do drop down to 110, is the one that is right on 87, and it’s outlined in red on.
MR. HAYES-What cascade number?
MR. MC NALLY-No, it’s the same for each of them.
MRS. MURRAY-Yes, the cascade number is the same for all of it. It’s on Page Four.
MR. MC NALLY-Are you looking at the third sheet?
MRS. MURRAY-No. Actually, sir, it’s the fourth sheet.
MR. HAYES-It says at 110 feet, at the very bottom. Right?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s right, and you’ll see, there’s a difference there between the prior sheet, where
you do see a very slight dot. That actually falls within the median. So we’re just going to be able to
remedy that with the extra 10 feet, and that is a significant issue for us, because so many of the
people to whom we provide services are in their cars. They’re driving, and they rely on that service
for their safety, and for convenience purposes, and for business purposes, and what would happen is
if you were driving down the road, and you’re on your phone, the call would be terminated, and
you’d have to reinitiate the call.
MR. MC NALLY-If I look at the third map, there’s a white area north of Lake George Road. Is that
another service gap area, only larger?
MRS. MURRAY-That is, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-What plans do you have to remedy that defect? What towers are going up.
MRS. MURRAY-That’s something that, I believe that Site 379 would fill in that area, which is on the
last page of the plots, and that’s why another search ring was issued, to try to fill in the coverage
holes that you see in that northern part. It’s very, it’s a unique system for us as well as for all the
providers, because the goal is to provide seamless coverage to the community, and it takes quite a bit
of time, and we need to have kind of a, if you will, an interlocking grid of these sites, so that people’s
calls don’t get dropped when they’re driving along, or when they’re walking along or wherever they
might be.
MR. MC NALLY-Now, when you do SEQRA, there’s something called segmentation sometimes,
and I’ve been through a couple of these before, and I see that the Town of Queensbury has only so
much area, and why can’t Sprint put together a single application, so that we can minimize the
number of towers in this Town, rather than, serially, do one tower and another one and another one,
and another one? Is there any reason that can’t be done?
MRS. MURRAY-Well, there’s actually several reasons why we can’t. First of all, we do not get site
control all at the same time. It’s difficult to find a location. First of all, you have to find the location
to which you’re limited, and then you have to be able to find willing land owners within that limited
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
location that want to permit you to put a facility on their property or on their existing structure. So
that’s one reason. The other reason is that we try to fill gaps in coverage based upon demand, and,
clearly, there’s some areas where there is not a demand for this service immediately, and to address
your first comment, alluding to a segmentation issue, we have dealt with that issue in the past, and
the one distinction that I’d like to offer to you, with regard to that, is that there’s simply no
cumulative impact, if you put one site here and then another site two to three miles away. The
segmentation law that I am familiar with mainly deals with somebody that is proposing a subdivision,
and where somebody might propose to put 200 homes in a residential development, and instead of
coming to the Board and proposing one house at a time, and then all of a sudden the Board has a
200 unit subdivision with different residential uses in it, that’s an example, the prime example, of
segmentation. This is much different, because the impact of one tower, coupled with the impact of a
tower that’s two to three miles away, simply cannot be viewed as cumulative. So I hope that helps to
distinguish.
MR. MC NALLY-I understand your argument, but you have to understand my position. We have
Sprint, a tower here, a tower two, three miles there, Verizon, a tower here, a tower two, three miles
there, and all the other providers are doing the same thing. So, there is actually a net effect, a
cumulative effect I meant to say, excuse me, of so many towers going up with a single tower
application at a time, as opposed to some thought in the process regarding co-location, regarding
joint coverage, and things like that.
MRS. MURRAY-Well, I appreciate that entirely, in that that’s precisely why.
MR. ABBATE-Think about this for a minute, why not have a master plan?
MRS. MURRAY-Yes. There are reasons for that, and I think that this probably addresses both of
your comments. We try our best to go on existing structures, including existing towers. The only
time that we proposed to build a new structure is where we simply cannot go on an existing
structure, and it’s entirely for business reasons that we operate that way, because it’s much less
expensive for us to go on an existing structure or tower, then to build something new. We are not a
tower management company. We are in the business of providing service. We are not in the
business of renting space on towers. That’s incidental to what we do on occasion, but typically, we
do this, and all of the providers will get together. We all have master agreements among each other
saying, you know, we want, if we want to ever co-locate on any tower that you own, this is what the
rate is going to be, and that’s totally to foster co-location within the industry, and, with regard to your
comment about a master plan, the reason that would be difficult is that would require every
individual applicant to know what the other applicants are doing at all times, and it would really be
unduly burdensome, for several reasons. First, we can’t predict what Nextel’s next move it going to
be, or what Tower Management Company’s next moves are going to be, SBA, or Crown
Communication New York, sometimes they apply as Crown Castle Atlantic, or Verizon, and so if
there were to be a master plan, it would be prohibitive to the extent that all the applicants would
have to collaborate, and that’s something that no other land use applicant is really required to do. If
I was going to come in and to apply to build a house, I wouldn’t have to find out who’s building
houses everywhere else in the Town, and I don’t mean to simplify the subject too much, but that’s an
analogy.
MR. ABBATE-So, in other words, you’re saying there is a spirit of cooperation at the present time?
MRS. MURRAY-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-But unfortunately, at this time, in this area, the other towers don’t meet your
requirements.
MRS. MURRAY-That’s right.
MR. ABBATE-In spite of the spirit of cooperation?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s right. A prime example is the fact that we’re going on the SBA Tower,
because that is an existing structure that will permit us to provide coverage within the area where we
currently are not providing coverage, as evidenced by the map.
MR. MC NALLY-Would there be any opportunity to use smaller towers, more of them?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s something that we could certainly look into, if you would like us to, but I
think that it would present numerous small towers, that would be very difficult for us to do. This is a
hilly region, and it would be difficult to overcome topographical boundaries without the height that’s
proposed, and without making a significant dent in the coverage gap that currently exists.
MR. ABBATE-Your proposal is for a 120 foot tower, correct?
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MRS. MURRAY-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I had a couple of questions. They may or may not fly, but, earlier the
applicant mentioned an FCC limit as to the signal strength. Just out of curiosity, how close are they
to that limit, if FCC says you can be at 10, are you at one or two, or are you close to that threshold,
and the other one is, once you locate on the SBA tower, and get the antennas up and operational, will
these propagation maps change and the coverage areas change and the coverage areas increase or
decrease?
MRS. MURRAY-I’m sorry, could you mention your second question again?
MR. BROWN-Once your antennas are on the SBA tower and operational, will the propagation maps
change, the coverage areas change?
MRS. MURRAY-No, not at all. Because, although we have some overlapping, at this point, I’m
going to answer your second question first, if you don’t mind.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Sure.
MRS. MURRAY-Although we have some overlapping, at this point, there is no overlap with regard
to several of the areas that we’re going to, where we’re going to be filling coverage gaps. So you’ll see
from the RF plots. If you look at Page Two, all the purple is where SBA, the SBA tower will enable
use to provide coverage.
MR. BROWN-I guess, just so I understand how the propagation maps are developed, and I won’t
take too much time here, but with an existing tower, you take an antenna and stick it up there and
turn it on and drive around and try and figure out where the coverage areas are. Are you going with
a receiver?
MRS. MURRAY-No, not at all.
MR. BROWN-I was just curious where the accuracy comes from then.
MRS. MURRAY-We have a software program.
MR. BROWN-That’s always 100% accurate?
MRS. MURRAY-It’s a prediction. It is an estimate, but it’s accurate enough to prompt us to go
through the process of providing coverage to an area.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MRS. MURRAY-It’s something that we rely on 100%, whenever we develop our search rings, and
develop the plan for the network. Once we identify an existing structure and figure out what we can
provide, using, this is really, you know, it’s called a propagation study, and it is because it is an
estimate, but it is a fairly accurate estimate. We would not seek to build a new tower if we weren’t
certain of this estimate, but I would never want to mislead you to believe that this is exactly what you
get, because it certainly is, it’s a tool that we use. It’s a software tool. It is highly accurate.
MR. BROWN-Okay. I just wanted to make sure that the Board understood that the accuracy of the
maps is such.
MRS. MURRAY-With regard to your other question, sir, we’ve provided a power density study, and
the power density study demonstrates that, on a scale, I think this will probably be the most
simplified way to describe it, on a scale of one to one hundred, one hundred being the maximum
level of RF emissions that are permitted by the FCC, we are at eighteen.
MR. BROWN-Okay. So relatively low on the threshold.
MRS. MURRAY-Absolutely, and it’s very interesting, if you go on the FCC’s website, and I’ve read
through this many time, because I think every time I read it, I glean something new from it, but
there’s the Office of Engineering and Technology, and there’s a bulletin, it’s Bulletin No. 65, and that
actually, it’s quite long, but it sets forth all of the studies the FCC has done and how they’ve
developed what the controllable standard is, and I think that it’s interesting, and for me it allays my
concerns about anything that’s out there. Because when the FCC developed their yardstick by which
to measure the emissions, and by which to limit them, they, too, built in a buffer over the 100% level.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
So even once you get over 100%, the FCC still says, it would still be safe, but this is where we’re
going to draw the line, because we don’t want to take any chances.
MR. BROWN-So, I guess, rather than an 18, would a 40 or 50 give you a bigger coverage area?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s something, no, because that really depends on the wattage, and it also
depends on the topography. So even if we operated, you know, at a higher wattage, we would still
run into topographical barriers. So, you know, we can’t overcome those while staying within FCC
limits.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So the answer to his question is based on a computer model more or less?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s right. In fact, sir, that’s described in the memo that prefaces the RF plot,
and the description of the software is the Northwoods Geotech Decibel Planner, the DB Planner,
which is the software that all of the providers use when they plot out their search rings and
determine where their coverage needs are. It is highly accurate, but it is an estimate, and I don’t want
to mislead the Board and tell you that it’s not an estimate, because that is what it is, but it’s highly
accurate. I’ve seen studies that were done after antennas were approved and installed, and they very
closely mirror what is depicted on the RF plots, and we rely on it entirely to make our business
decisions about where we need to go.
MR. MC NALLY-Going back to what Craig mentioned a moment ago, the amount of the area that
you cover from a single tower depends on a number of factors, I take it?
MRS. MURRAY-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And that would include the height of the tower itself?
MRS. MURRAY-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-It would include topographical features that the signal couldn’t go through?
MRS. MURRAY-Those two variables, sir, go hand in hand. The topography drives the height.
MR. MC NALLY-But the signal strength actually weakens over a distance, right?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-Separate and apart from topography, or separate and apart from the height, there
is a signal decrease?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s correct. As I said earlier, if we had a completely flat area, eventually the
signal would run out. We wouldn’t have only, if the world was flat, we wouldn’t have only one cell
tower.
MR. MC NALLY-And signal strength depends upon the amount of power you put behind it, the
wattage you mentioned?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s right.
MR. MC NALLY-And also the frequency, I presume, has different propagation characteristics?
MRS. MURRAY-Well, depending on what frequency you’re using, that correlates to the wattage you
need to use to propagate that frequency, to propagate the signal at that frequency, I should say.
MR. MC NALLY-These propagation maps, all right, at what signal strength were they derived at? Is
there a standard used? You mentioned 18. That’s not the standard?
MRS. MURRAY-No. Eighteen is an entirely different number. That’s the percentage of the
uncontrolled standard, pursuant to the FCC Regs.
MR. MC NALLY-What’s the signal strength these maps wee taken at?
MRS. MURRAY-The signal strength at which our system operates is negative 27 dbm.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s what your system operates?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s right.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. MC NALLY-So, if I make a phone call on Sprint, that’s what I’m sending a signal out, at that
strength?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s right.
MR. MC NALLY-And the maps were also done at that level?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s my understanding. I did not prepare these maps, but we do the maps to
accord with our network, and unfortunately the RF engineer could not attend this evening, but I
could certainly confirm that with him. I could not imagine them using any other signal strength.
Because that’s what the system operates at.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s what your system’s set at.
MRS. MURRAY-Yes, that’s right.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed?
Okay. Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-And I would like, we’ll talk about it. We’ll start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-When the SBA tower went up on French Mountain, I was thoroughly opposed to it,
at the time, for aesthetic reasons. A 200 foot tower blotting the picture perfect landscape there. At
the time, I wondered why more stealth technology was not being used to put these towers in place. I
know they exist. There are trees. I’ve seen church steeples converted into towers. I think the
applicant has gone to two local municipal organizations, and been denied, and I think, I’m going to
digress just a little bit. I think there’s a certain responsibility that the local municipalities have to
seeing that some of these utilities that are going to be coming into this area are accommodated in
some other ways, other than putting up structures that don’t need to be put up. This could have
gone on the Warren County Municipal Center tower and behind the Municipal Center. It could have
gone on the water towers. For whatever reason, they were denied, and I do know there is a coverage
gap that exists with Sprint PCS. My boss has it. She had to drop the service, after she purchased it
from Radio Shack, because she couldn’t pick up the signal up here. I think they’re to be commended
for actually bringing something into this area that doesn’t detract from the appearance of the area. I
think the flagpole is a good alternative. I think we’re going to see more of these, the need for more
cell sites, and if we’re going to use them, I think we should make the best of a bad situation, and I’m
going to be in favor of it, as it’s presented. I think that the flagpole is a great idea.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. In the spirit of brevity, in view of the time, I agree with Roy. I believe that
this proposal is aesthetically appealing. I also believe that the very detailed testimony given by
Counsel is compelling, and, as a result, I would be in favor of the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m not, I know that Counsel has expressed that your system is incompatible
with the existing towers, and I understand that, but when SBA came in here for an application, we
made them come back with a study to list the various sites and so forth and so on, and why they
couldn’t locate on those sites, and, frankly, the fact that Independent Wireless One doesn’t have
coverage in a particular area, almost everybody else in the free world does have coverage, in most of
that area. I live not even a half a mile away from where the tower is going to be, and I use my cell
phone from my house, in this area, in Glens Falls, without difficulty, and I have a digital cell phone,
not Sprint, but I understand what you’re saying. I wouldn’t be opposed to the project if I could see a
study that indicated these are the towers and area, the existing towers. We can place an antenna on
this tower, but it wouldn’t give us, you know, it would give us this amount of coverage, and so forth
and so on, or we couldn’t have a place on this tower because there’s no more room on the tower, for
whatever reason, because I’m not totally convinced that all these other carriers that have coverage,
and Sprint cannot cover Metropolitan Glens Falls and Queensbury has got to be the bearer of the
tower. So, right now, I’m opposed to the application, but I would like to see a study that indicates
that information relating to other towers.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would like to err on the side of holding off on the tower, too. I think
that, you know, rather than jumping the gun and saying, we definitely need this tower right here, and
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
this is where it has to be, I think that, you know, if you went ahead and located on the SBA tower,
first of all, that I think that you probably would have coverage that maybe faded a little bit between
the Exit 18 tower and the SBA tower, but at the same time, I think at that point in time, you could
come back and say, now we really, you know, it would be very apparent that you were missing this
section in between there, but, you know, in the meantime I think you should concentrate on the SBA
tower and come back to us after the fact, then maybe we can go for this one.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I think I’ll agree with Roy, and with the Counsel has pointed out. I think we’ve
got to take some things, I guess, logically, and it strikes me that, as has been pointed out, that if there
were a tower available that would do the job, Sprint already would be there, because they wouldn’t be
spending the money on one of these monopoles. I don’t know what they cost, but I know they cost
a chunk. I also like the idea that they have proposed a stealth facility instead of proposing just an
ugly cell tower at that point. We’ve got enough of those along the Northway already. I think they’ve
made a good faith effort to fit what they need to do with what would look good in the area, and I
especially like the idea that there’s at least a potential for locating another couple sets of antenna on
that facility, that may help some other carrier. I’ll be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I was still trying to work out whether there’s a public necessity for this, or if public
necessity requires absolute coverage over every particular area. If there’s a minimal gap in coverage,
whether or not any tower is required to fix that. I’ll be honest with you, I don’t see too many real
problem areas. The tower addresses relatively small new coverage areas. Chuck’s point about it
being nicely designed to blend into the area, not being as obnoxious as some of the 200 foot tall ones
are, is well taken. That is well taken. That’s a good point. That’s where I stand.
MR. HAYES-Is that a maybe?
MR. MC NALLY-That’s a maybe, a definite maybe.
MR. HAYES-I commend the applicant for a thorough application. I think we certainly were
provided with a lot of information. That’s a big plus. As I look at this, and I guess we’re being asked
to, for a certain amount of faith here, as Craig has pointed out, to these propagation studies, you
know, where’s the real impact and what’s the result, what’s got to be, what’s, as Bob pointed out, the
necessity, in particular, the public necessity, and I guess for me, it would hinge on two things. One, I,
personally, feel that a break in coverage on the Northway is a public necessity, versus not necessarily
having complete coverage in every neighborhood or depression, because it’s just not possible, and if
we had to have the cell towers to do that, I think that the negatives would override the positives in
those particular circumstances, but the Northway, to me, that’s the thoroughfare, and I think that
carries the burden of a necessity. I guess the second factor, which my colleagues have pointed out, is
this is a stealth pole which, that’s a great marketing for you guys. Whoever came up with that is
doing all right, but it doesn’t seem to me, I live a quarter mile from there, and where that’s going to
be located, on the back of that hotel, to me, it seems like a site that is not going to impact anybody
that adversely, particularly the fact that it’s a flagpole type tower. So, I guess reluctantly, which these
towers all are, I think there is a necessity, and I think there have been attempts to locate and solve
this problem, and really from a business perspective I’m not sure, and I guess we’ll never know
totally, but it seems hard for me to imagine that if Sprint didn’t have a need, that they wouldn’t be
spending the money that’s involved with doing this tower, and paying you and everyone else that’s
going to be involved with this in the end. So, I have to believe that the need is real, in this particular
case. So, reluctantly, I would be okay with this application.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s a good point about the Northway.
MR. HAYES-So, I guess, having said that, is there a motion out there that somebody would like to
make?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’ll take it.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MOTION THAT BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE SEQRA FORM PROVIDED BY THE
APPLICANT THAT WE’RE DECLARING NO NEGATIVE IMPACT FOR USE
VARIANCE NO. 12-2001, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Charles Abbate:
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes,. Mr. Stone
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 12-2001 INDEPENDENT WIRELESS
ONE LEASED REALTY CORP., Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Charles Abbate:
1 Abbey Lane, or the back of the Ramada Inn. The applicant proposes the construction of a 120
foot tall wireless telephone tower/ flagpole, and seeks relief to establish a nonconforming use. The
relief required is the applicant requests relief from the allowable uses as outlined in the Highway
Commercial zone, Section 179-23. This flagpole is not going to be illuminated at the top, and it will
be illuminating an American flag at the top that would be maintained in appropriate condition, a 10
by 15 United States flag.
Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. MC NALLY-This flagpole is not going to be illuminated at the top?
MRS. MURRAY-No.
MR. MC NALLY-And that would be a condition of approval.
MRS. MURRAY-That certainly can be a condition of approval, because the lighting would be at the
bottom.
MR. URRICO-It would point up towards the flag?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s right, pointing up, much like you see at municipal areas.
MR. MC NALLY-And it would be illuminating an American flag at the top that would be maintained
in appropriate condition?
MRS. MURRAY-That’s right, and that, too, I think sounds like a reasonable condition.
MR. HAYES-Did you indicate the size of that flag, is it 10 by 15?
MRS. MURRAY-Yes, that is on here. It’s a 10 foot by 15 foot United States flag, definitely United
States.
MR. ABBATE-We have a little provision here that they agree to maintain the American flag in a
proper condition.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes.
MR. HAYES-That’s a reasonable condition.
MR. HAYES-Yes. Those are typically handled at site plan, but you can put it in there, sure.
MR. HAYES-Does everyone understand the motion, with those conditions? Is there a second?
MR. ABBATE-Second.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
MRS. MURRAY-Thank you very much.
MR. MC NALLY-Have a good night.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 14-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED RAY SIGN, INC. FOR STAPLES:
THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE AGENT FOR PROJECT: RAY SIGN, INC. PROPERTY
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
OWNER: THE HOWARD – ILENE FLAUM LOCATION: QUEENSBURY PLAZA
APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF 2 WALL SIGNS AND SEEKS RELIEF
FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING ZONE: PC-1A
OLD TAX MAP NO. 103-1-1.1 AND 1.2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 306.06-1-60 AND 302.06-1-51
LOT SIZES: 12.63 ACRES AND 1.22 ACRES SECTION 140
RUSS HAYES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 14-2001, Ray Sign, Inc. for Staples, Meeting Date: February 28,
2001 “Project Location: Queensbury Plaza Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of two wall signs and seeks relief from the sign ordinance. Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from the Sign Ordinance, § 140-6, B., (3), (d) Business complex, for an
additional wall sign. Businesses within a business complex are allowed one wall sign. The applicant
desires to display two signs. Further, the applicant wishes to display sign panels in the existing free
standing signs at the plaza. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267
of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted additional visual
recognition. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to compliance with
the ordinance. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: A second sign, where only
one is allowed, not only to this applicant, but to all other tenants of this plaza, may be considered as
substantial relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The
difficulty is self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Several sign
permits have been issued to businesses in this plaza. Red Lobster was granted SV 44-1995 for three
wall signs Olive Garden was granted SV 72-1993 for additional wall signs BP97-3079 issued
7/11/97 64 sf freestanding sign BP97-0380 issued 7/11/97 64 sf freestanding sign Staff
comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed “front”
sign, facing Glen Street is depicted at 232.5 sf. This is an allowable sign under the current sign
ordinance. This variance application reflects the applicant’s desire to display a second sign, on the
northerly side of the building. Previous sign variances have been granted in this plaza. The claim
that additional signage should be allowed for exposure to Quaker Road could be argued by the 20
other tenants/storefronts in the plaza. The freestanding sign depicted in BP97-3080 was proposed at
a 25 foot setback from the property line. The applicant’s current plot plan shows the same sign
(along Quaker Road) to be on or over the property line. It appears as though the maintenance of the
sign at the current location will be subject to a further variance. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Project Review and Referral Form February 14, 2001 Project
Name: Ray Sign, Inc. Owner: The Howard Group – Ileen Flaum ID Number: QBY-SV-14-2001
County Project#: Feb01-21 Current Zoning: PC-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: The applicant proposes the installation of 2 walls signs and seeks relief from the sign
ordinance. Site Location: Queensbury Plaza Tax Map Number: 306.06-1-60 Staff Notes: Both
proposed wall signs would be internally illuminated. Under the ordinance, the property would be
permitted two wall signs no larger than 100 square feet each. One sign proposed is 255 square feet,
with ‘STAPLES’ in 6’ glowing white letters, and ‘The Office Superstore’ in 21” letters. Actually, the
entire front section of the store above the main door could be interpreted as a sign. That area is 48’
9.5” x 8.5’. The other sign is listed on the application as 80 square feet, but that is, again, the area of
the letters. The broader area that would visually ‘read’ as a sign is approximately 6’ x 36’. This
proposal seems extremely out of line with either the intent or the letter of the Queensbury sign
ordinance. The applicant argues that these large signs are necessary because the building is 450’ from
the entrance. Staff does not believe this distance to warrant the sign size. Other signs in the plaza
also set back from the road are clearly legible from Route 9. Staff is concerned about the aesthetic
impact to State Route 9 and Quaker Road of such disproportionately large illuminated signs and
recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for
February 28, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: Deny without Prejudice due to lack
of appropriate information to allow for an informed decision.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren
County Planning Board 2/15/01.
MR. HAYES-Do you understand the implication of that denial from the County?
MR. R. HAYES-I do not.
MR. HAYES-What that would mean, for this Board to approve your sign variance, you’d need a
super majority, which would be five approval votes, instead of the usual four.
MR. R. HAYES-Okay. All right. Let me explain what had happened. When I had gotten there.
MR. HAYES-Why don’t you identify yourself.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. R. HAYES-Yes. My name is Russ Hayes, and I’m with Ray Sign Company. We initially applied
for two variances, one for the front sign, and one for the second wall sign, which is to be located on
the side of the building that faces Quaker Road.
MR. HAYES-You hope.
MR. R. HAYES-We hope, and I was informed that we didn’t, in fact, have to go for a variance for
the front sign. That that would be approved under the normal sign permit process, and I tried to
explain myself up there that evening, and because they had just, they didn’t have any information
indicating that, that they could not make any decision on the case at all. What they had in their file
was applications for two variances, and that was it, nothing to the contrary. When I tried to explain
that the one sign would be permitted, they felt that because they didn’t have anything in the folder,
that they couldn’t make a decision. So the decision that you have was based on those circumstances.
MR. HAYES-I’m sure that was the case. I just wanted you to understand that that significantly
impacts your burden here.
MR. R. HAYES-Yes. Okay. Well, I’ll try to do the best that I can. It’s not a, this shouldn’t be that
difficult. Staples, a large retailer, would like to have that sign located on the side of the building.
That would give them visibility to Quaker Road. Like every large retailer and businessperson, they
feel that the more visibility that they can get, the better that their business could be.
MR. HAYES-Of course. The question that would come to mind immediately on my part would be,
it kind of begs the question, why wouldn’t all the other retailers in the Plaza, for those very reasons,
want another sign?
MR. R. HAYES-Well, I would imagine the smaller retailers generally can’t afford second signs of this
type, these individual letters. They’re fairly expensive. I think there would be concerns. This is kind
of its own building now. It’s being designed and set up to accept the second sign, whereas if you
start locating signs on the back of the existing buildings, there may be some electrical concerns, being
that most of that electric is in place now, and that could get very costly, and again, they’re a national
retailer. National retailers like to see their name on as many sides of a building as they can. There’s
no denying that. There are some other businesses in the area that do have these signs that do face
Quaker Road, where they can, and they have access. So those are the reasons. This is not a, it’s
basically to get identification to Quaker Road, and they feel that they could better their business by
doing that.
MR. HAYES-Yes. The benefits are relatively self-evident. I’m not so sure that all the other retailers
in the Plaza wouldn’t overcome their difficulties in the line of signage. Generally that’s a very desired
thing, just as you’re saying.
MR. R. HAYES-Right.
MR. HAYES-Now Mr. Carr isn’t here tonight, but the other questions you have about the pylon sign
out front, that’s been before us before, and that question was raised. So I don’t know where we’re at
with that.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I don’t think, well, you may not want to consider furthering on a sign that we
know is in a non-compliant location.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. BROWN-Or appears to be in a non-compliant location. I think the other one that fronts on
Glen Street appears, at least based on the applicant’s drawing, to be okay. So, the other pylon sign
on Quaker Road is probably better saved for another night.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Because in one of his approvals there were several conditions that we put,
including straightening out the median parking and everything else, and then nothing’s change there
either.
MR. BROWN-That’s due to change in the spring, based on the time frame that they were under in
the fall.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-So we won’t consider the pylon application then tonight.
MR. HAYES-I agree with Craig. I don’t know how we can consider putting additional signage on a
sign that’s illegal at this time.
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think what really is going to become of this is it’s an insert to the sign that’s
already there, and it’s not going to increase the size of the sign. That’s my understanding.
MR. R. HAYES-Right.
MR. BROWN-So the one sign, it’s a permitting process. We’ll give him a permit for the one on
Quaker Road, when they apply for it, or, I’m sorry, we’ll give him one on Glen Street, not on Quaker
Road, and they’ll have to seek a variance to maintain that sign in that location.
MR. HAYES-Yes. That was my impression. That’s not going to increase the impact of that sign. If
somebody’s coming off, as far as, that’s not increasing the number of placards that’s on there, right?
MR. R. HAYES-No, sir, it’s not.
MR. HAYES-Okay, and I don’t think there’s any real impact there, in my mind, but we can talk
about that. Does anybody else have any questions for the applicant?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question. On your site plan, you show the sign on Quaker Road to be
toward the front of the building. It’s actually going to be the center of the building.
MR. R. HAYES-It is actually going to be toward the center.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Now, in that light, I saw that. That’s why I asked the question. Isn’t that
being blocked by the Bank? I mean, is that sign going to be visible from Quaker Road?
MR. URRICO-It’s a narrow alley, if I remember.
MR. R. HAYES-Right.
MR. BRYANT-You have the Bank, and then you have the drive-in tellers. They all block that whole
building.
MR. R. HAYES-You do, depending on where you are on Quaker Road, at the given time, you will
have visibility to the side of the building, and you will see the sign. I have to say, if you’re directly
parallel, perhaps, you may get some blockage from there, but even then, I believe it’s a little higher
than those areas, but if you’re directly in front of it, that sign may get blocked out, but if you’re
traveling, as you approach the Plaza and look to the left, I think there will be an opening. There will
be an opening for visual sight there.
MR. URRICO-I think Allan’s point, it’s kind of minimal, though. I mean, you have to really look
quickly to see it.
MR. R. HAYES-Well, the letters here, what they have here are four foot high letters. It’s a pretty
good visible sign. It’s not like it’s a 12 inch or an 18 or even two feet, and this is a darker side of the
building. So by looking, even if you’re driving down Quaker, heading toward the Northway, if you
look over to the left, you’re going to see these letters illuminating, and it is on that red background.
They’re white letters. So it does give it some visibility, to overcome some of these questions.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? At this time, I’ll open the
public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Anyone to speak
opposed? Is there any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see any correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Let’s discuss it. I believe, Chuck, you’re first on this one.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I have a position, but my position is being altered by the fact that I notice, in
Staff comments, that previous sign variances have been granted in this Plaza. Granted, if we were to
approve this, Staff makes a good point that it could be argued that 20 other tenants could probably
propose the same request. Based on the proposal, I could be pushed into approval, reluctantly.
MR. HAYES-But that is a maybe, Chuck?
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. ABBATE-Maybe.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. R. HAYES-You know, Gentlemen, and Ladies, I really appreciate, I know, and I go to, you
know, a fair amount of the ordinances and variances like this, and precedent is always a key
consideration when you set a precedent, and I think the key difference here is, and I understand
about going to the back of the building, but this is a tenant in and of itself. It’s not connected, like
the others are, kind of like a strip type set up. The sign is on the side of the building. It’s not on the
back of the building, and I don’t know if that weighs in your mind at all, but it is a freestanding
building. It’s a lot larger space that they’re taking. They’re a little further setback then where they are
now, and that’s a good thing. It’s good that stores are expanding. I don’t think their proposal is
intrusive, as when you look in comparison, this size sign, if you look at the length of the building,
perspectively, is not intrusive. A lot of the signs in the Plaza, which smaller store fronts and larger
letters kind of look, I would say, more out of proportion and intrusive than what this will appear to
be. So it’s not going to be this big, monstrous sign on the back of a building, real close to Quaker
Road. It is set back. It’s perspectively in proportion to the building. So it doesn’t appear like the
entrance.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I said maybe. As time goes on, I get crotchety. I could change.
MR. BRYANT-Refresh my memory. Does Olive Garden have two signs?
MR. R. HAYES-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-One on each side, don’t they?
MR. R. HAYES-Yes, they do, sir.
MR. BRYANT-So, in that case, there is somebody in the Plaza already with two signs.
MR. HAYES-I’m not sure what the rationale on that is. That might be because that’s a corner piece,
though, too.
MR. R. HAYES-It’s also a separate building. So, I don’t know if that has any.
MR. HAYES-Craig, the Olive Garden has two signs. Is that because that’s a corner piece?
MR. BROWN-They received a variance.
MR. HAYES-They received a variance. Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-Can you use the logic that while Olive Garden has it, and therefore Staples can
have it? Isn’t that what Strawberries is going to and the bagel place? Because you just bootstrap that
argument.
MR. ABBATE-Well, the other 20 could present the same argument, basically.
MR. BRYANT-Actually, all up and down Quaker Road, the video place, there’s a bunch of places
that have two signs.
MR. R. HAYES-There’s a Hannaford, but I know that’s a corner location.
MR. BRYANT-Personally, the hour is getting late, and I really don’t, I’m not in opposition to the
second sign.
MR. HAYES-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree. The front sign, no problem with that at all. The one
on the side, you know, as you do pass down Quaker Road, you’ll get a flash of what it is, but as he
said, it is a separate building, and it’s a ways off the road, and, you know, I assume most people are
probably going to come in through the front of the Plaza and immediately see the letters there, but, if
you are coming down the other way, it would probably help to have a sign on the side of this. So I’d
be in favor of the approval.
MR. R. HAYES-All right. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Chuck?
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to be opposed. Just because other places have gotten two signs, I don’t
think that’s a reason for us to give everybody two signs, Number One. Assuming that the Plaza
solves its problem with its pylon sign on Quaker Road, there will be opportunity for Staples to be
identified on Quaker Road, without having a big sign. I don’t see a compelling reason why they need
the second sign, and, personally, I would like to see fewer signs down along Quaker Road, instead of
more. So I’m going to be opposed.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m opposed to the application, and I understand the benefit to the applicant that
there’d be additional visual recognition. Every business wants that and needs that, but in this case, I
don’t think that there’s going to be any difficulty in locating Staples, and where we’ve approved
additional signs, at least while I’ve been on the Board, it’s always been for a real good reason, or at
least a reason we think is a real good reason, that there’s some kind of explanation as to why you
need an additional sign, so that people can come and get to your store, and unusual circumstances,
and I don’t see them here. The effects on the neighborhood or community, particularly if all the
other businesses jump on the bandwagon, would be significant, and the problem is self-created. I
think they’ve got great name recognition. It’s a great store. I don’t think anyone’s going to have
difficulty finding this place.
MR. HAYES-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m with Chuck and Bob on this. I read somewhere like something like 40,000
cars passing through that intersection on a daily basis, and I don’t think that Staples is going to have
any trouble being located. Given where it’s situated, that main sign, you can see it from the top,
where McDonald’s is, True Value is. I think that’s going to have a lot of visibility, and people are
going to be able to find it. If they have a sign on the pylon, and they have a big sign in front of the
building, I don’t think they’re going to have any problems being located, plus, I’ve heard that there’s
a pet store going in to where Staples is now currently located. Which means that when they go in,
they’re going to ask for a sign on the back side as well. So I’m against this.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I guess I agree with the last few Board members. I think in this particular
case, they have a very large 230 foot plus red Staples sign in the front of the store, and I think that
that’s enough identification. That’s permitted, and I accept that, but that’s a very large sign, in my
mind. I think in this case we would be setting a dangerous precedent for the rest of that Plaza, to the
point of having a bunch of signs on the back of the Plaza, facing Quaker Road, and I think that
would be, look like something that would not be a benefit to the neighborhood in this particular case.
It would certainly have an impact, as far as I was concerned, in this case, and I think in this case a
second sign, when one very large one is permitted, is a lot of relief. It’s 100% relief, and I think Bob
pointed out very accurately that when we’ve given relief in Sign Variances, it’s usually been for a
good reason, you know, a driving reason, and I cannot see one in this particular case. I think the
other Board members have pointed out that that sign would be obscured by some of the buildings
between Quaker Road and the Staples store, and therefore, I don’t see the compelling reason to grant
relief of this magnitude. I would be opposed to the application as submitted. Having said that, is
there a motion out there?
MR. MC NULTY-It’s an Unlisted type action.
MR. HAYES-Okay. So we need to do a Short Form again.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes, it’s Unlisted.
MR. HAYES-All right. At this time I’m going to go through the Short Form Environmental
Assessment. If you guys could just give me your thoughts and we’ll arrive at a declaration. Okay.
Part A, “Does this action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” I don’t think it
does. “Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR Part
617.6?”
MR. MC NALLY-No.
MR. MC NULTY-No.
MR. HAYES-No. “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. MC NALLY-No.
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. HAYES-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?” I don’t think so. “C3. Vegetation or fauna,
fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats or threatened or endangered species?”
MR. MC NALLY-No.
MR. MC NULTY-No.
MR. HAYES-“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?” I would say not significant. “C5. Growth,
subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” I would
say, no, it’s a sign. “C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified in C1-C5?”
I would say, no. “C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of
energy)?” I would say no, as well, on that. “D. Will the project have an impact on the
environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA?” It’s not in a CEA.
MR. MC NULTY-No.
MR. HAYES-“E. Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?” I don’t believe that there was, or there will be. All right. At this time,
based on those findings, I would like to make a motion.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS
PROJECT, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess we move on to a motion on this application, as we’ve discussed.
MOTION TO DENY SIGN VARIANCE NO. 14-2001 RAY SIGN, INC. FOR STAPLES:
THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Roy Urrico:
Queensbury Plaza. Specifically, the applicant proposes construction of two wall signs and seeks relief
from the Sign Ordinance. The specific relief that is requested is relief from Sign Ordinance Section
140 Part 6B(3)(d), business complex for an additional wall sign. Businesses within a business
complex are allowed one wall sign. The applicant desires to display two signs, as depicted in his
application. The benefit to the applicant would be the additional exposure associated with a sign on
the side of the new Staples building. Feasible alternatives, I believe in this particular case the best
feasible alternative is compliance with the Ordinance, as depicted. Is the relief substantial relative to
the Ordinance? I believe that a second sign, in this particular case, where only one is allowed, and
one is permitted at over 236 square feet, I believe the relief is significant. It’s basically double the
permitted number of signs. So I would say the relief is substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or
community, I believe that the precedent effect of allowing a second wall sign in this plaza, along with
the sign itself, makes for certainly negative impact on the neighborhood and the surrounding
aesthetics of this plaza, and, therefore, I think it’s a negative impact in an overall sense. Is the
difficulty self-created? Certainly. They have a large permitted sign, and they want an additional one,
and I think, in that sense, it’s self-created. On balance, upon examining these five criteria, I believe
that it falls against the applicant in this particular circumstance, and I move for its denial.
Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. HAYES-I’m going to leave alone the pylon issue at this particular point. So we’re specifically
dealing only with the additional wall sign as per that Section.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-It’s denied. Sorry.
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. R. HAYES-Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. I respect both the pros and cons, and maybe I’ll see
you again.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 15-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED WARREN TIRE SERVICE
CENTER, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: JACK POLADIAN LOCATION: 599
AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON THE SITE
AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING ZONE: PC-1A OLD TAX MAP NO. 98-4-2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.06-1-
44 LOT SIZE: 1.67 ACRES SECTION 140
JOHN PAYNE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 15-2001, Warren Tire Service Center, Inc., Meeting Date:
February 28, 2001 “Project Location: 599 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes additional signage and seeks relief from the sign ordinance. Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from the Sign Ordinance; § 140-6,B. The applicant currently has a
freestanding sign and two wall signs and, by this application, requests an additional; (3) wall sign on
rd
the property. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would gain visual recognition. 2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives may including “trading” one of the existing wall signs to this building rather than
adding a sign. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: A third wall sign, where
one is allowed, may be interpreted as substantial relief. (200%) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: 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 88-1145 issued 12/21/88 wall sign BP 88-1146
issued 12/28/88 wall sign BP 89-1157 issued 1/30/89 free standing sign BP 99-3443 issued
3/20/00 enlarge free standing sign Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a
result of this action. Additional signage may cause confusion, as this site has no access from the
direction in which the sign is oriented. If it is the applicant’s intent to utilize the site in such a
manner, further review may be necessary. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form February 14,
2001 Project Name: Warren Tire Service Center, Inc. Owner: Jack Poladian Project Number:
QBY-SV-15-2001 County Project #: Feb01-23 Current Zoning: PC-1A Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicant proposes additional signage on the site and seeks relief from the sign
ordinance. Site Location: 599 Aviation Road. Exit 19 of the Northway, East from the exit ½ mile
on the left side of Aviation Road. Tax Map Number: 302.06-1-44 Staff Notes: The applicant
proposes one additional wall sign reading Warren Tire in 1 ½’ tall letters on the rear of a back
building facing a dead end street. The lettering would not be illuminated and there are no other signs
on this building. Staff does not identify any impact to County or State resources. Local actions to
date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for February 28, 2001 County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board
2/15/01.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Payne, it’s your show.
MR. PAYNE-This is an easy one. It doesn’t make any noise. It’s not too close to a neighbor, and I
don’t even need a glass of water. I’m pretty low maintenance. This is a building that was previously
sublet to a contractor in the past, by Warren Tire. It was boarded up for the most part. They only
had one entrance into the building. We had utilized it as a partial warehouse and, quite frankly, it was
an ugly block building, and we’re trying to, we’ve taken it back from the tenant and we have utilized
it as two diagnostic bays. It’s a separate part of our business. We’re more commonly known as tires
and light duty repair, when we’re more aggressively getting into diagnostics. The cars require that
type of field and specialty. The building itself would be, in my mind, more clearly identified, rather
than more of a confusing identification, with the simple Warren Tire signage on the back of it. It
would also give us Route 9 exposure, and quite frankly make it look and appear as a retail location,
rather than a block warehouse that’s boarded up. So the intent is to give us some additional
identification from that aspect.
MR. BROWN-I’m sorry. Could you just identify yourself for the record?
MR. PAYNE-John Payne.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. PAYNE-I’m sorry.
MR. HAYES-Is that it, John?
MR. PAYNE-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. ABBATE-I’ll make it brief, and if you want water, you’re certainly welcome to it. You currently
have a freestanding sign plus two others for a total of three, is that correct?
MR. PAYNE-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. PAYNE-I just want to clarify that. That’s on the primary building on that property. This
particular building is not identified in any manner.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-Wouldn’t the additional sign make it a little confusing from Route 9? Because there’s
really no way into your complex, unless you go through Aviation Road.
MR. PAYNE-Exactly. There isn’t any way into it. I guess more of the method to our madness is to
identify it more as service bays, rather than a boarded up warehouse.
MR. BRYANT-Why don’t you just move one of the existing wall signs over onto that building?
MR. PAYNE-Well, again, as the previous gentlemen said, every retailer is looking for additional
signage for identification purposes, and to take the signage or identification off of one building and
put it on another I think is probably just a waste of our time and expense.
MR. URRICO-Have you thought of putting up one big sign? You’re in a very odd location, because
you don’t get exposure.
MR. PAYNE-Yes. It’s set back quite a ways from, it’s a difficult location from both Aviation Road,
as well as Route 9, there’s no access. So it’s, the setback is pretty substantial, and being there for I
think 11 years now, we still have people asking where we’re located.
MR. URRICO-Because coming from the west you can’t see your building at all, until you’re right on
top of it.
MR. PAYNE-Exactly.
MR. URRICO-Coming from the east is just, there’s like I think one spot there, as you’re making the
turn from Route 9 onto Aviation Road, that you can spot it, and then you can see something from
Route 9, if you had the sign there.
MR. PAYNE-Right. Exactly.
MR. HAYES-How big is the proposed sign?
MR. PAYNE-Fifteen square feet. It’s not a lot.
MR. HAYES-Fifteen. So that’s basically five by three, or whatever.
MR. PAYNE-It’s basically.
MR. BROWN-A foot and a half by ten.
MR. PAYNE-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant at this time? If
not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application? Anyone
opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Therefore I’ll close the public hearing, and we’ll discuss it. I believe it’s Allan’s turn to
go first.
MR. BRYANT-A sign on that building would probably make the building look a little bit better, but
I think it’s one sign too many, and I would be opposed to the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would have to agree. Adding a third sign would be too many signs. I
would say you could take one of the signs off the other building and move it over there, you know, if
you took one down and you put one on that, I’d be agreeable to that.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m afraid I’ve got to agree, too. Although I can understand not wanting to
remove a sign from the existing building, because I think probably the two that you’ve got on that
building do serve a purpose, both of them, but I think another sign, especially facing the other way,
where there isn’t good access, is just one too many. So I’m going to be opposed.
MR. HAYES-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree with my other Board members, for the reasons they’ve stated.
MR. HAYES-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I understand his predicament, but I have to go along with my other Board
members on this one.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-The compelling arguments by my fellow Board members lead me to say I cannot
support this application.
MR. HAYES-I think it’s pretty well stated there, basically the fact that you’re looking for 200%
variance is just a little steep. It doesn’t seem to me like a very big sign, and it wouldn’t be hard to
stretch, but you’ve got some pretty good signage there now. So I think the weight of the test is
probably going against you. So, would you like to table the motion or withdraw it?
MR. PAYNE-I’ll withdraw it.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Sorry you had to wait so long.
MR. PAYNE-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2001 TYPE II HUNT LAKE LAND HOLDING CO., INC.
PROPERTY OWNER: HUNT LAKE HOLDING CO., INC. PROPERTY OWNER:
HUNT LAKE HOLDING CO., INC. AGENT FOR PROJECT: JAMES E. HUTCHINS,
P.E. LOCATION: BUCKBEE ROAD, 250 FT. FROM GURNEY LANE APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 4 LOT SUBDIVISION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE
REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT AN INDIVIDUAL ACCESS DRIVE TO ONE OF
THE LOTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ZONE: RR-5A OLD TAX MAP NO. 32-1-
32.41 NEW TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-86.1 LOT SIZE: 27.5 ACRES SECTION: 179-70
JIM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2001, Hunt Lake Land Holding Co., Inc., Meeting Date:
February 28, 2001 “Project Location: Buckbee Road, 250 ft. from Gurney Lane, Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a four lot residential subdivision Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from minimum road frontage requirements as outlined in § 179-70,
Frontage on public streets. Paragraph A requires all lots to have 40 feet of frontage on a public street
and such frontage shall provide the actual physical access to and from the lot. This application
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
proposes to meet the minimum frontage requirement, however, the access to one lot is to be gained
over another proposed lot. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267
of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to develop the
properties as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include constructing
individual drives. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The relief requested to
share a drive is an unusual request and appears to be a request for total relief from the requirement.
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.): None applicable Subdivision application not filed yet Staff comments: Minimal to
moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The consolidation of driveways on
arterial or collector roads is a requirement of the zoning ordinance; § 179-30, C. Buckbee Road does
not experience the intense traffic that would require the combination drives, however, no adverse
effects have been identified with the proposal. Limiting access points is good planning practice
especially if a stream crossing can be avoided. (It has come to the attention of this department that
other lands may be involved in the subdivision application. The lands depicted in this application are
only a portion of the “parent” property. Staff suggests reservation of decision until a clarification of
all lands involved is completed.) SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. BROWN-Just to follow up on that, today I had a meeting with the attorney for Hunt Lake and
we’ve kind of ironed out the subdivision is more than likely going to play out. There’ve been some
unapproved, if you will, conveyances from the parent parcel, of which this four lot subdivision is
going to be the result of, potentially. It’s the lands, for your information, on your map, it’s the lands
across the road, and the parcel just to the east, that borders the stream, were originally part of the
parent parcel. They were conveyed with the intention of boundary line adjustments, but new parcels
were created. New tax map numbers were assigned, new building lots were created. So we need to
have that ironed out, either as consolidations with those adjoining parcels, or make it a six lot
subdivision when it comes time for subdivision review. I think you can go ahead and look at the
variance request in front of you, if you’re comfortable doing that.
MR. HAYES-Okay. So Staff is comfortable with us going ahead with, as?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay. You’re on.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. My name is Jim Hutchins, and I agreed to do some engineering for the
owner of this property, and when the filed the original subdivision application, we were made aware
that, because we were proposing the access of Lot 4 across Lot 3, that we needed to come before you
for relief, and that’s why I’m here.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Now, this just to clarify the issues. The reason that you’re requesting that is not
to interrupt the stream in question?
MR. HUTCHINS-That’s it basically. We feel that if we had to or desired to we could access Lot 4
from Buckbee Road. We simply have made a choice to avoid installation of a culvert, and if you look
at the map, the Lot 3, the stream crosses all of the frontage, I believe, of Lot 4, and maybe just a little
portion of Lot 3, and by making a relatively short common driveway on Lot 3, and then branching
off, we avoid placing the culvert, I think we’ve also included some minimal setbacks from the stream
to hopefully preclude damage by the road construction, or any potential damage of the road
construction on the stream.
MR. MC NALLY-How are those driveways to be maintained? Are they going to be owned by one
person, paved for the other, deed restrictions?
MR. HUTCHINS-Honestly, it would be our intention to, in the deed, and I discussed that with the
attorney today, would be to have, obviously, the Lot 3 would have a clause that gives Lot 4 an
easement to move vehicle and people across that. Likewise, Lot 4 would have a similar statement of
the easement. We would propose to have the actual easement surveyed, and, you know, a survey
description included. We did not feel it necessary to come up with a maintenance agreement as part
of the deeds. We felt it was a relatively short section, and the homeowners would have to maintain it
between them.
MR. HAYES-So the only real provision of this is actual physical access to the lot? Because they
clearly have a large overall road frontage.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
61
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. HAYES-Does anybody else have any questions for the applicant at this time? That’s a year
round stream, then, I’m presuming?
MR. HUTCHINS-My information from the USGS Quad Sheet kind of indicated it was intermittent,
based on the markings of the Quad Sheet. I can’t tell you, from personal experience. I’ve never seen
it dry, but the Quad Sheet, I believe, did indicate it was intermittent.
MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. Well, if there’s no further questions of the applicant at this time, I’ll
open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone
here to speak opposed to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NELSON MILLER
MR. MILLER-My name is Nelson Miller. I live at 175 Gurney Lane, which is the property across
from the parcel in question. If I may, I would like to see a map of the proposed subdivision.
MR. HAYES-You said you live to the north of the proposed subdivision?
MR. MILLER-That’s right, across Buckbee Road.
MR. HAYES-By that parcel number, can you identify it by the numbers that are there, is it 37 or 38?
MR. BROWN-32.42, I would guess.
MR. HAYES-There’s 24 acres, and 20.5 acres.
MR. MILLER-My property, my wife and my property is Parcel 37 and 32.42, both of those parcels.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. MILLER-I would submit the following comments to the Board. One, that the lot size
requirements and the frontage requirements in this area of the Town of Queensbury were intended
to be additive in their effect in reducing density, in that that is a desirable effect in this region of
Queensbury, and adds to the overall quality of life in the Town in that region, and it’s not an accident
or a coincidence that there are both lot size limitations and frontage requirements, and that the
effects are additive and they’re intended to be so. Two, the Board should be aware that I purchased
from the Hunt Land Holding Company, Lot No. 32.42, for the purpose of maintaining the seclusion,
which I moved to the original property to achieve, and, therefore, a substantial increase in the density
of dwellings in this vicinity, immediately across the road from me, will have a negative impact on my
quality of life. Third, I would submit that there is minimal hardship to the Hunt Land Holding
Company by restricting their ability to do this, for a number of reasons. One, the lot in question has
been extensively logged since it was purchased, less than two years ago, and it’s likely, in my opinion,
that they have already recouped their purchase price by the sale of timber from the lot in question.
Secondly, as a matter of public record, I paid more for the parcel across Buckbee Road, which was
part of the original parcel purchased by the Hunt Land Holding Company from the Town, for more
than the purchase price of the entire 43 acre parcel. So, I would submit, on the basis of those two
considerations, that there is no hardship, and I would finally submit that this is the most dense area
in that region, that Gurney Lane, which is the bordering road, has been designated a heritage road in
the Town of Queensbury, and there are even greater frontage requirements on Gurney Lane, and
that this will constitute a change in the character of the neighborhood.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I think some of the issues, Mr. Miller, that you brought up, too, can be
brought up to the Planning Board, because they’re really more, have greater opportunity to examine
those particular aspects of the subdivision.
ROWLAND NORTMAN
MR. NORTMAN-My name is Roland Nortman. I live at 86 Buckbee Road, which is adjacent to the
Miller’s property, which is across the road from the proposed subdivision. I am a little bit confused.
Are we approving a variance so he can do the subdivision, or are we approving the subdivision and
the variance?
MR. HAYES-No. We don’t have the authority to approve a subdivision, and the fact that we, if we
approve this variance or don’t approve this variance, the criteria for an appropriate subdivision or an
acceptable subdivision to the Town is examined by the Planning Board, and they get into the very
issues that Mr. Miller has brought up about density and change of character of the neighborhood, all
those type of things are identified in their rubric, if you will. Tonight the only thing that is being
62
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
discussed or on the table is whether we’re requiring them to have a driveway on Lot 4, or whether
they can have a driveway on Lot 3 for both. That’s the only issue.
MR. NORTMAN-All right. I am vehemently against putting a driveway there. I’m sorry I didn’t get
them to you before, but I have some pictures that I took of the area. I can show you where there
was a road put in above our property, without the benefit of the approval of the Town, and they got
the approval afterwards. What it does is there is a terrific runoff from that road.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. NORTMAN-What he is proposing for these driveways is gravel driveways, which will cause a
substantial runoff. He is proposing, along the road, to put culverts that he says he doesn’t want to
do, to cross into the property, to go from the road ditch into the property. Would you like to see
these pictures?
MR. HAYES-Yes, please. Bring them forward.
MR. NORTMAN-I wrote a little quick information on the bottom. I’m sorry I didn’t get them to
you before because I didn’t.
MR. HAYES-That’s all right. We can examine them tonight, and consider them.
MR. NORTMAN-There is a letter on file, all right. The stream, to begin with, is not an intermittent
stream. My wife is, the house we live in has been in my wife’s family for a short length of time, since
1840. The road was originally nothing but two wagon tracks, or two wagon treads up the mountain.
In 1968, it was turned over to the Town as a road by use. The Town went in, three years ago, and
“paved” it. I won’t say the personalities, but we know who was there three years ago. The road is
basically a very heavily traveled road, and putting these driveways in is going to cause an impact. As
you can see by those photos, this property is at a curved road. This flatland does not really focus or
show exactly as that property is. If you’ve looked out on the part towards Gurney Lane, it just shows
on your map here, it just shows a couple of big drop offs. That is all the way along that road where
the stream flows. It will cause an awful impact on the neighborhood, and as one of the owners
closest to that, I am opposed to you granting this variance, because I think if you grant the variance,
what you do is you say to the Planning Department, well, it’s okay. We can just put that, we can just
put a, zoning granted a variance, so they must not have any objections to what we’re going to do.
MR. HAYES-I guess my question to you, sir, is, if they’re trying to get this variance to have one less
driveway, and not disturb the stream, I mean, they have four lots there, would you prefer they had a
fourth driveway? I mean, I’m just trying to get your idea clear in my head.
MR. NORTMAN-My first thing is, to get what I want, is I am strongly opposed to the subdivision.
MR. HAYES-Right. You understand that’s not what we consider, though.
MR. NORTMAN-It will not matter whether there is one or four. The first place, when they’re
saying that they could go, put a culvert across the stream, what you’re looking at it anywhere from a
five foot drop to some places a twenty foot drop, depending on where they put that in to that other
lot. It is, if you grant the variance, what you’re doing, by granting a variance, you’re granting a
variance to somebody who has not taken and, one of the lots in the subdivision has already been
sold. The real estate agent I talked to, he’s already subdivided. So now you’re granting a variance to
a subdivision that’s.
MR. HAYES-I can assure you, though, that that’s not a legal sale until the subdivision is approved,
by the Planning Board, or by the Town Board even. So
MR. NORTMAN-Well, the person that bought it thought it was, but anyway, the granting of the
variance will cause a hardship on me and my property. It will also lessen the value of my property.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. NORTMAN-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thanks for coming in. Is there any further questions for? I guess, is there any
correspondence? Is that the end of the opposing? Okay. I thought so.
MR. MC NULTY-A record of a telephone conversation, and also a letter, both regarding Mr.
Nortman.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
63
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. MC NULTY-A record of the telephone conversation, from Sue Hemingway, on February 27, at
2:55 p.m. stated that he was opposed to the project for the following reasons. “1. Applicant has
already logged the property. 2. Map of property does not appear to be a true picture of parcel
boundaries 3. Noise pollution 4. Visual pollution 5. Is able to hear Great Escape noise since
clearing of trees 6. Groundwater – sewer pollution 7. Increase traffic by road by use 8. Runoff of
surface water Mr. Nortman stated he would try to attend the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on
February 28, 2001 to speak on his concerns.” And then we have a letter dated February 27,
th
addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals, from Roland E. Nortman “As owner of property
adjacent to the applicant, I am quite concerned about this subdivision. The map appears to me to be
not a true picture of the property. There are other reasons I am concerned about. Noise Pollution
Visual Pollution Pollution of groundwater by the sewer system Effect on the groundwater and the
water table effecting other existing wells Increased traffic on a road by use runoff of surface water
Therefore, I wish to speak in opposition to this subdivision as I feel it will dramatically affect the
value of my property and Queensbury “The Home of Natural Beauty”. Sincerely, Roland E.
Nortman”
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-Craig, is it unusual to get this type of variance before the subdivision has been
approved, or disapproved?
MR. BROWN-Not really. I mean.
MR. HAYES-We’ve had them before.
MR. BROWN-We’ve had them before, yes. Is that the end of the public hearing?
MR. HAYES-Yes. The public hearing is closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Are there any further questions that anybody has for the applicant?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I have a question of the applicant. Was cost a consideration for not building
that extra road?
MR. HUTCHINS-No. I didn’t discuss it a great deal with the owner, but I don’t believe that cost is
a legitimate concern because of this. I think it would be, from the developer’s standpoint, if he used
completely separate driveways, he wouldn’t have to put the number four driveway in anyway, and the
other thing is, I think we’re talking essentially the cost of a culvert, and I think that this cost of this
application process and legal fees and my time probably outweigh that, the cost of the one culvert.
MR. BRYANT-So why do it?
MR. HUTCHINS-I think we just wanted to avoid the stream crossing.
MR. ABBATE-Say that again? He wanted what? Why do it?
MR. HUTCHINS-Why do the stream crossing or why avoid the stream crossing?
MR. ABBATE-Either way. I’d like to hear both sides.
MR. HUTCHINS-We avoid it just because we don’t have to put a culvert in and disturb the stream.
MR. URRICO-Is there a plan for the other lots and how they would be accessed?
MR. HUTCHINS-The other three lots? Yes. It’s, the big sheet, I think, shows the rough driveway
location.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions of the applicant’s agent at this time? If not, we’ll talk
about it. I believe it’s big Jim’s turn to start first.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If we’re only addressing the double driveway, the shared drive, then I don’t
really have a problem with that. I think it’s going to be referred to the Planning Board, as far as the
subdivision goes, and it’ll be up to them to really decide that factor.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Chuck?
64
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. MC NULTY-I feel about the same way. It strikes me that if we can avoid one disturbance of
the stream, that’s a plus. It strikes me that the proposal looks attractive and reasonable. I’ll be in
favor.
MR. HAYES-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-This area of the Town is very lovely, and it’s nicely wooded and quiet, but I think
the applicant has the right to subdivide his property, and the only issue in front of us is whether or
not we want him to put four driveways in or three driveways. He’s got enough road frontage. All he
requires is 40 foot. He’s got 40 foot on four lots. So he could go right across if he wanted to, and I
agree with the other Board members that putting in three is probably a less intrusive way of
developing the four parcels, than putting in four separate ones, particularly where there’s a stream
involved. Some of the concerns that the neighbor’s have, regarding runoff, regarding the
community, the impact on the community, might be better addressed at site plan review or at
subdivision approval, that kind of thing, but we’re just addressing the driveway issue, and from this
application, it’s a better application with three than four. I’m in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I guess I still have some questions in my mind, because I don’t have a total picture of
the neighborhood. Right now, the neighborhood as it exists has some neighbors here and just some
lots, and I’m not so sure that having this driveway set up the way it is is going to be the best solution,
down the road, and I would be opposed to it.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Intrusiveness. Sometimes it’s easy for members of any Board to make decisions
when it doesn’t affect their own property. We’ve heard, this evening, that there were two
individuals, who are property owners, and who feel very strongly that there will be an adverse impact
on their, I think they used the words standard of living or quality of life, or something to that effect.
Granted, our committee members did indicate that you have a right to subdivide as you wish, and
some of these questions rightfully belong to the Planning Board. However, in the interest of
fairness, and how would I react if I were a land owner being effected by this, and based upon that,
I’m afraid I would simply not go along with approving the application.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Actually, I have a lot of questions in my mind. Normally, we grant a variance
because there’s a need for the variance. You just stated that it’s really not a big deal, whether he went
across the stream or he didn’t go across the stream. You’re not going to damage the stream. It’s
really not going to make any difference. I mean, I don’t understand this whole process.
MR. HUTCHINS-We just assumed, if we can avoid a stream crossing, it’s a better way to do it.
MR. BRYANT-Why? There’s no cost involved. You’re saying that there’s no difference in cost.
There’s no, so what’s the purpose of it? What is the purpose of being here, and I think on that basis,
I would have to say that I would be opposed to it because there is no benefit to anybody to approve
it.
MR. HUTCHINS-I think we would maintain that there is a benefit to avoiding the stream crossing.
MR. BRYANT-What’s the benefit? There’s no difference.
MR. HUTCHINS-You don’t have to disturb it.
MR. MC NALLY-Craig, Staff notes says limiting access points is a good planning practice, especially
if a stream crossing can be avoided. I kind of took you at your word there. Is there a rationale basis
for that?
MR. BROWN-Limiting access points? Sure. I mean, there’s always.
MR. MC NALLY-Can you explain that, maybe?
MR. BROWN-Sure. If you look at the Zoning Ordinance where it requires consolidation of
driveways on certain collector roads, or double the lot width on certain collector roads to separate
driveways, it’s a safety concern more than anything. Access management. You want to try and limit
as many turning conflicts as you can. You limit the number of access points, you decrease those
potential conflicts. This road isn’t really one that’s a high traffic road. So consolidating of drives
65
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
isn’t required. It’s always better to have less access points, and I guess that’s where I was going with
that.
MR. MC NALLY-When a stream is there, does that have any real impact? Does anyone care if we
go over a stream?
MR. MC NULTY-It’s important from an environmental point of view. Because as soon as you
disturb a stream, you’re disturbing wildlife in the stream. It may be minor, depending on the stream,
but the less you can disturb a stream, the better it is for the environment and nature.
MR. ABBATE-There’s always a domino effect with that, too, that we may not see.
MR. MC NULTY-Right.
MR. BROWN-Well, there are ways to effectively cross a stream where the impacts are very minimal.
MR. BRYANT-See, my point and my basic thought process is that, you know, the applicant says the
cost is not a factor. We’re not going to damage the stream if we go across it. So there’s no reasoning
to this whole process. So, he shouldn’t even have an application. There’s nobody benefiting from it.
MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t think that I indicated there was absolutely no damage to a stream crossing.
If I did, I was mistaken. There’s, if you put a culvert in a stream, there’s going to be, whether it’s
measurable or not, for a period of time, there’s going to be some sort of damage to that stream.
MR. BRYANT-If you were saving a 200 year old Oak or something, or some species in the stream,
that would be something else, but we’re talking about the choice to go through Lot Three or go
through Lot Four, and I think it defeats the purpose of the whole Board. Our purpose is to grant
variances based on need, okay, and not because it looks nice or for whatever other reason you
decided to have this variance.
MR. HAYES-So you’re opposed, then?
MR. BRYANT-I’m opposed.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Sir, did you have a comment you wanted to make?
MR. NORTMAN-Yes. The comment I have to make, I keep hearing them say that that is not a very
well traveled road. At the end of the road is Butler Pond Reservoir, and Butler Pond Road comes,
dead ends at Buckbee Road. That road, there are probably an hour, every hour, 15, 20 cars go up
and down that road.
MR. HAYES-You understand, sir, the more traffic there is, the more reason for reducing?
MR. NORTMAN-The more danger there is by putting driveways down in there.
MR. HAYES-Right, theoretically, though, I think you’re speaking against, I think, your interest in this
case, because they would put four driveways in. If we defeat this variance, the effect is there’ll be
four driveways instead of three, which increases the number of access points, which, theoretically,
makes it more dangerous.
MR. NORTMAN-In all fairness to you, I would disagree with you because if you disapprove this,
then he has to find another way to go to Planning and access.
MR. HAYES-No. If we disapprove this, all he has to do is simply add the driveway to the fourth lot,
go across the stream, and he doesn’t even need to be here. He doesn’t need to be here to do the
subdivision, as it is right now. This is a step that he’s taking for his own reasons, which is being
debated, and that certainly is an important point, but the reality is, as far as the subdivision, which is
the concerns of the neighbors, and valid ones indeed, he, what he’s here for has nothing to do with
that subdivision, because he has, if he didn’t have like 40 feet of access, another criteria here that
would trigger our necessity of a variance to have an approvable lot, that would be a different matter,
but he’s got approvable lots with approvable road frontage, which means, by right, he can put
driveways on all four, and he would not need to be here.
MR. MC NALLY-He doesn’t need our permission to put in four driveways. He can just do it.
MR. HAYES-Right. He could by-pass this step all together, if he chose to. If we deny it, that’s
what’s going to happen.
MR. NORTMAN-If you deny it, he has to go to planning.
66
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
MR. HAYES-No, he has to go to planning anyway.
MR. NORTMAN-And get approval.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-He has to go to planning anyway.
MR. HAYES-Three driveways or four, he’s going to the Planning Board.
MR. NORTMAN-But what I’m saying is, my feeling is that you are opening a door for someone that
if you vote against it, you’ve taken and said, we don’t like it. We don’t like what’s proposed.
MR. HAYES-I guess what I’m saying, sir, is that’s not the case, because the door. He’s got the four
lots that meet the density requirements, and he can put four driveways in. There’s no door for us to
shut, as far as the site plan review here. There’s no door that we can possibly shut, under our
considerations in this particular case. He’s got four lots. He can have four driveways. This is, he’s
asking for a variance to have three driveways. So we’re not sanctioning, this is not enabling him, in
one percent, to get Planning Board approval that he didn’t already have.
MR. MC NALLY-One of the factors you look at is the effect on the neighborhood or community.
From the perspective of, do you put in three driveways or four, and that’s one factor that I think is
important, because it may be a small benefit, but three driveways are better than four, and not going
over a stream generally, I would think, is a good thing. So that’s the benefit, I think, that maybe he’s
coming to us and asking us to voluntarily do, which he doesn’t have to.
MR. HAYES-You have to save your fire for the Board after us, because that’s where you’re, where
all the things that you say, which are very important. You’re not taking up our time. I’m just
clarifying the issue for you that it really doesn’t, our sanctioning this or not sanctioning it is not
effecting the planning stage on this particular piece. I guess that everybody else has spoken. I think,
in this case, again, I am agreeing with Chuck and Bob here, in that it’s certainly a narrow benefit to
the applicant, but it’s his property. There is a slight benefit, albeit, to the Town to, and the
environment and the neighborhood to maybe not disturbing this stream if not necessary. So I don’t
think the relief is substantial to the Ordinance, particularly when I consider the fact that there’s no
ulterior motive here. This could be just put in across the fourth lot. You’re not getting an extra lot
because we’re giving you this variance. The lots are there. You could have four driveways without
coming here. So I have to believe that in earnest you’re here because you think it’s a better plan. I
mean, that’s the only thing that makes any sense, in this particular case. On the effects of
neighborhood or community, the neighbor’s concerns are noted and they’re Planning Board issues.
As far as we’re concerned, does having three driveways versus four have a negative impact on the
neighborhood, I don’t think that it does. In my mind, you could make the argument for a slight
positive benefit to the neighborhood or community, however small, and I’ll agree with Allan that
certainly, we’re talking about some very narrow benefits here or narrow implications. Is the difficulty
self-created? It certainly is because you could just have a normal driveway on the fourth lot, but, on
balance, I don’t see why, if the applicant desires this, why it isn’t approvable, in my opinion. I think
it’s a very slight test here, but I think it falls in favor of the applicant, and I would be okay with this.
Having said that, is there a motion out there?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2001 HUNT LAKE LAND
HOLDING CO., INC., Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Robert McNally:
Buckbee Road. The applicant’s proposing a four lot residential subdivision, and requests relief from
minimum road frontage requirements as outlined in Section 179-70, frontage on public streets.
Paragraph A requires all lots to have 40 feet frontage on a public street and such frontage shall
provide the actually physical access to and from the lot. The applicant, in this case, proposes to meet
the minimum frontage requirement. However, the applicant is requesting access to one lot to be
gained over another proposed lot. The benefit to the applicant is that the applicant will be permitted
to develop the properties as he desires. Feasible alternatives may include constructing individual
driveways to each of the four lots. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The relief
requested to share a drive is an unusual request, and could be interpreted to be a request for total
relief from their requirement of individual access, but it’s no request for relief for the actual road
frontage. The road frontage is adequate. Effects on the neighborhood or community will be
minimal, and probably positive rather than negative, in that, in general, I think we’ve all agreed that
three driveways is probably better than four, especially since allowing three rather than four avoids
one stream crossing. Is the difficulty self-created? Yes, the difficulty is self-created, in that there is
the option of four driveways, but as indicated, I think in balance, the benefit to the applicant and
67
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 2/28/01)
benefit to the environment and the neighborhood is probably positive with three driveways rather
than four. For those reasons, I move approval of Area Variance 16-2001.
Duly adopted this 28 day of February, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico
ABSENT: Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. We just got the minutes from February 21. So I won’t do those at this
time, to give everybody time to review them, and I apologize to the people that had to stay so late
tonight. We have a process we follow here, and we have to stay with it. So, I make a motion that we
adjourn tonight’s meeting.
MR. MC NALLY-Second.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman (Vice Chairman)
68