2002-08-28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 28, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ALLAN BRYANT
CHARLES ABBATE
PAUL HAYES
ROY URRICO
NORMAN HIMES
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. STONE-I will advise you that, while it will not be in effect until next month, the Board has decided that,
in the course of the public hearing, the public will be limited to five minutes or so for any presentation they
wish to make. So, while we are not adhering to that rule tonight, I do ask that you be as brief and concise as
possible. You will have an opportunity to speak a second time if necessary. On the agenda tonight we have
two scratches, well, one we’re going to have to consider very briefly, under New Business. It’s an Appeal.
NEW BUSINESS:
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2002 HILLARY C. AND GILBERT J. POTTER APPELLANT IS
APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS DECISION REGARDING
CONSTRUCTION OF A FIFTH UNIT APARTMENT IN THE BASEMENT OF AN
EXISTING 4-UNIT APARTMENT DWELLING. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 55-2002
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT LOCATION: 20 PATTON DRIVE ZONE: SFR-20 TAX MAP
NO. 302.08-2-36 LOT SIZE: 1.39 ACRES SECTION: ARTICLE 13 A-F, 179-13-010
MR. STONE-Mrs. Potter informed us before the meeting that she was unable to make it this evening,
babysitting problems that some of you may be familiar with. So she has asked us to table it, and I think the
easiest thing to do is I will just, at the request of the applicant.
MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2002 HILLARY C. AND GILBERT J.
POTTER, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
20 Patton Drive. Tabled at the request of the applicant, until the first meeting in September.
Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2002 TYPE II DORIS FARRAR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE
AGENT: VANDUSEN AND STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 1070 RIDGE ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY WITH A PRE-
EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT
WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 290.06-1-70 LOT SIZE: 4 ACRES SECTION 179-19-020 C
MR. STONE-Next on the agenda was to be Area Variance No. 66-2002, the applicant Doris Farrar, location
1070 Ridge Road. Because of a, can I use miscommunication with the County or an error at the County?
MR. FRANK-The County claims they never received the application for review.
MR. STONE-Okay. So, therefore, since the County has not acted, and the County has to act before we can,
this Area Variance will be deferred until the next meeting. We will not be discussing anything about it
tonight.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2002 TYPE II HOWARD & JENNIFER NADLER PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: WR-3A, CEA LOCATION: 15
ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 728 SQ. FT. DETACHED
GARAGE AT 22.5 FT. IN HEIGHT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE HEIGHT
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
RESTRICTIONS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 101-2000, AV 63-2001, SP 77-00, BP 2001-583, BP
2001-581 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO.
239.17-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; HOWARD NADLER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-2002, Howard & Jennifer Nadler, Meeting Date: August 28, 2002
“Project Location: 15 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction
of a 728 sq. ft. detached garage at 22.42 feet in height. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6.42 feet of
relief from the 16-foot maximum height requirement for detached garages as per the Schedule of Area and
Bulk Requirements for the WR-3A Zone, § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to
construct the desired structure at the proposed height in a compliant location. 2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives may include constructing a new garage within the allowable 16-foot maximum height
requirement. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6.42 feet of relief from the 16-foot
maximum height requirement may be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance (40.1%). 4. Effects on
the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects may be anticipated as a result of this
action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, as there are
other feasible alternatives such as constructing a new garage within the 16-foot maximum height allowed.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 63-2001: 09/26/01; demolish existing
structure and construct a 2662 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and a 784 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief for side
setback, FAR, and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. BP 2001-583: 08/01/01;
demolition of residence. BP 2001-581: 07/30/01; single-family dwelling and two-car detached garage (never
issued). AV 79-2000: (withdrawn 10/18/00); single-family dwelling addition. AV 101-2000: 01/17/01;
1,178 sq. ft. first-floor addition and 624 sq. ft. garage. SP 77-2000: 03/20/01; 1,178 sq. ft. first-floor addition
and 624 sq. ft. garage. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this
action. The applicant could construct a garage within the 16-foot maximum allowed; however, the proposed
garage would not be out of character with the neighborhood. The applicant’s neighbor to the immediate
north has a 22-foot high garage at the road, and the neighbor two parcels north of the applicant had 6.9 feet
of height relief granted for a garage on 04/24/02. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 14, 2002
Project Name: Nadler, Howard and Jennifer Owner: Howard & Jennifer Nadler ID Number: QBY-02-
AV-68 County Project#: Aug02-35 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 728 sq. ft. detached garage at 22.5 ft. in height. Relief
requested from the height restrictions. Site Location: 15 Antigua Road Tax Map Number(s): 239.17-1-5
Staff Notes: The applicant requests a variance for the construction of a 728 sq. ft. garage that does not meet
the height requirement. The application for the garage was previously reviewed by the County Planning
Board as part of house expansion under a different applicant. The Board did not identify an impact on
County resources. The proposed garage remains the same size but the applicant would like to increase the
height from 16 ft. to 22.5 ft. where 16 ft. is the maximum. The applicant has indicated that the height will
allow for additional storage and the building will be consistent with the existing home. Staff does not identify
an impact on County resources. Staff recommends NCI. County Planning Board Recommendation: No
County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 8/16/02.
MR. STONE-Before you start, Mr. Lapper, I want to correct what I consider, and I’ll see if the Board
considers it, a mistake in the parcel history. It talks about Area Variance 63-2001. It says demolish existing
structure. That’s not our call. Construct a 2200 square foot single-family dwelling. That we did rule on. We
did not the 784 square foot detached garage.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. STONE-That was not part of the variance.
MR. ABBATE-That’s correct.
MR. LAPPER-The garage did not require a variance.
MR. STONE-I understand that, but we did not discuss the garage
MR. LAPPER-I’m agreeing with you.
MR. STONE-The Planning Board did look at it, but they didn’t have anything to do with height because that
wasn’t on the table.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, just to clear that up, that was the height. We did discuss the 784 square foot
freestanding garage.
MR. STONE-It wasn’t a variance.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. STONE-So we didn’t.
MR. ABBATE-But it was in the motion to approve.
MR. STONE-No, it wasn’t.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, it was.
MR. LAPPER-It was.
MR. STONE-I thought I read it, and it wasn’t.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, it was. What we didn’t discuss, if I’m not mistaken, am I correct on that, Bruce? We did
discuss the 784 square foot freestanding garage, but what we did not discuss is the 22.42.
MR. STONE-No, you did say it, but it really wasn’t on the table.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-Even though we put it in the motion.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right.
MR. FRANK-I believe it was part of the proposal, but it did not need any relief. It was just included.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, okay.
MR. STONE-So therefore.
MR. ABBATE-So we really didn’t.
MR. STONE-Okay. I don’t mean to complicate the issue, but I just wanted the record clear. Go ahead, Mr.
Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, I’m Jon Lapper. I’m here with Howard Nadler. We, as the record shows and
we’ve all been talking about, this property was the subject of a number of meetings with the Zoning Board
and then the Planning Board because the property, this is one of those properties that has the Town of Lake
George line and the Town of Queensbury line, and it’s near the lake so it requires site plan approval to
change the house. So we were here with Howard’s predecessor owner, Bob Wall. After getting it all done,
what Bob Wall decided to do was to buy the house two houses down from him that came on the market, and
that gave Howard the opportunity to buy Bob’s house with the approval.
MR. STONE-North or south?
MR. LAPPER-North.
MR. STONE-Okay. I thought he was buying the old Arends property.
MR. LAPPER-Just like a chess game. So Howard moved up with his wife. His wife grew up in the area, and
he moved up from Dix Hills on Long Island this year, with the approvals in place, so that he can build the
house, and when he looked at it, he had different ideas than Bob Wall did, and he looks at the garage and
sees, he’s got this beautiful drawing for the house that was approved by the Town, but the garage is sort of a
shed looking thing with a flat 16-foot roof, and the only reason why we’re here is because he had his designer
take a look at it and come up with this more attractive drawing that I’ve submitted that is more compatible
with the house that he’s going to build. They’re not going to be in a position to build the house until next
year, but they want to build the garage now for the, to have a new garage with storage. I assume that you’ve
all been to the site, and if you see that there’s a lot of dirt moved around, that’s because the first part of the
project is to replace the septic system, which needs to be done, which is a massively expensive septic system
project, but that’s the first thing that needs to be done. So that’s what’s going on. It has nothing to do with
the garage, and we’re really here just because of aesthetics, just because they’d like to make it more attractive.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. STONE-Do you happen to have an elevation of the total property looking toward the north, from the
southern line, or the other way? I don’t care.
MR. LAPPER-I have an elevation of the house.
MR. STONE-No, an elevation of the house and garage.
MR. LAPPER-I have a site plan. I think it’s on.
MR. STONE-I mean, I’m trying to get the relative, I’m concerned, I’ll tell you my concern now is that it’s on
high ground, this garage.
MR. LAPPER-Here’s, he just has topo lines. Is that what you’d like to see?
MR. STONE-Well, that’s better than anything I have, but what I’d really like to see is the house sitting here
and the garage sitting here, as I look north, so that I can see the relative height.
MR. LAPPER-I have a lot of paper. So, I’m going to see what I’ve got.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, if you’re trying to get an idea of what it would look like, I think you could use a
next door neighbor and get a pretty good idea of the.
MR. STONE-That’s what I’m concerned about.
MR. FRANK-And correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that the garage is supposed to be relatively at the
same elevation as the neighbor’s.
MR. STONE-And the house is down the hill.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, towards the lake.
MR. URRICO-Bruce, do you have anymore photos there, anymore shots?
MR. FRANK-I have a few that I took along the slope, because I was concerned about the amount of fill that
was placed, but it seems like they won’t need any additional fill than what’s allowed by Code.
MR. URRICO-And none of the garage proposed area?
MR. FRANK-The only two I have are up above. It’s not a good parcel to photograph because there’s a lot
of trees around the side, on the south side.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Do you have a floor plan of the garage? What are you going to do with that second story of
the garage that’s got an eight foot ceiling height?
MR. LAPPER-I’ve got that right here.
MR. BRYANT-Why do you need to have it eight foot?
MR. LAPPER-You talked about that.
MR. NADLER-I’m Howard Nadler. I’m the homeowner. I moved here about four months ago from Long
Island, and basically, not to give you my whole life story, I moved here, my plan is to live here all year round.
So what we have done is basically when I looked at the house, I saw Bob’s plans, and I actually thought Bob
did a great job with the plans. However, I, aesthetically, wasn’t so pleased with the garage. So when we
moved in, my first plan was, to be honest, to put a few dollars into the existing house. We did that. Now
we’re living here all year round. We sold the house in Long Island. The first thing we did was septic, which
actually, let me backtrack, we’re doing it right now. So it’s a mess. It’s a mess here. So we’re putting about a
$20,000 septic system in, as we speak.
MR. STONE-Was that to bring it up to Code?
MR. NADLER-The old system is.
MR. STONE-Then that was, to do any work on the house, you required to bring the septic system up to
Code?
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. NADLER-Right.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. NADLER-Absolutely.
MR. BRYANT-That’s great, but that doesn’t answer my, I want to know what you’re going to do with the
second floor. That’s all.
MR. NADLER-So when we moved here, I’m sorry to give you a long version, we moved here, I am paying
like $5 to $600 a month on Exit 18 for storage. I have a wife and a child, and I have tons of stuff,
unfortunately, and I have nowhere to put it. So my plan was to do septic, build the garage, and then
eventually knock the house down and replace the house with the exact house that Bob did. So I’m using it
for storage with outdoor furniture and my child’s toys, and we plan on to expand our family.
MR. BRYANT-You’re going to carry it to the second story of the garage?
MR. NADLER-Absolutely.
MR. BRYANT-How big is that area, as far as square footage? Can you give me some idea how big the room
is going to be? Because you don’t really have a floor plan of the garage, or I haven’t seen one. This elevation
is okay, but it doesn’t tell me how big that room is. Is it the majority of the size of the garage, or?
MR. LAPPER-No, because if you look here, it’s to scale. So we could probably scale it out, although that
dimension isn’t there.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but how big, I see how high the room is, but I don’t see, this is a cross section. I don’t
see how.
MR. LAPPER-A quarter inch equals a foot.
MR. BRYANT-Is it an eight by eight room, an eight by sixteen room?
MR. NADLER-To be honest with you, I’m not an architect. I looked at the house from an aesthetic point of
view, and my first vision was, as I said, this does not look right compared to what my neighbors have,
compared to what the new home is going to look like. The second thing I said is, why don’t I, for lack of a
better word, kill two birds with one stone, aesthetically make it look better and also have some storage. My
theory is, I don’t want to come back and make a mistake. I spent a lot of money on this house and a lot of
money going forward. So to be honest with you, I don’t know the exact footage.
MR. LAPPER-Bruce just scaled it.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s 26 feet long.
MR. NADLER-By 28.
MR. LAPPER-By 12.
MR. STONE-That’s the dimension we didn’t have. By 12. Those are walls in this thing, on this drawing?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Those are, so this space is empty?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-Have you got that, Al?
MR. ABBATE-26 by 12?
MR. BRYANT-I just want to determine, you know, how big the area is, are you going to make it into a
bunkhouse later on or, you know, what are you going to do with it?
MR. NADLER-No.
MR. BRYANT-Just storage you’re saying?
MR. NADLER-It’s strictly storage.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. BRYANT-It’s an awfully big room for storage.
MR. NADLER-It’s strictly storage. I have a wife who loves to shop and a child that has every toy in the
world, and I come from Long Island, the house is a 7,000 square foot house. So I’m living in 1200 square
feet. You can imagine. The kid’s got a lot of toys. I don’t know what else to say to you guys.
MR. LAPPER-I think what they’d like on the record is that you’re not doing this because you want to put a
room up there.
MR. NADLER-No, absolutely not.
MR. BRYANT-Eventually it’s not going to show up with a bathroom and your neighbors from Long Island
and your friends are going to come up and crash. That’s all.
MR. LAPPER-We would stipulate to that as a condition. Because that’s certainly not their intent.
MR. BRYANT-Because it looks like it has like a dormer kind of thing.
MR. LAPPER-That’s for aesthetics, and not for any other reason.
MR. NADLER-And also, just for the record, I did speak to my neighbors, and we do have it in writing, and I
said do you have any objections, and they said absolutely not, both neighbors on either side, Dave Montana
and Joe on the other side. Actually Dave owns the property behind me, too.
MR. LAPPER-Across the road.
MR. NADLER-Across the road, to the right of me and behind me. So he was fine with it.
MR. STONE-Well, we’ll read that, if you’ve got letters that we can read in to the public. How high is the
house going to be, the house that you’re going to design, that you’re going to build someday?
MR. NADLER-I’m sticking exactly with the plans, I don’t know if you have it on the record, but Bob Wall
got approval.
MR. STONE-We had them somewhere, but.
MR. NADLER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-I’m looking at 24 feet. I can’t read the rest, but, less than 25 feet.
MR. STONE-Okay, and then the question is, how high, that’s going to be 24 down where it is, how high is
this garage going to be above it, since it’s up the hill? You’re talking 22 and a half feet at some kind of
elevation. Well, let’s see, you’re saying one foot here, and maybe ten feet. So you’re talking eight or nine feet,
it seems to be, above the house. I’m going by your datum, yes.
MR. LAPPER-Right. Yes, that’s probably correct.
MR. ABBATE-Would that be in keeping with the décor of the other homes around there?
MR. NADLER-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-It would?
MR. NADLER-Yes, because if you look at Dave Montana’s house, I guess you’ve mentioned it before how
high his garage is and the garage is to the left of me.
MR. LAPPER-That’s in the Staff notes.
MR. NADLER-So I think I’m the same, if not less, than they are.
MR. LAPPER-I think the Staff notes said they were about 22.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-So it’s very similar to the neighbors.
MR. NADLER-As a homeowner, I think you’ll appreciate this. When you spend close to a million dollars on
a piece of property, you have these massive homes to the right and left of you. To have an itty bitty little
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
piece, it’s where I want to spend the rest of my life. I don’t want like a dollhouse compared to my two
neighbors, and I’m just talking from a homeowner’s point of view. I hope you can appreciate that.
MR. STONE-You are aware I’m sure, talking with your lawyer, that this has been, this property has been the
subject of much debate.
MR. NADLER-You know what, I spoke to Bob Wall, and he kind of filled me in, he’s been here several
times. So he says good luck when you go, to be honest with you, and I said, look, I’m going to stick with
what you did, because I think you did a great job, but I said, Bob, I do think you made one mistake, the
garage, and that was it, and actually he agreed.
MR. LAPPER-Howard was happy with the compromise that Bob made with the Board, because he bought
this based on the approval of that house. So Bob had originally wanted another story, and he gave that in in
order to minimize the variance on the house, but Howard’s happy.
MR. STONE-The concern that I have is that, obviously, that this thing is going to be way above, way being
my mind versus what somebody else may think, but that’s my concern at the moment.
MR. LAPPER-Well, if you look at the elevation of the house, when you look from the lake, the house is
certainly going to be much more prominent than the garage. I guess our main point is just that it is similar to
the two garages of the neighbors, and we have letters from the neighbor, which is not dispositive. You have
to weigh the conditions, of course, but it’s similar to what’s in the neighborhood. There’s nobody across the
street. That’s Dave Montana’s vacant land in the back, and we have a letter from him saying that he supports
it, and we just think it’ll look better and look more in character with the house.
MR. URRICO-Other than aesthetics, is there any other reason why the garage needs to be at that height?
MR. LAPPER-Just for storage.
MR. NADLER-My feeling is that why not kill two birds with one stone.
MR. URRICO-Other than aesthetics.
MR. NADLER-Aesthetics, and, look, I’d like to have as much storage as possible. You can never have
enough storage.
MR. URRICO-When your architect looked at it, did he look at possibly doing it at 16 feet?
MR. LAPPER-Those were the plans you had to start with.
MR. NADLER-Right.
MR. LAPPER-Sixteen feet.
MR. NADLER-I went to him.
MR. URRICO-And you said 16?
MR. NADLER-Right. If I had my way, to be honest with you, I would shoot for a three car garage, a four
car garage, but I don’t want to go down that road, to be honest with you. I just bought the plans based on
this.
MR. BRYANT-The Chairman makes a good point, and I didn’t look at it when I was there on the site, and
that is, the way the garage is going to be built, I know two houses down we approved a variance for a height
variance. How does the grade at that point.
MR. LAPPER-From the lake, you mean?
MR. BRYANT-No, the grade where that garage is compared to where your garage is going. Is that spot
higher or?
MR. LAPPER-The grade of the floor, their garage versus your garage.
MR. NADLER-Which home are you talking about? Is it Dave Montana or the other gentlemen?
MR. BRYANT-Two houses north.
MR. STONE-Right next to Antigua.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. LAPPER-Don King’s.
MR. FRANK-King. That definitely slopes down to the water, too. I don’t know if it’s the same elevation
change, but.
MR. STONE-But it’s a bigger lot.
MR. FRANK-Every house on that side of the road slopes down to the water.
MR. STONE-I looked, I went down to the King property, and I looked again, and I’m not troubled by what
we did there, because it is enclosed in trees. It’s very difficult to see from any side. I’m concerned here with
the openness of the lot. Now I know over time that can be taken care of, but time to grow trees is a long
time.
MR. NADLER-If I may ask you a question. Are you concerned that my garage would be higher than my two
neighbors’?
MR. STONE-I’m concerned that your garage is going to be high, not necessarily along with your neighbors.
We have, in our Waterfront zone, we have 16 feet for garages, and I’m concerned, we’ve always been
concerned, when we are asked to consider height variations.
MR. NADLER-Look, this is another idea. Would you feel better, when I built the house, to raise the house?
MR. STONE-Don’t go there.
MR. ABBATE-Don’t even go there.
MR. NADLER-I’m just trying to.
MR. STONE-No, I understand, but I’m looking, and I profess not to understand pitch, but I see you have 12
by 12, which is kind of a strong pitch. I mean, that makes it very high, compared to, you can do less in the
North Country. Help me guys, because not really sure. Norm? Norm’s going to help me.
MR. HIMES-Well, I mean, I don’t know how much help I’m going to be to that question. I just had a couple
of other questions or comments of my own.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. HIMES-One of the things being, from a question of functionality, I was wondering, is the garage going
to be accessed from the little road, like the neighbors to the south, I think the doors face right on the road
there.
MR. LAPPER-On the road.
MR. HIMES-Your garage, how is that going to be accessed?
MR. NADLER-Are you talking the actual garage doors themselves?
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. NADLER-Like the neighbor’s, like Dave Montana. You pull in.
MR. HIMES-It’s right out on the street?
MR. NADLER-Yes.
MR. HIMES-So I was thinking in terms of height, considering, again, the slope that the garage is on, how you
could use it other than from the road, without it being a little high, such as the neighbor’s. Now I don’t know
the difference between the height of the neighbor’s, Montana, I guess it is.
MR. ABBATE-They have 22 foot high.
MR. HIMES-Twenty-two, and this one is, what, now?
MR. ABBATE-He’s asking for 22.
MR. STONE-Twenty-two and a half.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. HIMES-I was thinking more along the functionality of it than the aesthetics. I wondered if you would
address that in connection with whether it be the pitch of the roof or what have you, and you see I have a
little difficulty when you say it’s an aesthetic matter. You look at it one way. I might look at it another, and I
normally would, although there’s a substantive aspect to how appearances are, just looking at my own feeling
toward the appearance, I wouldn’t approve an application on that basis alone. So, some of the functionality is
important to me, and I would want to know whether or not, as your neighbor’s, the one immediately down
the road from you, how your construction is going to differ from that. Is it the same height? Then I see it
quite comparable, and the same usage, perhaps the same size.
MR. LAPPER-Actually your garage is smaller. Right?
MR. NADLER-Right. Yes, it’s a lot smaller than my neighbor’s.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of square feet it’s smaller, but the height.
MR. NADLER-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-Is the same.
MR. HIMES-Yes. So, all right. So the main thing is that I was concerned as to how you were accessing,
whether from your driveway or from the road.
MR. LAPPER-From the road.
MR. NADLER-From the road, from Antigua Road.
MR. STONE-The door’s going to be parallel to the road.
MR. NADLER-Correct.
MR. LAPPER-Facing the road.
MR. HIMES-Just like the neighbor’s. Okay. That’s of some importance to me. I might add, as a comment,
too, that it’s been said that the two garages up the road, we were involved with and approved variances for,
and this particular property I almost feel like I live there myself it’s been here so often, but note that the two
neighbors in the other direction don’t have any garage at all. So, it kind of offsets a little bit there, in
connection with what’s going on, and maybe what happens further down the road with those two that don’t
have a garage might be influenced by what we do here tonight. I wanted to ask about the property, and you
mentioned something about the property across the street, and, you know, there’s a little island of property
going right along the road there, and I see there are boat trailers and all parked off the side there. Who owns
that property?
MR. LAPPER-That’s the neighbor to the north. The neighbor to the north owns the property on the non-
lake side of the road.
MR. HIMES-Okay, and I was just wondering, in connection with an alternative as to acquiring land on that
side of the road and putting the garage up there. Aesthetically, you might not like that, but.
MR. LAPPER-That property was in a group of neighbors, and the neighbor just bought that from all of his
neighbors for himself. That is Dave Montana. So I don’t think that that is something he’s going to sell.
MR. NADLER-He’s not selling. I would love that, but he’s not selling.
MR. HIMES-Not selling.
MR. NADLER-Unfortunately.
MR. HIMES-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-What is the distance, I’m looking at the plans for the garage and there’s a cross beam. See the
cross beam there, near the top?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-I’m looking at this one here, this right here.
MR. LAPPER-The cross beam.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. ABBATE-Yes. What is the distance between the top of that cross beam to the peak of the roof,
interior?
MR. LAPPER-Bruce can tell us that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Bruce?
MR. BRYANT-It’s five feet.
MR. ABBATE-Five feet?
MR. BRYANT-About five feet.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s eight, almost sixteen, that’s where the height variation is.
MR. ABBATE-See, that’s what I was going to address. That’s really where your height variation is, from that
cross beam to the peak. Am I correct? Okay. Do you see it on your?
MR. FRANK-Actually, it’s four and a half feet.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. So that’s approximately four and a half feet, for the sake of argument, okay. Why not
drop the peak?
MR. NADLER-Drop it over here?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-How far?
MR. ABBATE-Well, it’s up to you. It’s your application. Why not drop the peak, instead of asking for a 6.42
feet of relief, that’s really wasted dead space up there anyway. Why not drop the peak?
MR. LAPPER-How about two feet?
MR. ABBATE-Well, it’s up to you. You have to make the recommendation.
MR. STONE-Before we go there, let me ask another question.
MR. LAPPER-The issue with Howard is just that he doesn’t want it to look like a flat garage roof. So, just in
response to that, we’re talking about two. Any more than that, it’s just not going to look great.
MR. ABBATE-But two feet would do it, you say?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I mean, if it would make the Board happy, obviously.
MR. STONE-Well, let me ask a question, though. Where are we measuring the 22 feet? Remember, the 22
feet is at any point. This is a sloping lot. Is that 22 feet at the road, or is it 22 feet at the lake end?
MR. FRANK-Well, the garage, I believe, is going to be on a foundation, a slab, correct?
MR. STONE-Yes, and that foundation is going to be above grade.
MR. LAPPER-But it’ll have to be backfilled.
MR. FRANK-That was one of my concerns. I went out there to see how much fill would be required.
MR. STONE-Well, how much are you going to backfill when you’ve got a septic system in there?
MR. FRANK-Well, the plans clearly show room for the septic system behind where he’s going to fill for the
garage. He’s going to need approximately, at the most, six feet of fill. That’s what I checked out in the field.
MR. LAPPER-Bruce called us about that, and that’ll have to be backfilled.
MR. FRANK-He’s not going to have the garage on the slope. He’s got to make it level.
MR. STONE-I understand, yes.
MR. FRANK-So it’s going to be 22 feet wherever you look at it. Right at grade, along the side of the garage.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. STONE-I’m concerned that’s magic, when you fill, if you have a lot like this, and you put a house in
here, and you fill, that’s magic to me. That goes against the spirit of the 16 feet. That’s me speaking.
MR. LAPPER-That’s how it works. That’s how everybody builds.
MR. STONE-Well, it depends how, are you going to fill the whole yard or are you just going to fill right
around the building? And then you’ve built a hill. You’ve got to retain it and all that. So, I mean, look at the
slope there. There is quite a slope. So you’re going to have quite an impressive wall facing the lake.
MR. LAPPER-That backfill allows you to vegetate and shrubs along the back to soften the garage.
MR. STONE-But you end up with a fairly high wall. You don’t understand what I’m saying?
MR. ABBATE-No, I’m talking to Allan.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry.
MR. ABBATE-I understand what you’re saying, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, you’re not attempting to perform any magic, are you?
MR. LAPPER-No, no magic.
MR. ABBATE-That’s on the record you understand? All right.
MR. FRANK-Again, the six feet of fill is deceiving, because if you look at the photograph, they have a stake
directly below my arrow. That’s where the back corner of the garage is going to be. So that’s the point where
you’ll have the greatest amount of fill. Well, as you go up the hill, you can see it’s not a straight line. It
actually kind of humps a little bit. So, I mean, to look at it as six feet along the whole way, that’s not what’s
going to happen. It’s going to be, at the very rear of the garage is going to need six feet of fill.
MR. STONE-So the rear of the garage, from current grade, is going to be 28 feet, from current grade.
MR. LAPPER-That’s not relevant.
MR. STONE-I think it is, but.
MR. FRANK-Well, it’s not there. I mean, neither the garage nor the fill are there.
MR. STONE-If I stand down on top of the septic, on the septic system, I’m going to be faced with a wall 28
feet above me, or a peak more than 28 feet above me. I think. I mean, it’s my concern. If it’s not shared,
don’t worry about it, but I’m concerned. Any other questions? Chuck, you had a question I thought you
started to?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I was attempting to address, that’s magic, Counselor. Counselor, that’s performing
magic because you’re not listening.
MR. LAPPER-Sorry.
MR. ABBATE-So anyway, I was attempting to address the peak. Obviously, there’s some concern, in spite
of the fact that your neighbor’s peak is 22 feet, there is some concern that perhaps 22.42 feet might be a little
in excess, even though it may not be incongruous with the other homes there. If you folks were willing to
come along with that compromise that you indicated of the two foot, I think that would significantly reduce
the argument against height. That’s only my opinion.
MR. LAPPER-We would be happy to do that if that would satisfy the Board. We were talking, impolitely,
excuse me, about the Chairman’s question, because the system requires fill on top of it as well. So I think
that the level that you’re looking at now is not the finished level of the leach field.
MR. STONE-Would you go back to, you had a shot of a garage. I don’t know whose it was, about two shots
before.
MR. FRANK-I had Dave Montana’s garage from the other side, from the north.
MR. STONE-Yes, would you put that up.
MR. HAYES-Is that the Corvette you want to put in the garage? Because that’s a little more understandable.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. NADLER-Yes. I must tell you that my wife said there was someone taking pictures. I go, I think you’re
dreaming. Now I understand what was going on now. It’s really funny.
MR. STONE-You’re not there. It came up for a second. That one. See, that’s my concern. If you look at
the right side of that picture, and look what the height of that building, not the apparent height. I recognize
that it slopes down, but you’ve got a huge wall there, and your house is going to be the other way.
MR. FRANK-This garage actually has a sub basement where he parks it. That’s a foundation wall that you’re
looking at.
MR. LAPPER-They have a basement that they use.
MR. NADLER-Where the arrow is, that’s another garage.
MR. FRANK-That’s why there’s no fill, there’s an actual foundation wall.
MR. STONE-Okay, but the point is, to make a level garage on a slope, you have to be, the apparent height is
a lot more, and you’re talking, maybe I’m wrong, let’s see, yes. You’re talking the peak is going to be
perpendicular to the lake. Is that correct? Which that shot he’s not perpendicular to the lake.
MR. LAPPER-Right. That’s right.
MR. STONE-So the full height is going to be at the west end?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Moving the 22 feet?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Because the lot is narrow.
MR. STONE-I understand all of the problems.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. So that’s why, and with the leach field, that’s why it was designed, the footprint of that,
of the garage, was designed this way.
MR. FRANK-I believe the best example I could give you is right here. Because this is Dave Montana’s
garage and the slope behind it. If they were to fill, it may look similar to that. That’s the best example I can
give you about.
MR. ABBATE-And let me ask you two other questions, on the record, of course, you have no intentions of
putting in a basement, on your garage?
MR. NADLER-No, no, no, absolutely not.
MR. ABBATE-No basement. Is that correct?
MR. NADLER-No basement.
MR. ABBATE-And you also indicated that the space on the top portion of that garage will absolutely not be
used for living space?
MR. NADLER-Correct, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-In our new zoning code there’s a definition for the highest adjacent grade, and it says the
highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction, next to the proposed wall’s structure.
So the grade we’re dealing with is the grade that’s there now. Not after construction, at least according to the
new Code.
MR. LAPPER-I’m not sure that that definition applies. I didn’t bring my Code with me. Because, are you
looking at the definition of?
MR. URRICO-Highest adjacent grade.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. LAPPER-What’s that definition of?
MR. URRICO-What date?
MR. LAPPER-No, but you’re looking at something called highest adjacent grade, not building height.
MR. URRICO-Okay, but still, that’s what we’re starting with, right, from there to the height of the building,
to the maximum point.
MR. LAPPER-But when people do building projects, they frequently change the grade of the lot.
MR. ABBATE-Your initial application was September 26, 2001. Is that correct?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. ABBATE-No. When was the initial application? Here’s what I’m trying to determine. Does it apply to
your application. It may not. If you pre-dated the, when did it go into effect, 1 August, Bruce, the new
Zoning Ordinances?
MR. FRANK-April of this year.
MR. ABBATE-April of this year. Did your application pre-date that?
MR. LAPPER-I don’t know if this would be considered a new application.
MR. URRICO-Could you put a pitch on that garage and bring it down? I mean, the issue seems to be putting
a pitch on the garage.
MR. LAPPER-A pitch.
MR. URRICO-A pitch.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. URRICO-But can we put a lower pitch on?
MR. ABBATE-Two foot. They agreed to do two feet, reduce it.
MR. LAPPER-Howard would be willing to drop it down to 20.42.
MR. URRICO-How about 16?
MR. LAPPER-That’s not going to look good. That’s just not going to look like the house, which I gave the
Chairman.
MR. STONE-Any other questions? Let’s hear what the public has to say, if we’re all ready.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I think we probably need to answer that question that Roy raised.
MR. STONE-Well, we have contradictory, we were just looking it up in here. There’s contradiction in here.
Because it says building height. There’s also a definition for building height, the vertical distance measured
from the lowest portion of the natural grade of the building site coverage by the building, what does that
mean? I helped write this. The vertical distance measured from the lowest portion of the natural grade of the
building site coverage by the building or finished grade of cut required to accommodate the building to the
highest point of the structure.
MR. ABBATE-See, or finished grade.
MR. LAPPER-I believe that’s what it says, even though it’s hard to understand.
MR. STONE-I’m not sure what it says.
MR. LAPPER-That’s how the Town’s always measured it, from finished grade.
MR. STONE-Yes, we’ve talked finished grade, but my concern is there’s room for filling, putting grade in
and then putting a very big building on the top of a manmade hill.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. LAPPER-And one thing that I pointed out is that the part of the hill behind the house is also getting
raised, because that’s where the leach field is going, and that needs feet of fill on top of the new leach field.
So that it’s not just along the garage.
MR. STONE-How much fill?
MR. LAPPER-Probably two feet on top of the leach field, but I don’t have the, I don’t know if I have the
septic plans here.
MR. STONE-The septic doesn’t go down that deep.
MR. FRANK-It depends on the system. I don’t know what kind of system you’re using.
MR. STONE-Is this a natural system, regular?
MR. NADLER-This is the.
MR. LAPPER-Elgin.
MR. FRANK-If it’s an Elgin, it’s going to be raised up much higher than a natural septic system.
MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. That’s fine. Well, if it’s all right with you, Mr. Lapper, I think we’ll open, hear
what anybody has to say, if there’s anybody here who wants to speak, unless we have any pressing questions.
MR. LAPPER-I want to make sure that you have all the letters that Howard got from his neighbors. I’m
sorry, you’re opening it to the Board. Pardon me.
MR. STONE-I’m still talking to the Board, but I’m going to open the public hearing.
MR. LAPPER-Then.
MR. STONE-Yes, make sure Chuck has them. Are you ready for me to open the public hearing?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application?
In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, We have two pieces of correspondence. One is from David and Claudia Montana,
and they say “We have no objection to the proposed construction on the property of Howard and Jennifer
Nadler.” And the other one is the one that was just handed to us, from Eileen and Joe Nichols. It’s
addressed to Howard and Jennifer Nadler. “We have currently reviewed your updated plans for your new
garage. We feel the garage is going to be a beautiful addition to your property. We see no problems with the
new garage changes.”
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-And they’re the property owners immediately to the south.
MR. STONE-To the south? Okay. All right. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Anything more you want to add? Any other questions that we might want to ask? Well,
hearing none, let me start with Jaime.
MR. HAYES-Well, I have the same concerns that the rest of the Board. Certainly as Lew and other people
have brought out, there’s a danger here that, by constructing it in the manner and the slope of this property
that the additional height that’s being requested could be magnified, if you will, from the perspective of the
lake or surrounding properties, and the applicant’s offering of another two feet, while negligible, and to a
certain extent to me, is fairly important, and I’ll elaborate on the fact that in my mind that places it lower than
we’ve previously approved in the immediately surrounding houses. It will, in fact, have this house, or this
garage, be lower than the next door neighbor, and it seems like the 6.5 feet of relief, you know, two feet, it’s a
30% reduction in the relief that’s being requested, and that’s, to me, I was kind of close on this one, but I
think that, trying to be consistent with the decisions that we’ve made in the past, I think that there will be no
negative impact on the neighborhood, with the four feet, or four and a half feet of relief that I can see. I
think the feasible alternatives in this case are limited. The applicant is not proposing to construct a garage
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
that has a basement below it, like the immediate neighbor. It’s certainly, you know, this is a balancing test,
and that’s what we’re charged with, but I think, in fairness to the applicant, and to the fact that this Board has
already limited the plans that have been approved for this house in the past with Mr. Wall, I mean, this
property has received a great deal of scrutiny, and I think in each case the applicant has walked away with less
than what they wanted, and that’s okay with me, because I think that the neighborhood has to be protected.
The Code has to be protected, but four and a half feet of relief, in this particular case, the garage is very far
away from the lake. The view shed of the property across the street does not seem to be an issue here. The
neighbor who owns it has sent a letter of approval, as far as the process. So, it’s a very close decision, but the
4.5 feet of relief, I can be okay with. I would be in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, several thoughts on this. As far as the approval of the neighbor that owns the
property across the street, that’s important to me. However, there’s no guarantee that neighbor’s always
going to own that property, and I think we do have a duty to a potential future owner to protect their view
and whatever. So I’m kind of conflicted on that issue. I can understand fully the applicant’s desire to have a
garage in character with this home and in character with the neighbors to his north. I don’t like fooling
around with the design. I think it was probably designed for a reason the way it was, and I’m not comfortable
with fooling with architectural details. So I’m not going to insist that it be lowered. However, I do end up
with a real problem, looking at where we’re going. As has been mentioned, the two neighbors to the south
don’t have garages at this point. The zoning in that area says 16 feet. We’ve got a neighbor to the north with
a higher garage. This Board, last April, when incidentally I was absent, for the record, approved another one
that was higher than the allowed, and I see a trend, if we approve this one, then if the two neighbors to the
south come in, we’re even going to feel more compelled to approve their request because we’ve approved
others, and I think at that point, some point, we’ve got to look at what we’re doing, and I think we’re
changing the zoning. It’s one thing to allow one exception in an area for good reason, but if everybody in the
area has good reason for an exception, then I think the solution is not a variance but a changing of the zoning
law, and for that reason, I’m going to be opposed.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I, again, I have trouble visualizing what the garage would look like if it were
built to the Code specifications, and whether or not that would be appealing to me or the applicant or
whoever I don’t know. So I don’t think I was involved in both of the neighboring decisions. I was on the
one further on down, and that’s, I think, quite different than this application. So I think there needs to be
some compromise done here. I don’t know exactly what it should be. The garage certainly being built on
that very steep slope, I wonder if that really has some bearing on the measurements to the height, you know,
you go straight out from the road and down you go. It’s got to be higher off the ground on the lake side than
it does on the road side, it seems to be, but I don’t know what the number is, but I think I agree with Jaime,
in that certainly the smallness of the lot and the fact that, I don’t know whether there are plans to build other
storage facilities, you know, you can build small ones without any variance at all, but there’d be need for some
kind of storage there, and the garage is really, I wouldn’t say modest, but isn’t pressing the maximum for size
that we allow. So there’s some give there that I’ll recognize. So, in short, I kind of agree with what Jaime had
said. They’d like to see an effort made to see what could be done to bring this down closer to compliance,
hopefully that will please the aesthetic needs that you have, and at the same time get us a little closer to what
the Code would like to see.
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman we could stipulate no storage sheds, in response to that comment about any
other storage on the property.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, but you’re referring, you’re saying okay to something that’s 20 feet high, 20.5?
MR. HIMES-Well, again, if it could be lower than that, wonderful. I don’t know what would be functionally
okay, as far as accessing the garage from the road, and wouldn’t be an eyesore, but would it be 20 feet, you
know, what I think Jaime has said, or 19 or 21, I’m willing to give a little on this because I think there is need
for storage, and I think certainly the garage next door is as nice as some of the houses you see around, and
certainly is not offensive at all as you drive down the road, and I think from the lake it would not be offensive
in its appearance, a lot of big trees down, maybe some of those are coming down when you build, when you
rebuild, I don’t know, but along the lakefront there’s quite a curtain there which has a bearing on it, too,
although trees don’t last forever. So I don’t want to take all night. I’m pretty much in agreement with what
Jaime had said.
MR. STONE-Okay, but Jaime was talking to 20 and a half feet.
MR. HAYES-20.5.
MR. STONE-20.5. So, you’re saying you’re okay with the 20.5?
MR. HIMES-Okay.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. STONE-That’s all I’m, I’m not pushing you. Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Jaime, I thought, presented a rather fair and balanced evaluation of this whole
application, and in order to save time, I would have no problem going along with a 20.5 peak, and that would
be my position, Mr. Chairman, as I would, based on that, support the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Al?
MR. BRYANT-When I looked at the property initially, I was in favor of it basically because of the character
of the neighborhood, but, you know, I’ve never really voted for a height related variance. I have to agree with
something that Mr. McNulty said, and that’s, we’ve got to be real careful about the setting of precedents,
because, you know, the applicant came forward today and said, well, you know, if you look at my neighbor,
and my neighbor did it, and before you know it it’ll be the neighbor, and the neighbor and the neighbor, and
then we have a situation. So I think this particular application I will vote in favor of the reduced request, four
and a half feet, but I think we’ve got to really stick to our guns, as far as height, and that’s all, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I know it seems like we’re quibbling over a few feet, but I’m in agreement with Chuck
McNulty on this. I think we have a situation here where we’ve, for whatever reasons, we’ve granted approval
to the next door neighbors, and now Mr. Nadler’s argument basically is that the neighbors have gotten
approval, and the aesthetics would be improved because the neighbors got approval. So we’re basically
changing the height zoning requirements for this area by granting any kind of approval, and I think we’re
moving into dangerous ground, and I’m not willing to budge on this one, at this point.
MR. STONE-Well, I concur with what appears to be the minority. I’m concerned by the height. Two feet
certainly helps. The stipulation that you’re willing to make, and that there’ll be no other storage facilities on
the property certainly helps, but I think Mr. McNulty and Mr. Urrico said it very well. I think that we are
creating a problem when we refer to what the neighbor did, because that is called creeping something,
whether it’s inflation, or an increase in height or somebody said, I guess Jaime said something about
changing, or Chuck said about changing the zoning. This is what concerns me. I just think that the owner
bought the property, particularly with a very recent history of what has been going on. The owner was very
aware, as was his agent, that this property has caused a great deal of concern for this Board, and we did rule,
and I will borrow the same statement that Mr. McNulty said, I wasn’t here either when that thing was voted
on, but that’s actually the Board voted, and that’s what counts. I don’t mean to set myself out of that, but I
just think that, I’m just concerned by the idea that we take this piece of property over which we have had
much discussion and we reopen a situation that I just, I don’t want to reopen it. So I’m going to vote no, but
I still think there are four people who want to say yes. So I need a motion to approve with the stipulations
that the applicant is willing to make, that it’s 20 and a half feet, and that no storage sheds.
MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with the motion, are we all in agreement on the amount of
relief that’s going to be given? I was thinking along in my mind of something a little less than what Jaime
said, knocking off two feet. I went along, not knowing how the rest of the Board was going to be. I see how
close it is, I think a little more of narrowing that height relief in half, if it can be done and the garage still have
functional room.
MR. STONE-As I heard the conversations, I think you’re going to tip it the other way if you say that. At
least I’m reading my interpretation, and I don’t like to get into polling the Board.
MR. ABBATE-You want a motion to approve?
MR. STONE-I want a motion and see where we go.
MR. ABBATE-I’ll make a motion to approve and see what happens.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2002 HOWARD & JENNIFER NADLER,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
15 Antigua Road. Applicant proposes construction of a 728 square foot detached garage at 20.42 feet in
height. The applicant requests 4.42 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement for detached
garages as per the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-3A zone, Section 179-4-030. Benefit
to the applicant. The applicant will be permitted to construct a 20.42 foot structure at the proposed height in
a compliant location. Feasible alternatives. Well, the feasible alternatives appear to be somewhat limited
because of the land configuration, and is this relief substantial relief to the Ordinance, 4.42 feet of relief from
the 16 foot maximum height requirement may be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance, of
approximately 20%. Effects on the neighborhood or community. Minimal to moderate effects may be
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
anticipated relative to this action. However, I have to note that there were two individuals, two neighbors
who submitted correspondence indicating they had absolutely no objection, and indicating that it may very
well add to the aesthetics of the area, and I want to also add that the next door neighbor does have a garage at
a height of 22 foot. Is this difficulty self-created? Well, the difficulty, in my opinion, may be self-created
because the applicant was indicating in terms of aesthetics. However, he has indicated, as stipulated, that the
top portion of that garage will not be used as living space. He also has indicated that there will be no
basement in that garage as well. So in view of the information and the stipulations, Mr. Chairman, I move
that we approve Area Variance No. 68-2002, and a third condition would be that no further buildings will be
constructed for storage facilities, and that we require an as built survey.
Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2002, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-Mr. Frank, do we need to specify an as built, or would this be automatic because it’s a new
building?
MR. FRANK-I think they’re going to have to provide an as built for the house. I’m sure they would, are
going to include the garage on it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let’s put it in the motion, just to be on the safe side, we require an as built survey.
MR. ABBATE-Sure. Okay. Hang on.
MR. STONE-All right. Everybody understand the motion? Any questions? Second?
MR. BRYANT-Second.
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
MR. STONE-So it’s denied.
MR. HAYES-No, that motion didn’t carry.
MR. MC NULTY-Not carried means denial.
MR. STONE-Means denial.
MR. ABBATE-It’s denied, then.
MR. LAPPER-How about 20 feet?
MR. STONE-We’re not going to get into that.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of procedure, Mr. Himes was in favor of it.
MR. STONE-The vote is what counts. He said no for whatever reason he said no. If he thought it was too
much or not enough, he said no. Therefore, the motion is denied by an official vote. Obviously, you have
two alternatives. You can come back with a significantly different application. That’s the only thing that you
can do.
MR. LAPPER-The applicant is just trying to get this in the ground right now so he has storage, and I guess
we would have offered another half a foot, just in terms of the whatever it would take to make Norm
satisfied. I mean, that was just kind of surprising, the way that happened.
MR. STONE-I agree. My pencil almost jumped off the.
MR. ABBATE-Well, you know, the vote, I’m not happy with this procedure here.
MR. STONE-It’s been taken.
MR. ABBATE-I know it’s been taken, but I think I have to say something here. I don’t think we allowed the
applicant sufficient time to negotiate appropriately, but the vote has been taken, but I just wanted to make
that statement.
MR. FRANK-And, Mr. Chairman, in the past, haven’t you, if a motion doesn’t pass on the motion to
approve, don’t you have to make a motion to deny, and then vote on that? That’s what you’ve done in the
past?
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. STONE-I have been told that there’s conflicting rules on that right now, that, according to some recent
material that was brought to our attention, that a vote, a tie vote, and that’s the only question. It’s a tie vote.
MR. LAPPER-We’re just not looking to clog your agenda and have to come back and do the, is it a
substantial new application. Obviously, we applied for 22.4. So if we came back at 20, it would be
substantially different, because it would be about half. I guess just procedurally, if we, I would have offered
another half a foot if Norm indicated that’s what he wanted.
MR. STONE-I had the feeling he would like to give you a half a foot.
MR. HIMES-Well, can I clarify?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. HIMES-In my statements, I had said that the aesthetics aren’t that important to me. I would like to see
something from an expert, say an architect, that would show, whether or not in that location, the garage
would still be functional, from getting in and out of it, and with a functional roof, at the 16 feet, and if it
meant more than that, to be able to access from the road, which I think is necessary or certainly desirable,
then I’d go for that, that amount, up to 20.42, well, half the distance, 19.
MR. STONE-You confused me, then, Norm, before.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I think it’s inappropriate to talk about an application after it’s acted on. Okay.
MR. STONE-I know, but we’re trying to be as helpful as we can.
MR. HIMES-I just want the applicant to know how I feel now, in case they do come back.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re not saying, you’re saying it should be lower than it is, than their 20 feet?
MR. HIMES-I’m saying, yes, I would prefer that.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HIMES-But I don’t know how, whether 16 feet there would be functionally usable.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s fine. I was confused, and I think the applicant was confused by your statement,
and that’s okay. You’re saying you would like to consider a rendering something closer to the required
height?
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-I guess if I thought the issue was that the Board needed more information to make the
decision, we’ll come back with whoever we need, in terms of an architect or a drawing. I just didn’t
understand that.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I think that’s where we have to be. I think we had a motion to approve. We
didn’t approve it. We can, can turn that around, and I would, therefore, just to be on the safe side, I would
ask a motion to deny.
MR. LAPPER-Well, is it possible to, based upon what just happened, which is unusual, and maybe from
misunderstanding, is it possible to ask the Board to reconsider and to table it and we’ll come back, rather than
to have to go through the whole procedure, and we’ll come back with another expert that can address the
aesthetic and the functional issue?
MR. MC NULTY-I have a problem with that. I think we’ve, I’ve seen information, at least, from the
Association of Towns, that indicates that a failure to approve is equivalent to a denial, and I think we have
just denied this application.
MR. STONE-I’m going to make that ruling that we have denied it.
MR. ABBATE-I think Chuck is right.
MR. MC NULTY-I would also suggest perhaps it would be appropriate for us to request the Town Attorney
to take a look at that and give us an official opinion, so we don’t get into this question in the future.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. STONE-Yes, a statement that I’ve been making in private, we should have more votes like this. If we
are doing a balancing test, and we’re deciding the benefit to the applicant versus, we should have more close
votes. I mean, things shouldn’t necessarily be seven. So, in this case, I’m going to say it’s a denial. We will
seek, Mr. Frank, would you do so, get clarification of that recent ruling and whatever quoted, was that a
motion to approve that is not passed is equivalent to denial. I’m going to say, for the moment, that that’s the
case, and I would ask that you go through the procedure, whatever you want to do.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Then that’s what we’ll do. I guess I’d just like to make one point, since the public
hearing, not asking anybody to revote, but just, in terms of the analysis, not being critical at all, but it sounds
to me that what the Board is concerned about is precedent, but what I didn’t hear was that anyone said, in
terms of the balancing test and the effects on the neighborhood, that the houses, these are all garages that are
pretty exquisite, in terms of this, and I didn’t hear, in terms of that balancing test, that there would be a
negative impact on the neighborhood if it looked like the neighbors, or that the neighbors’ variance created
something that’s not good looking, more just that you really wouldn’t want everybody on the lake to build
one.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s the neighborhood in this particular case. That’s what I would say.
MR. BRYANT-Well, you know, even though I don’t think we should be talking about the application, I don’t
think an important point was brought up, and that is that you were already granted setback relief on a
previous application, which now you’re not going to use. Is that correct?
MR. LAPPER-No, we are going to use.
MR. BRYANT-You’re going to still use it?
MR. LAPPER-Because that’s for the house.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-But we compromised greatly to get the house.
MR. BRYANT-It didn’t apply to the garage?
MR. LAPPER-No, because the garage didn’t need a setback variance.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m going to cut this off. I’m ruling it’s a denial.
MR. LAPPER-We’ll be back.
MR. STONE-And you’ll be back.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2002 TYPE II WILLIAM H. BERNARD PROPERTY OWNER:
SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 133 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,008 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING AND REMOVAL OF
A 96 SQ. FT. SHED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE 500 SQ. FT. MAXIMUM SIZE
REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. IN ADDITION, 5 FT. OF RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1400, SP 10-
95, BP 2002-613 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/14/02 TAX
MAP NO. 239.7-1-24 LOT SIZE: 0.90 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-5-020
WILLIAM BERNARD, PRESENT
MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, can I interrupt for a moment? I have to recuse myself on this application, as I
am acquainted with the applicant.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-That’s fair enough.
MR. STONE-Well, you don’t necessarily have to for an acquaintance, because we’re all acquainted with
people who come before us, but I applaud your.
MR. HIMES-Well, I mean, it’s up to you. I’ll sit or.
MR. STONE-I, too, am acquainted with him, but that doesn’t mean that we.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t think you have to recuse yourself there.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. STONE-I mean, you’ve stated that you’re acquainted with him, and that’s fine. So am I.
MR. HIMES-I haven’t seen him in 10 years.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69-2002, William H. Bernard, Meeting Date: August 28, 2002 “Project
Location: 15 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of a 96 sq. ft.
shed and construction of a 1,008 sq. ft. storage building for equipment storage and two personal boats.
Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the 500 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for accessory
structures, and for 5 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height allowed. Criteria for considering an
Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would
be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives may include constructing an accessory structure within the 500 sq. ft. maximum size and 16-foot
maximum height allowed, and expanding the attached garage to the 900 sq. ft. maximum allowed. 3. Is this
relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 508 sq. ft. of relief from the 500 sq. ft. maximum size
requirement may be considered substantial relative to the Ordinance (101.6%), and 5 feet of relief from the
16-foot maximum height requirement may be considered minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance
(31.3%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects 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 2002-63: Pending approval of
this application; 36’ x 28’ storage shed. BP 95-462: 08/11/95; septic alteration. BP 95-132: 04/13/95; 448
sq. ft. sundeck over dock. SP 10-95: 03/28/95; 448 sq. ft. sundeck over dock. AV 1400: 09/21/88; three-
bedroom, two-bath single-family dwelling. Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be
anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant could construct an accessory structure within the 500 sq.
ft. maximum size and 16-foot maximum height allowed, and expand the attached garage to the 900 sq. ft.
maximum allowed for the additional storage space needed. The proposed accessory structure, on a parcel less
than an acre, does not fit into the character of the neighborhood. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 14, 2002
Project Name: Bernard, William H. Owner: William H. Bernard ID Number: QBY-02-AV-69 County
Project#: Aug02-25 Current Zoning: WR-1A, CEA Community: Queensbury Project Description:
Applicant proposes construction of a 1,008 sq. ft. storage building and removal of a 96 sq. ft. shed. Relief
requested from the 500 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for accessory structures. In addition, 5 ft. of relief
requested from the height restrictions. Site Location: 133 Assembly Point Road Tax Map Number(s):
239.7-1-24 Staff Notes: The applicant requests variances for the construction of a 24’ x 36’ storage shed for
lawn and garden equipment that exceeds the size and height requirements. The applicant proposes a 864 sq.
ft. shed where 500 sq. ft. is the maximum size for an accessory building. The building is proposed to be 21 ft.
in height where 16 ft. is the maximum height allowed in the waterfront zone. The applicant indicates that
when they built the house in 1989 they were unable to have a full basement built for storage. Staff does not
find an impact on County resources. Staff recommends NCI. County Planning Board Recommendation:
No County Impact with Stipulation The Board recommended NCI with the condition that the building is for
personal use only, no rental storage, and no commercial activities to be conducted in the building.” Signed
Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 8/16/02.
MR. STONE-Mr. Bernard, anything you want to add, subtract, multiple or divide from your application?
MR. BERNARD-My name is William Bernard. I live at this location year round. It’s my only residence and
I’ve been there for over 13 years. I maintain my property myself, using a wide variety of equipment. I have
many recreation, lake related accessories. My lot is over an acre, even though they say it’s .9. I guess they
take out parts of the road to make it less than an acre, but according to my taxes it’s 1.15 acres. My house
takes up 750 square feet, with a four foot basement that was supposed to be an eight foot basement which
took from me 750 square feet. My garage is about 550 square feet. I have many items stored under tarps or
outside. Many things have been stored this way year round, since I’ve lived there, and it’s just a constant
storing things under tarps or putting them on decks or under decks. I’ve spent the last three years clearing
and cleaning most of my lot, which was virtually inaccessible up until this last year or two, using, of course,
Queensbury pick up the brush project, which was a big help. I’m preparing to retire and plan to be here daily,
spending the majority of my time at this location. I plan to be more active in recreation activities, and
improving my home during this time, so toys are definitely a high priority. I need much more space to store
equipment, recreation equipment, store things out of the weather. This building would mirror the nearby
storage buildings. There’s one kitty corner. It’s a barn. It’s been there forever. There’s one almost directly
across from it, and there’s one right in the rear of it, similar to this size and height. The building is nearly 400
feet from the lake. It’s surrounded by trees on three sides. There’s a buffer of over 50 foot of trees between
going towards the lake, probably 50 foot of trees between there and the nearest building. It’s over 120 feet
from the nearest building. It’s 130 foot off the road, and with the lay of the land beyond the building that I’m
proposing, it rises like three feet. I don’t know. In my eyes I guess we’re looking at laws that Queensbury has
created, or certain things that you want to follow, and it’s not like somebody built them 100 years ago, but
recently there’s been homes built anywhere’s from 3, 4, 5,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet for a couple of
people. I’ve got a 1500 square foot home. I want room for toys, storage, work. I probably should be
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
looking for a condo someplace and have somebody do the work, and I don’t think this is an outrageous
building for the size of the lot, but I think, if I’m not mistaken, this 550 square foot was recently enacted.
Maybe a year ago it probably wouldn’t have been a big deal, but like I say, with the big homes that go around
on these one acre lots that have gone up now, with two, three, four car garages with storage up overhead,
people don’t ask what they’re going to put in there. They don’t have to give them a list of things that are
going to go in there, and they build them. All I want is room to play.
MR. BRYANT-What are you going to store in there that you need the height?
MR. BERNARD-Basically, the same as the previous applicant. I really didn’t want to refer back there
because that didn’t turn out too good, but when I built my home, I thought I had plenty of storage. You just
don’t, I mean, it’s going to be storage. It’s going to be extra storage. I mean, I’ve got a list of things here
that.
MR. BRYANT-But it’s 21 feet high. What are you going to put in, inside the building, that you need 21 feet,
that you can’t just have a regular garage?
MR. BERNARD-Well, it’s like, I don’t know who’s a homeowner here that’s a do it yourselfer and who’s a
homeowner that’s not a do it yourselfer, but if you’re not a do it yourselfer, you don’t need any room. You
need a telephone and a checkbook. I have canoes, kayaks, lawn furniture, deck furniture, lawnmowers, york
rakes, lawnmowers, trailers, brush hikes, pressure washer, canopy frame covers, snow blowers. I want to get
a seadoo. I’ve got rubber rafts, floats. I’ve got boat accessories, ladders, table saws, chop saws, work bench,
lawn and garden tools, spreader, wheel barrels, ATV. I just bought myself an ATV. Ski and golf equipment,
bicycles. I mean, I have grandchildren come and go, exercise equipment, supplies and projects. I mean, it
just goes on and on and on.
MR. ABBATE-You see, Mr. Bernard, I’m going to have to be guided by the majority of the opinion of the
Board that we must not exceed the 16 foot height, because that’s the decision that was made to the prior
applicant, and I appreciate what you are saying, but if we are going to be consistent on this Board, we cannot
allow it.
MR. STONE-Let me make one statement first, that I just don’t want to let go. Town of Queensbury, in its
infinite wisdom, through the efforts of many citizens and the Town Board and members of the Planning
Board and the Zoning Board, have an improved zoning code. It requires certain things. It is not something
to be taken lightly. It is why we exist. We are defined in that Code as the Zoning Board of Appeals. We
listen to each and every application on an individual basis and decide whether or not we think the benefit to
the applicant outweighs the detriment to the community. The word “neighborhood” got mentioned earlier,
but it’s really the community, and the community can be broken down into areas, but it’s, and that’s what we
have to balance. We do it every time that we sit here, and we have to accept the Code as correct until we say,
in a particular case, that it’s not correct. I just wanted to get that out because.
MR. BERNARD-I understand the rules, but this is a variance. In other words, sometimes you allow people.
MR. STONE-It’s a variance from, and we are empowered to grant the minimum relief necessary. Having
made my speech, I will go back.
MR. ABBATE-I think that was well said, Mr. Chairman. I think that was important, and I appreciate, Mr.
Bernard, how you feel. I truly do. I realize you have all this other equipment, but someone, I think it was
Mr. McNulty said it right, or Norm, that we have to be consistent. Now, you heard what happened on the
last application. They attempted to go beyond the 16 foot height and we said absolutely not. That at least
was the majority of the opinion, and I have to go along with that. I have to support the majority’s opinion.
You’re seeking 101.6% increase, which is rather substantial.
MR. BERNARD-No, you’re not talking about the height now, right?
MR. ABBATE-Well, we’re talking about 500 square foot from the 500 square foot maximum size
requirement. That’s 101.
MR. BERNARD-I realize that. If you consider that there’s no storage in the basement, that’s 750 square feet
that I think I have at least the right of addressing.
MR. URRICO-Mr. Bernard, the Staff suggests that maybe you add on to the attached garage that you already
have, and that’s what 572 square feet. You can go as much as 900 square feet. That’s 330 feet that you can
add on to your garage, and then your accessory structure could be as much as 500 square feet, which is
considerably larger than what you have now as a shed. So you could add about 800 feet doing it that way,
which would be pretty close to what you’re asking for, and not need a variance.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. BERNARD-I think adding on to the garage, I’m not sure you’re talking, I mean, I’m looking at it as two
major projects, well, semi-major projects, and then it gets into the aesthetics and how it’s going to fit with the
house. In other words, I just can’t run the garage out. I’ve either got to go up, but I guess that’s my problem.
MR. STONE-Any other questions? Well, let me, having said that, if you have nothing further to add, I’ll
open the public hearing. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this
application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we have several pieces of correspondence. First one’s from a Mrs. Mary Trello, she
says, “Thank you for your public hearing notice. Sorry to say I won’t be able to be there at the Hearing
August 28, 2002 as I have other commitments. But I will say that it will be all right for Mr. William H.
Bernard to do as he wishes with the storage building, etc. It will be nice for the area involved. Thank you.
Mrs. Mary C. Trello”
MR. STONE-That’s the small lot next to you and in front of your jog. Okay. Right there. Yes. That lot
there. Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-The next one is from David and Rochelle Adams. They’re at 129 Assembly Point Road.
“We are probably the closest residents for view purposes being at the other corner of Knox Road. The
structure is opposite our property. We have no objection to this proposal; it will actually give space to store
things that could hinder the looks if not put inside the proposed structure. Thank you. David Adams” Next
one is from Joseph and Janet Toranbene. They say, “This letter is in support of William Bernard’s
application for a storage building at his Assembly Point Road property. Mr. Bernard respects the lake and the
property of others. He is a well regarded servant to the community and places importance on maintaining the
aesthetics of the area. As we cannot attend this meeting in person, please accept this letter as testimony of
our full support of his project. Sincerely, Joseph & Janet Tornabene” And that’s it.
MR. STONE-They’re two doors down. That one, yes. Okay. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Obviously, you agree with everything they’ve said? I only want to get confirmation of that.
Any other questions before we talk about it? Well, let’s start with Chuck over here.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I think I’ve got to come down on this the same way I did on the other application.
I’m bothered by the height. I’m bothered by the size. While there will be some screening with trees and
vegetation that’s on the property, the site is uphill from the home. I think it elevates it and tends to make it
more visible, and better than doubling the allowed size in this area, I think clearly will change the character of
the neighborhood. I don’t see special circumstances that justify the benefit to the applicant. I think there are
alternatives to the applicant, but perhaps not the ones he likes, but, for me, it’s just way too big, and I’m
going to be opposed.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I think a number of things enter in here. One I guess you know, from the last
show, the height is a big thing, but anyway. You also have a small storage shed, and I was just looking
through the application, and I thought somewhere you had indicated you were going to get rid of that for one
reason or another, and perhaps you could keep that or, I don’t know what was in your plans, but I think, you
know, certainly in your favor, this lot is different than most of the ones that I can call to mind that we look at
with almost any kind of an application for a variance it seems. Actually, when I went up there, I thought that
area where the proposed structure is going to go was a separate lot. So there’s, and it is a little over an acre,
which is bigger than some of the things that we see. On the other hand, and I notice some of the large barn
and the other significantly large structures in your neighborhood, all that establishes this that you may not be
doing something too differently from what some other people have done. So it’s hard to sustain something
on the basis of that. I think certainly anyone that can put things out of sight and have a place looking as neat
as yours is to be commended and it’s a great objective. I think to some extent that it may be a bit of a
variance to accommodate necessary storage might be considered. However, I think the magnitude of the
thing is what I have a little trouble with, the height and the size of it all. I can appreciate what you’re saying
about the garage. What I would say is that I would like to see some effort to compromise, to bring things a
little more in line with what the Town of Queensbury evidently wants, evidently by the Code as written. So,
as it stands, I think I would have some difficulty, especially given my last vote, in approving it as submitted,
but I do think, given the unusual layout of this lot, that if you were to submit an application with a
compromise, maybe I’d think a little differently. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Well, Mr. Bernard, if I were in your position, I would probably take the
same stand that you are, but unfortunately I’m not, and as I indicated earlier, I have to be guided by what the
majority of this Board, in terms of adhering to ordinances, have stated. Now, there is a standard of fairness.
We had a previous application that was disapproved, and they were only asking for 4.42 feet. You’re asking
for five, and so, based on the standard of fairness, I’m afraid, sir, that I could not go along with approving the
application. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Al?
MR. BRYANT-Some applications come before us as a matter of necessity and some as a matter of
convenience, and I think this is one, as a matter of convenience, and I think the spirit of the law is such that
we should look at each case based on necessity rather than convenience. I know Mr. Himes said that he’d
like to see it a little bit more in line, but, boy, I’d be nervous when he says that because he said that on the last
application, but, frankly, under the circumstances, I wouldn’t approve anything above what’s allowed in the
Code because there’s no real necessity, and I’d be opposed to this application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I hate to jump on the bandwagon here, but we do have a test. There’s five questions
that we need to answer, and the first is the benefit to the applicant, and, obviously, you would benefit by
having more storage space. The second one is feasible alternatives, and we’ve already discussed that, and I
think there are some feasible alternatives, and the relief, whether it’s substantial relative to the Ordinance,
well, the Town Code allows for 500 square feet per shed, an accessory structure, and you’re asking for 500
square feet above that 500 feet. That’s almost double, more than double, and the height is another five feet
above the 16 foot. So, yes, that’s quite substantial. As far as effects on the neighborhood or community, I
think we have the same problem that Mr. Abbate mentioned earlier, a sense of fairness, and how it impacts
the rest of the neighborhood, and by granting a height relief and certainly by granting the size relief we would
be setting somewhat of a precedent, it would have an effect on the neighborhood, and whether this difficulty
is self-created, yes, you’ve created this difficulty, but I think you have some alternatives I think you should
consider.
MR. BERNARD-I just didn’t want to overbuild down on that small narrow piece.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let us finish.
MR. URRICO-So I would be against it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I know it doesn’t happen every day, but I guess in my mind, Allan summed my viewpoint
up the best. As a Board, we’re charged with granting minimal relief where a need is demonstrated, and the
most compelling thing about this particular application to me is I don’t think there’s a compelling need. Even
the objects that you describe that needed to be stored, none of them were anywhere near the 21 foot that
you’re requesting. That, of course, doesn’t even speak to the fact that there’s a, you’re basically asking for
double the size of an accessory structure. So, in my opinion, the relief is very substantial. Feasible
alternatives certainly are there, and, you know, from a precedent or effects on the neighborhood perspective,
I don’t think this would be a good idea to approve double the size of an allowable structure. I think that
that’s excessive. So I’m against the application.
MR. STONE-I’d certainly concur with the rest of my Board. I think Mr. Urrico did the thing that maybe we
didn’t do the last time. He did go through the five points, and I think I said earlier, this is a balancing test.
We have to balance what you’d like to do with the other points that we have to consider, and these are the
points, by law, that we have to consider, and I think it’s been very clear that there are many possible
alternatives that will give you the same lease square footage. It’s very substantial relative to the Ordinance.
We’re talking about over 100%, and a very big height differential, and I just think that it will create many bad
effects, if you will, on the neighborhood or community, and it’s certainly self-created. Therefore, I would ask,
and let me tell you what happens. We, I’m sure we’re going to deny it, and I’m going to ask for a denial,
because, regardless of whether we deny it or we table it, and I don’t really want to table it, you have to come
in, from what I hear, with substantial change, and that is the requirement to be re-heard if we deny it. So it
does require an additional step. You have to convince us that it is substantial and then we’ll talk about it
again, but I want a motion to deny on the basis of the criteria that we’re talking about, that we’re charged
with, I mean. Roy, you look like you’re starting. Go.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2002 WILLIAM BERNARD, Introduced by Roy
Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
133 Assembly Point Road. The applicant proposes removal of a 96 square foot shed and construction of a
1,008 square foot storage building for equipment storage and for personal boats. The applicant requests relief
from the 500 square foot maximum size requirement for accessory structures and five feet of relief from the
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
16 foot maximum height allowed. The benefit to the applicant would be that he would be able to construct
this structure to enable him to store his equipment and his boats. The feasible alternatives may include
tacking on to an existing attached garage and perhaps building an accessory structure at or a little bit above
the maximum 500 square feet allowed, but this relief is very substantial relative to the Ordinance. The
Ordinance calls for 500 square feet as a maximum size requirement, and Mr. Bernard is asking for 1,008
square feet, which is 508 square feet above the maximum allowed, that’s 101.6%, and 5 feet of relief from the
16 foot maximum height requirement also is being asked for, and as far as effects on the neighborhood, there
would be moderate to substantial effects because of the height requirement and the size of the accessory
structure, and, yes, this difficulty is self-created. I move that we deny this.
Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-Sorry. So hopefully we will see you at a future date.
MR. BERNARD-You said something about two personal boats. I don’t remember putting anything like that
in there.
MR. URRICO-Well, that’s what’s in these notes.
MR. BERNARD-I’ve only got one, and it wouldn’t go in there. Thank you for your time.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED DR. PATRICIA EVANS d/b/a NORTH
COUNTRY CAT HOSPITAL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: HOLLY WHEELER/K.D.
WHEELER CUSTOM SIGNS ZONE: MU LOCATION: 13 MAIN STREET APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS
REFERENCE: UV 1315 (DEC. 16, 1987) FOR LOCATION AT 108 MAIN ST. (DIFFERENT
PROPERTY THAN THIS APPLICATION) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/14/02 TAX
MAP NO. 309.11-2-13 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 140-6-B1
HOLLY WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DR. PATRICIA EVANS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 70-2002, Dr. Patricia Evans d/b/a North Country Cat Hospital,
Meeting Date: August 28, 2002 “Project Location: 13 Main Street Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to install a new 24 sq. ft. sign panel in the existing freestanding sign structure. Relief
Required: Applicant requests 11.5 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum requirement, per § 140-6(B1) of
the Signs Ordinance. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to utilize the existing freestanding sign structure
for the proposed sign panel. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited for a double-
sided freestanding sign in a compliant location. However, feasible alternatives may include a double-sided
hanging sign projecting perpendicular from the front of the building. 3. Is this relief substantial relative
to the Ordinance?: 11.5 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as
moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance (76.7%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this
difficulty self-created: The difficulty may be attributed to a lack of compliant locations for a double-sided
freestanding sign. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 31-2002: 06/25/02;
veterinary clinic. BP 2000-244: 04/28/00; septic alteration BP 97-3023: 03/31/97; 24 sq. ft. freestanding
sign. SP 5-97: 02/18/97; professional office. BP 97-058: commercial interior alteration. BP 96-723:
11/21/96; demolition of garage and back section of house. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be
anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing freestanding sign structure.
The only change would be to the sign panel. However, a review of the parcel history revealed no setback
relief was ever granted or applied for by the previous owner, tenant, or sign contractor, and BP 97-3023 (sign
permit for the existing sign) was approved based on a sketch map, which indicated the sign, where located,
met the required 15-foot setback. The survey, submitted as part of this application, clearly shows the sign
does not meet the required setback. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 14, 2002
Project Name: Dr. Patricia Evans Owner: Dr. Patricia Evans ID Number: QBY-02-AV-70 County
Project#: Aug02-29 Current Zoning: MU Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant
proposes construction of a 24 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Relief requested from the front yard setback
requirement. Site Location: 13 Main Street Tax Map Number(s): 309.11-2-13 Staff notes: The applicant
requests a variance to place a sign that does not meet the setback requirements. The applicant proposes to
utilize the box area of a previous sign that was 3.5 ft. from the road where 15 ft. is required. Staff does not
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
identify an impact on County resources. Staff recommends NCI with the condition that the sign be in
character with the proposed Main Street guidelines. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County
Impact with the stipulation that the sign be in character with the proposed Main Street guidelines.” Signed
Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 8/16/02.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything you want to add, subtract, multiply?
MRS. WHEELER-Holly Wheeler, KD Wheeler Custom Signs. I think you pretty well covered it.
MR. STONE-Okay. The one thing I want to put on the table is that since this sign base was put in, we have
adopted Main Street guidelines, in anticipation of the widening of the road, and in anticipation of making
Main Street to be something that it is not today, and I don’t know when that will happen, but, never the less,
every trip starts with a small step. I think that’s the concern. I wrote down, and I don’t know where the
other guys are coming from, I wrote down this is a difficult call.
MRS. WHEELER-Okay.
MR. STONE-Obviously, there is a sign base there. It’s a fact that’s compounded by what I just said, it’s
compounded by what I just said. It’s compounded by the fact there was never a permit in the first place, and
the road is obviously wider than anybody, the right of way is wider than anybody thought it was.
MRS. WHEELER-Definitely.
MR. STONE-Yes, well, we find that quite often, and it is a concern, and that’s why we have these particular
proceedings. One of the things that, I looked at the property very closely the other day, and while you say
there’s no place for a sign, I thought maybe over on the west corner of the parking lot, is a possible. I mean,
I only throw it out as a possible solution. I mean, I looked at it, and the other question and I asked, and
obviously I ask this philosophically, not because signs aren’t good or signs aren’t bad, but, is this the kind of
business that really needs a visible sign. It’s my question, and I’m not asking you to answer it, unless you
want to, but it just seems to me that somebody, you’re a destination. Somebody is going to go there, and you
certainly need a sign that tells people they’re there, but I don’t know how much more you need.
MR. BRYANT-Just out of curiosity, with this Main Street thing, and all these buildings are going to
eventually come closer to the street, why didn’t they address the whole sign issue? That’s my first question.
MRS. WHEELER-That’s what I’d like to know.
MR. STONE-That’s a good question.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and my second question is, basically this application, we’re here because they never got
a variance for the original sign and basically we’re going back tracking.
MRS. WHEELER-Which was not me, it was not her.
MR. STONE-I understand that. I understand that.
MRS. WHEELER-Okay. For the record, I’m clarifying that.
MR. BRYANT-So, I mean if the buildings are.
MR. STONE-First of all, I don’t care who’s sitting there. Is it a good application or a bad application.
MRS. WHEELER-Right.
MR. STONE-That’s the only thing that counts.
MR. BRYANT-If the buildings are getting closer to the road.
MR. STONE-Yes, they are, supposedly.
MR. BRYANT-Well, yes, supposedly. Look at that Cumberland Farms.
DR. EVANS-Yes, which is right next to my building now. It’s on the road.
MR. BRYANT-It’s on the road, and the question is, then, what happens to the signs? So, I mean.
MR. STONE-They’re on the side of the road that’s not going to be built on, though. It’s going the other
way. I mean, there’s where the right of way is.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MRS. WHEELER-However, they put up a freestanding sign that’s a light box, from what I can tell.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but ultimately the idea is, from my understanding is that all the buildings,
on both sides, are going to be as close to the road as whatever their thing is.
MR. STONE-Look on Page, well, it says probably 94.
MR. FRANK-Actually the Director of Community Development, I had asked him that question, how much,
at this property, would they lose. He told me three feet. At this particular property, with what’s proposed for
the widening, on this side of the street, at this location, they would lose approximately three feet.
MRS. WHEELER-So where the sidewalk is is going back three feet, correct?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. URRICO-All right, but to supplement what Mr. Bryant’s talking about, if the idea is to move the
businesses closer to the road, which eventually will happen, then we’re going to be running into this sign issue
repeatedly.
MR. STONE-Well, we’re not going to have freestanding signs. I mean, that’s.
MR. FRANK-And again, the guidelines are guidelines. They’re not requirements by Code, and the
suggestions do offer up a hanging sign, double sided hanging sign, or a monument style sign. I would say this
is probably not too far away from being a monument type sign. I mean, Mrs. Wheeler would know better
than me. That’s her business.
MRS. WHEELER-That’s basically what they call it.
MR. ABBATE-You currently have a three by eight sign at the present time. The only thing that’s going to
change is the sign panel. Yours is 24 square, correct, eight by three?
DR. EVANS-Yes. It’s just going to utilize the existing structure that’s already there.
MR. ABBATE-So what you want to do, you’re right, utilize the existing.
DR. EVANS-I’m not altering. I’m not doing anything other than basically making an illegal sign, trying to
make it legal. That’s what we’re trying to do.
MR. STONE-But when we get a bite at the apple, sometimes we take it. I mean, that’s the only thing I can
say. This is not being negative or positive. It’s like, now we have a chance to look at it where we didn’t
before, and sometimes what we do is we say, if it had come with clean hands, what would we have done, and
this is certainly a question that might get asked here, as we talk about it.
MRS. WHEELER-One comment. I did read the revised Code for the Main Street corridor, and when they
say a double faced hanging sign, they’re talking about putting it under an awning that extends over a sidewalk,
something small so pedestrians can see it.
MR. STONE-I think so, yes.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. Well, old-fashioned.
MRS. WHEELER-Right, downtown flavor, you know, I understand that, but.
MR. STONE-The locksmith is here.
MRS. WHEELER-But this doesn’t really work. Frankly, I don’t think it works all that well here.
MR. BRYANT-It does if your building were closer to the street.
MRS. WHEELER-And it was if the building was closer to the street, but I’m not.
MR. BRYANT-Just move the building over and we’ll be fine.
MRS. WHEELER-Is there a grant for that?
MR. ABBATE-The Chairman made a good point, in terms of, is the sign really necessary. So, in defense of
the applicant, let me say this. We do have a great volume of visitors here in the summertime, and more and
more folks are coming to Queensbury, and I maintain that a sign is necessary, particularly if it’s an emergency,
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
and an individual’s up here for the first time with an animal looking for some doctor to treat the animal. So
there may be some justification.
MRS. WHEELER-And the traffic is, you know the traffic on that road. You want to find something fairly
quickly, preferably before you go by the driveway.
MR. ABBATE-And I might add, I’m not prejudice. I don’t have a cat. I have a dog.
MRS. WHEELER-Okay. We won’t hold it against you.
MR. STONE-We’re getting more than we need. Any other questions of the applicant? If not, let me open
the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of the application? Anybody opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAUL WAKELY
MR. WAKELY-I’m not sure what I am.
MR. STONE-Well, come forward. We’ll grant you that. A lot of people don’t know when they come up to
speak.
MR. WAKELY-My name’s Paul Wakely. I live in Glens Falls. I own the piece of property on the other side
of you, on the east side.
MR. STONE-The east side. The driveway here?
MR. WAKELY-Yes. No, I’m the other east, yes, the brown one.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. WAKELY-I wasn’t, after sitting here listening to what’s going on, I don’t know what isn’t proper about
what you’re doing. The sign is going to be too close to the road? I thought it was the size of the sign, but
now you’re saying it’s?
MR. STONE-No, it’s not the size of the sign. The sign, if it were at 15 feet, it’s legal at any.
MR. FRANK-They could double the size that they’re proposing.
MR. STONE-They could double the size.
MR. WAKELY-Okay. It’s the way it sets, then, it’s too close to the road? Is that what?
MR. FRANK-It doesn’t meet the required 15 foot setback to the right of way.
MR. STONE-See, the right of way is actually across the driveway.
MR. HAYES-It’s not the road. It’s not the paved area.
MR. FRANK-Where the front property line is.
MR. WAKELY-And is it not in compliance now, or with the new plan on the Main Street corridor?
MR. STONE-No, now.
MR. WAKELY- Right now, and that’s going to come another three feet with the Main Street corridor. Okay.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. WAKELY-I had thought that she wanted to move it out closer to the road, okay. I didn’t understand
what was going on from the information I got, and I was coming to say, no, I don’t like that. Don’t give any
variances for anything. If it’s an existing, the one that’s there now, I have no problem with. Maybe I should
have spoken before on the plus side, but I would have no problem with it where it is, and lighting it back up,
okay, but I would have no problem with it where it is, and setting it back up.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s okay. We can sort that out. We can understand. This is a very technical thing. What
happened when they came in, the Town discovered that the right of way is not where people think it is. A lot
of times this happens with roads. We see a paved road and we think that’s the right of way, and sometimes,
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
first of all, it’s wider than you think and sometimes the road bed is skewed to one side or other of the right of
way, according to the whims of.
MR. HAYES-People measure from the center of the road, and that doesn’t always do it.
MR. STONE-That doesn’t always work. That’s all, and that’s probably what happened in this case.
MR. WAKELY-I’d like to ask one more question. Do you own the property?
DR. EVANS-Yes.
MR. WAKELY-Did you buy it? You’re not renting it from the gentleman that did own it? Great. Okay.
No, I have been owning the property right next to it. I think it’s a good idea. I’m all for it.
MR. STONE-You’re all for it. Okay. Good.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good.
MR. STONE-Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-All right. Then I’ll close the public hearing
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions anybody wants to make? Well then let’s do our normal thing. Let’s talk
about it. We’ll start with Norm.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes. I feel that the status quo has some bearing, but it isn’t a carrying factor to me,
especially with signs. I would have liked to have seen some strong business reasons given, rather than the
fact, well, it’s there, and so on, and I don’t hear any of that, and I kind of agree with what the Chairman said
earlier, that there’s at least one other possibility. You go up and down the road, as you well know, there’s a
mish mash of, some buildings are closer to the road than others, and some signs are set back and what
appears to almost meet the Code, at least, and others are much too close, for one reason, they stay that way, it
appears. Now we have a chance to look at this again, and I feel that there are some alternatives that might be
employed. So, as submitted, I would not be in favor of the application. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m going to take a different point of view. I would support the application for the
following reasons. Number One, it’s an already existing freestanding sign. Number Two, there is a balancing
act, need versus convenience, and I think in this case here there is a need for a sign. After all, I’m assuming
that there is emergency care for animals at this. Am I correct in that?
DR. EVANS-Sometimes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, at times. Okay. So I feel that there is a need for this, and since it is existing, and I am
particularly impressed with the neighbor who came here this evening ready to put the gavel down saying no,
then after hearing all the facts, said, you know, it’s not really a bad idea. They’re not moving it anywhere. So,
they do have a three by eight sign, and I believe I’m correct, Bruce, they could increase it twice that size if
they wish.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-If they were 15 feet.
MR. ABBATE-Of course. So, on this balancing act, need versus convenience, I think there is a need for the
sign, and where it’s at right now, I really don’t see any obstacles. So I would support the application.
MR. STONE-Al?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I, too, I’m in favor of the application, primarily because the sign is pre-existing and we’re
really here because somebody did something back then, and with that in mind, I would support it. This is, it
is a necessity.
MR. STONE-Roy?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think the Town has a plan in mind for this stretch of roadway that will take place over
a period of time, and the idea is to move the businesses closer to the road and center the signs. They’re really
very specific here saying they want to see the signs centered. Well, obviously, we’re not going to move the
building here, but you have centered the sign, whether it was an accident or, and whether it’s an accidental
placement, or, but that’s, the Town is envisioning signs in the middle of the businesses. So I think we’re
getting closer here, and so, pardon the pun, I don’t think it would be a catastrophe to approve this sign
variance. So I would be in favor of the application. I think the 15 foot minimum requirement is a problem
that most businesses are going to have on that road that aren’t on the sidewalk, and those that are on the
sidewalk are going to have a problem because they’re going to have to figure out a way to get the signs on
their buildings, but I would be in favor of this application.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. This Board has had a history of very strong Sign Ordinance enforcement,
and I think that’s great. It’s typically something that takes away from the aesthetic value of our community,
and then you can’t do anything about it, but in this particular case, I drive by this sign a dozen times a day,
and it never has troubled me in the past, stuck out in my mind that that’s too much or overpowering or out
of place. I think in this particular case that the feasible alternatives are very limited. That’s, I mean you can’t
really go any closer to the building than the sign is now. We wouldn’t want it to go closer to the road, and
I’m not sure, with the volume of traffic on that road, that any sign that was severely off center or out of place,
that it wouldn’t lose its value altogether or enough to the extent that that would create an undue hardship on
the applicant or the owner of the property. I’m also taking into account that if the sign was moved back to
15 feet, say to the left or the west of the property there, that they could double the size of the sign, and I’m
not sure that that’s what I’d want to have happen. I think a three by eight sign, in this particular case, is
probably going to look okay there as the other sign did, and a sign that was double that size, based on our
direction, might not. So I don’t think there’s any real big impacts on the neighborhood or community. The
sign is already there. It didn’t trouble me before, and this Main Street corridor, as my colleagues have pointed
out, there’s plenty of things swirling around out there that are going to happen or may happen or should
happen, but I don’t think we should put that entirely on this applicant. The property is already there. The
sign is already there, and I don’t think the difficulty is totally self-created. I mean, this Main Street plan, it’s a
great one, but there’s still a lot of things that are not quite sure how it’s going to end up or how it’s going to
be done, and I don’t think there’s really a better place for this sign, considering all that. So I don’t think the
difficulty is self-created. I’m in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll basically echo what Jaime said. I also took note that the sign, at the moment, is
covered. It’s not at sign that was put up and left and then came in for a request. If it were in some other area
of Town, I might have a problem with it, but considering the guidelines for Main Street, I think it’s
appropriate, even if the street moves three feet closer to the sign, and as has been pointed out, the only way
to make compliance is to put it beside the building. Otherwise it’s going to be in the middle of the building.
The size is appropriate where it is. So I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-I concur with the majority. This is what I like about the process. I mean, I certainly raised
some points. They have been answered, both by the applicant and by the fellow Board members, and I think
we have done our job in considering the five points that we do. Obviously, we are not going to torpedo the
Main Street plan by allowing this sign to stay for the moment and for the foreseeable future. I, too, was
struck, as Mr. McNulty was, by the fact that the sign was covered. We have seen people who have come
before us for Sign Variances where the sign is there, and almost defying us to take it down. Well, we didn’t
have to do that in this case, and I applaud the applicant for that. Having said that, I need a motion to
approve this Sign Variance.
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2002 DR. PATRICIA EVANS, Introduced by
Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
13 Main Street. The applicant proposes to install a new 24-foot sign panel in the existing freestanding sign
structure. The applicant, in doing so, requests 11.5 feet of relief from the 15-foot minimum requirement per
140-60B(1) of the Sign Ordinance. The benefit to the applicant would be to be able to utilize the existing
freestanding sign structure for the proposed sign panel. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. It could be
put on the side of the building, but that would probably create a less visible sign. So the feasible alternatives
seem to be somewhat limited. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 11.5 feet of relief from the
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
15-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance, but
it’s somewhat, as far as effects on the neighborhood or community, it’s somewhat in character with that
neighborhood in that most of the properties are close to the road and will be closer in the future, and it
should be noted that the sign is placed in the center of the property which is something that the new Zoning
Ordinance is asking future applicants to do when the properties are closer to the road, and is this difficulty
self-created? It may be attributed to a lack of compliant locations for a double-sided, freestanding sign. I
move that we approve this application. I’d like to condition this application that the proposed sign not be
any larger than the 24 square foot sign panel that currently exists.
Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2002, by the following vote:
th
MR. FRANK-I think you might want to condition that the square footage never increase by the 24 feet that
you’re approving.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s a good point.
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Himes
DR. EVANS-Thank you.
MRS. WHEELER-Okay. Thank you.
DR. EVANS-Thank you very much.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 71-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED QUEENSBURY TIRE, INC. OWNER:
PILGRIM LAND HOLDING CORP. AGENT: CHARLES TAYLOR ZONE: HC-INT
LOCATION: 973 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN ADDITIONAL 36
SQ. FT. WALL SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO
MAINTAIN THE SIGN. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8/14/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-19
LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION 140-6 B3
BILL MONTGOMERY & CHUCK TAYLOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 71-2002, Queensbury Tire, Inc., Meeting Date: August 28, 2002
“Project Location: 973 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 36 sf
wall sign and seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance to maintain the sign. Relief Required: Applicant
requests relief for a second wall sign for the business. Pursuant to § 140-6, B., (3) (c), this business would be
allowed one wall sign, as there is currently a freestanding sign on the site as well. Criteria for considering a
Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would
be permitted to maintain the desired signage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be
limited to compliance with the ordinance. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
Relative to the Ordinance, this is considered to be 100% relief. One wall sign is allowed; permission for two
signs is requested. 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? This difficulty
is self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Variance 916: resolved 6/20/84;
setback relief for the construction of repair facility. Site Plan Review 53-88: resolved 10/25/88;
improvements to the repair facility. Sign Permit 89-1511: Freestanding sign. Sign Permit 90-1349: Wall
sign. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
proposed sign is on the accessory/storage building on the site. The applicant appears to claim some level of
“immunity” from the requirements of the Sign Ordinance with the claim that the sign “pre-existed” the
ordinance. This is not a valid argument. § 140-8, Non-conforming signs, requires all such signs to be
brought into compliance with the Sign Ordinance within 60 days of the effective date. This timeframe for
compliance expired on 11/10/00. The Town has been pursuing an enforcement action with the applicant for
approximately 1 year. This sign variance application is in response to an order of the Town of Queensbury
Justice Court in March of this year. Originally, there were 4 illegal signs on display at this site. The applicant
was ordered, on March 22, 2002, to remove three of the signs and apply for a Sign Variance within 30 days in
order to keep the fourth sign. Three of the signs were removed and the variance application was only filed
after the applicant was scheduled to reappear before the Court. Additionally, the portable signage displayed
on the tire racks on the site is not allowable. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form August 14, 2002
Project Name: Queensbury Tire, Inc. Owner: Pilgrim Land Holding Corp. ID Number: QBY-02-SV-71
County Project#: AUG02-37 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description:
Applicant has constructed an additional 36 sq. ft. wall sign and seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance in order
to maintain the sign. Site Location: 973 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 296.13-1-19 Staff Notes: The
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
applicant requests a variance for the number of signs allowed. The applicant installed the existing 12’ x 3’
when the Town had no sign ordinance. The Town’s sign ordinance was under revision abut two years ago
during that time period if a sign was installed it was explained that they would be required to come into
compliance when the sign ordinance was in effect. The applicant currently has one wall sign that is permitted
and proposes a second wall sign that exceeds the number of wall signs allowed on one site. Staff
recommends concurrence with the local sign ordinance allowing a specified amount of signs for a site.
County Planning Board Recommendation: Concur with local ordinance The Board recommended
concurrence with the local sign ordinance allowing a specified amount of signs for a site.” Signed Thomas E.
Haley, Warren County Planning Board 8/16/02.
MR. STONE-Two things. One, since the County said that it must comply with local ordinance, I am
interpreting this as a denial, and therefore we need a supermajority to grant this variance.
MR. MONTGOMERY-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just want that clearly on the record. The other thing, Bruce, this other note you have
in here, from Craig to you, should we read that in, or should we just leave it up for the moment?
MR. FRANK-I believe that’s for your benefit.
MR. STONE-Okay. Fine. All right. Gentlemen, speak into the microphone, identify yourself.
MR. MONTGOMERY-I’m Bill Montgomery.
MR. TAYLOR-Chuck Taylor.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MONTGOMERY-I guess some of the concerns that we need to address is the reason for why the sign
has been attached to that building, and I don’t know if you’re familiar with the property in question. As you
can see, the building to the left is offset. So it doesn’t face the front of the street squarely, so that the signs
that are on that building are visible only as you’re driving in a southerly direction and immediately north of
that is the Glen Street, or the Glen Drive-in sign, which is right out against the road, for all intents and
purposes, together with the shrubbery that’s around it. So as you’re driving south on Route 9, the Hancook
sign, which is on the sign in question here, is not visible at all, and for the most part, these buildings to the far
left aren’t, until you’re actually passing by the Glen Drive-in location. In addition to this, because of the
configuration of the buildings with the glass and the service bays that are required for the business, Mr.
Taylor cannot physically put up a sign as large as he would put up, in accordance with the Ordinance, because
there isn’t enough space without covering the doors or the windows. If this had been another establishment
with a flat surface on the front, without the service bay doors, then he could put up a sign of up to 100 square
feet, combined with the sign that he’s proposing to put up, is less than what he would be allowed to put up if
he were allowed to put up one sign and if the building permitted it, but the building doesn’t permit it, because
of the overhead garage doors which are required because of his business. So this sign, combined with the
two signs that are up, or the one sign that says Queensbury Alignment Center, the three signs combined
contain less square footage than if one sign were put up. One sign cannot be put up because, again, the
building design which pre-existed does not allow for it. So he’s sort of stuck in a Catch-22. He can put up a
sign that’s 100 square feet, under the Ordinance, but he can’t put it up because the buildings don’t allow for
it. In addition to that, as you’re coming north on Route 9, because of the angle of the building that says
Queensbury Tire and Alignment, the way it’s situated on the property, as you’re coming north on Route 9,
you can’t see those signs at all, and in addition to that, as you can see the trees coming out from the Mt. Royal
Plaza, they come all the way out, so you really do not see these buildings until you’re right on top of them,
because of the foliage down there and the foliage to the north of it. It’s set back in far enough to where if
you’re traveling on Route 9, until you’re right in front of those buildings, you don’t see either one of the signs,
and that has to do primarily with the configuration of the buildings on the building lot, and that’s why he
finds himself in the position that he finds himself. The second sign, the sign in question tonight, was put up,
and at the time that it was put up it was permitted. It was not in violation. It was put up with three other
signs, which the Chairman had indicated, when Mr. Taylor contested the findings of the Code Enforcement
Officer that was out there, and he was cited, we went to court and Judge Muller, in trying to reach some sort
of compromise, until you could hear this case, asked that the other three nonconforming signs be taken
down, and they were taken down. The only reason this one wasn’t and it was discussed in open court, is
because it’s affixed in a much more permanent nature, and it’s got electrical wires running to it, and it would
have been more of a hardship to take the sign down and then put it back up if the variance were to be
granted, and I think everybody in the court room at that time concurred, leave the sign up there and make the
application for the variance.
MR. STONE-It could have been covered, though.
MR. MONTGOMERY-That wasn’t suggested until you mentioned it with the other one being covered. It
wasn’t something that crossed my mind.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. ABBATE-If you’re finished, I have some questions.
MR. STONE-Yes. I have a question first.
MR. ABBATE-Sure.
MR. STONE-The freestanding sign, that’s, I’m trying to, could that be moved? I mean, I’m hearing visibility
problems. Could that freestanding sign be somewhere in the middle of the property?
MR. MONTGOMERY-Well, if it were, it would interfere with the driveway pattern. So the cars, I’m just
looking, I don’t know, Mr. Taylor. That, right now, is set between the two driveways, and set in, so the cars
can exit from both ends of the property.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck, I’m sorry.
MR. ABBATE-That’s okay. Mr. Montgomery, I hope you’ll be patient with me. You’re an attorney, correct?
MR. MONTGOMERY-And I am patient. I’m a patient attorney.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s okay. You can kind of guide me along some of these issues, then.
MR. MONTGOMERY-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-One of the foundations that I, personally, build my decision whether to support or not
support an application, is good faith. Okay. Would you tell me why it took approximately one year for the
applicant to submit this application?
MR. MONTGOMERY-Well, I don’t think, I don’t know, Mr. Taylor, when were you first approached about
the problem? I think the Chairman said it was in November.
MR. STONE-No the timeframe for compliance expired on 11/10.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. MONTGOMERY-11/10 of what year?
MR. STONE-2000.
MR. ABBATE-2000, yes.
MR. STONE-In other words, first of all, this Town has had, over the past, I guess 12 years, or maybe more
than that, two moratoriums on making signs conform. One lasted almost 10 years. That goes back to the
80’s, and then this last one was done with only, for 60 days, all above board, but 60 days, everybody had 60
days to bring their signs into conformity, and I think earlier Mr. Hayes made the comment, in the prior
application, that we prided ourselves on the Sign Ordinance in this Town, and have been pretty zealous about
it, and the Town, obviously, has been very zealous about it, but, Chuck, go ahead.
MR. ABBATE-Can I give you my personal assessment of this and perhaps, if I’m wrong, you could tell me
where I’m wrong, please?
MR. MONTGOMERY-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. There can be no question that Queensbury Tire has constructed a 36 square foot wall
sign and is now seeking relief. Nobody can contest that, but, you know, I get confused, because, after reading
the application, I have an opinion, and my opinion is that the applicant is attempting to blur the issue.
Queensbury Tire attempts to argue that it has immunity from qualifying factors of the Sign Ordinance, and
they assert, or he asserts, that the 36 square foot sign pre-exists the Ordinance. Now, I did a little bit of
research on this, and my research into the matter of pre-existing immunity portrays an entirely contrasting
position than that of the applicant. See, it’s my opinion that the portal for access to Queensbury Tire, under
pre-existing immunity, is closed. Is locked, is bolted and sealed it denies any further entry for this type of
relief. See, it’s my opinion, also, that your claim is not only transparent, but is faulty. Show me where I’m
wrong.
MR. MONTGOMERY-Well, I’m going by what the Town Attorney represented to the Court on the record
and during our discussions, where she agreed that, in fact, this sign pre-existed the Ordinance, and at the time
that it was constructed, was not in violation of the Ordinance.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. ABBATE-Well, then we have some kind of contradictory information in here, then. Again, I don’t
understand the delay, because it makes it so easy for anyone, based on this delay, to question good faith, and
it also could be assumed that Mr. Taylor really only comes before this committee because he’s facing
litigation. Now, that could be a naïve way of approaching this whole thing, but that’s my perception.
MR. MONTGOMERY-You’re certainly entitled to that perception. I mean, there’s nothing that I can say
that’s going to dispute the facts here.
MR. ABBATE-See, thank you for being honest with me. So, based on that, I could not, in good conscience,
support the application, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant?
MR. URRICO-It says on the application that the offending signs have been removed, but when I drove by
there today, there seemed to be others in the window. There seemed to be more signs there, the window
signs.
MR. MONTGOMERY-It’s my understanding that none of the other signs on the property are in violation of
the Ordinance. Now I could be wrong. I didn’t drive by there today, but again, based upon the discussions
that I’ve had with the Code Enforcement Officer.
MR. STONE-Window signs don’t seem to count. I mean, that’s a loophole in our Sign Ordinance, that you
can put window signs in, temporary type things that you put up with Scotch Tape.
MR. FRANK-Actually, the Code states you’re allowed to utilize up to 25% of your window space. So that’s
exactly what it is.
MR. STONE-Okay, 25%. All right. So you can put those in. That’s what we’re getting at.
MR. FRANK-You can utilize up to 25% of your window space.
MR. STONE-I do have a question. As I look at this view that you’ve presented to me, are we considering
that whole sign on the south building to be one sign?
MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes, and that’s what the Town is considered it.
MR. STONE-And what is the square foot of that sign, Bruce, do you know?
MR. FRANK-I don’t know.
MR. MONTGOMERY-I believe the sign is three feet by eighteen feet, which is 54 square feet.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MONTGOMERY-And the other sign is three feet by twelve feet, which is 36, and when you add the
two together, you get 90 square feet, and the Ordinance allows for 100 square feet.
MR. STONE-Well, one of the concerns I have, I mean, I hear your argument. You made a very, you made
an argument for the fact that this sign over here that says Hancook, and I have to admit, I don’t know what a
Hancook is, because I’ve never bought one, nor have I ever heard of one. So it doesn’t tell me what your
business is at all. So I’m not sure I understand why it’s so necessary to put the name of an obscure brand of
tire. I assume it’s a brand of tire. I don’t know.
MR. TAYLOR-Yes, it is.
MR. STONE-I think I’m correct in saying it’s obscure, at least as far as I’m concerned, but then that’s, I
could be wrong. So, the argument is like, well, you put a sign up, and there is a sign, but it doesn’t do much
for the business that I can see, as a naïve user of tires. Roy, you look like you’re going to say something.
MR. URRICO-Well, one of the arguments Counselor used is that coming north, you cannot see the wall sign
that’s on the building, and if that’s the case, why wouldn’t the sign by the bay say Queensbury Tire instead of
tire brand? If you want to identify the building as a tire establishment, that would be, I don’t know, that
would seem to me to be (lost word) idea.
MR. MONTGOMERY-Well, I mean, likewise they could put up Dunlap, which is another more recognizable
tire that they carry, but what makes this sign probably stand out more, or the reasoning for it is because it’s a
brand that other people don’t carry. Okay. I mean, otherwise they carry Dunlap and they could put up a
Dunlap sign there, which would, to the average person, be more recognizable.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. STONE-Well, they couldn’t put it up, as far as the Town is concerned.
MR. MONTGOMERY-Right.
MR. STONE-So I don’t want you to slip that in.
MR. MONTGOMERY-So, I guess that’s just a business decision that Mr. Taylor has made.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s fine. Any other comments, gentlemen? Any other questions? Well, let me open
the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of it? Anybody
opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Let’s start with Chuck.
MR. ABBATE-I appreciate what Counselor has said concerning the application, but there has been some
rather interesting questions raised, Roy, as an example, Chairman, as an example, and I have to stick by my
assumption here, or presumption, about this pre-existing immunity, because after all, Counselor, that’s what
your entire case is based upon, pre-existing immunity. Correct?
MR. MONTGOMERY-No, it isn’t.
MR. ABBATE-It’s not? So pre-existing immunity has nothing to do with this, then?
MR. MONTGOMERY-It’s not based on that because we recognize the fact that once the Ordinance was
passed, then there had to be compliance, and our application is based upon what he just went through. As far
as the character of the neighborhood, the conclusion is there is minimal. As far as alternatives, I don’t know
what alternatives there are because the configuration of the doors and the building don’t allow for an
alternative, and as far as it being substantial relief, the conclusion here that it’s 100%, but I mean, that’s when
you’re counting signs. If you’re counting the number of square footage, it isn’t 100% because the two signs
combined still constitute less square footage than what would be allowed. As far as the negative impact on
the community, or on the character of the neighborhood, I don’t see any, and as far as whether or not it was
self-created, I don’t see how it can be argued that it was self-created.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So then I’m really relieved, then you agree with me that there’s no argument for pre-
existing immunity.
MR. MONTGOMERY-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. So I still haven’t changed my position, Mr. Chairman. Okay.
Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Prior application I made a comment about necessity, and your presentation tonight, where
you talk about the necessity for the sign because of the configuration of the building is understandable, but in
response to that, I mean, this is not the only auto service place in the Town of Queensbury, and they all,
basically, are faced with that, a similar situation.
MR. MONTGOMERY-No.
MR. BRYANT-Why is that?
MR. MONTGOMERY-Why? Because, again, if you look at the configuration.
MR. BRYANT-You have bays. You go to Monroe Muffler or Warren Tire or any of them, and they have a
limited amount of space for sign.
MR. MONTGOMERY-They have a limited amount of space, but the difference with this property is it’s
property that contains two buildings that are distinctively set apart from each other, and as one drives by it
without a sign being on it, you wonder if it’s even part of the same structure that’s at the other end of the
property, and, I mean, that’s something, without any signage on that building at all, you wonder if it’s the
same business.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. BRYANT-Well, personally, I didn’t find that difficulty, okay, because it’s all connected, as far as the
parking lot is concerned. Did you help your client fill out this application? Just out of curiosity.
MR. MONTGOMERY-He came to my office for help. I wasn’t there when he filled it out.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Well, the reason I ask is I think, I wanted to touch on what, I think this is where Mr.
Abbate is confused, because as you through the application, the answer to all the questions basically are it
pre-existed the Ordinance, you know, it pre-existed the Ordinance.
MR. MONTGOMERY-Right.
MR. BRYANT-And it doesn’t really answer the questions on the application, because that’s not a response.
The Ordinance is clear. So I question whether or not you even help your client, because I know that that
wouldn’t be your approach.
MR. MONTGOMERY-I think the reason that was put down, because that was the central point that was
looked at by Judge Muller in court, whether or not this sign was put up in violation of the Ordinance or
whether or not it pre-existed the Ordinance that was in effect at the time.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but whether it pre-existed the Ordinance or not, the Ordinance itself describes what the
outcome is of all nonconforming signs. You had a limited time to conform.
MR. MONTGOMERY-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-And the time passed. So that negates that who pre-existing Ordinance, but that’s neither here
nor there.
MR. STONE-In effect, the Judge said that’s a nonconforming sign. You need a variance to keep it up.
MR. MONTGOMERY-That’s correct. We don’t dispute that. Mr. Taylor did dispute that. He did not
believe that the Ordinance, as passed, required him to take the sign down, which I guess is what he was
whispering in my ear as to why it took so long and reached the point that it did.
MR. STONE-Okay. So your argument is different than the applicant’s filling out?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, that’s the way I’m.
MR. ABBATE-So that’s the inconsistency, and let me just throw out one final question. If it was this critical
to your business, why wait a year to argue the case?
MR. MONTGOMERY-It’s my understanding that nobody complained about the sign until about a year
after. It stayed up in violation, similar to the one on Broad Street. It stayed up in violation of the Ordinance
without any complaint being made, without Mr. Taylor realizing that it was, in fact, in violation of the
Ordinance.
MR. STONE-That’s one of the reasons the Town, in its infinite wisdom, hired the Code Enforcement
Officer, because we are understaffed in terms of trying to keep track of 12,000 properties.
MR. MONTGOMERY-I can understand that, but you’re asking me why, and I’m just trying to explain.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Well, we need a response from, now, the Code Enforcement.
MR. FRANK-If I can interject, nobody ever complained about the signage. I came into employment with
the Town in July of last year. The Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown, was Code Compliance Officer prior
to that. He had been to the site a couple of times and spoken with Mr. Taylor. He did not issue anything in
writing at the time. As part of my first task with the Town, he wanted me to work on signage. I actually
issued the appearance ticket to Mr. Taylor back in August of last year, but no one ever complained about the
sign, in fairness to the applicant.
MR. STONE-All right. Al, I’m sorry, we keep interrupting you.
MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s okay. I, in view of that and what Mr. Abbate said, I’d have to be opposed to the
application.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-And can I interject one other thing, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t draft these Staff notes. The
Zoning Administrator did. Since he has been going to court and he’s been the one that actually initiated this
enforcement action, I know you will do so, and I’m hoping so. I want everybody else to realize that you’re
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
looking at this application based on its merits. I hope you don’t consider the enforcement action, because
Mr. Taylor is here now, and here’s the opportunity for you to, you know, either approve or deny this based
on the merits of the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. One of the things that we have always done, and I assume we’ll do it in this case, is if he
came with clean hands, what would we do, and that’s the way I’m sure we’re going to approach it.
MR. ABBATE-And further, this Board doesn’t operate on a punitive nature, anyway. It would be out of
order to do such.
MR. STONE-That’s correct. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m conflicted, to be honest. As I look through the test, I see a benefit to the applicant. I see
his alternatives being somewhat, and some of the arguments made, you know, I have some problem with the
arguments, in the sense that, yes, it’s only visible going south. It’s not visible going north, but I don’t know
many people that travel Route 9 that don’t go in both directions, and it’s a fairly visible parcel. On the other
hand, similar tire places around Town, I guess this lends itself to the effects on the neighborhood or
community that do have multiple signs. Warren Tire for an example. They have two walls signs. They have
two wall signs and a freestanding sign. I’m not sure about some of the other tire places. I know there’s an
auto place up the road from this one that has a freestanding sign, a wall sign on the main building, and then
signs over each of the bays, and, you know, as we’ve looked through some of these applications, we’ve been
fairly, I don’t want to use the word “lenient”, but we’ve allowed auto places to put up signs over their bays to
identify whatever services they’re providing, and to me, that’s already bent the law, at least in some respect, or
bent the Code, and we’ve allowed the variances. So I’m looking at this from that perspective, and I’m
looking, I think if the applicant is agreeable to keeping those extra signs down, using only the 25% of window
space, I would be in favor of the application.
MR. MONTGOMERY-You’re referring to the signs that were taken down previously?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. MONTGOMERY-Yes.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I know tonight we’ve had some tough cases, and when I read through this application
originally, I have to say I thought this was going to be the easiest one, because I thought it was a denial, but I
want to commend Counselor on abandoning the immunity defense, for lack of a better phraseology in this
case, immediately, because I didn’t see any credence in that, and I was prepared to deny it on that basis. In
going through the test that we’re charged with, similar to Roy, as I sat and listened to the arguments, this
application got a lot closer, in my mind, than it was initially. Obviously, the benefit to the applicant would be
some signage that he feels necessitates his business. The fact that this, as Lew said that he had never heard of
these tires, and he didn’t know that was a tire sign in a way begs the question, that might be why he needs a
sign. Okay. The feasible alternatives are a little bit limited in this case because there are two buildings that
are separated, physically, and, there’s no doubt in my mind, having lived in this Town, that the Drive-in sign
is almost a blocking billboard out by that road. I mean, it really is, I mean, I’ve gone there 100 times in my
life, and will go 100 times again, but it is a significant blockage of the line of sight down that road when you
come up the thing, by definition. That’s why it was put there. Is the relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance? I think, clearly, it is. I think, you know, one wall sign with one freestanding sign. You want two,
I think the relief is significant, but I am impressed with the argument as well that cumulatively these two signs
are less than one sign would be permitted, and to me that is a softening of the relief. I mean, there’s not a
100 foot sign. There’s two signs that are 90, and because you have bay doors that the signs have to fit over, I
think that we have to take into consideration the kind of business that you run and where the signs can go. I
agree with Roy in this particular case that there’s other tire stores in Town that came to, when I started
thinking about it, that came to mind that have more than one sign. They really do, in particular signs that
have to do with the products that they sell. We’re a branded society. So sometimes your brand is your sign.
That’s the reality of America, for better or for worse, in our society today to some degree, and I think Bruce
is absolutely correct in that the fact that the litigation is overhanging this particular application, I’m not sure
how germane that is to the exact application of the test that we’re charged with here in this particular case. I
guess, with the stipulation that the applicant would remove any tire rack signing, and comply with the 25%
window signing, in his desire to keep the sign, because without that I would think that he’d be asking for too
much and trying to keep more than his share of signage, I would think, in reality, the test could possibly be
interpreted to fall in favor of the applicant, in this particular case
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, as it’s been mentioned, I end up being conflicted with this. My initial reaction was,
boy, there’s a lot of signs on that property. At the same time, I recognize the business need to have signs for
that particular location. It strikes me that, for me at least, the property is more attractive with the sign on
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
each building, as opposed to removing the Hancook sign and just leaving that one building bare. On the
other hand, mentioning other tire facilities, I recall us considering a request from Warren Tire on Aviation
Road to put a sign on a second building they have on their property, which we denied. So, I can go both
ways with that. I guess where I come down, trying to consider the benefit to the applicant, I can see the
advantage of two signs. I am bothered, though, that the other building has a sign across almost all the
available area. I’d be willing to consider a compromise that included removing the signs on the tire racks,
and, I don’t know. I really would like to see some of that signage on that second building taken off, although
I can understand why it’s there. I guess it depends on what’s offered up as a compromise. At the moment,
on the face of it, the way the request is presented, I would be opposed.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I have little to add. Being in agreement with the rest of the Board. I do agree
with what Chuck just said. However, there’s a lot of signage there. So the conditions that the other Board
members put in about getting the window signage down to where it should be and all the stuff that’s out
there on the tire racks, get rid of that, and I think that I would be in favor, mainly because there are two
buildings, I do not recall, I don’t know if I was here for that other one, where we talked about adding a sign,
perhaps it was the square footage. You’re under the total allowable. So that’s a factor I think, and I would
tend to be in favor of the application.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, I need to interject something again. There’s no violation with his window
signage. Mr. Taylor’s got five bay doors, all with windows. If you’re going to look at what the Code dictates,
utilizing 25% of his window space.
MR. STONE-Okay, but we can condition that to be.
MR. FRANK-Well, you can, but I want to let you know, that’s not a violation, what he’s utilizing in his
windows.
MR. STONE-No, we understand that. I think we understand that. What I’m hearing from my Board, and I
will agree with everything I’ve heard, in a sense, because I heard a request for some compromises. I do
understand, and I applaud your arguments, that without a sign on that building, one might even think it’s
abandoned, that it’s not part of the same business, and I do appreciate that, and I’m glad that’s come out in
the conversation, because I’m not sure I would have thought about it that way. However, there are those
signs on the tire racks which add to the clutter, and that’s what really we’re concerned about. We’re
concerned with clutter, and I could, with the argument that the building needs to be identified as part of a
business somehow, I mean, if you think Hancook, or whatever it is, does, that’s fine, but I would like to see, I
would like to see it conditioned the way Jaime said it, and a couple of others, that the tire rack signs go, and
that the window treatments conform to the Code, I guess is the easiest way to say it.
MR. HAYES-Based on the windows of the garage, it may have to be even stricter than the Code to get the
effect that we’re really looking for, actually. Of course we can make that condition. Go out there and
measure it.
MR. STONE-Well, what are you willing to offer? I mean, right now, there seems to be, we need some
concession. What are you willing to offer?
MR. MONTGOMERY-I agree with you when you say the property looks a little cluttered, because it does. I
mean, when I drive by it, you’ve got little signs all over the place and there’s tire racks. Mr. Taylor said that if
he’s permitted to keep the one over the garage bay, the one in question, that he would do away with the tire
rack signage, and he would keep the windows to conform with the Code, which I guess is 25%.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let me ask Bruce. I never would have thought moving doors would constitute
windows.
MR. FRANK-It’s (lost word) space. That’s the way we look at it. I mean, every one of those doors has
windows. I can read the Code for you if you’d like, but he’s got five bay doors. The window to the office
wraps around. If I was to figure out the area, I would say he’s got less than 25% up right now, in his
windows.
MR. STONE-All right. Well, we hear what you’re saying. I’m going to ask Mr. Hayes to draft a motion,
listen carefully to where he comes out, and see what we’re going to do, a motion to approve, I guess, with
conditions.
MR. HAYES-Sure.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 71-2002 QUEENSBURY TIRE, INC.,
Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
973 State Route 9. The applicant has constructed a 36 square foot wall sign, and seeks relief from the Sign
Ordinance to maintain the sign, it’s the Hancook sign, that’s the sign in question. The applicant requests
relief for a second wall sign for the business, pursuant to Section 140-6B(3)(c). This business would be
allowed one wall sign as there is currently a freestanding sign on the site as well. The benefit to the applicant,
the applicant would be permitted to maintain the sign over the garage as it is now. The applicant has
indicated that the signage is needed for his business to identify the second structure as part of his business, in
this particular case, and for the product, of course, that he advertises, that he carries this product. Feasible
alternatives, I believe that feasible alternatives are somewhat limited in this case based on the fact that there
are two parcels on the property. There is a significant sign, as I pointed out, in the drive-in sign which does
partially block the vision of one or several of the signs on Mr. Taylor’s property going south, and there’s
significant vegetation to the rear of his property. So there is some limitation on line of sight to the signs that
he does have now. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I’ve said, initially, and I still stand by
the fact that certainly an additional wall sign when the Ordinance calls for one is significant. The relief is
significant. Effects on the neighborhood and community. Based on an enforcement action, a proper
enforcement action in my mind, the wall signs on this particular property have been reduced by the Town
from their previous status, and in so, I believe that the effect on the neighborhood or community has already
been improved. I don’t see that the maintenance of this sign, as it stands now, being that this sign and the
other wall signs, cumulatively, are less than the total allowed wall signage, I don’t think that there’s a dramatic
impact on the neighborhood or community as far as total square footage of signage or negative visual impact.
Is the difficulty self-created? I think that’s also mixed. Certainly Mr. Taylor wants to maintain the sign, but
this particular sign was constructed prior to the Ordinance. So at that particular time it was not a violation.
I’m going to make my motion to approve contingent on several things. One, that Mr. Taylor agrees to
permanently remove any portable signage displayed on tire racks, as there has been on the site. I’m going to
contingent it that Mr. Taylor does not place any signs in his overhead doors, the glass in his overhead doors,
considering there’s a significant amount of potential signage there which, again, would go to, in my mind,
placing the balance of the test, as far as effects on neighborhood or community, against the applicant, and I
would move that the applicant be constrained to the actual primary store square footage windows be 25%,
which is the Code, and that would be partly under Queensbury Tire, that portion of his non-door glass will be
restrained to 25% only of his window space. I think this is a reasonable contingency, based on the fact that
Mr. Taylor is asking us to give him relief for a second wall sign. The effect of that should be to reduce,
somewhat, the signage in his windows, even as they sit now. So I make the motion that we approve the
application based on those contingencies.
Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2002, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-Does the applicant agree with those contingencies, for those conditions?
MR. MONTGOMERY-They’re acceptable to the applicant.
MR. STONE-Okay. Now, does everybody understand Jaime’s motion?
MR. BRYANT-I want to ask a question, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. BRYANT-How can you deny a citizen a right that’s, it’s in the Code already they’re allowed 25% of all
their glass, and how can you then write that as a contingency when that’s his right?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think it’s a reasonable condition attached to the premise that it’s not his right to have a
second wall sign.
MR. BRYANT-I know that’s your opinion, but I’m asking, can you reasonably deny a citizen their right?
MR. STONE-We can put any conditions on a variance, reasonable conditions, on a variance.
MR. BRYANT-Including rewrite the Code?
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. STONE-We’re not rewriting the Code. We’re asking him to keep to the glass that is not movable, in
other words, the storefront glass, which I believe is what the Code, that’s my interpretation of what the Code
is supposed to do, because we’re really talking about most businesses do not have that kind of excess glass.
They have their storefronts.
MR. FRANK-Well, if you look at other tire and muffler type businesses, a lot of them do have that kind of
windows in their doors, and they do utilize it for banners and other type of signage. So it would not be
unique to.
MR. STONE-Okay, but I did hear the applicant agree to those conditions.
MR. FRANK-That’s fine. I’m just stating a fact.
MR. BRYANT-I just don’t understand how you can deny a citizen a right, based on written Code of the
Town of Queensbury, you’re going to reduce that Code, because he, you know.
MR. STONE-No, because the applicant is seeking something from the Town. The Town can ask for
something back. That’s always been the case in variance.
MR. MONTGOMERY-I think that the distinguishing term here is right versus a privilege. He doesn’t have a
constitutional right to put a sign up. He has a privilege that’s been extended to him by the Town, similar to a
drivers license. You don’t have a constitutional right to a drivers license. It’s a privilege that the State can
take away from you, for example, if you drive drunk.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but also if you meet certain criteria you can have that license.
MR. MONTGOMERY-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-I mean, you know, it’s not a question of, you know, I don’t want to.
MR. STONE-Well, since the applicant has agreed to this.
MR. BRYANT-That’s fine.
MR. STONE-I hear you, and it’s reasonable and we’ll talk about it.
MR. BRYANT-I have never seen you deny a citizen their rights when they’ve got the natural right to have
25% for the glass.
MR. HAYES-We’ve done similar conditions.
MR. STONE-We’ve done that, Al.
MR. HAYES-Like with signs on variances where they were illuminated internally or not, you know, their
impact on the neighborhood, stuff like that.
MR. ABBATE-I have a different question. This application has to be approved by a supermajority?
MR. STONE-Yes, it does.
MR. ABBATE-What is a supermajority?
MR. STONE-Five. You’re shaking your head as if.
MR. ABBATE-Where is that defined?
MR. STONE-Any action by the Zoning Board must have a majority of the Board’s number, which is seven,
which is four. A supermajority is one more than a simple majority, namely five.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-That’s what I’m told. I haven’t written, well I have read it.
MR. ABBATE-I’m just curious because I really didn’t know, and I was just looking for an answer, that’s all.
MR. STONE-In other words, even if we had, if we had four people here, we could not approve this.
MR. ABBATE-Correct. Okay.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. STONE-By definition, and they would be smart to go to say, we’ll table it and go away. Okay. Second?
MR. URRICO-I second.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen.
MR. TAYLOR-Thank you very much.
MR. MONTGOMERY-I appreciate your time.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2002 TYPE II LARRY CLUTE PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM
ENNY ZONE: MU LOCATION: 2 NEWCOMB STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF AN 832 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF
FROM THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE:
AV 51-2001 APPROVAL EXPIRED TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-73 LOT SIZE: 0.16 ACRES
SECTION 179-4-030
LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-2002, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: August 28, 2002 “Project
Location: 2 Newcomb Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an
832 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 30-foot
minimum front setback requirement and 8 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement
of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the MU zone, § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an
Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would
be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives may include placing the house in a more compliant location relative to the side setbacks. 3. Is
this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front
setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (33.3%), and 8 feet of relief from the 20-foot
minimum side setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate (40%) relative to the Ordinance. 4.
Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as
a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be partially attributed to the
preexisting nonconforming lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-635:
pending; 832 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. AV 51-2001: 07/25/01; front setback relief for 1040 sq. ft. single-
family dwelling (expired). Staff comments: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a
result of this action. The houses on the sides of the proposed house both have front setbacks of 18 feet, and
their side setbacks average to 24.5 feet. The applicant’s proposed side setbacks average to 24 feet. It appears
as though the applicant’s choice for the proposed placement of the house will allow for the possible future
addition of a garage on the south side of the house, and will even out the distance between the two existing
houses. Additionally, an area variance for 16 feet of front setback relief from the 50-foot minimum
requirement (32%) of the CR-15 Zone was approved in July of last year. The area was rezoned to the MU
Zone this year resulting in the different setback requirements. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-And no County.
MR. STONE-Mr. Clute, how similar is this to the one we granted last year, that has expired?
MR. CLUTE-It’s a different house. It’s essentially the same square footage. It’s a raised ranch versus the
ranch. If you visited the property recently, there’s two units right on Veterans Road that I just put up, by the
Firehouse, and that small raised ranch, is back in there, that’s proposed for this lot.
MR. STONE-Okay. Take the mic and tell us why we’re listening to this at 10 o’clock.
MR. CLUTE-The owner had approached me and asked me if I might be able to submit for a variance, and I
agreed that we could probably get better use out of the property with the variance. I mean, not necessarily us,
but the proposed buyer of the house, and so the attempt is being made. He brought to my attention that
there was a variance, about a year ago, I guess, granted, but on different zoning, that was a 50 foot setback at
that time, but that was passed, but even with the 30, if we could find with the 30, it would push the house
back, and I tend to think people gain more use of a back yard than they do a front yard, and especially in that
neighborhood, there’s really not much front yard in that neighborhood. It’s more back yard. So in order to
have the same benefit for a future owner, here I am.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Clute?
MR. CLUTE-I need to add, too, I didn’t build it this time. I want you to know that this is proposed.
MR. STONE-We saw the empty lot there. Well, you’re learning.
MR. HIMES-I had a question for Staff. I looked all over the place, in the old Code book and the new one,
for the minimum square footage requirement for a residence. I thought it was 800 or 850.
MR. FRANK-Eight hundred square feet.
MR. HIMES-Where is that in the Code? I couldn’t find it.
MR. FRANK-It’s in Section.
MR. HIMES-Well, never mind.
MR. ABBATE-In the interest of time, forget it.
MR. STONE-But it is 800. Any other questions of Mr. Clute? If there are no questions, I’ll open the public
hearing. Obviously a lot of interest. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of? Anybody opposed? Any
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions? Okay. Well, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Al.
MR. BRYANT-I like the fact that you hadn’t started building the house this time. Actually, it’s a good
application and we approved a similar percentage last year. It’s about the same percent. The fact that you’re
looking out for, it’s going to be a one car garage, right, if you build it in the future?
MR. CLUTE-I’m anticipating that. We’re just putting up the house. If this is approved, we’re just putting up
the house, but whenever I do construct on a lot, I try to situate it with the anticipation of them expanding.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. So, I’m in favor of the application. It’s a good application. The best one we’ve had
tonight.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with Al. This looks fine. We approved last year, similar percentage. I’m in favor
of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree. In certain circumstances where the proper development, you know, of these style
homes on these pre-existing lots can actually be a benefit to the neighborhood, and I think in this particular
case, that is the case. So I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll basically agree with what’s been said. I think it’s appropriate for the neighborhood, and
a reasonable request.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you, and you can’t make the house much smaller. I think it’s appropriate and a good
application and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-I concur with my fellow Board members. I have no problem with the application, and I
would support it.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 8/28/02)
MR. STONE-Well, I certainly agree. I think any time we put new construction in that neighborhood or in
that whole area, we are improving both the neighborhood and the Town of Queensbury, and I think
somebody willing to spend the money to put a house to either, not necessarily put it up, but to buy a house
that is constructed in that area I think is, as I said, to the benefit of the community. Having said that, we
need a motion. Mr. Abbate, you’re going to make it because you looked at me.
MR. ABBATE-As a footnote, Mr. Clute, you were three hours late, and it’s our policy to reduce footage 10%
per hour, so there’s a reduction of 30%. I’m only joking.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2002 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Charles
Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes:
2 Newcomb Street. The applicant proposes construction of an 832 square foot single-family dwelling. Mr.
Clute requests 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement and 8 foot of relief from
the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the MU
zone, Section 179-4-030. The benefit to the applicant. Well, the applicant would be permitted to construct
the desired structure in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives may include placing the house in a more
compliant location. However, I think that the application as submitted is straightforward and I think it is
appropriate and it really provides no negative effects. Is this relief substantial relief to the Ordinance? Ten
feet of relief from the thirty-foot minimum front setback requirements may be interpreted as minimal
moderate, 33%, and eight feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum side setback requirements may be
interpreted as moderate, 40%, relative to the Ordinance. Effects on the neighborhood, well, we had a public
hearing and there were no neighbors here this evening to state on the negative aspect of this. So I’m
assuming that there is no negative impact on the community. Is the difficulty self-created? Partially so, I
guess that could be argued. It is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot, and I think Mr. Clute has done as best he
possibly could based on the fact that it is a nonconforming lot. Based on the information, Mr. Chairman, I
move that Area Variance No. 67-2002 be approved.
Duly adopted this 28 day of August, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-There you go, sir. Don’t think it will be this easy the next time. Before we adjourn, I want to
congratulate the Board. We had some very difficult decisions to make tonight. I think we did it well. We
didn’t, obviously, always agree, but that’s why we have a balancing test, and that’s why, as I said earlier, it’s
not bad to have 4-3 decisions, or 3-4 decisions.
MR. ABBATE-Or even a 5-2 decision.
MR. STONE-Or even a 5-2 decision. I think it shows we are independent, that we are thinking. We are
looking at every application from our eyes, and that’s what we’re supposed to do, and I thank you again and
congratulate you, and I move that we adjourn.
MR. ABBATE-Seconded.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
42