2002-07-24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 24, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, CHAIRMAN
NORMAN HIMES
CHARLES ABBATE
ROY URRICO
PAUL HAYES
ALLAN BRYANT
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2002 TYPE II JOSEPH RIITANO PROPERTY OWNER: SAME
ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 16 SUNSET LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,293 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FRONT AND BOTH SIDE YARDS,
THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REGULATIONS, AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 7/10/02 TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-9 LOT SIZE: 0.17 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030,
179-13-010
JOSEPH RIITANO, PRESENT
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, point of order. If we’re going to do the Girl Scouts, it’s Old Business,
shouldn’t it be first?
MR. STONE-They asked to be last.
MR. BRYANT-Is that allowed?
MR. STONE-That’s what I was told.
MR. ABBATE-Bruce just told us that that’s improper procedure, that Old Business must come first.
MR. HAYES-I think the Chairman can arrange the.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. FRANK-I wasn’t aware. I thought the Old Business did come first. I did not know they had requested
to be last.
MR. STONE-That’s all I heard. Well, I know their attorney is on third tonight, and I think he wanted to
tried to put them close together. Anybody have any real problem with that, guys?
MR. ABBATE-No.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2002, Joseph Riitano, Meeting Date: July 24, 2002 “Project
Location: 16 Sunset Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1293
sq. ft. second story addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4.26 feet of relief from the 30-foot
minimum front setback requirement, 10.35 and 7.42 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback
requirements, and relief for a 36.5% total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the Schedule of Area and Bulk
Requirements for the WR-1A Zone, § 179-4-030. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of
a non-conforming structure per § 179-13-010. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to increase the
size of an existing dwelling by 1,293 sq. ft. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives appear to be limited due
to the existing small lot size. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 4.26 feet of relief
from the 30-foot front setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (14.2%), 10.35 and
7.42 feet of relief from the required 20-foot minimum side setback requirement may be interpreted
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
cumulatively as moderate to substantial, 14.5% of relief above the 22% maximum allowed FAR may also be
interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance (65.9%). Additionally, a 100% increase for
the expansion of a nonconforming structure may be interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance. 4.
Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated
as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-442: 06/11/02; septic alteration. Staff
comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action considering the
amount of relief needed for the approval of this application, especially due to the proposed 100% expansion
of the preexisting nonconforming structure. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 10, 2002 Project
Name: Riitano, Joseph Owner: Joseph Riitano ID Number: QBY-02-AV-56 County Project#: Jul02-28
Current Zoning: WR-1A, CEA Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes
construction of a 1,293 sq. ft. second story addition. Relief requested from the setback requirements for the
front and both side yards, the Floor Area Ratio regulations, and for the expansion of a nonconforming
structure. Site Location: 18 Sunset Lane (RPS) indicates 16 Sunset Lane Tax Map Number(s): 226.19-1-9
Staff Notes: The applicant requests a variance for the construction of a 1,293 sq. ft. second story addition
that does not meet the setback or the floor area ratio. The new construction is proposed to be over the
existing structure and will be no closer to the front setback as the existing structure; where 25.74 feet is
existing and 30 feet is required. In addition the applicant’s proposed addition exceeds the maximum 22%
floor area by 15%, this is due to the size of the parcel. The applicant’s plans indicate an Elgin septic system
and four bedrooms. Staff recommends no county impact with a condition that the septic system is designed
for the amount of bedrooms proposed. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with
Stipulation The County Planning Board recommends no county impact with a condition that the septic
system is designed for the amount of bedrooms proposed, and that the construction meet the 22% to
decrease the impact on the lot.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 7/12/02.
MR. STONE-Okay, sir. Do you want to come forward, state your name, tell us anything you want to talk
about.
MR. RIITANO-My name is Joseph Riitano. I’m the present owner of 16 Sunset Lane in Shore Colony. I
want to thank you for the approval of the septic system that I submitted, and the addition at the house, the
reason why I’m doing this because it’s an older house and I’d like to fix it up, and when I bought this house
26 years ago, I only had two kids. Now my family is growing. I’ve got six kids, and the house is way too
small, and I have to do something because it’s deteriorated so badly, and the only way to do it is going up.
We’re not changing any footprint or square footage or footing. Everything is existing. We’re just going up,
and I don’t have any other solutions. I have to fix it, because, you know, I want my kids to enjoy it.
MR. STONE-Is it your full time home?
MR. RIITANO-No, summer home.
MR. STONE-Summer home. Is it winterized?
MR. RIITANO-No.
MR. STONE-Would it be winterized?
MR. RIITANO-We use it, the city water, the Shore Colony. I don’t have any well, only for the summer.
MR. STONE-So if we were to grant this variance, and we’ve got a long way to go, you wouldn’t mind
stipulating that it would only be used in the summer?
MR. RIITANO-Well, that’s the only time we use it because I don’t have any water after we close.
MR. STONE-I understand. Any questions, gentlemen?
MR. ABBATE-You purchased the house approximately 26 years ago. Is that right, sir, plus or minus?
MR. RIITANO-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-And you have been using this piece of property as a summer type residence?
MR. RIITANO-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-And you have no intentions of modifying it to include a year round home?
MR. RIITANO-Right now I don’t. So many years it’s been used just for summer. Because we don’t live too
far. We live in Schenectady, and I work in Schenectady.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. ABBATE-The reason I ask you that, sir, is that, as the Chairman pointed out, and I probably will take
the same position. If we were to approve this, and it’s a long way off, as he said, I would insist that there be a
stipulation that this piece of property would only be used as a summer home, and not as a year round
residence, and the reason I say that is because of the number of variances that are being requested, and the
fact that it is a nonconforming structure, and I’m not so sure that we could encourage, or we should
encourage, in my opinion, anymore nonconforming structures than is absolutely necessary. So I would insist
on a stipulation. So I would request that you really think about that before the end of the meeting, that you
only would use it as a summer home.
MR. RIITANO-If I want to go in the winter, if my kids want to go skate, I don’t think it should be blocked
out because I own the house, and I want to use the house, and I spend enough money to be used. I don’t
know if I really want to put it in as a stipulation because if later on it was going to be year round, I may want
to stay there year round.
MR. ABBATE-Well, you have no water there at the present time?
MR. RIITANO-I do have water.
MR. ABBATE-You do have water.
MR. STONE-They have water for six months.
MR. ABBATE-For six months.
MR. RIITANO-Right.
MR. STONE-It’s a Town water system that is exclusive to Shore Colony on Assembly Point. It operates
from April 1 or May 1 to the end of October.
MR. RIITANO-Yes, to November 30, something like that.
th
MR. ABBATE-That’s interesting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. RIITANO-That’s the reason why I don’t think I really want to put a stipulation in there because I want,
you know, in case I want to do this, I don’t want to be stopped, because I put enough money to fix it to make
it fine.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you.
MR. RIITANO-You’re welcome.
MR. HAYES-You understand, Mr. Riitano, that this is a balancing a test. You’re asking for a certain amount
of relief from the Board. I think you have to take that into consideration with what you’re trying to maintain
for yourself, though, too. I would urge you to keep that in mind.
MR. STONE-What Mr. Hayes is saying, you’re asking for a fair amount of relief. Our challenge, or the
charge that we have, is to grant the minimum relief necessary, if we grant relief. We just don’t grant relief
willy-nilly. You’ve got to show to us that, first of all, it’s not going to have an adverse effect on the
neighborhood, and that is one of the concerns that this Board has shown. Obviously, each case is an
individual case, and we make it very clear to people that we try not to think about precedent. We try to think
what are the merits of this particular case, but we do have a relatively new Zoning Ordinance for waterfront
properties, particularly when it comes to Floor Area Ratio, recognizing that there are small lots all up and
down Assembly Point, Cleverdale, Rockhurst, and the Pilot Knob Road. Nevertheless, we have established a
number of 22% for living space in the house relative to the size of the lot. You’re asking for 36 and a half,
which is probably more than we’ve ever granted at any particular time, as far as I can remember, but let’s keep
talking. Any other questions?
MR. ABBATE-The Chairman brought to our attention the fact that it’s a unique water system there and that
water flows from the Town from a certain date to a certain date. If there were a stipulation that, other than
those times when water flows, if we were to base a recommendation on that, that the piece of property, now,
I’m trying to, my problem is this. This is my problem. You’re asking for 100% increase for the expansion of
a nonconforming structure. Okay, that, in itself, bothers me, and that can be considered substantial. Now I
appreciate the situation, and I suspect I would be asking the same thing that you’re asking for if I were sitting
where you’re sitting, but as the Chairman pointed out, and Jaime pointed out, this is a balancing act. You’re
asking for a total of five different variances, and it’s a nonconforming structure, and I think in granting these
five variances on a nonconforming structure gives the impression that, could give the impression that we’re
encouraging nonconforming compliance, and that’s the thing that bothers me, and without some sort of
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
stipulation agreement on your part, I would have a hard time with it, unless my other Board members can
convince me otherwise.
MR. STONE-All right. Anybody else? We can listen to what the public has to say. That’s probably the best
next thing. Why don’t we open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application?
In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Come forward, state your name.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MICHAEL KELLY
MR. KELLY-My name is Michael Kelly, and I own the residence at 27 Honeysuckle Lane. Mr. Chairman,
may I approach the Board and distribute pictures that I’ll be referring to?
MR. STONE-Surely.
MR. KELLY-Thank you.
MR. STONE-I think some wise man said one picture is worth 1,000 words.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you, sir. Now would you state, again, for the record, where your property is, and
describe it for us?
MR. KELLY-Yes. I and Diane Nagengast own the properties immediately behind Mr. Riitano’s property at
16 Sunset Lane. Referring to the survey diagram, included with Mr. Riitano’s variance request, Diane and I
own the lots labeled One and Two. Thus, the northern rear perimeter of Mr. Riitano’s property fully borders
our property. We have a residence located on Lot Number One, facing Honeysuckle Lane.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. KELLY-Does that sufficiently?
MR. STONE-Yes. In other words, you are to the northeast and north, if we, well, it is the road that goes
straight up.
MR. FRANK-We could refer to the map on the screen.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-It’s basically the house next to the yellow house in the first picture? Right there.
MR. KELLY-Yes. We own these two lots. These two right here, and we have a house situated right here,
and there is no structure on this lot.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. KELLY-I am speaking at this hearing tonight to formally oppose Mr. Riitano’s variance request. The
basis for my opposition, as I will further elaborate on, are the following. One, that Mr. Riitano has failed to
adequately justify his need for the requested reliefs. Two, that Mr. Riitano’s drawings are inconsistent with
the requested relief of 10.35 feet from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement at the east end of the
proposed structure, and that he would require significantly more relief, to be precise four feet, than requested
to implement the structure as drawn. Number Three, that Mr. Riitano does not properly maintain the
structure and property that are preexisting, and finally, Number Four, that Mr. Riitano has knowingly been
and remains in violation of Town Ordinances regarding his fill damaging adjacent property, namely mine.
Mr. Riitano’s answers to the questions on the application I do not feel adequately justify his desire for a
variance. To the question, how would you benefit from the granting of this Area Variance, Mr. Riitano
answered, would be able to, well, it was read before, but my feeling is that the variance is not required for Mr.
Riitano to make his house livable, suitable, or of higher quality than what he currently has. Also, Mr. Riitano
does not need a variance to eliminate water in his basement. That is in no way contingent upon his receiving
any zoning variance. Additionally, on the proposed structure drawings by T.N. Kondoprias, amenities such
as propane fired warm air system and air conditioning with associated registers are specified. He is able to
achieve all these benefits within his current structure. If his house is not livable now, there are methods other
than adding a second floor that would make it “livable”. I wonder how does he think his house is currently
not livable. That was a rhetorical question. Also, he could improve the quality of the house without
expanding its size. Diane and I have made many improvements bettering the quality and value of our
property at 27 Honeysuckle Lane without increasing the size of the structure. Mr. Riitano could start with a
can of paint applied to his back porch, and by cleaning up building material and project debris that has been
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
piled in his back yard in his back yard for the last year from his foundation work. I would be happy to meet
with Mr. Riitano to recommend further improvements. Please refer to the pictures on Pages Three and Four.
When asked, what effect would this variance have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety
and welfare of the community, Mr. Riitano answered, this would improve the character, health and safety by
having a quality home. I’m a little confused by that. It is my opinion that the character of the neighborhood
will be adversely effected. Please refer to the pictures on Pages One and Two. The height of his proposed
structure is much higher than the structures that preexist close by, one of which is my house. I believe that
this adversely effects the cottage nature of the neighborhood, and thus would reduce neighboring property
values. It’s bad enough as it is right now. Mr. Riitano can improve the character, health and safety of his
existing structure, which needs all three things pretty badly at the moment. I refer to the bottom picture on
Page One, regarding height increase and porch overhang proposed. Regarding that picture, the picture shows
the close proximity to Mr. Riitano’s structure in the center, to the adjacent property on the right, which is
Anita Sullivan’s, and she owns the property right on the corner, as you can see on the top picture. Mr.
Riitano is proposing to completely add a second floor to his house. Now, when I visualize that in this
picture, along with his proposed porch overhanging the east side of the house, or projecting out from the east
side of the house, it seems very awkward for Mrs. Sullivan. I don’t mean to answer for her, but he would be
looking down over her property, as well as my own, which you can see in the top picture is the green house
on the right. When asked, are there feasible alternatives to this variance, Mr. Riitano answered, no, because
the house is existing and I’m proposing a second floor. My response to that is Mr. Riitano’s alternative is to
purchase a bigger lot that will support a larger house consistent with the FAR ordinance, the FAR being
Floor Area Ratio. The variance should not be granted just because Mr. Riitano’s family has grown. In fact,
his need for additional square footage was not even addressed in his responses. When asked, is the amount
of relief substantial relief relative to the Ordinance, Mr. Riitano answered yes, but the house is existing and
the existing setbacks will be kept for the second floor. While I realize that it would be impractical for Mr.
Riitano to adhere to the setback requirements without moving his current house, and technically not even
possible then, the real issue here is that he would be increasing the height of the size of the structure very
close to the property lines. Our houses are in close proximity to his, as I said. His house is already on a
higher grade than mine and Mrs. Sullivan’s. As you can see in the picture, and as is also depicted in the
survey diagram, I don’t want to be looking up at large walls looming over my property, specifically with
regard to his request, as they would be very high on the north and east sides of the proposed structure. Refer
to the bottom picture on Page One again, and the scale implications depicted in the top picture on Page Five.
That’s a manipulated image of the back of his house depicting the enormity, compared to what it currently
looks like. The other main issue is the Floor Area Ratio relief variance request. His proposed structure
would significantly surpass the current zoning limitation of 22%, by totaling 36.5%. This is very significant.
Recent ZBA hearings have set a precedent for not supporting such extreme FAR relief requests. For
example the Benjamin request of October 2001, which was retracted immediately subsequent to the Board’s
consideration of and reaction to it. When asked “Will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district?”, Mr. Riitano answered, no, the
variance will have a positive impact because of the quality proposed, and I’ll wrap up this train of thought
very quickly. Mr. Riitano’s apparent intention of improving the quality of his property and its structure, as he
stated was so a total of three times in his responses on the application, is inconsistent with how he has
maintained his property over the past several years. He has demonstrated that he is definitely not concerned
or interested in maintaining the “quality and appearance” of his property. Diane and I purchased our
property at 27 Honeysuckle Lane in April of 1999. At that time, Mr. Riitano’s property, structure and land
appeared to be in a state of disrepair, much like it remains today. Please refer to the pictures on Pages Three
and Seven, which primarily deal with the back yard of the structure, but as you can see from the picture on
the projector, the front yard is quite minimal on his lot. Very little improvement has taken place since then,
possibly only the foundation work of last summer depicted on Page Three. Mr. Riitano is trying to persuade
the Zoning Board of Appeals that even though he has allowed his property at 16 Sunset Lane, which he has
owned since 1980 according to the deed included with the application, to fall into apparent disrepair and
dilapidation, that he suddenly has a change of heart for the neighborhood and those that have to look at his
property every day, and importantly, that he wants to improve the nature of his property by enlarging the
existing structure. This notion is completely unbelievable and is a total fallacy. Mr. Riitano’s drawings are
inconsistent with the requested relief of 10.35 feet from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement. This
is relative to the current and proposed structure’s east side. Does the Board have the drawings? If you could
look at the second page. As I describe the current Ordinances very quickly, please direct your attention to the
lower left diagram of the structure, where there is a cantilevered wood deck projected from the structure.
The definition of setback, as stated in the Ordinance is “The established line beyond which no part of a
building shall extend, except for the building eaves which may extend 18” into the setback. (See “building
line.”)” Following as directed, one finds the definition of “Building Line” is as follows, “A line formed by the
intersection of a horizontal plane of average grade level and a vertical plane that coincides with the exterior
surface of the building on any side. In the case of a cantilevered section of a building, the vertical plane will
coincide with the most projected surface. All yard requirements are measured to the ‘building line’, except
open steps that provide access to the ground floor or basement of the building, and eaves, which may project
18” into the required yard setback. (See “setback.”)” And we’ve already been there. The survey diagram for
Mr. Riitano’s property explicitly shows the current preexisting side setback at the east end of the structure to
be 9.65 feet. This is consistent with the requested side relief of 10.35 feet, as described in Mr. Riitano’s
variance request, if all he wanted to do was go up. However, Mr. Riitano’s submitted drawings, again by
architect T.N. Kondoprias, clearly shows that Mr. Riitano proposes a cantilevered porch which would
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
completely wrap around the east end of the structure, inclusive of and continuing around both corners at the
second floor level. This porch is drawn as extending exactly four feet from the side of the house, given the
scale denoted on the drawing. This is clearly inconsistent with the requested side setback relief, given the
above stated Ordinance definitions. Mr. Riitano would require 14.35 feet of relief from the 20 foot setback
requirement. That means there’d be just over five feet between the end of his cantilevered porch and the
property line, and I would remind the Board that Anita Sullivan’s house isn’t too far on the other side of the
property line. This makes the Staff comments in the application, and the application itself, non-applicable,
given they do not take this into account, but I do not recommend that you send him away to fix this in the
application and bring back a modified request as I think there is enough information to otherwise reject his
application. I will offer for your further consideration that Mr. Riitano has been, for the last six months, and
remains today, in violation of the Town’s Zoning Ordinances 179-6-070-C-5, 8 and 10, all of which are
Ordinances listed in the “Clear Cutting and Grading” Section of the Ordinance book. While one may argue
that these Ordinances may apply to tracks of land larger than what will be described, I believe that the spirit
still applies, especially in relation to ongoing potential property destruction, mine, as a result of his actions,
and as I will describe now. In January of 2002, Mr. Riitano has a large amount of fill consisting of soil and
large rocks dumped in the back yard of his house. Please refer to the pictures on Page Six. It was deposited
such that it was an obvious potential erosion problem for my property, as I believe is obvious from both
pictures. I engaged Director Hatin to at least have Mr. Riitano install a silt fence to prevent soil from eroding
onto my property, which he did. However, despite the eventual installation of a silt fence, the rains of this
past spring caused a significant amount of erosion and settling along the north perimeter of this deposited fill.
That steep grade along the far side of my fence was settling and shifting, sinking into my fence as I had
anticipated. The settling was causing my fence to bend inward on my property. Despite several calls to
Director Hatin, and presumably subsequent contact between he and Mr. Riitano, no corrective action was
taken. Then, some time in early July, I observed that a large amount of rocks had been intentionally
deposited along my fence, on Mr. Riitano’s side, refer to the picture on the bottom of Page Seven. It was also
obvious that these rocks had come from the fill. This further exacerbated the problem of the fence getting
bent and pushed into my yard. This development was obviously not a result of natural erosion or settling.
This past Sunday I observed Mr. Riitano personally picking up rocks from the fill that he had deposited in
January and throwing them at my fence, augmenting the already large collection there. Now please refer to
the pictures on Page Eight. I politely approached him and said that his actions were causing damage to my
fence as it was getting bent and distorted. Mr. Riitano replied to my concerns about the rocks putting
pressure on my fence by saying, “No, they’re not.” I realized at that point, as I stood there observing my
bent fence, that I would be unable to have any kind of logical conversation with him and I abandoned the
effort. I believe that, from the attached pictures of this site, you will agree that he is violating the following
Ordinances, Five, according to the previous description, “Permanent vegetation shall be successfully
established and erosion control structures shall be installed as soon as practical on development.” Mr.
Riitano never planted anything on the fill and only naturally occurring weeds have begun to grow. Most
importantly Number Eight, “Cuts and fills shall not endanger adjoining property nor divert water into the
property of others.” Mr. Riitano’s fill was naturally eroding, endangering my fence, and encroaching onto my
property. His recent intentional actions of depositing the rocks along the fence have significantly worsened
the condition. Number 10, “Disturbed soils shall be stabilized as soon as possible. Temporary vegetation
and/or mulching shall be used to protect exposed land areas during construction.” Mr. Riitano’s deposited
fill does not seem to be associated with any particular building permit. I will mention, however, that he has
made no attempt, other than the silt fence imposed upon him by Director Hatin, to stabilize the deposited
fill, or even layer topsoil on it. I will pursue this issue with the appropriate members of the Town
government and Town legal counsel, but I feel it is appropriate to mention this here, as it further
demonstrates Mr. Riitano’s complete disregard for his neighbors and their property. The silt fence still
remains today, and much of it along the north perimeter of the property is now pinned between several
tonnage of rocks and my chain link fence. I suspect that it will not be removed any time soon. There I’m
referring to the silt fence. How long will I have to look at this I wonder? I will also mention here that Mr.
Riitano has a history of zoning violations and fines, at the very least, in the Town of Rotterdam, NY. I do
not have documentation relative to this with me, but I can obtain such in a matter of a week or two if
desired. I was informed of these infractions by a former acquaintance of Mr. Riitano’s. This further supports
the fact that Mr. Riitano’s carries a disregard for the properties, and property owners around him. Finally, I
will restate Warren County Planning Board’s recommendation very quickly, as was already stated, that there is
“No County Impact with Stipulation The County Planning Board recommends no county impact with a
condition that the septic system is designed for the amount of bedrooms proposed, and” and to me, more
importantly, “that the construction meet the 22% to decrease the impact on the lot.” This means that the
County Planning Board does not wish to see Mr. Riitano exceed the FAR Ordinance and presumably does
not wish the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to grant Mr. Riitano a variance which would
include relief from this Ordinance requirement. So apparently they are only okay with the requested setback
reliefs, which I have just shown are not correct in the first place, or at least the application for such. I don’t
know what weight the County Planning Board’s recommendation carries, but it does support the spirit of the
Town’s FAR Ordinance. I hereby strongly and formally urge the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of
Appeals to reject Mr. Riitano’s request for these and all variances that would enable him to expand his current
structure. He has made it clear to his neighbors that he intends to do the work himself, and that it would take
him one and one half years to complete. The level of property maintenance, as well as the lack of quality and
workmanship of his outside visible work from last year, the foundation improvement, indicate that for the
near term and for the long term the “quality” of Mr. Riitano’s property would not improve. I will discuss this
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
further if desired. A couple of people in the neighborhood have made comments to the effect that anything
would be an improvement to what he has now, but I very much disagree. A larger structure poorly built and
poorly maintained would be far worse. The close proximity of Mr. Riitano’s house to both and my and Anita
Sullivan’s houses would make his vertical expansion very unattractive from our properties. At this point, I’d
like to refer you to the bottom picture on Page Five. This is taken from my patio and it shows our well kept
property looking southwest towards Mr. Riitano’s property. His proposed structure would absolutely
adversely effect the nature of the neighborhood and the value of my property. I would also direct you to the
top picture on Page Four, which is the view that I see every time I sit down to have breakfast. Mr. Riitano’s
proposed expansion would, again, absolutely have a detrimental effect on my property and its value, beyond
what it already does. His requests are beyond the original intents of how the lots were sized and how the
structures were positioned. While Mr. Riitano may argue that several residences up on the Sunset Lane hill
are two story structures, I would answer that those houses are not in such close proximity to one another and
are each individually very much concealed by mature trees and foliage growth. It is our local neighborhood,
that area immediately surrounding the intersection of Sunset Lane and Honeysuckle Lane, that I would
consider to be extremely adversely effected. Again, I would direct you to the top picture on Page One. Most
of the surrounding residences are part of the Shore Colony Association, which has historically been a
collection of cottage style residences on relatively small lot, for example, Mr. Riitano’s lot being only .17 acre.
This general description applies to the Dubin, Dillon, Sullivan, Kelly, Nagengast, Hopper, Fraiser, Moriarty,
Laria and many other residences, particularly in the interior of Assembly Point. Given these tight quarters,
the cottage style houses that exist there now are all that make sense to maintain the “quality” of the
neighborhood. Mr. Riitano’s is trying to convince the Board that the only way he can improve the quality of
his property is to make the structure bigger. This notion, again, is absurd. I believe that I have hereby
proven that Mr. Riitano has failed to adequately justify his need for the requested reliefs, that Mr. Riitano’s
drawings are inconsistent with the requested relief of 10.35 feet from the 20 foot minimum side setback
requirement, that Mr. Riitano does not properly maintain the structure and property that are pre-existing, and
that Mr. Riitano has knowingly and willingly been, and remains in, violation of Town Ordinances regarding
his fill damaging adjacent property. Thank you for your time and patience listening to my comments and
concerns regarding this variance request. Finally, I would just ask the Board members to consider the effects
of granting the request as if Mr. Riitano was your own neighbor attempting to do as he wishes. I hope you
will apply the same consideration for our neighborhood. Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-Thank you for a very complete presentation. I do have one question of you, and I will direct
some questions to Staff after we hear, after we close the public hearing. Are you getting stormwater onto
your property from his backyard?
MR. KELLY-Let me give you a very brief history of all of properties that meet at the corners of Lots One,
Nineteen, and Eighteen. You’ll notice there that there’s a catch basin, and that is along a traversal of what the
Town likes to call a drainage ditch, but I argue is a stream, and in the springtime, as you can see, that’s the
low lying area in the region, quite a bit of water can collect. Now, Mr. Riitano used to, I believe inadvertently,
have a pond in his yard. If you look at the picture, the top picture on Page Three, you’ll see a bunch of
concrete building blocks, and they’re apparently resting on some very moist ground. Well, that whole area
that’s covered with those building blocks preexisted as a seasonal pond, usually existing from February
through June, depending on snowfall and temperatures. You’ll also notice that that same picture depicts the
original grade as it extends from his back porch. Mr. Riitano has taken two actions, including the filling of
the pond, and the addition of the fill this past January, and the result has been, in fact, that we have more
water in our yard along the fence. In fact, this year, to be honest, historically that area would remain damp
into June, in our yard, but this year, I’m guessing for these reasons, it remained bog like well into July.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. KELLY-Can I make two more statements, very quickly?
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-And I have some questions. I hope we don’t run out of Town.
MR. KELLY-We have four hours, so.
MR. ABBATE-We have four hours?
MR. KELLY-Well, for the meeting, and that includes all three applications. Mr. Riitano has made two
statements to us whereby he has accused us of dumping grass clippings in his yard. I have a statement here
from Robin’s Nest Designer Lawnscape who mows our lawn that, indeed, they are not dumping grass
clippings, and they are the only people that.
MR. STONE-Now we’re getting into neighbor versus neighbor.
MR. KELLY-Okay.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. STONE-You have a valid point, but we don’t need to hear that.
MR. KELLY-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-I have a question.
MR. ABBATE-I do, too.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. ABBATE-I didn’t catch your last name.
MR. KELLY-Kelly, K-e-l-l-y.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Kelly. We do a balancing test here, and I guess another name for balancing act is
a standard of fairness. You mentioned three times Anita Sullivan. I’m assuming she’s here this evening, and
of course he’s speaking for you?
MR. KELLY-Well, that was inadvertent and I didn’t mean to.
MR. ABBATE-Well, now, wait a second, now. I want to get this cleared up. Is he speaking for you when he
made these statements?
ANITA SULLIVAN
MRS. SULLIVAN-I haven’t heard the letter before tonight, I haven’t heard all of this before.
MR. STONE-Please, let’s not, she’ll have an opportunity. We’re still in public hearing.
MR. KELLY-I only mentioned her name in relation to where her property was, I believe. I don’t think I
made any statements depicting how I knew or thought she felt about anything.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we can ask her. She’s here, and since you have, and she has already spoken up, we
will ask the question, Chuck. I mean, it’s a valid, she’s here.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. Well, ask her the question. I have some other. You indicated that this expansion
would absolutely have a detrimental effect on your property and its value. Can you substantiate that?
MR. KELLY-Well, again, I’ll refer to my fictitious picture of what his property may look like if he does put a
second story on it, and that, again, that’s at the top of Page Five, that is completely inconsistent with the
houses in the immediate neighborhood. So I believe that that changes the character of the neighborhood,
and it’s that character that draws people to the area. I’ve been coming up to Lake George ever since I was
born. My grandparents owned a house 300 feet from where I currently own a house, and I was drawn back
by the character of the neighborhood. This does not support the character of the neighborhood in my
opinion.
MR. ABBATE-Have you had a professional take a look at what’s going on and determine that, in effect, if
this application were to be approved, it would have an absolute detrimental effect on the value of your
property?
MR. KELLY-No, that was a statement of my personal opinion.
MR. ABBATE-But you have no expert to determine that?
MR. KELLY-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. We’re still in the public hearing?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’ll hold my other questions until we’re finished.
MR. STONE-Okay. Did somebody else have a question?
MR. URRICO-Well, I have two questions. You mentioned the immediate neighborhood.
MR. KELLY-Yes.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. URRICO-There’s a house on Honeysuckle Lane that’s sort of kitty corner, if you could bring the tax
map up again, Bruce. That other lot, now bring the arrow down to the right, and then, more to your right,
more to your right.
MR. STONE-You mean that corner lot.
MR. URRICO-That corner lot there has a second floor.
MR. KELLY-Right. That structure is the original farmhouse, as my understanding, that existed on Assembly
Point. Now I can’t make any accounting for the existence of that, but I believe it dates back to at least 1800.
MR. URRICO-I guess I’m, is that part of the neighborhood? Or is that not considered part of the
neighborhood?
MR. STONE-Is that part of Shore Colony?
MR. KELLY-No. Shore Colony exists, and Mr. Dillon can correct me if I’m wrong, but it consists of all of
this area here, as well as these lots here, and I’m not certain, but I don’t think it includes that.
FRANK DILLON
MR. DILLON-That is not correct.
MR. STONE-Mr. Dillon, we can ask you to confirm that, if you will.
MR. KELLY-Maybe I could elaborate a little more using this map. This lot here has a one story house. This
lot is one story. This lot is one story, this lot is one story, and is my aunt’s. This lot is one story. This lot is
nothing, nothing, one story, one story. I believe this may be two story, but I’m not certain.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-And I had one more question. You mentioned the pond on his property, has that been there
since you’ve owned it? You said you’ve been there since 1999?
MR. KELLY-That’s correct.
MR. URRICO-Has that been there since you’ve been there?
MR. KELLY-That has been there seasonally since I was there.
MR. URRICO-Since you’ve been there you’ve observed that?
MR. KELLY-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Anybody else wishing to speak against this application? All right. Come
forward, and I would only caution you that Mr. Kelly made a very detailed thing, so let’s not listen to it again.
I mean, if you agree with him, tell us, we want to hear that, and anything that you might think that’s different.
I just don’t want to go over the whole thing again.
DAVID PALMER
MR. PALMER-Hi. My name is David Palmer. We have a property at 14 Sunset. My father owns that
property, and I’m here in agency for him. I won’t be as lengthy as Mr. Kelly in that I haven’t prepared a
statement, but I do have this to say. Our property was originally purchased back in 1963 by my father, and it
was purchased because he enjoyed the view of the lake from where the property stood. Now if Mr. Riitano is
going to put up probably an additional, I figure about 17 to 25 feet up, it would destroy that view, and
therefore the marketability, and the personal enjoyment of that property, and I feel that if he has a problem
with the basement water, there are ways to waterproof houses rather than building up, and a structure that
large may, in fact, impact the view from the house behind ours, and I don’t, I mean, most of these people, in
Mr. Riitano’s own words, are here for the summer to enjoy the lake. If, in fact, they can’t see the lake, there
goes the whole summer, and the enjoyment of the property, and so, necessarily, it doesn’t need to go up. I
think there are other ways to resolve the problem, perhaps build ditches around the house, perhaps
waterproof the basement or other various natures. There are ways to resolve this, put drainage around the
house. I mean, it’s done all over the place. It’s not the only place where there are water problems, and I’m
not denying there are water problems. It is, in fact, at the bottom of a large hill. So there may, in fact, be
water problems. I don’t know, but if there are, there are ways to divert the water, rather than to build up, and
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
certainly, if he goes up, he doesn’t need to go as wide as he’s going, I think. If you add another level, you can
double the size of the house without being eccentric about it. I’m not going to say it doesn’t fit into the
neighborhood because there are all types of houses in that neighborhood and I think some would fit and
some wouldn’t, and it looks like a pleasing view of what he’s doing, but I believe it’s too large to fit the plot,
again, because people want to enjoy the property and the view of the lake from the property, and therefore I
think you should not be allowed to do it for that reason.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-You said your father’s house is 14?
MR. PALMER-It’s not a house. It’s a property, yes.
MR. URRICO-Where would that be on that map?
MR. PALMER-Right behind it, further up the hill. It would be right here.
MR. STONE-Right there. Okay.
MR. HIMES-Isn’t that vacant, a treed lot now?
MR. PALMER-Yes, it is a vacant lot at this point. There’s no house on it at this point.
MR. HIMES-But then a little further up there’s a nice like camp thing?
MR. PALMER-There’s a house in front of us, which is Mr. Riitano’s, and a house behind us, which at one
point were the Molinaro’s. I don’t know who lives there now.
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak?
ANITA SULLIVAN
MRS. SULLIVAN-I feel I should volunteer since my name was mentioned.
MR. STONE-Well, I kind of hoped you would.
MRS. SULLIVAN-My name is Anita Sullivan. I’ve owned the property, the little yellow house on the corner
of Sunset and Honeysuckle Lane, right there. At the time, I was married, and we bought that house in
January of 1975, but I have been the sole owner since 1981, since my divorce. I have my own, I mean,
everything that Mike said, I didn’t hear the letter before. I didn’t see the letter before. A lot of it was factual,
and a lot of it was true because the picture’s here to verify that. I have my own one concern, an immediate
issue for me that I would like to just express. I don’t know if it has any impact on the decision or not, but
not knowing that this was going to take place this summer, it concerns my fence there in the back, which is
almost up to Mr. Riitano’s driveway. Not knowing, as I said, that this was going to be happening, six weeks
ago, I just ordered and paid for a new vinyl fence, 96 feet across the back yard, and then around the corner,
just one section around the corner. So my immediate concern is a selfish one. I’m concerned about the
construction and how it’s going to be done and how long it’s going to be. I can’t cancel the order. They
won’t hold it for another year, which I don’t blame them. So I’m very concerned about that. Also, when the
survey was done and the stakes are in, I was told and found out that I have another eight to ten inches back
towards Mr. Riitano’s fence, I mean, to his driveway behind my fence, if you understand what I mean, in
other words, that much more property. So because you see those two little trees up against the fence, it’s
hard to build around them. I was planning to move the fence back, not that whole distance, but maybe four
inches or so, and to put some shrubbery there. That makes his driveway narrower, and I’m concerned about,
if he does the construction, or whoever does the construction, about getting machinery in and out of there
for the back of the house. Those are my personal concerns. I intended to do the fence last year, but as Mr.
Kelly stated, there was delivery of dirt and sand or rocks, whatever last year. So I thought something was
going to happen last year. So I postponed doing that fence. That fence used to go all the way around four
sides of my property, but after many years of coming up in the winter and having heavy snow and the snow
plows couldn’t see it, the snow was usually taller than the fence. Many boards were always broken or put
down by the snow plows. So I would replace boards. I would paint boards, and eventually the fence was
removed on all three sides except across the back, and it’s a horrible sight. It’s been bothering me for years.
It’s dilapidated. It’s old, and so I finally took the plunge this year and ordered and paid for a 96 foot vinyl
fence coming in. That’s one of my personal concerns.
MR. STONE-Okay. Keep in mind that, in granting the variance, that doesn’t take away his obligation to
protect your fence when he builds. I mean, that’s a totally separate issue, and we appreciate your thoughts,
but it’s not necessarily in our purview. That’s between you and.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MRS. SULLIVAN-I know. I mean, it’s a matter, I guess, of responsibility, but I notice in this variance
request it is for relief on both sides of his house, front and back. So that would be closer to mine, and I’m
going closer to him, and it’s just my personal concern. I’m not saying, you know, that, hopefully contractors
would be careful and you know, whatever.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. SULLIVAN-And the other one was more of a question. I don’t understand what was said about the
septic tank. Because we did get the first letter on that, for the variance on that, and I happened to be in the
back yard when they came to do the perc test, and whoever was doing it said that where this variance said it’s
going to be he got no drainage, and he said, I’m just telling you what he said. He said it couldn’t be there. So
then he came across the front yard closer to the fence, and that’s where he was doing the perc test, and he
said he got little drainage, there. So I really couldn’t hear your comments, nor do I understand. If you could
explain that right now, where is the septic tank going to be, and where would the leach field be? That’s my
other concern.
MR. STONE-That’s not what we’re talking about. Septic variances are granted by, he read the County was
concerned about that. That’s a Town issue. That’s a Building Department issue, and we would assume,
particularly if any work is done on this house, the septic system must be brought up to Code, and if the work
was done, I assume, that it was brought up to current Code or will be brought up to Code, but that’s a
separate issue.
MRS. SULLIVAN-As of this first variance, regarding, so the septic tank is still where it was supposed to be
according to this?
MR. STONE-That’s not, that variance is a Board of Health variance. It’s not this Board.
MRS. SULLIVAN-So could anybody say where it’s supposed to be? I mean, do you know now?
MR. STONE-Yes. They would, Staff could tell you where it’s supposed to be. We’ll get to it.
MRS. SULLIVAN-And because of your mentioning of no winter residence, that means there would be no
well there?
MR. STONE-Well, we haven’t gotten that far. That’s reasonable.
MRS. SULLIVAN-As of now, though, that was expressed just as a summer residence with a new septic
system? Is that correct?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, that was a suggestion, I think, by one of the Board members.
MR. STONE-One of the Board members.
MR. MC NULTY-He would like to see that stipulation. That doesn’t mean that’s what the Board would do.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t know how you could enforce that.
MR. ABBATE-No, I don’t, either.
MR. STONE-I asked the question, and it was followed up by one of the Board members, who expressed
concern. I merely asked the question. Knowing the property up there, I just wanted to, what is it, because
that’s a question on lake property that we frequently ask. We know some houses are winterized. Some
houses aren’t, and some houses will be.
MRS. SULLIVAN-I was asked to ask this, also. There were a few members that couldn’t attend tonight. If
the variances are granted, is there a time limit on the building of such a project?
MR. STONE-If we grant a variance that you object to, you have 30 days to file an Article 78.
MRS. SULLIVAN-No, that’s not my question.
MR. STONE-It’s in the Adirondack Park, so it’s at least 30 days.
MR. HAYES-She has one year to get a building permit.
MR. FRANK-I think she wants, you have one year to start building, from the date this variance is approved.
MR. STONE-One year to get a building permit.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. FRANK-To start construction.
MRS. SULLIVAN-And is there any time limit for the end of construction?
MR. FRANK-I don’t believe so. That’s a question for the Director of Building and Codes. I’ve asked him
that myself in the past. I believe you can get continuations for your building permit. So I don’t think there is
a time limit.
MR. STONE-You can’t for the variance, but you can for the building permit.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MRS. SULLIVAN-Thank you.
MR. HIMES-Before you go, could I ask you one quick question? We’ve heard from one person who came
up in connection with those opposed to the application. Are you opposed to the application?
MRS. SULLIVAN-I have mixed feelings, and the positive feeling is it’s wonderful to improve a house. It’ll
be an improvement to the community that way. It’s hard for me to visualize really, or understand the size of
it. It sounds big. I did see the drawings, the architect’s drawings, and I’m not clear yet if it’s going to be
exactly the size of that house or if the top level is going to be an overhang.
MR. HIMES-But are you in favor or opposed to the application?
MRS. SULLIVAN-I’m in favor of him improving the house.
MR. HIMES-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Would you like copies of the proposed plans to take home with you?
MRS. SULLIVAN-If I may.
MR. ABBATE-Sure, by all means. I have one more question for Mrs. Sullivan. Just be patient with me. Mrs.
Sullivan, where exactly is your home located?
MR. STONE-It’s the yellow one.
MR. ABBATE-It’s the yellow one. So that’s right next door.
MRS. SULLIVAN-Page One at the bottom is my house.
MR. ABBATE-I see it.
MRS. SULLIVAN-And this is my fence.
MR. ABBATE-I’ve got it. Okay. So you indicated that you would be in favor of improving the
neighborhood and any home. So this impact would have an immediate impact on you, and you do not
disapprove of the application?
MRS. SULLIVAN-I think it’s going to be awfully close to my fence.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MRS. SULLIVAN-Because I’m going back further and he is requesting more land. So we’re going to be like
this. That’s a concern, as is the driveway, getting machinery in. As far as the second story, some have it and
some don’t, but it sounds awfully large, and if there’s an overhang, it will be looking down on mine, but I’ve
been there, this is my 26 summer. I know the family and I know the children. We’ve been friends and
th
neighbors. The back yard was, as is stated, the rocks and all. I mean, I had to get the, the silt fence was put
up for my half of the fence back there, too, because underneath the fence, as you can see, there’s space
underneath, and last summer when that dirt was there, a lot of that was drained into a drainage ditch which is
in the corner of my yard and Mike Kelly’s next to me. There is a drainage ditch there that the Town had put
in, and there’s two on my driveway that the Town of Queensbury put in. So a lot of dirt and stuff was going
in there. The facts are the facts that he read.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re conflicted. That’s how I would read it. You’re not for, you’re not against,
certain things you’re concerned about. Certain things you’d like to see the property the property improved,
just because of the current condition. Is that a reasonable assessment?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MRS. SULLIVAN-It’s reasonable.
MR. STONE-Okay.
DIANE NAGENGAST
MS. NAGENGAST-My name is Diane Nagengast. I own the house at 27 Honeysuckle with Michael Kelly
where he said when we look out of our house we’re looking at the Riitano property. So anyway, with all due
respect to Mr. Riitano, his wife and his family, I would like to comment, leave all my other comments out
because they’re redundant, but anyway, talk about neighborhood, the neighborhood itself, that I don’t think
neighborhood apathy is why we don’t see a lot of faces here tonight. The public hearing portion of these
meetings kind of pits neighbors against neighbors. Mr. Riitano’s home is not only in a residential area, but it’s
also part of an association, and that she has approximately 350 feet of public and private docks in swimming
and recreational areas. It’s an association almost like a private club, and it was begun by a small group of
families, some of which are now in the third generation, and some of them are here tonight. So a lot of
people aren’t going to speak up, simply because it’s a closely knit group and everyone’s friendly with each
other. I think Anita is opposed to going up, but she does want to see the house improved, and I think that’s
what everybody wants. So I think for the Board to make a professional and unbiased decision on this matter,
each member has to physically go out there, look at the house, the nature of the neighborhood, and the
impact of 2,586 square foot house on a 1.7 acre lot, well, .17 lot, on a hill, is going to make on the lower lying
cottages it’s going to loom over. We’re going to basically look out our bedroom, our kitchen, the sunroom,
and just see house instead of trees, and what we’re looking at now, and another thing that hasn’t been
addressed by anybody, Anita said her driveway, his driveway is actually narrower than it appears right now,
and if her fence does go back a little bit, it will be. Right now they can barely get a truck in there. Where are t
they going to park the cars for four bedrooms, if there’s only room for one or no cars in the driveway, and
they can’t park on their front lawn because the variance that they’re given and the septic’s going to be under
there. So, those are just a couple of thoughts. Thank you very much.
TIMOTHY MORIARTY, SR.
MR. MORIARTY, SR.-The name is Timothy Moriarty, Sr. I live at 12 Honeysuckle Lane in Queensbury, and
I’d like to correct the Chairman. I don’t have gray hair. I have salt and pepper hair.
MR. STONE-I didn’t mean to, like my beard.
MR. HIMES-No, that’s gray.
MR. MORIARTY, SR.-I’ll be very brief, that Mr. Kelly has articulated the reasons why the Zoning Board
should deny the application. I only want to summarize three points that he made which I totally agree with. I
think that this is contrary to the nature of the Shore Colony neighborhood. I think that the request to
increase from 22% to 36% is an exceptionally large variance, and the statement or the argument that this
variance would have a positive impact on the neighborhood I think is completely contrary to the facts that
have been presented. Thank you.
MR. STONE-I do want to respond, not to you, to the previous speaker. To the best of my knowledge, every
member of the Zoning Board of Appeals did visit the property. That’s normally what we do. I can’t
guarantee it, that we all went out, because we go out individually, but we’re pretty good at it. We do go out
and look. Anybody else wishing to speak against?
FRANK DILLON
MR. DILLON-Against?
MR. STONE-Well, did you want to speak for?
MR. DILLON-Yes.
MR. STONE-Well, come up. I mean, I asked earlier, but.
MR. DILLON-On for, you asked if there was anybody against, and we were waiting for you to call, for.
MR. STONE-No, I asked anybody for, in favor of the application, was usually my first language.
MR. DILLON-My name’s Frank Dillon. I’m a resident of Shore Colony. As a matter of fact, I bought the
first lot there 45 years ago. Eventually, I was the owner of 46 lots, and co-owner with 46 of the lots out
there, and we’ve been selling them off, but I wanted to bring up the first point is, I spoke out when Mr. Kelly
was speaking, but that corner house which is now owned by Frank Adamo, Jr. is part of and has been part of
Shore Colony. It is an exception to the way that Shore Colony was laid out. It sold originally for $19,000 and
has been in two hands. Now Frank Adamo, Jr. is the owner.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. STONE-You’re talking about the one on the corner?
MR. DILLON-On the corner there.
MR. STONE-Okay, of Sunset and Assembly Point Road.
MR. DILLON-The old farmhouse, yes.
MR. STONE-Right. Okay.
MR. DILLON-The other point I wanted to make was that the time that the original drawings for Shore
Colony were made, the setbacks had to be 20 feet from the main street. So most of the buildings that we
have there now, including some of mine, were built on 20 feet setback, and also the side setback was only five
feet. So we’ve had a little conflict along the way on some of these numbers, but I ask this committee to
recognize that these properties were built under the guidelines and under the items that were approved by at
least the County when the subdivision was made. Another point I wanted to make is that the house that’s
now in consideration by the Riitano’s was built by Frank Adamo, Sr., and Frank Adamo, Sr. built four homes,
and one of the homes was Mr. Kelly’s home. Another one around the corner was built, and the fourth home
was built adjacent to my house. Now, all of these homes in the Shore Colony were built under the, not all of
them, all of them in the early days were built under the guidelines of the restrictions, which included the 20
feet and 5 feet. So I want to make sure that these things are looked at by the committee and as I said, I’ve
sold a lot of homes to a lot of people there, and I am for building, of course, and I am for anybody wanting
to make an impression, make things prettier, bigger, and I don’t see any reason why Mr. Riitano cannot
beautify the place as it should be beautified, and this is something for the future, I know, but he’s looking for
a place to put his six kids and their husbands and wives and grandchildren in the future, and that little house
is a little bit too small for that. That’s all I have.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak against or for? We’re easy. All right. Any
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. One piece of correspondence. This is a letter from P.E. Sherman, Jr., addressed to
the Zoning Board of Appeals, “As President of Shore Colony Association, I am reluctant to interject myself
into this matter, but feel constrained to do so. Please do not base your determination on who does or does
not present themselves before you tonight. Place principles over personalities and determine what, if any, is
the purpose and intent of the zoning laws. Obviously, persons should be allowed to “enjoy” their property,
but the character of the surrounding neighborhood must also be maintained. Respectfully Submitted, P.E.
Sherman”
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anything else?
MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else.
MR. STONE-Nobody else wishing to speak? Then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Before you come up, Mr. Riitano, you can come back up, but Staff, a couple of things were
mentioned in the presentation, one about the second floor deck and the side setback. Was that taken into
consideration in the number that was given to us in Staff notes, and I assume advertised in the newspaper?
MR. FRANK-No, it wasn’t. Mr. Riitano is requesting 9.65 feet from the east side property line. So he needs
10.35 feet of relief, that’s for the side of the structure itself, not for that cantilevered portion of the deck. I
mean, he could very well come up and say the elevations showing that portion will be taken out, and you can
condition that, or if he wants to include that in this application, it was an oversight, he could very well say, I
would like that additional four feet of relief. So he has that option to do so. I want to make something clear.
I think our new Ordinance has changed from the old Ordinance. Because this is in a Critical Environmental
Area, under the continuation portion of the Code, this has to go before the Planning Board for site plan
review because of the expansion of a nonconforming structure. So a lot of these issues would be re-reviewed.
So I’m glad that it was brought to our attention. It does appear, also, that the rear elevation is approximately
32 and a half feet, because of the garage portion.
MR. STONE-You’re saying so it’s four feet over what is allowed?
MR. FRANK-The maximum allowed. It would need approximately four and a half feet of height relief,
which he didn’t request, and it was an oversight by Staff, and now it’s been brought to our attention. So he
would need additional relief for that also. As far as the violation of the Town Code, it was an interesting
interpretation of the Code by Mr. Kelly, but remember, this new Zoning Ordinance went into effect April 1
st
of this year. It was never brought to my attention, and it was not brought to Craig Brown’s attention, the
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
Zoning Administrator. Any violation, any cutting, any filling, I mean, this photograph shows that there’s
been some fill there. When was the fill placed there, I don’t know. I know that it was first brought to my
attention last week, through a phone conversation I had with Mrs. Kelly, and we spoke at length for 20
minutes to half an hour about this, and she told me that she was dealing with Dave Hatin over the matter.
Why she was dealing with Dave Hatin, I don’t know, why he did not refer this to the Zoning Department, I
don’t have a clue, because it’s a zoning situation and concern. It’s not a Building and Codes concern.
MR. STONE-Tell me about fill. Because I don’t think we’ve ever really been exposed to fill.
MR. FRANK-You’re allowed to place up to six feet of fill on your property. Now as far as the fill going up
against the chain link fence, which does have silt fencing up against it, filter fabric, that’s a civil matter. If he’s
damaging his fence, if he’s putting fill on his property, then that’s a civil matter. That’s not a Town issue. As
you can see from this photograph right here, this is going downhill from the direction that they arrow is going
right now. So some fill was placed there. I mean, it’s evident. I don’t know how much because I don’t know
what the pre-existing conditions were before this fill was placed. I don’t know when it was placed. Was it
placed prior to April 1 of this year?
st
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-So, it appears it was placed before the current Zoning Ordinance.
MR. STONE-Mr. Riitano, you can come back. Any comments you wish to make on what you heard in the
public hearing?
MR. RIITANO-Yes, I do. I think the first one about the fill. Yes, we did put some fill because they were
working across the street, which you guys give me the approval, you know, two story house, and they put
some of their fill into my property. What you can see there, and that was done this past winter.
MR. STONE-You mean with your permission they put fill?
MR. RIITANO-Well, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. In other words, you asked them for fill to put in there? Okay.
MR. RIITANO-Yes, because, you know, to level it out.
MR. STONE-They didn’t just dump it at midnight?
MR. RIITANO-No.
MR. STONE-I mean, that’s what I want to be sure about. Okay.
MR. RIITANO-And the other comment, and all the gentleman said I have so many issue with the building
code, or, you know, violations, I was not aware I was in any violation. I had the building inspector, we went
over and over. We have the permit for the septic system, which went in front of the Board. The building
inspector was there. Nobody ever said I was in violation. I’m waiting to get a permit so I can fix the house,
because with the water problem I have, you know, it’s going into disrepair, and I’d like to fix the house. I
think I’m doing an improvement to the neighbors, because right now you can see the house is rundown. The
reason why I’m waiting to do the job, because the roof is bad. I want to do everything at once. That’s why
I’m waiting to get a permit, not wasting money.
MR. STONE-We appreciate that. Keep in mind that your property was nonconforming prior to your
approaching the zoning department, and as long as it was pre-existing, nonconforming, the Town really can’t
do anything about it, and that’s what, you have a house that’s pre-existing, nonconforming. As soon as you
ask for some relief, you open the door to these kind of questions and this kind of hearing that we’re having
here tonight. So I just want you to know, I mean, that’s when we get our bite at the apple, so to speak, to
look at it. Is that it, sir? Have you got anything else you want to say?
MR. RIITANO-Well, I wanted to ask about, they were complaining because of the fence and this and that. If
I make a damage on the fence or anything else, it’s my responsibility and I will pay for it. I think that’s what
is a civil matter.
MR. STONE-Sure, absolutely. Any other questions?
MR. HIMES-Just one, Lew. Sir, the lot next to you going up the hill, the wooded lot that I asked the other
gentleman about, had you ever considered trying to acquire more land?
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. RIITANO-Yes. Me and my neighbor above the empty lot, we tried to get a hold of the person who
owned, we could buy and split the lot. I think my neighbor approached a few times to get a hold of who
owned it, and ask and see if they wanted to sell it, and we didn’t get a good result.
MR. HIMES-What do you mean by no good result?
MR. RIITANO-Well, you know, I didn’t know if we couldn’t find the owner or if he didn’t want to sell the
lot. We weren’t able to buy.
MR. STONE-So your neighbor handled that investigation?
MR. RIITANO-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. RIITANO-And my wife sent a letter out, too, to the owner, and we never got a response back.
MR. HIMES-That could have a very large bearing on this matter.
MR. STONE-Can you contribute to this, sir? You had your hand up.
MR. RIITANO-He’s the one in back there.
MR. STONE-Well, why don’t you come forward. I’ll re-open the public hearing. He raised a point and we
might as well just get it on the record. Let me re-open the public hearing for the purpose of this statement.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
ANGELO MOLINARO
MR. MOLINARO-My name is Angelo Molinaro, and there is an empty lot between Mr. Riitano and my
house, which is further up the hill. I did try to buy that lot three times, and got nowhere with the man, and I
suggested to Mr. Riitano that the two of us approach him, and we’d split the cost, and nothing ever came of
that.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MOLINARO-That lot is an eyesore. It’s overgrown. I used to have a view of the lake. All the weed
trees that have taken growth now, I don’t have a view anymore except in the winter. I’m a bit concerned,
when he puts a second story on, that I will lose some of my view also in the winter.
MR. STONE-So you’re saying you’re concerned.
MR. MOLINARO-I’m concerned.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else?
MR. MOLINARO-That’s it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Let me close the public hearing again.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions?
MR. BRYANT-What is the outcome of the height situation? Are you requesting relief for the height?
MR. FRANK-Well, again, you can put that question to Mr. Riitano. If he wants to leave the plans as they are,
he would need an additional four and a half feet of height relief, and if you wanted to leave that cantilevered
deck, he would need another approximately four feet of side setback relief.
MR. STONE-Right, but then if that’s there, we can’t act on it tonight, since it was not advertised.
MR. FRANK-Well, it’s Staff’s fault that that wasn’t discovered. So, I mean.
MR. STONE-But the public has a right to know.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. I mean, the relief was not requested. Because a lot of times when we find
something in addition to what has been requested.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. STONE-So you’re saying your interpretation, your scaling of the survey provided shows that the back is
32 and a half feet.
MR. FRANK-According to those plans, that’s correct.
MR. RIITANO-I can speak for that.
MR. STONE-Yes, go ahead.
MR. RIITANO-With the building inspector and the Zoning Board we measured, and with the driveway the
way it’s coming down to get filled up it would be 29 and a half feet height.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s still in excess of the Code.
MR. RIITANO-Well, you say you allow, I think, it’s 30 feet.
MR. STONE-Twenty-eight.
MR. RIITANO-It was half a foot below what the Code was. That’s the reason why they didn’t put in for the
height.
MR. STONE-You think it’s 27 and a half above grade?
MR. RIITANO-It’s about a half a foot below where the Code was because I spent time downstairs in the
office and we measured and everything else, because we’re going to have some topsoil for the grass and
everything and the driveway coming down, and what you raise, it would come down half a foot below the
Code.
MR. STONE-Okay. So right now you don’t think you need one.
MR. RIITANO-No.
MR. STONE-And if we were to grant this, we would make a request for an as-built survey, and if it came in
higher.
MR. RIITANO-I agree with you, yes.
MR. STONE-You would be in trouble with this particular Board, I think.
MR. RIITANO-We measured with the blueprints, and we went over.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. RIITANO-And we were six inches below your height.
MR. BRYANT-But that’s not what’s shown in the drawings, okay. That’s why I picked it up and brought it
to Mr. Frank’s attention. That’s not what’s shown on the drawings. Okay. You don’t show any fill or
anything of that nature. Just clarify this. As you look at this picture on Page Three, the bottom picture, are
you saying you’re going to fill in that whole bottom to basically the wooden portion of the house?
MR. RIITANO-Well, if you look at Page Three, in the back of the house, see right here, this one here, you
can see on the right where some of the dirt got, you know, we put in over the winter.
MR. BRYANT-You’re going to eliminate your whole driveway, is that what you’re saying?
MR. RIITANO-No, the driveway is on the other side.
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. STONE-Are you going to fill here to the east? Is that what you’re talking about, Al?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I’m talking about, could we show that picture?
MR. STONE-He doesn’t have that one up there.
MR. BRYANT-He doesn’t have that one? I’m talking about the bottom of the house here, that shows where
you repaired the foundation, okay. Are you going to fill that whole area?
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. RIITANO-We’re going to raise that up. Because this is all full of water yet.
MR. BRYANT-Along that fence, isn’t that where your driveway is?
MR. RIITANO-On the white fence, next to white fence. Next to white fence is my driveway.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but you’re going to fill this whole back area in, and what’s that going to do to the
adjacent property?
MR. RIITANO-Right now, do you see where all the blocks are right here, on the top pictures?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. RIITANO-Okay. Right here is, because we put all new footings because of the water damage.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but you’re going to fill to the bottom of the wooden portion of the house.
MR. RIITANO-No, no, no, no. We’re not going to fill to the bottom of the wood portion. If you look on
the other picture below, where the door is.
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. RIITANO-It’s going to be to right there to there.
MR. BRYANT-To the bottom of the door where it is now?
MR. RIITANO-Right, correct, the bottom of the door.
MR. BRYANT-But when you add that second floor, you’re still going to have to deal with that. Isn’t that
where the difference is in the height of the ceiling, the roof?
MR. FRANK-I believe it goes approximately halfway up the exposed foundation right now. Twenty-eight
feet would begin approximately in the middle of the foundation, according to what I just scaled off on these
plans.
MR. BRYANT-Because you’re only talking about filling it in slightly, and.
MR. RIITANO-Well, I have to fill because it’s all water right there. When the snow melting, it’s like a
ponding effect there.
MR. STONE-Okay. You’re saying that to the roofline at grade there it’s going to be over 28 feet, according
to your scaling?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct, 32 and a half feet. If you go to the bottom of where the garage door is to the
top of the peak.
MR. STONE-Okay. So, you’re scaling off from that, the bottom of the door, the white one and the other
one.
MR. FRANK-Well, I’m not using that point right there. I’m going actually to the white part because as you
know, any place along the slope is what you’re measuring.
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. FRANK-But I don’t know where he’s going to fill to. I can’t tell from the from these plans.
MR. RIITANO-It will be six inches below the requirement. We’re not going over the.
MR. STONE-Well, you haven’t given us anything. know, any place along the slope is what you’re
measuring.
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. FRANK-But I don’t know where he’s going to fill to. I can’t tell from the from these plans.
MR. RIITANO-It will be six inches below the requirement. We’re not going over the.
MR. STONE-Well, you haven’t given us anything. You’re saying that, but.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. BRYANT-But in order to accomplish that, and I think this is what Mr. Frank is saying, correct me I’m
wrong, that area where you have those two little doors, you’re going to have to fill in.
MR. RIITANO-If I have to, I’ll do it, because I don’t want any trouble with the Town.
MR. FRANK-Actually, if you to the very right hand portion of that door, and you scale up, it’s a little bit
below 32 feet, as Mr. Riitano’s saying.
MR. STONE-So, for the purposes, if we decide to grant a variance, we should put that in, if we’re so
inclined?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-The east portion of the house, the elevation, they’re not in need of any height relief, and
neither are they as far as to the furthest right portion of that garage door. If you scale up, it’s actually 31 and
a half feet.
MR. BRYANT-I’m not convinced that that’s going to work, okay, by looking at this photograph. It’s hard to
tell by the drawings, but looking at this photograph, he’s got the driveway on the side. So measuring from the
grade in the driveway to the peak of the roof.
MR. FRANK-You can’t measure from there, because it’s any place vertically along the slope, and if you look
at the elevation drawing, the way that the roof slopes, that is not an accurate measurement.
MR. BRYANT-So you measure from this side?
MR. FRANK-You measure any place along the slope.
MR. STONE-The highest point to the crown on the roof.
MR. FRANK-At that point of the slope.
MR. RIITANO-You can put that, in the thing that says not to exceed that.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we hear that. Okay. Let me, we’ve spent a lot of time. We’ve given a lot of
thought to this thing. Let me start with Norm. What do you think about this thing, Norm?
MR. HIMES-Well, thank you, sir. Well, I believe we’ve got, I’m trying to think whether there’s any variance
that could have been requested possibly that isn’t here already. It just seems that there’s really, my opinion, in
spite of the good intentions to the applicant and perhaps his need and even the desires of the neighborhood
to see the property improved a little bit or better maintained, that it’s still too much, it seems to me, and that’s
why I asked the question about the lot next door, which would seem to be, possibly, I don’t know how big
that lot is, I don’t know how deep it is, but it looks like it may be nearly a nonconforming lot, I don’t think
it’s very wide. If that could be acquired, let’s say between you and your uphill neighbor, possibly that might
add some dimensions that some dimensions that would relieve the need for some of these reliefs that are
requested, or certainly would lessen the ones that might be needed under that. So it seems that the, you
know, your pursuit, or the pursuit of acquiring that land was, you know, sort of halfhearted. I’d like to see it
pursued a little more vigorously to see if you can acquire that land because I’m thinking without it, I would
have a very hard time approving this application as submitted. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Riitano, I have to agree with my fellow Board
member. I am sympathetic to your cause, but we do have a balancing act here. You are requesting, as I
indicated earlier, a total of five variances, if you will, and some of the testimony this evening really didn’t, it
didn’t impact this Board because it pertains to other areas. If, as my fellow Board member indicated, sir, if
you could perhaps purchase some other property, that might very well resolve the problem, and I would like t
say this, and this doesn’t pertain, this is not addressed at you. This is addressed to the public. There are
various ways to present oral testimony. Factual testimony is probably the most effective. However, I am
distressed at any attempt at character assassination as it serves neither the public or this Board, and quite
frankly, diminishes the impact of the testimony, no matter how factual. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Okay. Al?
MR. BRYANT-Generally speaking, Mr. Abbate mentioned, there are a number of areas where you’re asking
for relief, and generally speaking, this Board, when you have a pre-existing structure, you’re not changing the
footprint, I don’t think there’s really a question about the side relief and the setback relief. What becomes a
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
problem is the amount of relief in addition to that that you’re requesting, primarily the Floor Area Ratio.
That is, since I’ve been on the Board, I think the most we’ve ever granted is two or three percent. To go up
an additional 65% is excessive, and so with that in mind, I would be opposed to the application.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with my fellow Board members I’m sorry to say in terms of, I understand what
you’re trying to do. We have a balancing test that we have to follow. There are five criteria that we are asked
to examine for any applicant that comes before us, the first being the benefit to the applicant. You’ve
demonstrated at least a need for that. So that would be something that would be in your favor. As far as
feasible alternatives, that would be Number Two. There does seem to be some possible alternatives. As to
the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, my fellow Board members talked about the number of
variances, and that is a concern, but more of a concern to me is what Mr. Bryant said, and that’s the Floor
Area Ratio. That, to me, is a big stumbling block. If this were presented without that, I might have an easier
time accepting it, but with that, certainly, I can’t get beyond that, and then the effects on the neighborhood or
community, we’ve heard some of your neighbors speak out against the project concerned about the height
and maybe how it may impact the neighborhood. That, to me, is a balance. I don’t think it would have a
total detrimental effect on the neighborhood. I think it would be, might even be an improvement, and then
in terms of, is this difficulty self-created, I think it is self-created. So on the balancing test, I would still be
against it at this point, but I would like to hear my other Board members speak as well.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I essentially agree with the rest of my Board members. As I took a long look at this application,
certainly I’m a believer in improvements in property, and assisting people wherever we’re able to do that, and
doing exactly that, but in this particular case, the Floor Area Ratio is a standard that’s been created by the
Town to at least regulate the intensity of use of shore properties or critical environmental properties, and the
idea of doubling the size of residence, a nonconforming structure to boot, and then exceeding that Floor
Area Ratio which is designed to prohibit that exact type of activity, to me, would need a compelling, almost
supernatural reason to carry a balancing test, and I find no such. Couple that with the fact that there has been
significant neighborhood representations that they believe that there will be a negative effect on the
immediately surrounding neighborhood or community, which I, personally, agree with, as far as going double
and two stories, I think that, on balance, I think that this is a stretch. It’s a reach. It does not find ground.
So I would be opposed to the application as it’s made now.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I, essentially, feel the same way. I’d like to make the point that with the public comment
and what we’ve heard from the neighbors is not a vote. What’s important is what the neighbors have brought
out as far as factual points of the possibility of impact on the neighborhood, and even the setbacks are not an
automatic variance. The setbacks have been established for current needs now, and we’d have to think
carefully about those, but I think I could go along with some of the side setbacks and front setback, but I get
hung up on the same things of the intensity of use, the Floor Area Ratio being excessively high, and doubling
the size of a nonconforming structure is pretty significant, too, and I think it’s just too much, and
unfortunately, it may mean that the only answer for the owner is finding another piece of property, if he
wants a piece of property that’ll accommodate his whole family, but, that being the case, I’ve got to be
opposed.
MR. STONE-Well, very briefly, I certainly agree with the Board, but before I get there, Mr. Abbate raised a
good point, and I apologize to you if anything, that I allowed anything to be said that was detrimental to you.
I was concerned, myself, with the appearance of the back yard, and I think I was colored by what I heard
from Mr. Kelly and others, but our job is still to consider this on its merits, and I think my fellow Board
members have made it very clear that, in their opinion, too much relief is required to do what you want to do.
The Floor Area Ratio has been stated by two or three people, that’s a large number. I think Mr. Bryant said
that he had never seen one come anywhere close to that, and I would agree with him, and I’ve been here even
longer. So, what I’m going to do, in my prerogative as Chairman, I’m going to call for a motion to deny.
Now, what’s that going to do, that gives you two alternatives. Certainly you can accept it, I’m not asking you,
necessarily, to do that. You can come back to us with a significant change in your request, and listening to
our fellow Board members, that’s a minimum that we’re going to allow. You have to come to us, if we deny
it, and say, okay, here’s an alternate plan. I think it’s significantly different. Then we have to decide whether
it is or not, and then we have to have a separate hearing to consider it, but listening to everybody else, and
what their feeling was, I’m not even going to consider the tabling motion. You certainly can withdraw the
application. That you can do, but if we vote to deny, it means you have to come back to us and get
unanimous approval to rehear it. So you have to make significant, and the word “significant”, that’s all the
Code says, significant, and it’s in the eyes of the beholder, and we’re the beholder. So, I’m going to take the
liberty in calling for a motion to deny this variance. Who wants to take a crack at it?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, before we do that, I think we owe applicants, particularly applicants with no
legal background or with limited experience in this type of thing, a better explanation. I don’t think the
gentleman really understands, if I’m wrong, just say I’m wrong.
MR. RIITANO-No, you’re right.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Would you give it another go, so he understands it? That he has, you
have the option.
MR. STONE-Okay. You have a number of options.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. STONE-One, you can withdraw the application, and then none of this ever happened, the record, but
you’ll know that we were not happy with what you were asking for. You understand that?
MR. RIITANO-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. If we deny it, because of the various reasons that we’ve given, that we will spell out in
the motion, if we deny it, you have two courses of action. One, you can appeal it in an Article 78. You can
go to the courts and you can appeal it that way. The other way, you can make significant changes in your
request, and I use the word “significant”. I can’t define it anymore because it really depends upon what you
do and how we look at it, if we determine, and it has to be unanimous, seven votes. If we determine that we
believe you have made a significant change in your application, then we’ll have another hearing just like this.
MR. RIITANO-What about, if I understand everything you say, the problem is double the size.
MR. STONE-That is certainly one of the things.
MR. RIITANO-That’s the problem.
MR. STONE-You heard the Floor Area Ratio is a big concern. Doubling the size of the house is a big
concern. The fact that you need more relief than we even considered when we started is a concern because
of this overhanging deck and so on. Now, the reason I’m not suggesting that we table it, because any tabling
which will allow you to do the same thing, to come back with a different thing, is just puts it on our agenda
and keeps it going, and we tend to table too much. The options to you are still open, if we deny it.
MR. RIITANO-Mr. Chairman, what about if, I see where you’re coming from, what you say. If I go back
and try to redo the plans, to maybe downsize the plans, come up, you know, have the architect work on it and
try to make it come up with something close to your ratio? We can do that?
MR. STONE-Well, that’s certainly what you should do, but I’m suggesting that, you’ve got to do this no
matter what, either whether.
MR. BRYANT-Can I just add something?
MR. STONE-Sure, go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-Maybe this, maybe I can explain this to you a little bit better.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-If that’s your intention, you’re going to come back with another plan, then you probably
should withdraw the motion.
MR. RIITANO-We’ll withdraw the motion.
MR. BRYANT-Well, the reason being, and I’m not trying to influence you to do that. The reason being, as
the Chairman already stated, if you’re denied, when you come back with a new plan, we have to first hear it to
determine whether or not it’s a significant enough change before we’ll actually.
MR. HAYES-To hear it again.
MR. STONE-To hear it again.
MR. RIITANO-To hear it again, yes.
MR. STONE-And that has to be unanimous. If you want to withdraw the application and go in and discuss
it with Staff and your architect, you’re perfectly welcome to do that.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. RIITANO-Because I know how much you can, you know, to comply, and I’ll tell my architect, hey
listen, try to get into these guidelines, and redo it again.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you want to withdraw Area Variance No. 56-2002? Done.
MR. RIITANO-Done.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. RIITANO-Thank you.
MRS. RIITANO-We had a good time. Thanks for inviting us.
USE VARIANCE NO. 55A-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED HILLARY C. & GILBERT J. POTTER
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: 20 PATTON DRIVE
APPLICANT PROPOSES THE ADDITION OF A FIFTH UNIT IN THE BASEMENT TO AN
ALREADY EXISTING FOUR-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/10/02
TAX MAP NO. 302.08-2-36 LOT SIZE: 1.39 ACRES SECTION 179-13-010
HILLARY POTTER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 55A-2002, Hillary C. & Gilbert J. Potter, Meeting Date: July 24, 2002
“Project Location: 20 Patton Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to expand a
pre-existing non-conforming use on the property. Specifically, the applicant seeks to establish a 5 apartment
th
in the existing 4 unit building currently on the property. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the
allowable uses of the SFR zone per, § 179-4-20. Multi-family dwellings are not allowable uses within the SFR
district. Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Can the
applicant realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by
competent financial evidence? This criterion requires that the applicant demonstrate a “dollars and cents”
evaluation with respect to “…each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the particular
district…” No evidence to support this position has been offered for any of the permitted uses. 2. Is the
alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does this hardship apply to a
substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? The alleged hardship, which is not clearly stated in
the application, appears to be the potential financial difficulty with the maintenance and improvement to the
property. While this building is the only apartment building in the neighborhood, the remainder of the
neighborhood is subject to the same zoning requirements. 3. Will the requested use variance, if granted,
alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The essential character of the neighborhood is single-
family dwellings on individual residential lots. While the proposed use would be considered residential in
character, the 25% increase in density above the existing conditions may present a minimal adverse impact on
the neighborhood. 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created: The alleged hardship could be interpreted as
self created. The Town zoning ordinance established the SFR zoning district for this property in 1988. The
previous two zoning classifications R-4 (1967-1982) and UR-10 (1982-1988) allowed duplex construction but
neither allowed multi-family dwellings. The records kept with the Town Assessor indicate that the structure
was built in 1963. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff
comments: The Estimated Income versus Expense breakdown only includes income from three of the four
apartments. Arguably, the most difficult criterion is the reasonable return requirement associated with the
property. This requirement deals only with the property, not whether or not the applicant can realize a
reasonable return. Therefore, the rental from the fourth apartment (owner occupied?) shall be included in the
income for the property. A reasonable estimate of $600 a month would present an additional $7200 to the
monthly income of the property. Additionally, the items listed under II. Estimated Expense, A. Annual
appear to be approximations rather than actual costs. Further, items listed under II. B. Maintenance/Repairs
appear to be expenses already incurred. Will these be annual expenses? Every five years, ten??? Future rental
increases? Notwithstanding this information, the application does not contain information regarding “each
and every permitted use” and the reasonable returns associated therewith. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 10, 2002 Project
Name: Potter, Hillary C. & Gilbert J. Owner: Hillary C. & Gilbert J. Potter ID Number: QBY-02-UV-55
County Project#: Jul02-27 Current Zoning: SFR-20 Community: Queensbury Project Description: The
applicant proposes the addition of a fifth unit in the basement to an already existing four unit apartment
building. Relief requested for the expansion of a nonconforming use. Site Location: 20 Patton Drive Tax
Map Number(s): 302.08-1-36 Staff Notes: The applicant requests a use variance to add a fifth apartment
unit to an existing four unit apartment building. The unit would be located in the basement of the existing
building. The expansion of a non-conforming use in the single family zone requires a use variance. The
application was provided to the county to review because it is within 500’ feet of the City of Glens Falls. The
drawing shows the location of the apartment building. The issues appear to be local in nature. Staff
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
recommends No County Impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact No
County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 7/12/02.
MR. STONE-Okay. You’re on. State your name and anything you want to add to your application.
MRS. POTTER-Yes. I’m Hillary Potter, and, yes, I have a lot I want to say. I didn’t get the Staff comments
until Saturday. So I only had time to meet with Craig Brown once, and I have made some adjustments, just
based on my discussion with Craig Brown. I hope that it’s enough. I can pass out things. Should I pass
things out, like things that I have changed?
MR. STONE-Yes. If you have things, please do.
MRS. POTTER-Okay. So the one that said that said Estimated Income versus Expense, I did add the $600 a
month for our apartment. We live there. So I wasn’t aware that it was considered, but of course, we’re not
paying for another house to live in. So that’s also in the Income from Rent. Changing that number
significantly. I tried to make a sheet, the second, the packet that you have should show you specifically what
we have spent so far in repairs, in our own apartment and in other apartments, and also I added on, within
the next year we have to have our roof redone, and I added that on there. I got an estimate, which I can
show you, if anyone needs to see it. Actually I think it’s in your packet, the estimate is in your packet. Also I
changed some figures. After looking at the receipts, I got a little bit more specific about and so some of them
are better estimates, and supported by the figures in that packet, the receipts that are in that packet. To
address the questions, I did not know that, what each and every permitted use was. The other permitted uses
for this apartment building would be a church or a school or a single family residence. So I would just like to
address Craig Brown’s first comments on Question One, Can the applicant realize a reasonable return. He
says, “’Each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the particular district …’ No evidence
to support this position has been offered for any of the permitted uses.” So it just would not be feasible for
us to make this apartment, four unit apartment house into a church or a school, financially not feasible, and
not at all what we had intended to do when we bought the apartment house, and obviously it’s not a single
family residence. So to make it into one would be almost ludicrous. It’s like 4,000 square feet more than
that, and to address Craig Brown’s comment to Question Two, Is the alleged hardship relating to the
property in question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or
neighborhood? He said it was not clearly stated, and it appears to be a potential financial difficulty, which is
exactly what it is, financially. It’s a financial difficulty, as you can see from our Estimated Income versus
Expense, and if you look at, we did not take, in our Estimated Income versus Expense, we did not take into
account depreciation. The previous owner, Helen DeLong, shows considerable depreciation cost in her tax,
which are Schedule E tax return. So you could look at those. I think the other two questions he pretty much
summarized pretty well.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question?
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-Relative to this expense report and income report that you just handed out, versus the other
one, because I had made some notations on the original one, and if you add the $7200, it brings you, of
course, the $29,400 for Apartment A, but then of course in this new one you added the roof and you added,
you increased the kitchen, whatever it was, but going back to the original one, if you add the income, and you
remove the kitchen remodeling, which is a one time thing, you would make a profit, and any kind of
apartment house, you have repairs, which are extrapolated over a period of years. So roof is not going to be
an expense, even though you pay for it in one year, you’re going to extrapolate it over a period of years. So,
based on the original, your income and expense sheet, you’re actually making a profit.
MRS. POTTER-Well, not if you consider depreciation for the building. Which I said in Schedule E, if you
look at the Schedule E’s from the last three years, we haven’t filed a tax return yet. So we don’t show any
depreciation. As of yet we’ve only owned it less than five months.
MR. ABBATE-Since you’ve raised the issue of Schedules, you mentioned Schedule E, when you submitted
your, you’ll have to help me out on this. When you submitted your income tax forms to the Internal Revenue
Service, were they upset or anything? Did you get a response from them?
MRS. POTTER-We’ve only owned the building less than five months. So we have not done that yet.
MR. ABBATE-You didn’t submit, what are these?
MRS. POTTER-The Schedule E’s came from the previous owner.
MR. ABBATE-This was the previous owners?
MRS. POTTER-Right.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. ABBATE-Well, the reason I raised that issue because the documents that you have submitted, in terms
of internal revenue source reporting is incomplete. Would you like me to explain to you why?
MRS. POTTER-Yes. It’s not mine, but.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, it lacks signature pages.
MRS. POTTER-Okay. Well, I mean, this is just the part that pertains to this.
MR. STONE-But you understand what he’s saying? It’s not an official document.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. STONE-Anybody could fill these numbers in. We don’t know these were submitted. He’s being very
kind when he says that.
MR. BRYANT-Who are the returns for? Who’s were they?
MRS. POTTER-Helen DeLong, the previous owner. We requested them from her, and this is what she gave
us.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MRS. POTTER-I mean, I didn’t ask her for signature.
MR. ABBATE-Don’t misunderstand, Mrs. Potter. I’m not questioning your integrity or anything. All I’m
saying is that, when I get a document, unless it’s complete, particularly when we’re talking about 1040’s, etc.,
etc., and there’s no signature page, anybody can put in numbers and figures, etc., etc., and so and so. Now I
realize it’s not your form, but anyway. What I also want to bring to your attention, have you ever read Use
Variance requirements and prerequisites for a Use Variance?
MRS. POTTER-No.
MR. ABBATE-You have never read? I wish we had time, because I would like you to read this. Basically
what it basically says is this, that we can’t grant a Use Variance where the hardship was created by the
applicant, and also indicates basically that the grounds for unnecessary hardship, the record must show a
number of things, the land in question cannot yield, I don’t want to take a lot of time tonight, but there’s
some very stringent requirements, and I would be more than happy to let you read this if you would like, but
as it is right now, I’m having a hard time taking a favorable.
MR. STONE-Thank you for your, I was going to say, a Use Variance on a private home, and this, in a sense,
is your private home, it is very difficult to prove lack of a reasonable return. You are living there. That is a
reasonable return. Otherwise you’d be out on the street. Secondly, there are four criteria for a Use Variance.
You must meet each and every one. It’s not a balancing test. You might have heard on the Area Variance it’s
a balancing test. This is not a balancing test, and while you made the comment that maybe you went into this,
did you use the word “ignorant”? That’s still self-created, and to me, Number Four, is it self-created, and it is
self-created. You bought it, and the rest of them we can talk about, but that is a concern.
MR. HIMES-Well, I just wanted to make a comment, too, but I didn’t want to interrupt you.
MR. STONE-Go ahead. I’m done.
MR. HIMES-I’d just like to say that I recognize all these things and how difficult it is for us sometimes, and
certainly applicants, to go through the motions, in connection with the Use Variance, but if we look at this
application as being an increase in the existing use, in other words, it’s already an apartment building. Its use
isn’t being changed. It’s simply that something is to be added to it, in terms of, call it density or what have
you, that you want to add another apartment, and I think that to perhaps what I would suggest, if you all
agree, just to save time, that we give that some weight in here in connection with what the public might think
or what we might think in terms of, well, it’s, let’s say, a nonconforming or what have you use that is going on
now and has been for some period of time.
MR. STONE-I know what you’re saying, Norm. Again, the criteria for a Use Variance are very strict. Staff
has determined, and we certainly can say Staff is wrong, that a Use Variance is not required. We cannot bend
the Use Variance requirement. We could decide to say Staff is wrong, and I think we’d have to re-advertise it
and do everything else, because we’d have to have an appeal. Bruce, can we appeal this, could we do that
now? I’m not sure.
MR. FRANK-I’m really not sure. I thought it was the applicant’s right to appeal the Zoning Administrator’s
decision.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-I don’t know if she discussed that with him or if it was brought to her attention. I was not
privy to that conversation.
MR. STONE-Did you discuss that possibility?
MRS. POTTER-No, I haven’t understood from the beginning why I need a Use Variance, and I did ask that
question, why do I need a Use Variance? It’s always been an apartment building. I’m not changing the use.
MR. STONE-Did you get a letter, besides this, did you get a written letter from the Zoning Administrator?
MRS. POTTER-No.
MR. STONE-See, if you’d gotten a, and you can get him to do it. I mean now you get a letter stating his
position, and then you can appeal it to us to agree or disagree with his determination. Then we go from
there, in terms of.
MRS. POTTER-And then what kind of variance will I need? Or won’t I need a variance?
MR. STONE-Well, if we don’t think it requires a Use Variance.
MR. HAYES-It would become an Area Variance.
MR. STONE-It would be an Area Variance, I guess.
MR. ABBATE-Right. I think so. I think Jaime’s right.
MRS. POTTER-But, I mean, we’re not changing the footprint of the building. So how would it be an Area?
MR. STONE-Because you’re making it.
MR. FRANK-Increasing the living space.
MR. STONE-You’re increasing living space in a Single Family Residential zone.
MR. HAYES-You’ve got a nonconforming structure.
MR. STONE-Yes, it’s nonconforming now.
MR. MC NULTY-It would be expansion of a nonconforming use at that point.
MR. STONE-Even though it doesn’t show on the outside, you’re going to need a building permit to do it
because you couldn’t put people in there without a Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore, you need a building
permit, which gets back to, it’s an expansion of a nonconforming use, but, right now, if we consider this as a
Use Variance, I can’t speak for the Board. We’ve got some problems.
MR. ABBATE-Well, you’re right, but, see, one of the major problems is that there isn’t substantial competent
financial evidence here, at least from my point of view, which would automatically.
MRS. POTTER-I would think that that would be pretty relative, though, to how people look at finances. I
mean, I don’t really understand how anyone would prove, unless, you know, do you see what I’m saying?
MR. STONE-It’s very difficult.
MRS. POTTER-It’s difficult to us. It may not be difficult to any of you.
MR. ABBATE-I would be more happy to let you, I’d like to have this back tonight, but you’re more than
welcome, it’s only one page.
MRS. POTTER-Right. I would like to look at that. I would love to look at that. I’m wondering why I
wasn’t provided with something like that to begin with. I’m also wondering.
MR. STONE-He’s our resident legal expert.
MRS. POTTER-Well, I would think when I went in asking for any information I could, that that would have
been handed to me, but it wasn’t, but also, now the Area, if I do appeal this and ask that it not be considered
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
a Use Variance but an Area Variance, is there something similar to that that I should be aware of, in terms of
Area Variance?
MR. ABBATE-I would suggest you talk to Bruce, and he’d be more than happy to brief you as to what
requirements are necessary.
MRS. POTTER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-Just to make it clear to you, the application that you filled out does ask those questions.
MRS. POTTER-So what I answered is in that?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MRS. POTTER-Okay.
MR. URRICO-These are the questions he’s referring to. They’re on the application.
MRS. POTTER-All right. Then I am aware of what’s in that, yes.
MR. STONE-We haven’t gone very far into this thing, but I sense there’s at least a number of people who
feel that they couldn’t approve a Use Variance, without going into details, because it is very stringent. I mean,
particularly when a house is involved. If it’s a business that’s not allowed, there’s a little more leeway in trying
to say, well, I’ve got this piece of property, and nobody has bought it in five years, and nobody has come
forward to rent it. Can I use it for something else. Then we have some latitude, but when you live there, that
is a wonderful use of the property already.
MRS. POTTER-We are required to live there, by our bank, for one year. So if, after we move out, if this is
still considered a Use Variance, after we move out, it seems to me that either the benefit is living there, or the
benefit is getting rent from the apartment, but not both.
MR. STONE-Not both.
MRS. POTTER-Because it’s definitely easing up our payments because we’re not paying a mortgage for a
house, but we’re also not getting $600 a month right now.
MR. STONE-But it is considered value, you are getting value. So, if you can move out within a year, then
that becomes a different thing. Now you have four apartments, all of which are contributing, and then maybe
you can show.
MRS. POTTER-Okay.
MR. STONE-I mean, I think the point was made about the roof, for example, that’s amortizable over a
period of years. I mean, you may.
MR. HAYES-You’re doing the exact opposite of what Wall Street’s been attempting to do. You should be
commended.
MR. ABBATE-They closed at 488. Don’t knock it.
MR. HAYES-So you’re attempting to make a very complex argument. You should be complimented because
it’s a very hard thing to do. Most of the time it’s attorneys that do it.
MRS. POTTER-Well, I was told that it was near impossible, actually. Maybe you’ve granted one Use
Variance, but I actually have not understood from the beginning why it would be a Use Variance because it’s
always been an apartment building. It’s never been anything else.
MR. STONE-Well, that you have the right of challenging. I would suggest, the best thing for you to do, and
I can’t predict what we’re going to do, but you can get it in writing, from the Zoning Administrator, that this,
what you want to do, requires a Use Variance, then you can file an appeal with this Board.
MRS. POTTER-Okay.
MR. STONE-That’s where the appeals comes in our name.
MRS. POTTER-Okay.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, I think she’s going to have to withdraw this application if she wants to go the
appeals rout.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MRS. POTTER-Right. I understand that. Yes. So I will withdraw.
MR. STONE-Yes, I agree. Okay. So you will withdraw the application and proceed to seek an appeal from a
written ruling by the Zoning Administrator.
MRS. POTTER-Right. I wish you had let us go first.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. POTTER-And my neighbors wish you had let us go first, as well.
MR. STONE-I have been asked to take a four minute break.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 59-2002 TYPE: HOME DEPOT USA, INC. PROPERTY OWNER:
NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ. AND THE
LA GROUP, P.C. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
ROUTE 9 AND QUAKER ROAD ZONE: HC-INT APPLICANT PROPOSES
REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING FREESTANDING PLAZA SIGN, AN ADDITIONAL
FREESTANDING SIGN, AND THREE WALL SIGNS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN
SETBACK REGULATIONS AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED.
ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM SIZE AND HEIGHT
ALLOWED FOR FREESTANDING AND WALL SIGNS. CROSS REF. SUBDIVISION NO. 12-
2002; SPR 12-2002; PZ 1-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 7/10/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-
47; 296.17-1-51; 296.18-1-46 LOT SIZES: 25.22 ACRES; 4.13 ACRES; 5.32 ACRES SECTION:
CHAPTER 140 SIGN ORDINANCE
JON LAPPER & ROSALIND HOLDERFIELD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 59-2002, Home Depot USA, Inc., Meeting Date: July 24, 2002 “Project
Location: Route 9 and Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes replacement of
the existing freestanding plaza sign, an additional smaller freestanding plaza sign, and three wall signs. Relief
Required: 1) The applicant requests 164 sq. ft. of relief from the 64 sq. ft. maximum allowed for a
freestanding sign at a 25-foot setback, and for 5 feet of relief from the 25-foot maximum height allowed for a
freestanding sign, per the Sign Ordinance § 140-6 B (3)(d)[2][a]. 2) The applicant requests relief for an
additional freestanding sign for the business complex on the same public right-of-way as the larger
freestanding sign. The applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 25-foot minimum setback requirement
and 48 sq. ft. of relief from the 64 sq. ft. maximum allowed for a freestanding sign at a 25-foot setback for the
additional freestanding sign, per § 140-6 B (3)(d)[3][a] and B (3)(d)[2][a]. (Note: The applicant has
requested 164 sq. ft. and 48 sq. ft. of area relief for the two freestanding signs; however, the applicant
failed to include the area needed to display the plaza name at the top of the sign. These additional
areas will require another 36 sq. ft. and 24 sq. ft. of relief. The actual area relief needed for the two
freestanding signs is 200 sq. ft. and 72 sq. ft. respectively). 3) The applicant requests 117 sq. ft. of relief
from the maximum allowed 300 sq. ft. for a wall sign (due to the building setback being greater than 300
feet), per § 140-6 B(2)(b)[1]. 4) The applicant requests two additional wall signs, per § 140-6 B(3)(c) (Note:
The applicant needs relief for only one additional wall sign as the building is on a separate parcel
than that of the business complex, and is entitled to two wall signs). Criteria for considering a Sign
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be
permitted to construct and display the desired signs. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear
to be limited to compliance with the ordinance. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
200 sq. ft. of relief from the 64 sq. ft. maximum area requirement and 5 feet of relief from the 25-foot
maximum height requirement may be interpreted as extreme relative to the Ordinance for the larger
freestanding sign. The relief for an additional freestanding sign with 72 sq. ft. of relief from the 64 sq. ft.
maximum area requirement and 15 feet of relief from the 25-foot minimum setback requirement may be
interpreted as substantial relative to the Ordinance. 117 sq. ft. of relief from the 300 sq. ft. maximum area
requirement may be interpreted as moderate for the wall sign relative to the Ordinance (39%). The relief for
an additional wall sign may also be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a
result of this action for the wall signage; however, substantial effects may be anticipated as a result of this
action for the freestanding signs. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self
created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SB 12-2002: 06/27/02; subdivision. SP
12-2002: 06/27/02; construction of home improvement store. AV 54-2002: 06/26/02; construction of
home improvement store. SP 12-2002: 06/20/02; reaffirming SEQR determination. SP 12-2002:
04/11/02; SEQR determination. Note: numerous other BP, SP, and Variances for this site, but unrelated to
this application. Staff comments: When considering the very large setback from the public right-of-way and
the size of the approved building, the relief requested for an oversized wall sign and for one additional wall
sign (29.33 sq. ft. “Nursery” sign) may have minimal negative effects on the neighborhood and community.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
However, the freestanding sign may have substantial effects. The additional freestanding sign would not
require a variance if it was placed at the Quaker Road entrance to the plaza (if it was set back in a compliant
location and was of compliant size). Consideration should be given to reducing the size and height for the
main freestanding sign, and reducing the size for the additional freestanding sign. SEQR Status: Type:
Unlisted”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 10, 2002 Project
Name: Home Depot USA, Inc. Owner: Northway Plaza Associates, L.L.C. ID Number: QBY-02-SV-59
County Project#: Jul02-26 Current Zoning: HC-Int Community: Queensbury Project Description:
Applicant proposes replacement of existing freestanding plaza sign, an additional freestanding sign, and three
wall signs. Relief requested from sign setback regulations as well as the number of signs allowed.
Additionally, relief is requested from the maximum size and height allowed for freestanding and wall signs.
Site Location: Southeast corner of the intersection of Route 9 and Quaker Road. Tax Map Number(s):
296.18-1-47; 296.17-1- Staff Notes: The applicant requests a sign variance for the Home Depot Store. The
applicant proposes three wall signs where one is allowed and two free standing signs where one is allowed.
The total square footage for the three wall signs are 497 +/- sq. ft. where they are allowed one wall sign up to
300 sq. ft. The total square footage of the two free standing signs is 208 sq. ft. where they are allowed only
one free standing up to 64 sq. ft. The wall signs identify the store name, a contractor’s pick-up, and the
nursery location. The two free standing signs are to be located on Route 9 at the entrance points. The plans
identifies the signs and their location in the Plaza. Staff would recommend the board concur with the local
sign ordinance where one free standing and one wall sign are allowed at a certain square footage. County
Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact The County Planning Board recommended No
County Impact because the free standing signs were no larger than the existing signs and the wall signs were
not an impact due to their location.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 7/12/02.
MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, is there anything else you want read in, your letter? Or are you going to do it?
MR. LAPPER-No, I think that’s fine.
MR. STONE-Okay. Then go ahead.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. With me tonight is Rosalind Holderfield from Collin Signs.
Collin Signs is the national sign company for Home Depot. Before we get started, I’d like to make an
apology in advance. I was also attempting to make it to the Saratoga Springs Planning Board tonight. So I
have my phone with me, which I never do, and it may ring, telling me that it’s too late for me to get on the
Northway, which is a good thing, and I’d never bring it in or leave it on, and that’s an apology, in case it rings,
that’s why. I’d like to make the discussion briefer by separating it into the wall signs separate from the
freestanding signs. In terms of the wall signs, which, as you heard, the County said No County Impact, and
also the Staff was pretty kind about, in their recommendations, these are very similar to what we got for the
Lowe’s at the corner of Bay and Quaker. A larger sign for the main name of the store, it’s roughly a similar
distance from the road as is the Lowe’s. In this case we agreed with the Planning Board that this is going to
have a completely different façade than the standard facades that Home Depot has, like in Wilton, which has
a lot of orange and very industrial looking, and they designed, really, four levels of changes before the
Planning Board and Planning Staff were satisfied. So we’ve got an Adirondacky, if you will, Home Depot, to
the extent that you can do that. Also, the façade of the building was changed in accordance with the new
Town design guidelines, to bring the scale down to a more pedestrian level, really very different than the
standard Home Depot. As a result of that, it has no orange on the building whatsoever, except for the main
Home Depot sign, which is one of the justifications, but what we’re asking for on the sign is 417 square feet,
instead of 300 for the main sign. This sign, obviously, has a lot more letters than Lowe’s. It’s very similar to
their size, as I said, and the two very small signs which definitely cannot be seen or read from the road, from
anyone off site, nursery and contractor pickup, is also very similar to what Lowe’s was granted. They got
nursery, and there’s, it says, I think, indoor lumber yard. So I hope that you will concur with Staff and the
County Planning Board as it relates to the building, that are request is modest and appropriate. It fits in with
the size of the building and it’s really far from the travel corridor and hard to see, and therefore it’s necessary.
With respect to the two freestanding signs, I’m going to turn it over to Rosalind, because she can more
eloquently than I explain why Home Depot is so concerned about this and why they feel that they really do
need those signs. Do you want to start out?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Good evening. My name is Rosalind Holderfield, and I am with Collin Signs, Inc.
If I may, I’d like to pass out the booklets that we have provided that have some superimposed photographs.
MR. STONE-Please, love to see them.
MR. LAPPER-The booklets at the end also show the whole site plan on one little piece of paper, which is
probably easier for you to look at than unfolding the whole thing.
MR. BRYANT-You’re not from around here, are you?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-No, sir, I’m not.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. STONE-I’m glad somebody else made that comment. Because I was about to.
MR. ABBATE-I wasn’t going to say anything.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-I guess if you would in your booklet, since we’ve already discussed the wall signs,
that covers the first two pages on it. The third page is going to pick up on the freestanding sign, and this is
going to be the proposed freestanding sign that’s at the main entrance off of Route 9, and as indicated by Jon,
if you would flip to the very back of the book, it does have a miniature site plan that does show the two
locations of the proposed freestanding signs. The sign that’s at the main entrance off of 9, we are requesting
a 12 by 12 “The Home Depot” which is 144 square feet, then below that having a space available for two out
parcels or tenants. In addition, as Staff has indicated, we do have the Plaza name that is part of the lease
agreement. So we (lost word) be required to have that at the top.
MR. STONE-Okay. The 12 by 12 is the Home Depot portion only?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-That is correct.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Okay. So in grand total we are at 264 square feet, 64 of which is allowed. I would
like to bring to your attention that the existing sign that’s currently there now, which is the Northway Plaza
sign, and I think, yes, I’ve got it on the screen up there, just to give you some figures for comparison, the
existing sign, not including the structure, just the sign area of the Northway Plaza and the sign below it, not
including that for sale or for lease sign, is 182 square feet. Okay, and also with that, the sign is at 41 feet
overall height. Okay. That’s measured from the lowest point of the grade, and if you flip, next, to the next
photograph, it shows a duplication of the photograph for Route 9. That’s eastbound traveling on 9. There is
a little inconsistency with this photograph. When we did the superimposing, we duplicated the existing sign,
okay. The existing sign, please keep in mind, is at 41 feet. We’re requesting 30 feet. So the actual picture of
this will be slightly lower than what we’re showing, but as far as the way the sign will look, this will give you a
correct image. The next photograph, of course, is, excuse me. I’m sorry. I think I have yours reversed. I’m
sorry. The one that you’re looking at is one that’s further away on eastbound, and you can see the top of the
sign.
MR. HAYES-Going down the hill.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Going down the hill, exactly.
MR. STONE-Which one is going down the hill?
MR. HAYES-This one right here.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Both are actually going down the hill. One is further away.
MR. STONE-No wonder. Okay. No, I don’t have that.
MR. LAPPER-This one.
MR. STONE-Yes, I do.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-The first photograph shows the southbound direction a little further away from the
shopping plaza, away from the sign, okay, and that’s the one where the sign peaks up above the existing
building, okay.
MR. HAYES-Now is that 41 feet or 30 feet?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-The superimposed is showing at 41 because what we did was duplicate the
photograph that we had of the existing freestanding sign.
MR. STONE-Bruce, that sign pre-dates the current Sign Ordinance?
MR. FRANK-I hope so.
MR. STONE-But I thought we had a 10 year moratorium, or 10 year period that signs were supposed to be
brought into conformity?
MR. LAPPER-I’m assuming that there’s a variance for that.
MR. FRANK-There has to be.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. STONE-You assume.
MR. LAPPER-Because there was a 10 year.
MR. FRANK-I thought it was 60 days, with the current Sign Ordinance?
MR. STONE-There was a 10 year.
MR. LAPPER-In ’88.
MR. URRICO-That sign was there in 1986. I worked in that Plaza, so it was there at that time.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it predates, but, nevertheless, it was supposed to be brought down, as I understood,
but that’s not your problem, but it may be.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not proposing that it stays.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Actually, no, what I was indicating was that the photographs that are shown are
duplicating the height of the existing sign. In reality, our sign will be 10 feet, actually 11 shorter than this sign.
MR. STONE-You’re saying this picture is 41 rather than the 30 that it says?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-That is correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right.
MR. STONE-Because I hoped that wasn’t 30 feet.
MR. ABBATE-All right. If the signage you’re depicting is 41 feet, then on the other page, previous to that,
where you can just see the top of it, that’s still depicting as if it were 41 feet?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-That is correct.
MR. ABBATE-So what you’re saying, basically, that it will be nine feet lower than the superimposed picture?
MR. STONE-Eleven.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Eleven feet shorter.
MR. ABBATE-Eleven, I’m sorry. So this will be eleven feet shorter?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you so much.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question relative to the selection of the positioning of the signs? I know that
you’re taking the two existing signs and basically replacing them with your own signs.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and my question is, the first sign, the sign with the flag on it, right, that’s the first one?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-That’s the smaller one.
MR. BRYANT-That’s the smaller one. Now that’s basically designed to attract traffic from Aviation
boulevard?
MR. LAPPER-From Quaker.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Quaker and Aviation, yes, sir.
MR. STONE-Coming down Quaker and turning.
MR. BRYANT-From Quaker you can’t see that sign.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Yes, sir, you can.
MR. BRYANT-My question is, why aren’t you moving it to the corner of the property where?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. LAPPER-Let me explain that.
MR. BRYANT-Explain that to me, because.
MR. LAPPER-That would make too much sense, so we can’t do it. The driveway that comes out onto
Quaker Road, which is the no left turn in, no left turn out?
MR. BRYANT-Monroe.
MR. STONE-The Quaker one, yes.
MR. LAPPER-You know next to McDonalds there’s the cul de sac that doesn’t go anywhere, and Old
Aviation Road?
MR. STONE-Except for those people who know how to get around it.
MR. LAPPER-That used to be Aviation Road. So, the DOT actually owns the driveway by Monroe. So
there’s no part of the Plaza.
MR. BRYANT-You show on your drawings here, and I’m assuming that that’s the right of way, you show an
area, like right at the very corner of your parking lot, where you’ve got a couple of trees. I’m sure from that
position.
MR. LAPPER-I know where you’re looking. That would be the only place, but the problem there is that that
blocks the muffler sign. So there’s a right.
MR. BRYANT-Well, why don’t you make a deal with the muffler sign to replace it, and with your big sign,
and then put a muffler sign on it?
MR. LAPPER-Because, there’s another story there, that the Plaza owners are trying to replace the muffler
use. Their lease is going to be up in a few years, and they’re, the Plaza owner, the muffler place is looking for
another location, and the Plaza is trying to replace that with a more appropriate tenant in that location, and
because there are trees, because of where it’s located, that new tenant will require a sign. So it’s not, it wasn’t,
Home Depot didn’t have the option of going there, because that was required for getting rid of Monroe
Muffler, which is deemed not to be a good use, right in the main intersection of Town, with the bays facing
the intersection. So in order to accomplish something visually attractive, there’s only one place for a sign, and
that’s already taken up for a new tenant.
MR. BRYANT-As you look at that picture, basically, you’re looking at, you’re going to look at two of the
same sides. It doesn’t compute.
MR. LAPPER-You’re right, and the reason is because the one that’s farther south is visible in Rosalind’s
picture, from Quaker Road.
MR. STONE-Yes, but you can’t put one on Quaker Road, though.
MR. LAPPER-Right. There’s no property on Quaker Road to put it. It’s all the DOT right of way, and
that’s not going to happen.
MR. STONE-All of that landscaped area.
MR. LAPPER-Is all DOT.
MR. STONE-All DOT.
MR. LAPPER-Then the question that Roy’s about to ask is, why do we need the one at the main entrance?
Why can’t it be moved to the southern entrance, and the reason for that is because that’s the main driveway
that people coming down from the north heading south need to see what’s there, or else they’re going to get
past the driveway before they know that it’s Home Depot, because you can’t see the store.
MR. HAYES-They won’t be able to make a left at that intersection.
MR. STONE-This entrance, I mean, I know you guys had discussion with the Planning Board, you’ve got the
entrance now by the office building, that’s going to be that extended.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-Coming down the hill, and that’s where the one sign is going to be.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-And then the other one is a new entrance. It’s not going to be this one.
MR. LAPPER-Both of the entrances that are there now, these deadly entrances, are going to be changed to a
controlled right in, right out entrance, which is on the site plan.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-At the first entrance, the main entrance, where you said the existing Northway Plaza sign is.
MR. STONE-Coming down the hill?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. The sign is going to be relocated. So it will be in compliance of the 25 feet. So it’s going
to be moved farther from the road, from existing.
MR. URRICO-The new sign you’re proposing is not where that sign is, though. Isn’t it going to be further in
the foreground or closer to us?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. URRICO-By this entrance here? There’s another entrance that you’re going to be eliminating, that sits
between this entrance and the main entrance, and that sign is closer to that other entrance than the new sign
would be closer to this entrance?
MR. LAPPER-Right. That’s right.
MR. URRICO-So it’s going to be further up the road.
MR. LAPPER-Two entrances, two signs.
MR. ABBATE-A simple question. What will happen to the current sign?
MR. LAPPER-Unless there’s a museum that wants them, the trash heap.
MR. ABBATE-Where’s the museum?
MR. STONE-Did the Planning Board take into account the new design characteristics for lower and upper
Glen Street when they talked about this whole thing?
MR. LAPPER-Architectural, or site plan?
MR. STONE-Yes, the architectural stuff.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay, because last week we had one that that came into play, a little further south, where they
were going to be very out of character with the design things, and we basically said, why don’t you go and
think about it. I’m not suggesting that you do this, but we do have some new design characteristics for that
whole corridor that we’re trying to, and I’m concerned, I mean, I’m just expressing concern, that if we go 30
feet here, and I recognize there are valid reasons. There are a lot of other people who want to go 30 feet, too.
MR. LAPPER-Let me explain the difference. We spent about six months before the Planning Board on this
project.
MR. STONE-I know you did.
MR. LAPPER-And the design characteristics for this, for the lower Glen Street, don’t envision a plaza.
Because they envision the parking behind the buildings, where possible, buildings at the road. That wasn’t
possible here, obviously, because we had an existing Center, but at the same time, we made vast changes to
the initial proposed site plan, including a lot more green space, and a hedge all along the Travelers parking lot,
which is in there now. So it’s really going to be buffered, especially since it’s lower, and the architectural
changes I had already described, plus the rest of the Plaza is going to be changed in color. The whole façade
is going to be changed, at the same time, because we’re knocking down buildings, relocating the Post Office.
So we had extensive design discussions, but this Plaza doesn’t fit in with the standard design. If you built it
new, you’d do something different.
MR. STONE-Okay.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Leading up to the second proposed sign, which is the one where the American flag
is currently located, we’re requesting an eight by eight for the Home Depot, and then two smaller tenants
below it, and then once again the Plaza name, and once again, for comparison’s sake, the existing sign that’s
there now is 121 square feet, and it’s at 30, excuse me, 26 and a half feet tall. So we are requesting, initially
our calculations were 112, but I do mention that there is the 24 square feet for the Plaza name at the top. So
we’re at 136 square feet, where what is existing there now is less, I did not count the American flag, was 121
square feet, and so we will be, once again, shorter than what’s existing by a foot and a half, and as far as size,
we’ll be approximately 15 square feet larger than what is currently existing, and if you’ll flip on to the next
superimposed photographs, you’ll see the Route 9, again that sign, but most importantly is the next one.
That’s the one that’s showing the visibility of the sign off of Quaker, and also as you’re traveling coming from
the interstate, coming toward the site, this is the first sign that you, actually the only sign that you see, unless
you turn onto Route 9, then you’ll be able to see the north view Plaza sign.
MR. LAPPER-I guess the only last point I’d like to make is that the location of the Home Depot building is
tucked in considerably farther back from where the existing buildings are, the Steinbach’s building, and
because it’s in that location, tucked all the way back, you certainly can’t see it from Quaker Road, and that’s
why Home Depot deems it important to have a sign that they can see, and as I was trying to explain before, if
you’re coming south on Route 9, and you’ve got the office building there, you’d have to look all the way over
your head back, after you’ve already passed the driveway. So there is a unique aspect of this that Home
Depot was willing to take a site that doesn’t have great visibility, until you’re in the Plaza. Then it has great
visibility.
MR. URRICO-Getting back to Mr. Bryant’s question. Off of Quaker Road, you have an entrance that’s sort
of a back way into Home Depot, isn’t it? I mean, it’s the only way, from Quaker Road, that you can actually
get to Home Depot is from that entrance that sits on Quaker Road.
MR. LAPPER-Or you make a right and go up Glen Street and come down from Quaker.
MR. URRICO-From Quaker Road, but you can’t get into Home Depot from there.
MR. LAPPER-The land that you’re looking at in the photo is owned by the DOT, it’s State right of way.
MR. URRICO-How far in?
MR. LAPPER-If you look at the site plan, do you have the full site plan?
MR. STONE-How about up toward the tree? You’re saying you can’t go up toward that tree?
MR. LAPPER-If you pull out the full site plan, I’ll show you. It’s all State right of way.
MR. ABBATE-That’s a bad place, that truly is.
MR. LAPPER-That triangle, everything, the Plaza goes right there. That’s it. This is all, this triangle is
owned by the State, and all those trees are owned by the State. Let me just point it out for you guys down
here. This triangle, that’s all owned by the State, and that, where the trees, it’s all owned by the State.
MR. BRYANT-Why can’t they put a sign here? I know this is owned by the State.
MR. ABBATE-Well, because it’s owned by the State.
(Discussion ensued)
MR. STONE-Bruce, do we ever a consider a sign on top of a building, on top of the office building?
MR. FRANK-You would need a variance, because you’re not allowed to have a sign that goes above the top
part of the building.
MR. STONE-Okay. I won’t go there. So you’re talking about an oversized, 30 foot sign, just to summarize,
oversized by a number of square feet, and you’re going to have Northway Plaza, whatever, on the top, and
down below you’re going to have two tenants yet to be named.
MR. LAPPER-Right, which would be for anchor tenants in the Plaza. That was part of the negotiation
between Home Depot and the Plaza. Presumably one would be for Travelers, and one would be for another
one of the major tenants.
MR. STONE-And the other sign is going to be at, and that you need a variance for both height and size. The
other one would be no height requirement, but it’s oversized.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. LAPPER-And the setback.
MR. STONE-And closer to the road.
MR. LAPPER-Fifteen feet instead of twenty-five because of the configuration and how much the right of
way is.
MR. HAYES-Now the second sign legally could be what?
MR. LAPPER-It could be 64.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. LAPPER-If it were 25 feet, and it’s 15 feet, and 136, including the Plaza name.
MR. STONE-Over twice the allowable size, at a closer distance than it should be. Is that correct?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Anything else you want to add?
MR. LAPPER-Nothing.
MR. STONE-Any questions, gentlemen? Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in
favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-We’re still where we were. Well, why don’t we talk about it, and I don’t know if you guys all
heard me. Let me just summarize what I heard, that we have a very oversized sign, at the correct distance
from the thing, from the road, but five feet higher than the current Code. We have a second sign, and we’re
not talking about the wall sign at the moment. We have a second sign which is more than two times as large
as allowed, if it were at 25 feet, and it’s actually going to be at 15. Is that a fair statement? I don’t want to be
prejudicial. I want to get the facts.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Let me just make sure that I understood that correctly. The height of the sign will
be at 25 for that second freestanding sign.
MR. STONE-The second sign will be a legal height, but it’ll be more than twice the legal.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Size.
MR. STONE-Area, and closer to the road than, to get that twice, and the other one will be where it should
be, but it’ll be 30 feet high, and I didn’t figure out how much, that’s only 64 feet, too.
MR. LAPPER-Before we talk about size, just in terms of the lower one, I didn’t say this, there was no option
of moving it back to 25 feet because of the driveway. The State’s done all these takings. There’s not a lot of
land there. So that wasn’t an option.
MR. URRICO-You’re talking about the main entrance sign, right?
MR. LAPPER-No. The main entrance sign will be 25 feet.
MR. STONE-The auxiliary main entrance sign. So that one has to be where it is, and that’s closer than,
without taking up asphalt and parking spaces.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. STONE-You do know that we did make an applicant, about a year ago, move his sign onto the asphalt,
namely the hot dog place.
MR. HAYES-New York City Dogs.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. ABBATE-New York City Dogs, yes.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question about the second sign, smaller sign? It’s not really going to be where the
flag is. It’s going to be closer to this driveway, right?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s right.
MR. BRYANT-So where this driveway is depicted here, you’re going to move the sign further towards the
intersection, correct?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That driveway is going to be relocated as well, but it’s going to be closer to the
intersection.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-There’ll be a greater distance between the two signs.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, that’s what I’m trying to.
MR. ABBATE-And there is 11 foot reduction compared to what there is at the present time.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-That is correct.
MR. LAPPER-On the big sign.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-There’s also a reduction in the second sign height.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-By a foot and a half, that’s correct.
MR. STONE-What is the size of the 41 foot sign?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-That’s, counting just the sign area, not the structure itself, it is 182 square feet, but if
you were to count the structure, the structure itself is 20 feet wide, and 41. So that’s 820 square feet, but just
once again, just counting just the sign area where it has the Northway Plaza, there’s a little sign right below it
that is 182 square feet.
MR. STONE-That Northway Plaza is part of the sign.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-That’s correct, and also let me just point out that that sign is 20 feet wide, whereas
the proposed sign is 16 feet wide, including the structure. So it will shrink, as far as the size, the width of it.
MR. STONE-Bruce, if you were going to measure that sign, what would you measure, as the Code
Enforcement Officer?
MR. FRANK-Well, I’ll go on the record and say that I can’t accurately measure that sign with the tools that I
have to my, I have requested two different tools to measure heights, and I have yet to receive them, so I’m
going to go on the record to say that. I’d have to measure with a tape, extending it up. I’d have to
guesstimate a little bit. So I can’t fairly accurately measure that sign.
MR. STONE-Okay, but.
MR. HAYES-He’s talking about the area.
MR. STONE-I’m talking about the area this time, rather than, I mean, if I asked you, what is the area of that
sign, in terms of our Code?
MR. MC NULTY-Would you measure just the letters or the whole?
MR. FRANK-You mean the square feet? I think it’s a determination that the Zoning Administrator has to
make, because if you look at it realistically and logically, what are you looking at? What stands out? I mean,
you’re looking at a large area there. Just because the letters are covering a certain portion of it.
MR. BRYANT-No, but I think what he’s saying, what the question is, where the sign is square, that says
Northway Plaza, that would be the square footage of the sign. What about the two uprights, the stanchions
that hold it up? Is that part of the sign?
MR. STONE-Since you only need one.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. FRANK-And again, I don’t know when this sign was approved, if there’s a variance for it or whatever.
So I don’t know what the actual, logically, it looks like you should include all that area.
MR. STONE-If I ask the applicant, if you go from the top of the thing, that it’s 41 feet high, and you go to
the bottom, below Plaza, where what I would call the sign ends, how big is that?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-When you say the sign ends, it’s right at the bottom with the Plaza?
MR. STONE-Right under Plaza.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Right there. Okay.
MR. STONE-One I can see through.
MR. HAYES-Non structural.
MR. STONE-Yes, non structural. What is sitting on those two pylons is what I’m really talking about.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-I didn’t actually get a measurement there, but it is right at 20 feet. So you’re looking
at a 20 by 20.
MR. ABBATE-Four hundred square feet.
MR. STONE-So about 400, roughly.
MR. LAPPER-If it were squared off.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Right, if it were squared off, 400 square feet.
MR. STONE-And you want to be at?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-264.
MR. ABBATE-Substantially less.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s the Home Depot, or is that with the tenant sign?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-That’s everybody.
MR. STONE-Everybody. Okay. Including the Plaza?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-So it would be considerably less than what’s there now.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-That is correct.
MR. STONE-Now you’ve made a good argument, finally. I’ve got to pull it out of you. Do we have enough
information? Do you guys want to talk about it?
MR. HIMES-Just one other thing is the smaller sign down the road the same thing. It’s smaller than what’s
there now?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Let’s see. Yes, sir.
MR. HIMES-I think you said that it was.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Square footage wise, it’s a little bit larger, but as far as dimension, we’re proposing
136, to include the Plaza, and what’s existing is 121 So there’s a 15 square foot difference.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s 15 feet total.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Fifteen square feet total. We’re asking for 15 feet more than what’s existing.
MR. LAPPER-And in terms of height it’s a foot and a half shorter.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-That is correct.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. STONE-All right.
MR. ABBATE-But the larger sign we see there is going to be reduced by about 120 square feet.
MR. STONE-It would come down 11 feet.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Yes. We’re shortening it and also bringing the square footage down.
MR. ABBATE-Right. Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Al, why don’t we just talk about it. We’ve got the wall signs, too.
MR. BRYANT-I want to talk first about the wall signs. I don’t really have a problem. It’s similar to the
Lowe’s situation, and I seem to agree with you as to the visual impact of seeing the customer service and the
other sign, you’re not going to be able to see it from the road. So I have no problem with either one of those
signs, okay. Normally, on a freestanding sign, I generally have been opposed to any sign over the 25 foot
high, but driving that Route 9 all the time, I know exactly what you’re talking about. The building itself that’s
in front of the sign blocks the view of the sign because of the hill, and you’re not going to see that sign, based
on your visualization, which I think is a poor visualization, because you would have been better served by
showing that you’re barely going to see the sign at the position that you’re showing, so, rather than seeing that
sign sticking up.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t like the fact that you have two signs that close together, but I understand what you’re
trying to accomplish and, that being said, I’d be reluctantly in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I also have no problem with the wall signs. I think they’re accurate and they’re needed there.
I do have a problem with the second freestanding sign. I don’t think you’ve convinced me that it needs to be
there. I understand that it can be seen from Quaker Road, but I think there are other options available where
you can make a sign visible from Quaker Road without stacking up like that. I just, you know, we have a
problem with a glut of signs as it is, and I think this is going to unnecessarily add to that. I would not be in
favor of the, would be in favor of the sign at the main entrance, but I would not be in favor of the second
sign, where it’s currently located.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I guess if we’re segmenting this, and that’s probably good, I agree with my other Board
members as far as the wall sign. I think, you know, similar to Lowe’s, and also the fact that this is kind of
down and in there. I really don’t see those signs being really anything other than what they’re intended to be,
and the two smaller signs, and I know if I was going to get a shrub or something and I ended up at
contractor, I’d probably be upset at carrying that 200 yards or whatever. So I have no problem with that. As
far as the main sign, I think it kind of needs to be segmented into height and size, and certainly I’ll agree with
Allan that this sign’s being reduced down 11 feet, and the 5 feet does not trouble me, particularly when you
look at the pictures that it’s actually below grade level of the road by at least that much. So, in reality, it’s a 25
foot sign, if it’s intention is to depict to motorists on the plane of Route 9 there. So I’m really not troubled
by that whatsoever. Certainly the size of the main sign, I think that there could be a level of compromise by
the applicant here to get this a little closer to what’s permissible by the Code. So, as far as the main sign, the
height is not a problem to me. The size, I think we could cut that back a little bit and have it be a good
compromise. The second sign, I think there’s two issues there. There’s the setback and again the size. I
should say that the compromise that I would feel, on the main sign would only need to be somewhat, being
that we’re still talking about a reduction in the size and impact of the signage that’s already there now, and
that’s always a good step to go forward, reduce signage. On the second sign, the setback, to me, has been
explained, and I can accept it. I think that I wouldn’t be surprised if, you know, I understand the
mathematics of an out parcel and what’s going to happen there and the fact that they feel that this is the best
site for the second sign. I think the Planning Board has reviewed that pretty thoroughly, and I think that I
would defer to their judgment and to the explanation that’s been given. So as far as the setback, I’m really
not troubled by that, and the second sign, you know, again, if there can be any compromise, slight
compromise, on the size of the second sign to get that a little more in compliance, so it’s not double the size
of the sign that could be permitted, I think I could be okay. I think, again, part of my viewpoint on this is
that the Planning Board has reviewed this, you know, exhaustively, and I think that there really has been a
tremendous amount of effort on the part of Home Depot and the Planning Board to have this project be
where it should be and the signs be where they should be, and my concern is more the visual impact than the
size. So I guess, like Allan, I’m in favor of the application in the broadest sense.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. STONE-Before I get to Chuck, one thought. Has any consideration been given on the second sign not
to having the tenants there? You talk about Travelers. Do they really need to be listed? They’re not listed
now.
MR. LAPPER-My recollection is that that was the agreement with the Plaza owner that Depot has the right
to have the two signs as long as the Plaza owners have the right to the name of the Plaza, and two tenants. I
don’t know if they’re going to be the same tenants as the tenants on the main sign, because there’s a lot of
tenants in the Plaza.
MR. STONE-I hear you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’m torn on this one. If this were a new request and there were no signs there now, I’d
have some major problems with what’s proposed, but it’s been pointed out the proposals for the freestanding
signs I think are improvements over the existing freestanding signs. However, I am inclined to agree with
Roy that, especially looking at it from this view, two signs is one too many. So I think I could go along with
something for the main sign the way it’s proposed. The sign that would go roughly where the one that’s got
the flag on it now, I’ve got a problem with, unless that were moved around to the Quaker Road side
somehow, and I guess I could go along with the wall signs on the Home Depot. My initial reaction was,
Home Depot, people are going to know it’s there. You don’t need a sign that can be read from Route 9 on
the building itself. You can see the building, but I don’t think that’s going to be a big problem either, because
it is tucked back in the Plaza. So I guess I could go along with the wall signs on the building. I could go
along with the sign that’s going to replace the main entrance sign. I do have a problem with the second
freestanding sign.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I think one of my two principal interests are in connection with how, as it’s
been brought up, comparing it to Lowe’s, how we deal with this in comparison to other sign requests we’ve
had. I think of K-Mart, we were pretty assiduous with them a couple of times. I hope we aren’t the ones that
drove them into the situation they are now, and Penske, and, I remember that car dealer so far off the road
there you’d need a map to get to it, and he wanted a sign, and we went along, got through all this, I think, to
the satisfaction of anyone who might have been looking at it. So I don’t know whatever went on with Wal-
Mart and, you know, all the others. So I think that the aspect of the wall signs is all right. It’s promotional.
It’s back in there. Not offensive. I think the larger sign, the main sign, so to speak, we’re getting something
back there, at least. So, even if it still needs a variance, that’s all right in my mind, because I think we’ve made
some progress. Nobody can argue that. Nobody can come back and say we need one too. The smaller sign,
I wish it could be squeezed down a little bit. I kind of think that, yes, years from now, everybody’s going to
know where Home Depot is. Still coming up along Quaker Road where a lot of the traffic, if not most of it
going into Home Depot, a large part, is going to come from Quaker Road. So something there that you
could see before you get into the intersection, before it’s too late to get into that lane to turn, if you don’t
make the turn, knowing where the store is already. So I’ll go along with the second sign, but I would like to
see it where we pick up a little bit again, like we did with the first one, just a little bit smaller, if it’s already
been said you can’t move it back. So, if we could pick up something there, I could go along with it
enthusiastically. So, in short, with that.
MR. STONE-You’re saying yes, yes, no.
MR. HIMES-Yes, you’re right.
MR. STONE-Well, I think we’re going to have to probably separate these, when we get all done. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Jaime brought a good point up about the Planning Board and Home
Depot doing some exhaustive work on this, and, like he, I’m going to yield somewhat to the Planning Board
and Home Depot as well. I’m not offended by any of the wall signs, because we see that, as was mentioned,
with Wal-Mart. Now, I’m going to use, I love Jaime’s statement when he makes this, and this is what I’m
going to use, the balancing act, and here is a case in which I believe, personally, that we have to use a
balancing act, and I am not offended by either the wall signs or the signs that they’re proposing. They have
reduced, if you will, by eleven feet, the current sign that is there, and that’s a plus, and that must be taken into
consideration, and to me, that should be added to any minus that there might be, and the pluses may very
well, on the balancing act, out do the minuses. Now, what are we getting back? I think the Town is getting
an awful lot back. I think the compromises that Home Depot has made in their request to us this evening is
providing the Town of Queensbury and the residents a great deal. The setbacks, as far as I’m concerned, are
okay. So, in the final analysis, like Allan, I would go along with the applicant, a little reluctantly, but I would
go along with him.
MR. STONE-With all three?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, all three.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me tell you where I’m coming from. Certainly the wall signs, I think we’ve all
covered that very well. It is way back. They are directional. Certainly the major competition in Town has
similar signs and I don’t have a real problem with that. As many people have said, the main sign, there is a
big give back on that thing. Yes, it’s a big sign, but it’s a huge sign right now. So we’re going to pick up 11
feet. We’re going to way oversized, but not as much oversized as that behemoth that sits there now. So, I
don’t have any problem. The problem that I sense with the Board, and it’s not uniform. It’s not, there is a
concern with the second sign. I would like you, the applicant, to think about the second sign. We can
segment the first two. We can make two separate motions, one on the wall signs, one on the second signs.
That’s okay, Bruce, we can do that?
MR. FRANK-I think you’ve done this before, so you’ve set a precedent, if I recall correctly, because when
you did this before, you broke up an application.
MR. STONE-Well, he could take that off the table, for further consideration. So I don’t have any problem
with doing this.
MR. FRANK-I don’t see why you can’t. You’ve done this before.
MR. HAYES-Well, we can grant relief to the extent that we think is okay with us, and then it’s on the
applicant’s shoulders to.
MR. STONE-Well, I don’t hear consensus.
MR. ABBATE-Or the applicant can make a concession now.
MR. STONE-I mean, if you have something you can make about that second sign.
MR. LAPPER-We have a proposal.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Yes, sir. Based on the majority of the comments being primarily with the second
freestanding sign, and I know that some want to completely do away with it, but we have to stress, again, the
importance of the visibility from Quaker Road. With that in mind, if we could reduce the size of that Quaker
sign, which would bring it down less than what is currently there, whereby we were looking for an eight by
eight for Home Depot, bringing that down to a seven by seven, and consequently the rest of it reducing
down, which would bring us to a total of 112 square, including the Plaza name, whereas what is existing there
now is 121. So we would be having a nine square foot reduction, and then of course the foot and a half
there, if that would hopefully please the Board.
MR. STONE-And there’s nothing you can do about its position?
MR. LAPPER-No, because of the driveway entrance.
MR. STONE-Okay. Could that, these would still be double pylon signs?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Double faced?
MR. STONE-No, double supports.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Yes, and that is due to give it the aesthetics. That’s the look, instead of just having a
couple of poles out there.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, there are a couple of people who I thought, let me just go down the Board. I
don’t want to put anybody on the spot. Let’s just start at the end. What do you think about the second
proposal, second sign?
MR. HIMES-I’m in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-I’m in favor of it.
MR. BRYANT-I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I think I would go along with it.
MR. STONE-Jaime? Chuck?
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I could go along with it.
MR. STONE-Okay. I need a motion to approve the sign variances. I hope somebody has these numbers
down. All right. So we’re talking three wall signs. They’re all conforming in terms of size. Is that correct?
MR. HAYES-No.
MR. STONE-No, the total is.
MR. HAYES-Just go right off the Staff notes on the wall signs.
MR. URRICO-Can I just ask, will there be any indication from Quaker Road that that’s an entrance into the
Plaza? I mean, will there be anything there?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Not unless we pursue something with DOT and ask their permission and see if we
can put something up, but normally, no, sir, you can’t.
MR. STONE-I mean, there isn’t now.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Not on DOT property.
MR. STONE-Okay. So why doesn’t somebody try to make a motion, work on a motion, and work with the
applicant, in terms of Staff and getting the right numbers in here. Jaime? Start with Number Three, because
we did that. That’s what you’re talking about, 117 square foot of relief on the wall signs, and we only need
one additional wall sign, according to Staff.
MR. FRANK-That was a determination made by the Zoning Administrator, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-So they’re down to 112 on the second sign, but then there was the element of additional relief,
counting.
MR. STONE-Well, you need the distance relief.
MR. HAYES-Right, but the second sign is going to be 112 now, counting the Plaza name. What was
permissible?
MR. STONE-Sixty-four.
MR. FRANK-Sixty-four.
MR. STONE-At 25 feet.
MR. FRANK-At 25 feet.
MR. STONE-It’s 50 feet from where it is. Right?
MR. HAYES-Right. So they need a total of the difference, then, as far as that.
MR. STONE-We need 62.
MR. HAYES-Fifty-eight feet, no.
MR. STONE-Sixty-two. It’s sixty-two square feet if we let them keep it where it is. These double variances
are very difficult to write. We’re making a bigger sign closer than it should be, and then the other one will be
30 feet high, and, which is five feet of relief, and the sign is, what’s the big sign, the area of the big sign?
MR. BRYANT-They’re going to need 200 feet of relief.
MR. STONE-Two hundred, okay.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-The total is 264.
MR. STONE-Versus 64 where it is. Jaime, have you got it?
MR. HAYES-No. On the smaller sign, 112 is what it’s going to be, and 64 is permitted.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-That is correct.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. STONE-Well, it’s either, 50 is permitted where they want to locate it.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. STONE-So why don’t you say, we’ll say 62 feet of relief, leaving the sign where it currently is, which is,
it also needs a variance, which is.
MR. HAYES-Right. So that’s the small second sign.
MR. BRYANT-The small sign is only 48 feet of relief. Because now they’ve shortened, you’ve made the sign
smaller.
MR. STONE-Yes, but it’s the distance from the road. That’s what, it’s 50 at 25 feet setback, 64 at 25 feet, 50
at less than that, and they want 15.
MR. HAYES-So I’ve got that one, now the main sign, the big sign.
MR. STONE-Is 200 foot of relief and 5 foot on the height.
MR. HAYES-All right, and then on the wall signs we can go right off the Staff notes. Right?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. HAYES-All right.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Something I just want to point out, we will see if we can make a little bit more of an
adjustment and move the sign on the opposite sign of that drive, and see if that will help, and make just a
little bit more.
MR. LAPPER-The southern side of the southern drive, to make it farther distance between the two signs.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Just as long as we still maintain our visibility to Quaker. So that’s something that we
will look at a little further.
MR. STONE-So put that in there, that they’re willing to consider.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t think you’re going to be able to. I think the trees are going to be in the way, for the
visibility.
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-That’s why I said we will look in to see if we can move it any closer.
MR. STONE-The maximum distance with taking visibility into consideration.
MR. LAPPER-Instead of there, it would be on that corner.
MR. STONE-Where are you talking?
MR. LAPPER-From there to there (lost words).
MR. BRYANT-I know, but if you look at the photographs, when you look.
MR. LAPPER-The trees?
MR. BRYANT-The trees are going to be in the way.
MR. HAYES-From here to there you’re saying?
MR. LAPPER-What Rosalind said is that she would look at it, and if it can be done with visibility, we’ll move
it south on the other side of the drive.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I mean, that’s a good compromise, if they can do it, without cutting the trees down.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it’ll be on the south side of the smaller drive?
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-That’s if it’s still maintaining visibility to Quaker.
MR. STONE-We understand. We’ll say that.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MRS. HOLDERFIELD-Okay.
MR. HAYES-They’re going to make that effort, you say?
MR. STONE-They’re going to make that effort to put it on the other side, the south side of that.
MR. LAPPER-Southern entrance.
MR. STONE-Southern entrance.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but why are we even suggesting that when everybody basically said it’s okay?
MR. STONE-Well, Jaime was concerned about.
MR. HAYES-No, that’s okay. I can just put that there.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 59-2002 HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Introduced
by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
Route 9 and Quaker Road, Northway Plaza. The applicant proposes replacement of the existing freestanding
plaza sign, an additional smaller freestanding plaza sign, and three wall signs on the proposed new Home
Depot building. Specifically, the relief that’s requested, the applicant requests 200 square feet of relief from
the 64 square foot maximum allowable for a freestanding sign and a 25 foot setback, and for 5 feet of relief
from the 25 foot maximum height allowed for a freestanding sign per Sign Ordinance Section 140-6
B(3)(d)[2][A], for the main sign. Now for the second freestanding sign, the applicant requests relief for the
additional freestanding sign of 62 square feet. The applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 25 foot
minimum setback requirement for placement of the sign and again 62 square feet of relief for the maximum
allowable size of the sign at that setback, per Section 140-6 B(3)(d)[3][A]and Section B (3)(d)[2][a]. For the
wall signs on the actual Home Depot building, the applicant requests 117 square feet of relief from the
maximum allowed 300 square feet for a wall sign, due to the building being set back greater than 300 feet, per
Section 140-6 B(2)(b)[1]. The applicant also requests relief for one additional wall sign per Section 140-6
B(3)(c), as the applicant is permitted two wall signs and they’re asking for three wall signs. The benefit to the
applicant would be that they would be permitted to construct and display the signs in locations that have been
determined by their planning people to be advantageous to properly identify the buildings to traffic from a
number of different directions. I believe that the feasible alternatives are somewhat limited in this case, based
on the unique topography of the land sloping downward away from the Travel Corridor on Route 9, which
places a premium on possibly having the sign be higher than what is permitted under Town Code, particularly
as it’s viewed going down Route 9, south on Route 9. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I
believe that, on balance, under careful consideration, the relief is moderate, in this particular case. I think that
the relief is mitigated by the fact that it’s been pointed out by applicant and Staff that the signs that are being
proposed actually, in both circumstances, for the freestanding signs, actually represent a reduction in overall
signage that is going to appear. There is also some consideration that there may be a modernization of these
signs that will be of benefit. So I think that has to be balanced with the numerical amount of relief
calculation that’s been determined here. So, certainly, we’ve granted this type of relief in certain
circumstances for the wall signs to other businesses that are set significantly back from the Travel Corridor
because it doesn’t seem to impact visually or have a negative impact on the neighborhood or community.
Effects on the neighborhood or community? I believe this particular application, which has been well
considered by the Planning Board and ourselves in a number of considerations, that the signage that’s
associated with the Home Depot in reality is a necessary and even possibly proper component of the overall
recycling of this plaza and should be viewed as such, and therefore the effects on the neighborhood and
community, cumulatively by the recycling of this plaza which needs to be recycled, in my opinion, will be
positive in the end. It’s well thought and well planned, which I think in this particular case there has been. Is
the difficulty self-created? I really don’t think that it is. I think that the fact that this is set so far back down
and in to this particular property and the necessity for the signage based on out parcel considerations and
other traffic considerations and the New York State Highway Department and the State owning relatively
strategic places for signs in this case make it not totally a self-created difficulty. There’s some difficulties that
can’t be helped in this particular case. On balance, therefore, I would move for its approval with the
recommendation or the pledge by the applicant to make every effort possible to locate the second
freestanding sign to the south side of the south entrance, which they’ve indicated that they think may be a
possibility that they can explore, not guaranteeing, but that they will explore. So, on balance, I would move
for the approval of the application. So you’re talking a total of 497.3 square feet of wall signage for the main
building. Our motion is indicating approval of the three wall signs and their size as depicted, in that if one is
excluded based upon the fact that it’s not, that that doesn’t allow for an increase in size in the other wall
signage.
Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2002, by the following vote:
th
MR. FRANK-Can I just interject something? For the wall sign, you’re allowed two wall signs. So one of the
wall signs needs a variance, you’ve granted that. The other one does not need.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. LAPPER-But we only get 300 feet total on the wall.
MR. STONE-But we’re granting relief to the overall size of three wall signs.
MR. FRANK-If you want to condition that, or make that stipulation, that’s not how the Code was explained
to me by the.
MR. HAYES-Just to satisfy Staff, and also to clarify the issue, then, our motion is indicating approval of the
three wall signs and their size as depicted, in that if one is excluded based upon the fact that it’s not, that that
doesn’t allow for an increase in size in the other wall signage.
MR. STONE-As depicted in the application, that’s a good line.
MR. FRANK-That’s fine.
MR. STONE-Okay. Second?
MR. BRYANT-Second.
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Guys, get up and stretch, because I’m recusing myself. I’m going to sit in the back of the
room.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, it was an Unlisted Action. You need to do the SEQRA.
MR. STONE-So it was. Thank you.
MOTION THAT IN CONNECTION WITH SIGN VARIANCE NO. 59-2002 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 Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 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-Okay. Joyce, here you go.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK
COUNCIL, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: THE LA GROUP, PC
AND JON LAPPER, ESQ. LOCATION: 213 MEADOWBROOK ROAD ZONE: SFR-1A
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE/OFFICE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM WETLAND
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROS REF. SPR 30-2002; FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT
1-2002 TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10 LOT SIZE: 13.38 ACRES SECTION 179-4-30
JON LAPPER, HOLLY ELMER, DEAN LONG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HAYES-This has been tabled several times.
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll read the tabling motion.
MR. HAYES-That would be wonderful.
MR. MC NULTY-That I think I can find. Area Variance No. 47-2002, Girl Scouts of the Adirondack
Council, Inc., at the meeting Wednesday, July 17, 2002, “MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE
NO. 47-2002 GIRL SCOUTS OF THE ADIRONDACK COUNCIL, INC., Introduced by Paul Hayes
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Until either of the August meetings, tabled for up to 60 days.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone, Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant”
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Jaime, could I have 120 seconds, please?
MR. HAYES-I just want to make one remark. Then I’m happy to do that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Before you begin with your presentation, Mr. Lapper, what I would like to do, okay, is to avoid
a complete representation of your case.
MR. LAPPER-I’m not planning on it.
MR. HAYES-Okay. If there’s any changes to your application, we would certainly like you to highlight those.
MR. LAPPER-There are, and that’s all I plan on doing.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I just want to let the rest of the Board know. I think this is the fourth time hearing this
application.
MR. ABBATE-Agreed.
MR. HAYES-And if you have specific questions, I’m sure their experts will be ready to answer them, but I
guess we can stipulate that there’s members of the Girl Scouts here that have spoken for the application
several times, and if they feel they need to again, we can do that, but I think everybody understands that part
of the application. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Mr. Vice Chairman, I would like to formally applaud
Chairman Stone for his ethical conduct during the review of Area Variance No. 47-2002, Girl Scouts of
America. Mr. Stone has recused himself during each of the hearings, patiently seating himself at the rear of
the room, ringing his hands, mumbling to himself, twitching in the chair, yet in spite of the social pressure
placed upon him, Mr. Stone amiably remained silent. Mr. Stone has set a standard of ethical conduct, and he
has my congratulations for his demeanor during the hearings. Thank you, sir.
MR. HAYES-Well said. Mr. Lapper?
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Dean Long, and Holly Elmer. I was hoping to be a hero and
offer not to go through the whole application, but you’ve stolen my thunder. We recognize, again, being the
first application for a wetland variance before this Board and this Town, the Board taking this very seriously,
as you take all applications, maybe a little more so because this is the first, Mr. Underwood and Mr. McNulty
have been particularly concerned about this application. So after last week, we went back to the drawing
board scratching our heads and came up with a proposal that I’m hoping will make everybody feel
comfortable in granting this variance. Normally, when you’re doing a wetland disturbance of less than a tenth
of an acre, less than the 4350 square feet, 4,350 square feet disturbance, the Army Corps would not require
you to do a mitigation where you create wetland, and in terms of wetland itself, just in terms of the function
of the wetland, it’s not so much the distance from it, but it’s how much wetland you have. Here it was put
on the record the last time that because the areas where the building and the paving are completely untreated,
they just go right into the wetland, that by putting in the detention basin that we’re doing, we’re actually, this
project will actually treat the water, in terms of quality, it actually improves the quality of the water, versus the
present conditions, but that said, what the LA Group was able to come up with, and this is a difficult site,
because it’s either wet or it’s bedrock, but there is an area in the rear of the wetland, toward the golf course
area, where we are now proposing to create 1500 square feet, and remember, we reduced the proposed
disturbance from 3800 square feet to 1144, which we think is a very significant reduction, and we hope you
think so also. So now we’re proposing to create wetland. It’s easy to create wetland when you have wetland.
It’s hard to create wetland when you have upland, but if you have wetland and you want to expand it, you
excavate down to the level of wetland. You plant wetland species. We are now showing a wetland proposed
mitigation area of 1500 square feet. I’ll ask Holly to just show you on the map. So we’re actually now
proposing to create more wetland than we are eliminating, and I’m hopeful that that will be enough for this
Board to feel comfortable in granting the variance.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MS. ELMER-Holly Elmer, LA Group. We submitted two plan sheets to the Town today to give to the
Zoning Board members. The first sheet shows the reduced plan that now only shows 23 parking spaces
instead of the originally proposed 30 spaces. So there’s seven spaces fewer and we were able to take all of
that pavement and parking area out of the wetland. The plan shows the storm basin here, outside the
wetland, to retain the water runoff, like Jon mentioned, and the second sheet that you have is Sheet L-1. It
shows the overall site, and you can see in the west central portion a proposed mitigation area in here of 1500
square foot, and as Jon mentioned, we normally don’t have to go to that extent when we comply with the
Nationwide permitting, but in this case, it would behoove us to create this wetland mitigation area, and
because there is such an extensive wetland on the site, we can draw that back out into that area. There’s also
details submitted with the package we sent today that shows the cross section of how the area is created, and
also what the plant species would be that would go in that area.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anything else, Mr. Lapper, you’d like to add?
MR. LAPPER-Not at this time.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, I suspect what you’ve done is gone into wetland mitigation, which is creating
wetland in another area.
MR. LAPPER-Did you say litigation or mitigation?
MR. ABBATE-Mitigation. Excuse me.
MR. LAPPER-We’re trying to avoid litigation.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s with an “M” rather than an “L”. I’m sorry. Mitigation. Correct?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there
anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the application?
MR. LAPPER-I guess, in the interest of time, we have the Girl Scout people here, but we’ll just.
MR. HAYES-I think the Board is willing to stipulate that they’re highly in favor of the application. Is there
anyone here that would like to speak in opposition to the application? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-At this time I’d like to discuss it. We’ll start right down at the end with Norm?
MR. HIMES-All right. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. As you all know, I was not present at the last
meeting, but I have read the minutes there from, the minutes of the meeting that you all had with the
Planning Board and previous records that we’ve had, and I think I’ve got some notes here. From all those
sources, I’ve scribbled some notes here I’d like to quickly run down. I’d first like to say I applaud the effort
that you’ve done to mitigate the factor. However, just let me go through the criteria that we have in
connection with the application, the criteria for considering this, and very quickly, I’ll try to move along
quickly here. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the addition in the
preferred location and in the preferred configuration. Feasible alternatives that are capable of being done.
From our Community Development Staff notes it says, “Construct the new administration/office building in
a compliant location”. Now the cost differential between this approach and the renovation plus addition to
the existing building is $910,000 versus $735,000, a difference of $175,000 or 25% more to do it somewhere
else. I should add that Ms. Green referred to a difference of $150,000 or 20.4% in her comments during the
June 25 Planning Board meeting. I think this is a feasible alternative, but not preferable to the applicant.
th
MR. LAPPER-You missed last week. We also had a letter from the Highway Superintendent.
MR. HIMES-Yes.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. LAPPER-Saying that the other location was not appropriate because it would mean more people parking
on the road. So we thought that really addressed that alternative.
MR. HIMES-I think I saw that in the minutes of the records. Fine. Okay. Thank you, but I’ve got
something else to say that another feasible alternative may be to do the addition as a second story to the
existing building which might preclude expanding the existing present footprint into the wetland, but again,
from Miss Green’s comments in the Planning Board meeting, this approach was not pursued fully. So we
don’t know for sure whether this approach really is a feasible alternative. I have the impression that this also
is not a preferable solution to the applicant, may be a reason why the second story wasn’t pursued fully. A
third alternative would be to have part or all of the administration and offices location in another area offsite,
or to acquire more land, possibly right in the vicinity of the camp on Meadowbrook, along Meadowbrook
Road somewhere. I’ll add that in my opinion, the Scouts needs will continue to grow, in concert with the
additional or expanded services that it may provide in the future, which could possibly lead to applications for
more variances of one kind or another, at some long term future date. Perhaps land acquisition could resolve
these problems, present ones as well as some that may be coming down the road in the future. The third
criterion for considering this variance, is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Our Staff notes say
84.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial, relative
to the Ordinance, and it has been said that this application relates to a disturbance of less than a tenth of an
acre, and even less, now, a very small amount, the tenth of an acre being a threshold for Federal involvement
or Army Corps of Engineers or what have you. This application would have a distribution of now I guess
around 1200 square feet, down from the figures I have written in my notes here, considerably less than that
of the tenth of an acre threshold. Now I’ll refer to a comment made by Mr. Long during the Zoning Board
meeting of last week, and, let’s see, he says, “The most important thing to understand is the huge changes in
the nationwide permit system that has occurred since 1989. In 1989, under the Nationwide Permit 26, which
is now Nationwide Permit 39, you used to be able to fill up to 10 acres of wetlands without contacting the
Federal government. Now it’s to the point where, when you fill over 4,356 square feet of wetlands, when you
fill over that amount, you have to contact the Federal government. So it’s a program that has evolved hugely
in the last 14 years. So, it’s a program that’s evolved in order to become significantly more protective and it’s
a program that its core purposes are to reduce the paperwork and to allow the Federal government to look at
the big projects,”, I don’t get that particular connection to the comment, “and look at the major items that
really need closer examination.” The last two comments don’t add up, to me, but the point I’m making was
what I quoted there is, to me, this drastic change by the Federal people, or the Corps, is another indicator of
the importance of encroachment or disturbance to a wetland. I agree the relief requested is substantial. I feel
any encroachment is substantial. This brings me to the subject of zero tolerance referred to in both the June
25 Planning Board meeting and the last week’s Zoning Board meeting, and the reference to that part of the
th
Zoning Ordinance, 179-6-060, Shoreline and Wetland regulations, Section A1, which uses term minimize
disturbance. Now referring to 179-6-100, Wetland Regulations. That particular, the wetland regulations, the
statement of findings tells of the importance of protecting the wetlands. I believe the minimized wording
exists. So that, to enable some flexibility in regulating unexpected and rare cases where some need must be
accommodated for the overall good, because of the feasible alternatives available to the applicant, in this case,
I don’t feel this application qualifies for this flexibility. The next criterion, effects on the neighborhood or
community, our Staff notes say substantial effects on the neighborhood and community may be anticipated as
a result of this action. Here we have a very good organization and cause, on the one hand, the Scouts, and a
very important principal or cause on the other, to protect and preserve the wetlands. It would be convenient
and preferable to the Scouts to have this variance approved. It would result in more encroachment to a
fragile wetland if approved. Additionally, if approved, we would be establishing, in my opinion, a bad
precedent, bad in that, in my opinion, the application does not have the merit for approval, and we will be
putting out a signal for prospective similar applications in the future that it’s not whether such an application
will be approved, but how much or how little relief will be granted. Thus we’ll chip away our resources a little
at a time until, well, you can finish that sentence. The last criterion, is the difficulty self-created. Well,
certainly I think the present directors, overseers, managers are doing everything they can to further the best
interests of the Scouts and look back a little bit in history, maybe some of the long range planning by the
present management’s tenure let down a little bit on what they should have been doing in connection with
what I feel is the acquisition of more lands, because the Town is beginning to close in around them. In
conclusion, I would have to say that for our natural resources we, the ZBA, the Zoning Board, may be the
guardian and last resort, and accordingly, I must say that I am not in favor of this application. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, since we didn’t make a full presentation, and some of the members weren’t
here, I’d just like a minute to respond to that?
MR. HAYES-We’ve had a policy of not rebutting individual Zoning members.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Can we do it at the end?
MR. HAYES-I will allow a short, okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. The last time we met, I voted in favor of the application with
reluctance, and I was chastised, and I said to myself, you know why I voted with reluctance? Because I
simply didn’t know enough about wetlands, and since Wednesday, I have been driving myself crazy, and I
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
spoke to two experts in the field of eco, wetlands, etc., and etc., and I did some research on Federal as well as
State laws concerning this, and I determined a couple of things, that the purpose of a wetland is to control
flood water, and I was pleased, this evening, that you decided to consider wetland mitigation, because that
was one of my questions, why haven’t you, but you did. Now, the bottom line, without going through a lot
of dissertation here, I also discovered that there are a number of wetland types, marshes and peat lands and
swamps and wetlands, and then I realized the reason I said it with reluctance, I simply didn’t know enough,
and I apologize for that, because I should have said no and then did some research, I guess. Now, the
bottom line of all this little dissertation that I’m going to keep short is this. That I believe it’s, in my opinion,
I believe that all wetlands are not created equal. Now, what I mean by that is this, that the cumulative impact
of Wetland No. A may not be as severe as Wetland No. B. So what I’m going to do this evening, I’m going
to listen to my fellow Board members, and my vote will be based upon fact and not any type of philosophical
agenda. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-So what is your vote?
MR. ABBATE-I’m not going to reveal it.
MR. HAYES-Okay. He’s undecided. I’m listing you as undecided.
MR. ABBATE-I’m undecided, sir.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Thank you. First off, I’m disturbed at receiving technical data like this mitigation, without
having the opportunity to research, although I did read, on the EPA site, articles relative to it, but to research
the precedents and the specific procedure that you’re going to attempt to implement. So, with that being
said, I know that the other Board members are going to touch on the specific criteria for this variance. I wish
the Town would go back to old fashioned wired microphones, so we wouldn’t keep on running out of
batteries. This is progress that we really didn’t need.
MR. ABBATE-Or it’s a sign from God.
MR. BRYANT-Whatever. I kind of disagree somewhat with what Mr. Abbate said relative to the definition
of wetlands, because I think, having done the research in that regard, it’s a little bit more complicated than
just water control and a little bit more complicated than just filtering water. It’s important to note, and I
think during some of the research process, it’s important to note that in the last century, that in the lower 48
States, that we have eliminated 50% of our wetland environment, and some States as much as 85%, and there
have probably been projects like this, a little bit here, a little bit there, and that sort of thing, but I want to
touch on some of the comments made by Planning Board members and Zoning Board members the last two
meetings. One, I think that most of the Board members in the last two meetings have gone to great pains to
say how wonderful the Girl Scouts are, and everybody knows that, the benefit to the Town, the benefit to the
community, the benefit to the Country, but I think the Zoning Administrator, when he prepared the
documents, the Staff notes, and he indicates what the benefit to the applicant is, he states it clearly, and that is
that the benefit to the applicant, it doesn’t say to the Girl Scouts, but to the applicant, is that they’re going to
be able to, they’re permitted to construct their desired building in their location. I’m wondering, in my mind,
in the back of my mind, if you were a homeowner coming before this Board, and you wanted to build a deck
into a protected wetlands area, if we would have heard this issue four times, or if this would have been ended
the first meeting. During the Planning Board meeting, I think Norm covered the discussion on the difference
between either moving the building or building a building in another location, and the difference was 150 or
175, whatever the dollar value was, and now we’re talking about some wetlands mitigation, which is an
additional cost to eliminate some of that difference, and I’m wondering if this application is not out of
necessity but out of convenience, and finally, I know you’re shaking your head, and I know you want to
comment, but these are only thoughts that are crossing my mind after reading the minutes. There was
another, and I don’t remember the individual who made it during the Planning Board meeting, compared the
Girl Scouts to the Boy Scout situation where their offices were not near their camp or something of that
nature, they’re in a different location, and I’m wondering if that’s a viable alternative, in so much as you really
can’t fit 20 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound sack, and that’s basically what you’re trying to do. So, based
on that information, I’m really on the fence on this application, but if I had to vote tonight, I would vote no,
and it’s primarily because I don’t know enough about the mitigation process, and I don’t think there’s
anybody on the Board that knows, I don’t think one of us are engineers or propose to be. So, I’m just
wondering if it’s a fair tradeoff, or if it’s just smoke and mirrors, you know. So, if we vote tonight, it’s going
to be no.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Urrico.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. URRICO-Yes. I trust everybody has had a chance to read the notes, and I have not changed my
position since I spoke last week. I was in favor of it then and I’m in favor of it now, and the reasons are
documented. So, rather than be redundant, I’ll just say that I would vote in favor of the project.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce? Welcome aboard.
JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I have been listening to everyone, and it is trying to do a balancing act and
trying to be fair to both the stewardship of the wetlands and the Girl Scouts and their deeds, and, at this
point, I would say that I would like to know more about the wetlands, but I am leaning towards saying yes to
their request.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. If you have any specific questions towards the end, they have people here that can
answer them, but we’ll continue. Mr. McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m really in a dilemma now. I guess a couple, three comments I wanted to make
anyway, whichever way I go here. It’s been mentioned in previous meetings that the Corps of Engineers
don’t consider a small piece of wetland really important, and I wanted to make the point that I missed making
last week, is Corps of Engineers are a national organization. They’re looking at wetlands of national
significance, generally. Same thing is true with DEC. They’re looking at wetlands, Statewide significance.
That’s why they regulate 12.4 acres and larger. Both of those organizations do pay a little bit of attention to
local significance, but they kind of rely on local people and local government agencies to protect wetlands of
local significance. So just saying that DEC and Corps of Engineers might say it’s okay to intrude into
wetlands doesn’t mean that it’s all right to do it. It just means it’s not Statewide significant or national
significance. I’m inclined to agree with the comment that was made earlier about trying to cram a 12 pound
sack of potatoes into a 5 pound bag. That may be the point that you’re getting to here. I’m also bothered,
yet, with the intrusion into the wetland, and the fact that you’re going to disturb more than the area that
we’ve specified because construction activities mean people have got to work around the outside of the
building. You’re not going to build the addition from the inside only. So, there is going to be more damage
to the wetland. A lot of it, hopefully, would recover if you get in there and do that. The offer to mitigate by
creating additional wetlands helps a lot. It all depends on the situation, whether this kind of creating wetlands
will improve the situation or steal a little bit from the wetland, but it is possible to do, to create wetlands and
DEC had a program, 30 years ago, that went around building wetlands on farmer’s properties, and it worked
real well. So it is possible to do it, and it will work. With the offer of mitigation, I’d be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I guess, you know, I’ll abbreviate my remarks, based on the fact that my
position, essentially, hasn’t changed, similar to Roy’s. I think, you know, this is an Area Variance, in this
particular circumstance, which primarily weighs the benefits to the applicant versus the detriment to the
neighborhood. The benefit to the applicant, to me, is clear, and I think the Board has recognized that, and
the detriment to the neighborhood I believe in this case is minimal. As the applicant has pointed out, minor
disturbances of wetlands are regulated activities. They’re not prohibited activities they’re regulated activities,
and they’ve been determined to be regulated, from what I understand, which could be wrong, in the sense
that there is an understanding at times that based on overall projects or overall, that some minor disturbance
is outweighed by what might be being gained, through whatever project or community activity that is being
contemplated, and that’s essentially what Norm pointed out, that these disturbances have been narrowed, and
narrowed again. I think that’s a great thing, and I think that it’s been continued to the point now where it’s
possible that that in itself is a balancing type situation. So, essentially, my position has not changed. I’m in
favor of this, on Area Variance, based on consideration of those two major factors. Now, based on my initial
count here, I have four in favor, two against, and one undecided. Having said that, I’m assuming, Mr.
Lapper, you have no further remarks to make then, in lieu of a motion?
MR. LAPPER-Just very briefly. I’d just like to assure the Board that I know that you’re not yet all wetland
experts, but I assume that over the course of the next few years, you might be forced to become that, but I
have with me wetland experts. The LA Group does this all the time, and are very familiar with the standards
for wetland disturbance, and we came to you and said, we hear what you’re saying, and we’re going to
propose more creation than what we’re disturbing, and it’s the exact type of wetland. It’s just a few hundred
feet away. What we’re replacing with what we’re taking out. We are trying to go over the top to make it
easier for you to grant this, and in terms of, it would be not only no net loss, it would be a net gain of
wetland, but also the fact that we’re treating the water in the detention basin that now is just sheet draining
into the wetland untreated, we really think that, just as a wetland project, this is positive. The way we got the
Lowe’s project done was that that was a wetland project where we treated the water that wasn’t being treated,
and that’s in the same drainage basin, and that was also viewed as a net positive. So sometimes you do a
disturbance, and because you have to engineer a project, you can actually improve the situation, and we think
that it is.
MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s great, Counselor. I hate to interrupt you, but the reality is that we have to have
information to make up our own minds. If you’re going to make that determination for us, well then they
really don’t need us, do they? Okay. So, I know that LA Group is a reputable firm, and I know that they
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
would do the right thing, but they’re also working for a client, and that client is the Girl Scouts. So we have
to have the information to make up our own minds.
MR. LAPPER-I cannot argue with that.
MR. BRYANT-I would like to be educated on the process, and that’s my only argument is that, had I know
this ahead of time, I would have done the research and I would have come here and probably said exactly
what , do they? Okay. So, I know that LA Group is a reputable firm, and I know that they would do the
right thing, but they’re also working for a client, and that client is the Girl Scouts. So we have to have the
information to make up our own minds.
MR. LAPPER-I cannot argue with that.
MR. BRYANT-I would like to be educated on the process, and that’s my only argument is that, had I know
this ahead of time, I would have done the research and I would have come here and probably said exactly
what you’re saying. Okay, that this is an acceptable solution, but from this vantage point, at this point, I can’t
make that decision.
MR. LAPPER-I understand that, and I’m sorry that you missed the last meeting, because we went on for an
hour and forty-five minutes to really get into some detail, you know, and I’m just sorry we couldn’t have
gotten together on that, but I want you to know that we are doing everything that we think we should be
doing to make you feel comfortable by proposing that mitigation. Would you guys like to add anything at this
point?
MR. FRANK-I’d like to add something on behalf of the Staff. Because it was a late submission, the Staff
notes don’t accurately reflect what’s being proposed, on behalf of the Zoning Administrator and the Director
of Community Development. I mean, I think they want me to say that this is an entirely different proposal
by a mitigating effort, and it makes a huge difference. So I’m only saying that for any Board members that
want to know what the professional staff’s opinion is, and again, this will be reviewed by the Planning Board,
what the LA Group has proposed here, is this the ideal wetland to be built? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I
don’t know. I’m sure we’ll have our engineering staff review it also. It may be the perfect wetland. I really
don’t know, but just the effort that they’ve made to mitigate, as opposed to just saying we want to fill,
nothing in return, it makes a huge difference. So for those of you who are undecided or against the
application, I think they wanted me to make that statement.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You mean a huge difference in what way?
MR. FRANK-In a positive. The Staff notes were pretty much against the application, based on information
before this afternoon.
MR. ABBATE-So the concessions that the applicant has submitted this evening, in your opinion, has made a
huge difference, in terms of looking at the application favorably? Is that what you’re suggesting?
MR. FRANK-When you look at the application as a whole, again, you’re still granting a variance for that
amount of relief that they’re going to go into the wetland itself, and into the buffer area.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t think that you can really evaluate at this point, because our Town engineers haven’t
even looked at the proposal, if this is such a relative new proposal, to even comment on whether or not that
this is the way that we ought to go.
MR. LAPPER-But the Planning Board did look at it, even before we made the concessions, and
recommended approval.
MR. BRYANT-When was that?
MR. LAPPER-The meeting that you weren’t here, the last time.
MR. BRYANT-I read all the minutes. I don’t remember reading anything about mitigation.
MR. LAPPER-No, I’m saying before we proposed the mitigation, with the full 3800 square feet, the Planning
Board ultimately has to issue the Freshwater Wetlands Permit, and we went to the Planning Board because
you referred us there last month, and the Planning Board recommended that this Board approve it, and that
was before we.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but there was no discussion during that process about this mitigation.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
MR. LAPPER-So that’s why what Bruce is saying is that it’s a different application now for the better than it
was when we went to the Planning Board.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, but I don’t know that he can really determine that because I don’t think he’s qualified
to say that this is the way we mitigate and this is the procedure.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I know that Chris Round is familiar with this, and he’s saying that the Zoning
Administrator and the Director of Community Development asked him to say that.
MR. FRANK-And again, it will be reviewed by the Planning Board. I mean, just because you’re granting
them this variance, they still have to go before the Planning Board, and if there’s any issues there, they will be
addressed at that time.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Normally we don’t have any further questions of the applicant. So if there is anything
further, that’s fine, because this is an unusual circumstance. I want to say that. If not, then we want to move.
MRS. HUNT-I have a question. I was wondering where you were going to put the new wetlands.
MS. ELMER-You have a sheet there that’s labeled L-1, in the bottom right hand corner.
MR. URRICO-I only have L-3.
MRS. HUNT-Yes, we don’t have an L-1.
MS. ELMER-This is the overall site, and here’s the mitigation area shown in the back here. It’s easiest to
create and add more wetlands where you already have wetlands.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. So this is where you’re going to be building, but that’s the wetland?
MS. ELMER-Yes. This is the existing office. The addition goes on the back, and we have now 1144 square
foot of impact on the wetlands, and we’re proposing to more than replace that with 1500 square foot.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, Chuck, would you like to make a
motion?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll make an attempt, if people will jump in with the right figures at the right time. Because
we’ve changed the numbers enough.
MR. HAYES-What exactly is the mitigation. I think that’s going to be part of our motion.
MRS. HUNT-1500 square foot.
MR. MC NULTY-1500 square foot in the wetland?
MS. ELMER-Yes, of creation. The impact area that we’re going to be going into the wetlands with the
building and the deck is 1,144.
MR. LONG-The impact in the wetland is 15 square feet. The adjacent area impact, your 75 foot buffer area,
is the 1144.
MR. HAYES-Okay. You don’t even need to spell out those differences in the motion as much as just, I want
to have the amount that you’re going to mitigate as part of a condition of the motion.
MS. ELMER-And that 1144 does include all construction limits. People working in that area, and they’d re-
grade it afterwards.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, let me give it a shot, and if we miss some figures, we’ll stick them in.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2002 GIRL SCOUTS OF THE
ADIRONDACK COUNCIL, INC., Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Roy Urrico:
The applicant is proposing to construct a 2800 square foot addition to the existing administration and office
building. The applicant requests relief of 84.5 feet from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement
of the Shoreline setback regulations for the SFR-1A zone Section 179-4-070. The benefit to the applicant
would be that the applicant is going to be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred
location. Feasible alternatives, we’ve considered feasible alternatives including constructing a new office
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/24/02)
building at the northern end of the site, and the possibility of the Scouts finding a different office location
entirely from this site. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 84.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot
minimum shoreline setback requirement can certainly be interpreted as being substantial relative to the
Ordinance. However, this is a balancing factor here, and while the Scouts expect to intrude into the wetland
for a total of 1144 square feet for the building and parking area, they have agreed to, as a mitigating measure,
create 1500 square feet of wetland on the opposite side of the wetland from where the office building will be.
So that kind of balances the intrusion into the wetland. The effects on the neighborhood or community?
Staff has indicated that there’d be substantial effects on the neighborhood or community, but, given the
mitigating measures that the Scouts will be taking, I feel that probably there will be minimal to moderate
effects on the neighborhood or community. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be interpreted as
self-created. However, there are some extenuating circumstances, given the financial constraints of the
organization and the physical constraints of the property involved. For these reasons, I move that we
approve Area Variance 47-2002.
Duly adopted this 24 day of July, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes
ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate
MR. HAYES-The application is approved.
MR. HAYES-The meeting is adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
51