2002-05-22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MAY 22, 2002
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ALLAN BRYANT
CHARLES ABBATE
NORMAN HIMES
PAUL HAYES
ROY URRICO
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2002 TYPE II DAVID AND JANE HOPPER PROPERTY OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: J. MARK NOORDSY, ESQ. LOCATION: 35 HANNEFORD
ROAD, OFF PILOT KNOB ROAD ZONE: WR-1A APPLICANT HAS RECONFIGURED AN
ENCLOSED PEAKED ROOF BOATHOUSE TO A BOATHOUSE WITH A FLAT
ROOF/SUNDECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS,
AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-1999
WAS REVOKED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. THE CURRENT APPLICATION IS
TO REHEAR THE MERITS OF THE PREVIOUS AREA VARIANCE. ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/2002 TAX MAP NO. 240.06-1-14 LOT SIZE:
0.43 ACRES SECTION 179-4-20; 179-5-50
MATTHEW FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVID HOPPER, PRESENT
MR. STONE-This evening we’re going to start with an adjourned application from last week. We adjourned
Area Variance No. 32-2002. Didn’t really table it. We just adjourned it to this evening, and what I’m going
to do first is I did leave the public hearing open. I’m going to close the public hearing at this point.
MR. STONE-I will re-open it after the applicant has a chance to give us the information they want. Then I
will open the public hearing, and anyone who wishes to speak may. So, with that, I’ll close the public hearing
and I’ll call upon Mr. Fuller to give us the new information.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. FULLER-Thank you very much, Mr. Stone, members of the Board. At the meeting last week.
MR. STONE-State your name again, even though I said it.
MR. FULLER-Apologies. Matthew Fuller. I’m an attorney with the law firm Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth.
I’m here on behalf of David and Jane Hopper and with me tonight is Jane Hopper, and at last Wednesday’s
meeting, late into the night, we had discussed us coming back with a proposal that was agreeable, in substance
and effect, with the neighbor, Mr. Nelson Harris. I have done that, worked with him, my clients and his
attorney, John Pohl, who’s not here tonight, and we have come up with a proposal. The proposal is that
which I will read into the record right now is the May 22, 2002 revised proposal, and I’ll read it in now. This
is regarding the application of David and Jane Hopper, property at 36 Hanneford Road, Area Variance No.
32-2002. “Dear Craig, Bruce and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: As requested by the Zoning
Board of Appeals at the May 15, 2002 meeting, below is the summary of a proposal on behalf of David and
Jane Hopper, and also the considerations regarding same offered by the Hoppers. Mr. and Mrs. Hopper
offer the following as considerations for the Board: 1. Mr. and Mrs. Hopper have invested a great deal of
money and effort into the improvements to the waterfront versus what was located in that area previously.
The result has been a dramatic aesthetic improvement to the boathouse and docks, as was indicated by the
neighbor to the North, Mr. Harris. 2. Mr. and Mrs. Hopper removed the dilapidated awning or lean-to that
was previously located adjacent to the north side of the previous boathouse, as was requested by the ZBA in
1999. Mr. and Mrs. Hopper offer the following as proposed conditions to an approval by the ZBA: a. Mr.
and Mrs. Hopper would agree to remove the dock or “finger” located to the North of the boathouse at
considerable cost to them. This is the “finger” that was identified by the neighbor, Mr. Harris, as being of
most concern to him. In addition, this was preliminarily discussed by the Board at the May 15, 2002 meeting
as a proposal that might meet with some acceptance. b. Mr. and Mrs. Hopper would agree to apply for, and
hopefully obtain, the necessary permits from the Lake George Park Commission and/or the Army Corps of
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
Engineers, to remove the “finger” and the underlying cribbing. However, as I discussed with Craig Brown,
we would all have to consider that if the Corps or the Lake George Park Commission refused to grant this
permit, then we would have to come to an alternative agreement. We understand that such an occurrence
would require a re-appearance before the Board and would comply with such a requirement. c. Mr. and Mrs.
Hopper would relinquish, in writing to Mr. Harris, any and all interest they may have by adverse possession
and the like, to any property interest they, or their predecessors, may have obtained to the riparian rights of
Mr. Harris which were occupied by the “finger” dock structure. In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Hopper would remove
the walkway portion of the dock which leads to the “finger”, which structure is roughly located parallel to Pilot Knob Road, from
a point on the dock beginning at the boundary line between the Hopper and Harris properties and continuing North to the
“finger” in question. In return, Mr. and Mrs. Hopper would ask that Mr. Harris release and relinquish any
interest in riparian rights and or causes of action he may have against the use of the boat slip immediately
adjacent to the North side of the boathouse. d. Mr. and Mrs. Hopper would agree that, starting from the
South, the two slips shown on the application map as being dedicated to 36 Hanneford would remain
dedicated to private use and, therefore, not to be rented. e. Mr. and Mrs. Hopper would agree that,
continuing North from the two (2) slips discussed above, the next three (3) slips to the North could be rented
to other parties at the pleasure of Mr. and Mrs. Hopper. Obviously such could only be rented after
complying with Lake George Park Commission and Town Code relevant to Marina permitting. Mr. and Mrs.
Hopper would proceed to apply for, and hopefully obtain, such permits. f. The remaining two slips to the
North, being the slip located inside the boathouse, and the slip located just to the North side of the
boathouse, would be dedicated, by condition in the variance, to use solely for vessels licensed and registered
solely to Mr. and Mrs. Hopper, or members of their immediate family. Mr. and Mrs. Hopper agree that any boat
to be berthed on the North side of the boathouse will have a beam no wider than Nine (9) feet. g. Mr. and Mrs. Hopper
would be allowed to continue to use the boathouse roof for their own personal pleasure as a deck. Note that
I have worded the above to refer to Mr. and Mrs. Hopper. It is our understanding that, legally, the conditions
would apply to the owner of the property to which the boathouse and dock structures are attached, as
personal conditions are not permissible. Thus, these conditions would be binding on Mr. and Mrs. Hopper,
their heirs, successors, and/or assigns. In addition, we would require that the above concessions and
conditions be expressly conditioned on successful site plan review, for the special use permit as Craig Brown
indicated was required, and also successful review and permit from the Lake George Park Commission, both
of which must be to the satisfaction of Mr. and Mrs. Hopper. I hope that the above is an acceptable offer to
the Zoning Board of Appeals. I am confident that it would meet with the approval of Mr. Harris, and am
hopeful that a copy of this letter be forwarded to him as an interested party for his consideration. I recall that
the Board was concerned with the effects on his property interests. This proposal provides a remedy to those
concerns. Thank you and I look forward to discussing same at the May 22, 2002 Zoning Board of Appeals
meeting, as was discussed at the May 15, 2002 meeting, and between Craig and myself. Please do not hesitate
to contact me if you would like any documentation on the above. Sincerely, Matthew Fitzgerald Fuller”
MR. STONE-Thank you. Anything else?
MR. FULLER-Not at this time.
MR. STONE-All right. Let me just make a couple of comments on what I consider, personally, a very
generous proposal, in light of what you’ve heard and what we’ve said. Certainly, in regards to the “finger”,
you’re proposing it, and certainly we can accept that as a condition, since it came from the applicant and we
appreciate that. As you’ve said in your letter, the situation with the marina permit, whether it’s the Park
Commission or anybody else, well, no, I’m sorry, the next issue is the Corps of Engineers and the Park
Commission. Obviously, as you state, if, in fact, you can’t get a permit, and I, personally, have been assured, I
can’t be assured, but by the Park Commission, that they would be more than willing to issue a permit.
MR. FULLER-I can imagine.
MR. STONE-To remove a dock in the lake, but if that, somehow it didn’t come to pass, you would have to
come back here. The riparian rights, and all of that in your Paragraph C, that’s really not in our purview, and
we appreciate the offer, but there is, and we would be happy to see it happen, but there isn’t much, we can’t
say, we can’t tell you to do it. I do have a question about 36 Hanneford. Those two docks that you’re talking
about being for that property’s use, is that in the deed, those two docks, or is that separate?
MR. FULLER-After we had the meeting last week, I pulled that from the County Clerk, and actually, Dave
gave me a copy of it. The way the easement reads, there is an easement for that dock, but it doesn’t specify
that boat slips are dedicated to that, that 36.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FULLER-And that’s something we’re going to take care of. As was previous with the condition.
MR. STONE-I mean, again, as far as I’m concerned, and I can’t speak for the Board, those docks down there
were really not, I’m not prepared to get into, one way or another, and the fact that, if you want to leave it for
36, that’s fine. I think that’s great, and I think it should probably say that in some kind of formal fashion, but
that’s not our call.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. FULLER-I think from our standpoint, more to the point was that if it was attempted to return to a
rental slip, as was not disclosed in ’99, I think that would be, you know, the Town’s ability to revoke it again.
MR. STONE-Okay. We appreciate that understanding. Okay. The next slips, the rental slips, this has
nothing to do with this variance, I mean, the fact that you’ve been renting slips for 42 years, which is where
we are now. We know that. We do appreciate your offer to, however, to do that. The two slips on the north
for the family, I certainly don’t have any problem with that, and particularly with the condition that you’re
willing to put on for Mr. Harris, the nine foot wide boat and all that, and the boathouse roof, that’s fine.
That’s not a condition that we really can make because, unless we want to take turns standing at the bottom
of the stairs and seeing that only family is going up there. It isn’t something we really can do anyway. So,
having said that, anybody else have any comments they’d like to make?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, before we get into this, since I was not at the last meeting, and Mr.
Underwood was, if it’s appropriate, I’d like to step aside and let Mr. Underwood take my place.
MR. STONE-As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Underwood, are you willing to do that?
JAMES UNDERWOOD
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. STONE-Let the record show that Mr. Bryant is stepping down for the purpose of this application, and
that Mr. Underwood, our alternate, is going to take his place on this particular application. All right. Any
other questions, gentlemen on anything?
MR. HIMES-Is this being the public or for us?
MR. STONE-For us. No, I’m not doing the public hearing.
MR. HIMES-I would like to clear something up. Could you show the north, the picture to the north of the
boathouse there? There’s another boathouse just to the north of the Hoppers, to the north of where that
finger slip is, as I recall. It doesn’t show in that picture.
MR. FRANK-Are you referring to Mr. Harris’?
MR. HIMES-Yes. See, that’s what I wanted to confirm, because I seem to recall Mr. Harris said, or it was
said, that Mr. Harris did not have a dock in his waterfront property. There it is. You see the structure to the
north of the sundeck? Does that belong to Mr. Harris?
MR. STONE-That’s Mr. Harris’, and Mr. Harris’ property extends through that finger, the offending finger, if
people will permit me that statement, the offending finger to about halfway from the north finger to the
boathouse.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. I knew that. What I’m asking about is the ownership of that structure to the
north.
MR. STONE-That’s Mr. Harris’.
MR. HIMES-All right. Okay. So what I heard, or what I thought I heard, is not so. The reason being I
asked the question is that removal of that finger dock, finger we’ll call it, and then at some future date, have
another dock in put in, near of the Code, the same area. So we wouldn’t gain any ting in connection with
reducing the intensity of usage along there. So, okay.
MR. STONE-Well, that, if Mr. Harris decided to put that dock back on his own, he’d need a variance because
of setback, side setback.
MR. HIMES-Again, the question, I understand now, it wasn’t clear to me that that structure was owned by
Mr. Harris. Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen?
MR. URRICO-I just want to review, for just one second. We started out with eight slips, right?
MR. FULLER-The potential for eight use slips.
MR. URRICO-The potential for eight uses. One is going to be removed. Two will remain as uses by 36
Hanneford only. No rental, and the three to the north will remain as use of Mr. and Mrs. Hopper and their
family. So we have left are three or two?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Two plus two.
MR. URRICO-We have two rentals?
MR. HAYES-Three rentals is five, and then they’re going to have two of their own.
MR. URRICO-So basically we have a total of six that are going to be used?
MR. HAYES-We have seven. There’s one in the boathouse.
MR. FULLER-There’s seven.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. FULLER-One there, two, three, four, five, six inside, and seven is just to the north.
MR. STONE-And the one to the north a nine foot limitation.
MR. HAYES-A nine foot limitation.
MR. URRICO-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anything else? All right. Having said that, I will re-open the public hearing. Anybody wishing
to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Come, Mr. Harris, whatever position
you’re taking.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
NELSON HARRIS
MR. HARRIS-Well, I don’t know what happens next, but my name is Nelson Harris and I live at 39
Hanneford Road, and I raised an objection, during the last meeting, and if things happen according to his
proposal, I would withdraw my objection.
MR. STONE-Okay. In other words, if we accept the Hopper’s suggestion, you’ll be happy?
MR. HARRIS-And it can go through their permits, and this happens, then I withdraw my objection.
MR. STONE-The only thing I want you to know, and I want the public to know, why you have a right to
object, in theory. We can ignore your objection. I just want you to know that. The fact that you say no
doesn’t mean we automatically deny a variance, but in this particular case, you did object. The applicant has
worked with you, and you are saying that if we condition the application in such a way that either we say it
has to be that way, or the applicant has already said, publicly, that they will work with you to do all of these
things they want to do, you would be happy with that?
MR. HARRIS-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. That’s it. Anything else? Okay. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-And let’s talk about it. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, we had a long, contentious meeting last week, but I think as I review the submission by
Mr. and Mrs. Hopper and their attorney, I think it’s very satisfactory, in my opinion. I spoke last week to the
fact that my objection, personally, was is that the deck on top of the boathouse represented an increase in
usage, intensity of usage there at the site, and therefore that had an effect on the neighborhood or
community, and that when I was balancing the test, if I had known about the additional rentals, it certainly
would have weighed into the test that’s prescribed to us, and I’m not sure I would have voted for it, but
based on the proposals that the Hoppers have put forward, very detailed, I think they certainly represent a
decrease in intensity of use, and in my mind, with those things that they have put forward specifically, I think
the effects on the neighborhood or community are going to all be good. I mean, the boathouse is better than
it was. The lean-to is gone. There’ll be less boat traffic on the site. Certainly their relationship with their
neighbor, the effects on him are improved and he has now stated for the record that he has no objection,
based on those conditions. I think that we asked for the Hoppers to present us with a recommendation, a
change that they could live with. They’ve done that, and I accept it. I think, in this particular case, based on
these conditions, I would vote for the application easily.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. STONE-Mr. McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree with Mr. Hayes. I think we’ve got a compromise that has gone towards reducing
the intensity of the use to compensate for the increased intensity with the deck on the boathouse. I think also
the Hoppers have made a real effort to make sure there’s no further misunderstandings in the way that this
agreement is set up. I think they made a positive effort. I think it’s going to be a positive effect on the
neighborhood, and certainly outweighs any possible detriment that anybody might find. So I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Mr. Himes?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. I feel, I’m glad to see there’s a concession in connection with the finger. On the
other hand, I’m saying to myself, you know, that was almost, or completely, over in Mr. Harris’ property in
the water, and so it probably never should have been that way or continue to be that way. So I’m thinking,
well, not technically maybe, but in my thoughts, well, a wrong has been righted there, and we have the matter
of every once in a while something comes up where the intensity, particularly in this area, is quite high, and
you have what I think is more dockage there, I believe, than what would be allowed by the Code had you
been applying to put them in now. So the matter of the rentals and what Jaime had referred to in his
comments, the variance previously been approved based upon the testimony that rentals were not a factor
except for the two slips that went with the cottage, they weren’t rented by themselves, but they went along
with the cottage that you own nearby. People rent the cottage, they get the use of that dock, two slips, and so
we have three up for rental, and in several instances in that meeting, the question was asked about rentals, and
the answer was that there were no rentals, and so, accordingly, as Jaime referred, the Board voted on the basis
of thinking there were none, but there were, and have been for many years, and continue to be. So I would
tend to go with my vote as last week, saying no. I would want the rentals discontinued. Whether I’d say,
well, okay, one dock or two slips, or one slip be rental, I might entertain something like that, but for the most
part, I think that my vote will stand as it was last time, recognizing the folks have done a nice job with what
they have improved on the property, but I just feel that that’s a responsibility we have in connection with the
Code in the Town. I will sustain my vote of no. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Thank you. Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-I will agree with Norm that this new proposal submitted by Mr. Matthew Fitzgerald Fuller is
certainly a great improvement, but there is a lot of history to this, and to save time, I won’t go into a long
dissertation. I’ll merely say that I agree and support the position of Norm, and I will not support the
application.
MR. STONE-Mr. Underwood?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be willing to give conditional approval based upon, you know, the fact that we
don’t know what the Park Commission’s going to say about your Class B Permit, you know, for your marina,
but I would say that, if, in fact, the Park Commission comes back and tells you that they won’t grant you one,
that I think you would be in a position where you might have to remove more docks than what you are
proposing this evening, but I guess I would go along this evening and say, yes, I would agree to what your
proposal was that you submitted tonight, but, with you knowing that, you know, if you have to come back
here again, that we probably will ask you to remove more docks, because I think that you do have an
excessive amount of docks on the property that aren’t necessary for your own enjoyment, and I don’t think
that, you know, even though they’ve been there for a long period of time, I think that we have to consider the
future of the lake, and you may want to consider that, too, you know, if you’re forced into that position that,
you know, you may have to give up another couple of docks.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. When we were polled last week I said, on balance, that I would be in favor of it, but I
would look to some concessions, and in my opinion, this new proposal represents some legitimate
concessions to the original proposal, and considering that what we’re really talking about here, as far as the
variances, are side setback relief, and the dock being removed there sort of mitigates that as well. I still
remain in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Thank you. I, too, am in favor of granting the application. I certainly voted for it, albeit with
this information three years ago. I think the Hoppers have improved a piece of property to a large degree. I
mean, it’s a very attractive piece of property now, and I do think, however, that it’s a very complicated issue
because of the property rights, which is not our concern, but I think the applicant is attempting to make it
right, and I certainly would ask that the motion make specific reference to your letter of May 22, so that
nd
while we cannot hold you to some of the things you’re willing to do, at least we would indicate that we are
aware of the concessions you’re willing to make to Mr. Harris and to us, in terms of the one thing that we
really can control is that dock that you say you would take down. So, on balance, I think, three years ago we
had a situation that I believe those of us who were on the Board felt we improved the neighborhood, and
that’s what we’re concerned about here. I think this is a further improvement to the neighborhood, and it’s
certainly an improvement to Mr. Harris who has obviously had a difficult situation for many years and I’m
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
glad that we can help him, although it’s not us helping him, it’s you helping him, and I appreciate that, but,
having said that, as I said, I would like a motion to approve, and I would like it to at least make reference to
the letter in just referring to the conditions that Mr. Fuller put in that letter, don’t spell them out, just refer to
them.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2002 DAVID & JANE HOPPER, Introduced
by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
35 Hanneford Road. The applicant has reconfigured an enclosed peaked boathouse to a flat roof sundeck
boathouse. The applicant requests 13 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the
docks and moorings regulation Section 179-5-050, and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure,
Section 179-13-010(E). Benefit to the applicant. The applicant would be permitted to keep the flat roof
sundeck boathouse that was approved by an earlier variance in 1999. Feasible alternatives, I believe that
feasible alternatives are limited, based on the closeness of the property lines in this particular circumstance,
and the fact that the Hoppers were merely rebuilding on an existing or on the same location as a previous
boathouse which was badly in need of repair at that time. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?
13 feet of relief of a 20 foot setback requirement certainly is moderate. I believe it’s something to consider in
this particular circumstance, but again, I believe that it has to do with the small lot widths that are involved
with the properties there. Effects on the neighborhood or community. I believe that, based on the
concessions made by the Hoppers in their letter dated May 22, 2002, that in fact the impact on the
neighborhood will be positive. There’s the benefit of a new boathouse, an attractive boathouse, and
replacement of a boathouse with a lean-to which was fairly unattractive at that time, is a very positive addition
to the neighborhood. I believe the concessions that they’ve made in their letter will, when completed, when
and if completed, will serve to lessen the intensity of use immediately surrounding the boathouse by the
Hoppers or other people that are involved with the property. I believe that this is also further evidenced by
the fact that the immediately effected neighbor has withdrawn his previous objection to the application based
on the conditions set forth by the Hoppers. Is the difficulty self-created? I think it is self-created in the fact
that the Hoppers wish to replace the boathouse, and they did. On balance, I think that based, and I’m going
to condition our approval on the letter dated May 22, 2002. I believe that, on balance, the test falls in favor
of the Hoppers in this particular case, in the re-approval or reaffirmation of an earlier variance. I’ve been
asked by the Chairman to make reference to the letter dated May 22, 2002 as the actions that we would like to
see take place in order to continue to be in favor of this variance.
Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
nd
MR. HAYES-I think the Hoppers understand that they’ve had to come back before this Board when things
haven’t gone as planned, and I’m sure they’d like to avoid that in the future, and so would we.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes
MR. STONE-There you go. Thank you, and, Mrs. Hopper, your father’s health will be in our thoughts, and
I hope it goes as easily and well as it can.
MRS. HOPPER-Thank you very much, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2002 TYPE II DAVID & LINDA JOHNSON PROPERTY OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: WD WILLIAM CONSTRUCTION, INC. ZONE: WR-1A, APA,
CEA LOCATION: 347 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 1,000 SQ.
FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 43-99, BP 99-709 9
(BEDROOM,KITCHEN, BATH) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 2/13/02 OLD TAX MAP NO.: 14-1-9.1 NEW TAX MAP NO.: 226.12-1-48 LOT
SIZE: 0.47 ACRES SECTION: 179-16F, 179-79
JAMES CULLUM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STONE-Why don’t you read in the latest tabling, which was April 17.
th
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. On April 17, “MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2002
th
DAVID & LINDA JOHNSON, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Charles Abbate:
347 Cleverdale Road. Until the second meeting in May. This tabling is at the request of the applicant.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
Duly adopted this 17 day of April, 2002, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Hayes”
MR. STONE-Is there someone speaking for the Johnsons?
MR. CULLUM-Yes.
MR. STONE-Come forward, state your name, rank and serial number.
MR. CULLUM-Mr. Stone, my name is James Cullum. I’m an attorney for Mr. Johnson, and I was here at the
initial meeting on February 27 when this was first tabled. I’m here tonight at the request of Mr. Johnson to
th
continue the tabling of this matter, for this reason. He cannot be, he’s out of town on work related matters.
It’s something that was unavoidable. I believe he did contact Staff last week to advise of this. Mr. Frank told
him that he had to have someone here to formally request this from the Board itself, and thus I’m present
here tonight. I think, without belaboring an adjournment request or continuation of a tabling request, I think
a couple of times, I know in March, and maybe once in April also, the matter was continue as a result of the
full Board not being here, which is the reason of its initial tabling, to get a full Board, and then Mr. Johnson
made a couple of requests on his own, including this one. So we ask your consideration once more. He has
spoken with Mr. Frank about June. He will be unavailable in June, out of the Country, and I can assure you
that these requests are not made for purposes of delay. We want to get this done, also, especially while the
neighbors of this property who all leave for the winter, we want them here because they’re all favorable. So
we want to get this done. These are unavoidable requests. I believe Mr. Johnson and Mr. Frank discussed
the July 17 meeting, which is acceptable. If the Board thinks that’s too far in the future, we can possibly do
th
it in June without Mr. Johnson, and have his wife here, but that is my request this evening, to start with.
MR. STONE-Let me state this for the record. I certainly, as a member of the Zoning Board, I appreciate the
request, but I want to note, as you did, that it’s been tabled previously, to two specific dates. It wasn’t just
tabled for the normal 62 days. It was tabled for two specific dates, dates that we assume Mr. Johnson would
be available. Now we’re being asked to table this until July 17, in a perfect world for Mr. Johnson. We must
th
keep in mind that this is a building in violation. This is one of those situations where the building was put up
and, lo and behold, it was not in compliance. Therefore, as Chairman, I do not want to take unilateral action
to propose a tabling motion which I could do, but rather I want to poll the Board. If I get indication that a
tabling motion would be positively accepted, then I will propose a tabling motion. If, on the other hand, the
Board indicates its desire to hear it now, I would propose that we do that, and that’s an option that we have.
We have been having, this thing has been on our agenda since February, and tabled, all the times at the
request of the applicant. The Board was ready, whether there was five, six or seven members, the Board was
ready to consider it. So, having said that, I would like to poll the Board and see whether or not they are
willing to table it, or do you want to hear it tonight? I’ll start down at the end. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I would be agreeable to a tabling motion.
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I would also be agreeable to tabling the motion.
MR. STONE-Okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I would be agreeable to tabling it, but just this one last time.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I concur. I think this is it, the last tabling.
MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes?
MR. HAYES-I think that sounds reasonable.
MR. STONE-Mr. McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree.
MR. STONE-Well, Mr. Johnson is very lucky. Since we have six people, I will not make my position known.
I certainly would concur with the rest of the Board, if that’s what the Board is willing to do. Now, it would
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
be Mr. Johnson’s druthers to do it in July? I mean, that’s two more months of a building which is in
violation, and I have no idea what we’re going to do, obviously, since we haven’t heard.
MR. CULLUM-It would be, but it’s not essential. His wife could be here, and one of the things that we
haven’t been able to produce here this evening are a group of letters from neighbors, Mr. Williams is a
contractor, attempted to get in to the place and pick those letters up before he came down here this evening,
couldn’t find them, but we really need one of the Johnsons here to have those things.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. CULLUM-And if June is better, we can do that.
MR. STONE-Well, for me June would be better. The earlier the better. Anybody want to comment on that?
MR. URRICO-I would rather have it in June, also.
MR. STONE-I see another shaking of the head there.
MR. HAYES-I think either meeting in June. That way we’re dealing with it. Either meeting in June is fine.
MR. CULLUM-Okay.
MR. STONE-I mean, we can be, we’ll certainly know when we set the agenda. Is that right, Mr. Frank, when
we set the agenda, we can do some checking, make sure there will be seven, we certainly hope there will be
seven Board members.
MR. FRANK-We can poll the Board prior the meeting like we have done in the past to determine if we are
going to have a full Board or not.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Where are we at with the other alternate? Just because it seems relevant right now.
MR. STONE-None, we don’t have any.
MR. FRANK-I was told that one had been appointed, I think. It’s just a matter of meeting with the Zoning
Administrator and getting, unless you know something I don’t.
MR. STONE-I talked to the Supervisor today, and he didn’t indicate that anybody had been selected that
they’ve, like the first try they didn’t get any interests. People don’t know how much fun they’re missing.
MR. FRANK-I don’t understand why I’ve been poorly misinformed, but.
MR. STONE-Well, as I say, I went to Dennis Brower this afternoon and this is what he told me, that they’ve
got a couple of people now that they’re going to talk to, but that’s all I knew.
MR. FRANK-That could well be.
MR. STONE-Anyway.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2002 DAVID & LINDA JOHNSON, Introduced
by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
347 Cleverdale Road. Until one of the June meetings, the meeting most likely to have a full Board in
attendance, to be determined by Staff as soon as the applications close for the month of June.
Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
nd
MR. STONE-Tabled until one of the June meetings, the meeting most likely to have a full Board in
attendance. Hopefully that will be both meetings, but we will do all in Staff’s ability to ensure that we will
have seven of us here that evening.
MR. ABBATE-Well, Mr. Chairman, a point of issue here. I believe we have a special meeting on the 6 of
th
June, and the poll has already been taken to ensure that we will have a full Board, so we know for a fact that
the 6 of June we will have a full Board here.
th
MR. STONE-That meeting was set specifically for one item and one item only.
MR. ABBATE-We’re going to have one item?
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. STONE-One item and one item only.
MR. FRANK-And the concern there, it’s not going to be in this room. It’s going to be in the Conference
Room because it’s a special request that’s been granted, and I think that this applicant would like to have
numerous individuals neighbors support the application.
MR. ABBATE-Sure, I don’t have a problem with that. Yes, fine.
MR. FRANK-The arrangement has already been made for that. I know for a fact.
MR. ABBATE-I didn’t realize you had special.
MR. STONE-Well, this is a situation where we have been asked, for the record, we have been asked by the
Town Supervisor, because of an extenuating circumstance, to meet with this applicant as soon as possible and
it was set in June, and the applicant, because of his urgency, is, in fact, providing the Town with the cost of
the meeting.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. The applicant will incur all costs associated.
MR. ABBATE-And I’m assuming this is going to be a public meeting?
MR. STONE-It will be a public meeting.
MR. HAYES-It has to be by definition.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. FRANK-Since it’s been brought up, for the record, the applicant is incurring all costs, including paying
the Board for their presence at the meeting.
MR. FRANK-It will be an easy night for you.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anyway, I think I have moved that we table this meeting, this application until one of
the two meetings in June, to be determined by Staff as soon as the applications close for the month of June.
Do I hear a second?
MR. HAYES-Second.
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. CULLUM-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2002 TYPE II BRUCE AND KIM HANSON PROPERTY OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A LOCATION: 33 HANNEFORD ROAD ZONE: WR-1A
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE DETERIORATED STONE/CONCRETE STAIRS
(FROM CAMP TO LAKE) WITH WOOD STAIRS; RELOCATE PORTION OF EXISTINGS
STAIRS THAT ENCROACHES ACROSS SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND SEEKS SIDE
SETBACK RELIEF. CROSS REF. AV 28-2000 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/2002 TAX MAP NO. 240.06-1-15 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES
SECTION 179-4-30
BRUCE HANSON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2002, Bruce and Kim Hanson, Meeting Date: May 22, 2002
“Project Location: 33 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace a
deteriorated stone/concrete stairs (from camp to lake) with wood stairs, which would also entail relocating
two portions that encroach on the property to the north by approximately 1.5 feet. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 13.5 feet of relief from the 15-foot side setback requirement of the WR-1A Zone, § 179-4-
030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to
the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired stairs in the preferred location. 2.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include repairing the existing stone stairs, or constructing
stairs in a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 13.5 feet of
relief from the 15-foot side setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial (90%). 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this
action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the deterioration of the
existing stone/concrete stairs. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-130:
05/01/00; 114 sq. ft. dock. AV 28-2000: 04/21/00; construction of a 114 sq. ft. dock BP 99-176:
06/22/99; 460 sq. ft. deck AV 42-1999: 06/16/99; construction of a 460 sq. ft. deck. Staff comments:
Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Even though the amount of relief may appear
to be substantial, the existing stone/concrete stairs are dangerous and in need of repair or replacement. The
applicant states repairing the stairs is not economically feasible. The applicant states the new stairs will be
more aesthetically pleasing, safer, and will not encroach on the neighboring property as do portions of the
existing stairs. Additionally, constructing a new set of stairs in a compliant location would require disturbing
an undisturbed section of a steep slope. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 8, 2002 Project
Name: Hanson, Bruce and Kim Owner: Bruce and Kim Hanson ID Number: QBY-AV-02-29 County
Project#: May02-32 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: The
application proposes to replace deteriorated stone/concrete stair case (from camp to lake) with wood stairs,
relocate portion of existing stairs that encroaches across side property line. Side setback relief is requested,
the applicant proposes 1.5 feet where 15 feet is required. Site Location: 33 Hanneford Road Tax Map
Number(s): 240.06-1-15 Staff Notes: The applicant proposes to replace deteriorating stone steps with a
wooden staircase. The side setback requirement is 15 feet and the applicant proposes 1.5 feet. Staff does
not identify an impact on County resources. Staff recommends NCI. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 5/10/02.
MR. STONE-Applicant?
MR. HANSON-Bruce Hanson, 33 Hanneford Road. Good evening, Mr. Stone and Board Members. The
description is pretty much self-explanatory, as well as the picture, and you can see the deteriorated steps, and
beginning portion of the proposed steps, which I did start. There was a slight confusion in that I contacted
Dave Hatin, the Building Inspector, and asked if a permit would be required for replacement steps, and he
indicated to me that he generally didn’t require a building permit for replacement stairs. So I did begin the
project, but then this winter, I felt it prudent, because of the activity in the neighborhood, to discuss it with
Craig Brown and he got together with Dave Hatin and they suggested that I apply to this Board for the
variance, and the foliage on the left side of the stairs is blocking where the existing stone stairs zigzag across
onto the Hoppers property. The proposed stairs would come straight down in a straight line to the shoulder
of Pilot Knob Road. The construction is of pressure treated lumber with cedar treads and cedar railings.
MR. STONE-Question. The stairs as you proposed to build them, which is basically straight to a landing and
then straight on down?
MR. HANSON-Right.
MR. STONE-That will all be on your property?
MR. HANSON-Yes.
MR. STONE-So it’s going to eliminate the encroachment across the line that the current stone steps have?
MR. HANSON-Correct.
MR. STONE-They will still be too close to the line, for setback purposes, but they will be all on your, so, in
other words, we don’t have to give permission for you to go on somebody else’s land.
MR. HANSON-Correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. We couldn’t. I know we couldn’t. That’s where I was going. There is a note in the file,
and maybe we ought to read it in, since you just mentioned the highway. Read that note from the Warren
County Highway Department, just to get it in the record.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is the one dated April 23, 2002?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-This is a letter addressed to Mr. Hanson, from George VanDusen, Assistant Engineer,
Warren County DPW, “We are in receipt of your request for a determination if a highway permit is necessary
in order for you to modify your existing stair access to Pilot Knob Road. We have reviewed this and found
that no permit is necessary. It appears that we only have restrictive easement for that section of road. The
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
existing stairs and the proposed stairs both seem to be at about the limit of what we might consider the area
that has been historically been occupied for road maintenance activities.”
MR. STONE-You’re not going to read that final statement, an admission by the highway?
MR. MC NULTY-“Thank you for your patience.”
MR. STONE-Thank you for your patience. That’s worthy of including in the record. Any questions,
gentlemen?
MR. URRICO-Mr. Hanson, can you just point out where the encroachment currently is?
MR. HANSON-Yes. In this picture it’s right to the right of the banister ending. See the pipe banister, the
portion to the right of that.
MR. STONE-Where that landing is.
MR. HANSON-Yes. That portion is one of the two portions that is encroaching, and there’s a one similar to
it, a little further up, just before the landing, zigzags in a similar manner on to the Hopper’s property.
MR. STONE-So, in this particular case, without referring to previous application on the agenda tonight,
you’re giving them back something and they gave up something, in terms of encroachment on land, which is
kind of interesting.
MR. HANSON-Mrs. Hopper did say she would send a note in, in support of my application, although she’s
had some personal matters that prohibit her from doing that, and I believe she spoke to Mr. McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-She spoke to Staff.
MR. STONE-She spoke to Staff.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. At the public hearing, I’ll.
MR. STONE-The public hearing we’ll get there. Okay. Any other questions?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I just have a comment. Mr. Hanson, it must be the weather, because I would like to
congratulate you for not only being prudent but you’re also forthcoming, and I can tell you that’s very
refreshing.
MR. HANSON-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t know what got over me, but I had to tell you. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Any other comments, gentlemen? Hearing none, I will open the public hearing. Anybody
wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed?
Mr. Frank, do you want to report?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. FRANK-Yes, to concur with Mr. Hanson. Mrs. Hopper approached me, and because of her personal
situation with her father’s health, she was unable to submit a written draft supporting the application, but she
tells me she’s in complete favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No other correspondence.
MR. STONE-Then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions of Mr. Hanson? Hearing none, let’s talk about it. Chuck, we’ll let you go
first.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. While this seems like a significant variance, allowing something to be one and a half
feet from the property line when fifteen is required, I think, as the applicant has pointed out, it’s going to be a
definite improvement. I can understand that the cost to replace the existing stairs might be prohibitive, and
that would be continuing an existing encroachment on the neighbor’s property. I also appreciate the
comment in his application, or the Staff notes, anyway, that trying to move the stairs over closer to the center
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
of the property where it might not require a setback variance would disturb an undisturbed portion of a steep
slope, and it seems prudent not to do that. So I think probably what he’s proposing is the wisest course of
action for that property, and I think it’s going to improve the neighborhood rather than be a detriment to it.
So, for those reasons, I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Mr. Himes?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I feel that, overall, this is beneficial, what the applicant wants to do is beneficial
to him and everyone involved, and also make some effort to correct an encroachment matter, also, at the
same time. So I would be in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Since we have a conversation between Mrs. Hopper and Bruce indicating that she
supports the application, Mr. Hanson has been forthcoming and prudent, and I also feel that this is a
reasonable request. I see no reason why not to support the application.
MR. STONE-Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-The new stairs would be an improvement over the stone steps that you have there, not only
correcting the encroachment, but aesthetically, so I’d be in favor of the application, but I’ve got to tell you,
those are scary stairs.
MR. HANSON-That’s why we put two railings.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with Allan. My first thought upon seeing those stairs is, I’m glad I don’t have to
walk up and down those on a regular basis, and I think the application’s in order, and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree with the rest of the Board members, I think, in this particular case. Feasible alternatives
are very limited. My wife got a quote for a stone stairs at my house, and I needed Rolaids for the rest of the
week it was so frightening. So I know that the representations of the expense are accurate, in this particular
case, in my opinion. So I believe, with the lack of feasible alternatives, I believe that the effects on the
neighborhood or community will be positive, you know, improving and safety and appearance and likewise.
So I would be in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Well, I’d certainly agree with the rest of the Board. I think what you’ve started out to do, and I
appreciate the fact that you said, well, maybe I better, and that’s always good. It would have been better to do
that at the very beginning, but that’s okay. I mean, you did it. You understood the situation. I think it’s
going to be a, to go along with your deck, I think it’s going to be a very attractive part of the building, the
property. I also agree that I’m glad I don’t have to go up and down. I know my wife and I, over the years,
have looked at properties on the lake and said, well, that’s a one a day chair. You go down in the morning
and you come back at night. You don’t go up and down very often, unless you’re very young, and I guess I
don’t fit that, but I think it’s a good project, and I think, as Jaime said, I think the balancing test certainly is in
your favor, and I’m not even sure if there’s any negatives at all, and it does correct an encroachment problem
which is always good. I mean, some of those things go back years and years and years, and sometimes they’re
very difficult to correct, but this will correct it, and I think it’ll be a good project. So having said that, I would
like a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2002 BRUCE & KIM HANSON, Introduced
by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
33 Hanneford Road. The applicant proposes to replace a deteriorated stone concrete stairs from camp to
lake with wood stairs, which would also entail relocating two portions that presently encroach on the property
to the north by approximately 1.5 feet. The applicant seeks 13.5 feet of relief from the 15 foot side setback
requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-4-030. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted
to construct the desired stairs in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives. Feasible alternatives could
include repairing the existing stone stairs or constructing the alternate stairs in a more compliant location.
However, that would not gain anything except just satisfying a technicality in the Code, as I see it. So the new
stairs would follow the route of the old ones, with the exception of where they previously crossed over into
the neighboring property, and that is going to be corrected probably because of the straightening of the stairs’
pathway now. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 13.5 feet of relief from the 15 foot side
setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial. We feel certainly there’s no disagreement with that.
However, the stairs have been there for many years and this is a replacement measure. It has some bearing
on how substantial it is. Effects on the neighborhood or community? This will, in most minds, I think, be a
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
visual enhancement to the area, and certainly is going to be a safety improvement, as the result of a new
construction. So I move that we approve the application as submitted.
Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-There you go, sir.
MR. HANSON-Thank you, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2002 TYPE II ROBERT WHITMORE PROPERTY OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A LOCATION: 42 SWEET ROAD ZONE: SFR-1A
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. TWO-CAR ATTACHED
GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO.
296.18-1-34 LOT SIZE: 0.5 ACRES SECTION 179-4-30
ROBERT WHITMORE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2002, Robert Whitmore, Meeting Date: May 22, 2002 “Project
Location: 42 Sweet Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq.
ft. two-car garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 16 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side
setback requirement per the SFR-1A requirements; § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be
permitted to construct the desired garage in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 16 feet of relief
from the 20-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial (80%). 4. Effects on
the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of
this action. The applicants have submitted a signed petition of approval from their four closest neighbors as
part of their application, including both of their immediate neighbors to the west and east. 5. Is this
difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to a lack of a compliant location to construct a
garage that isn’t already developed (pool, septic, etc.). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
etc.): BP 91-734: 10/16/91; construction of a single-family dwelling. Staff comments: Minimal impacts
may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicants lack a compliant location to construct a garage,
and their four closest neighbors have indicated they have no objections to the proposed attached garage.
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Any County?
MR. MC NULTY-No County.
MR. STONE-Mr. Whitmore. Anybody, when we start to read the application, the applicant may come up at
that point. We don’t want to sit here saying, is somebody here.
MR. HAYES-You may not want to, but you can.
MR. STONE-That’s true.
MR. WHITMORE-Hello. My name is Robert Whitmore, and I reside at 42 Sweet Road in Queensbury. I’m
proposing the construction of a 576 square foot two car attached garage. I’d like to make an apology to the
Board members. On my submission of the pictures, I probably caused some confusion, and I put the before
and after photo. I didn’t construct it yet, but.
MR. STONE-Fortunately the dormer windows were different.
MR. WHITMORE-Yes. I should have used existing and proposed. Sorry if I caused you any confusion.
MR. STONE-I was going to ask you a question. Where is that house?
MR. WHITMORE-It’s down on East Sanford, in the City of Glens Falls.
MR. STONE-It looks identical, except the dormers are round.
MR. WHITMORE-Yes.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. STONE-Anything else you want to add?
MR. WHITMORE-No, I don’t, except that it is my only outdoor, would be my only outdoor storage. I have
one storage shed out in the very back corner of the lot, and that’s only an eight by eight, and with a family of
five, bikes and lawn equipment, snow blowers and such, I think it would be an improvement to the property
and to the safety and well-being of neighbors.
MR. STONE-Are you the original owner of this house?
MR. WHITMORE-Yes.
MR. STONE-What took you so long?
MR. WHITMORE-Money.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s a reasonable answer. I don’t know how you get along without a garage up here
in the North County, but I have no problem. Anybody else want questions?
MR. URRICO-The house to your left, that’s Number 42, Number 40, I mean?
MR. WHITMORE-48, I think. To the left?
MR. URRICO-To the left.
MR. WHITMORE-I think it’s 48 going down the hill.
MR. URRICO-The one that would be next to the garage.
MR. WHITMORE-Yes.
MR. STONE-The effected neighbor, the most effected neighbor.
MR. WHITMORE-Yes. Her name is Jaime.
MR. BRYANT-Jaime White?
MR. WHITMORE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Any other questions?
MR. HIMES-Yes, just one, Lew.
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
MR. HIMES-The roof of the garage, that’s going to slope so snow or runoff is going to land on your
driveway?
MR. WHITMORE-Yes, on my driveway. It would be a low-profile, similar to the pictures, a low-profile style
instead of the high cape.
MR. STONE-But strong enough to take snow load?
MR. WHITMORE-Yes, absolutely.
MR. HIMES-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Anything else? Hearing no more questions, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to
speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Any
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. STONE-Anybody else have any further questions?
MR. HAYES-Maybe you should read that, as part of the application, should we read that in?
MR. STONE-Yes, there was that, you’re right. Yes. Here, why don’t you read that.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. MC NULTY-As a part of the application, there is a statement that says, “To Whom It May Concern: I
live in the area of 42 Sweet Road and I have seen the plans for the Whitmore’s attached two car garage. I
have no objections to them being granted the variance for this addition to their home” And it’s signed by
Jaime White and Janey White, 48 Sweet Road, Carol Du Puis at 43 Sweet Road, Pamela Benack and Michael
Smith, 37 Sweet Road, and Dick Simms at 38 Sweet Road.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s in the public hearing, and then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other further questions? If not, let’s start with Norm.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. In short, I’m in favor of this application, namely because of the neighborhood
support, and from any appearance that I can see, it’s not going to be, jeopardize anyone’s property or, I don’t
see any conflict at all. So I’m in favor of the application. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Whitmore’s application, in my opinion, is reasonable. There is
support from those individuals who could potentially be affected. There is a lack of compliance for another
location, so, based upon that, I think his request is reasonable. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I agree with what Chuck and Norm have said. There’s really no place else on the lot to put a
garage. The only other real alternative would be to build a narrower garage, and that wouldn’t really serve the
purpose. So I’d be in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in favor of the application as well. The side setback seems stark, but when you
couple the drop off, it somewhat mitigates that side setback, in fact it mitigates it quite a bit. So I would be in
favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree with the rest of the Board. Certainly the relief is substantial on the outset, but I believe
the rest of the factors involved with our test fall in the applicant, and there is a neighbor, immediately
impacted neighborhood support on record. So I believe it falls in favor of the applicant.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll basically agree. I think logically, in the place proposed is the only logical place, given
the lay of the land and vegetation in the area, I don’t think it’s going to have a great impact, and, as has been
indicated, the other heavily weighing factor here, I think, is all the neighbors tend to agree with this opinion,
that it’s an appropriate action. So I think, in some, it’s going to be a positive effect on the neighborhood, and
I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-I concur. I think this is a good application, particularly when the neighbor, the most affected
neighbor, has no objection to it. That’s the one who’s going to have to look at it more than anybody else,
and they’re saying go ahead, and I think, as I said earlier, I think any home in this area, a garage is almost a
necessity, and I think, looking at all the factors that we’ve talked about, it certainly comes down in favor of
granting this application. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve.
MR. URRICO-I’ll take it, Mr. Chairman.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2002 ROBERT WHITMORE, Introduced by
Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
42 Sweet Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 576 square foot, two car attached garage. The
applicant requests 16 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement for the SFR-1A
requirements, 179-40-030. The benefit to the applicant would be to construct the desired garage in that
location. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited for this applicant. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance?
Yes, it is, 16 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate to
substantial. However, there is a sharp drop off to the left of this property which mitigates that side setback
relief. The effects on the neighborhood, minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result
of this action. The applicant has submitted a signed petition of approval from their four closest neighbors as
part of the application, including both of their immediate neighbors to the west and east, and is the difficulty
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
self-created? It may be attributed to a lack of compliant location to construct a garage that isn’t already
developed.
Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-There you go, sir.
MR. WHITMORE-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2002 TYPE II DONALD W. MILLER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME
AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A LOCATION: 14 JAY ROAD, GLEN LAKE ZONE: WR-1A
APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 12 FT. BY 14 FT. TOOL SHED ADDITION ONTO AN
EXISTING BOAT STORAGE BUILDING/GARAGE AND SEEKS SIDE SETBACK RELIEF.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/2002 TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-7 LOT SIZE: 0.51 ACRES
SECTION 179-4-30; 179-5-20
DONALD & HELEN MILLER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2002, Donald W. Miller, Meeting Date: May 22, 2002 “Project
Location: 14 Jay Road, Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 12’ x 14’
attached accessory structure onto an existing garage/boat storage structure. Relief Required: Applicant
requests 16 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A Zone; § 179-4-
030 and for the Accessory Structures regulations; § 179-5-020. Criteria for considering an Area Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to
maintain the 168 sq. ft. attached accessory structure in the current location. 2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives seem to be limited to removing the structure and constructing it in a compliant location.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 16 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum
requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial (80%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, as the
applicant claims his neighbor whose property is closest to the structure has no objections. 5. Is this
difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 94638: 10/31/94; replace roof on 26’ x 39’ garage. Staff
comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The attached structure is hardly
visible from the road, and from the lake, it is not readily discernible from the garage. Additionally, the
applicant claims his neighbor whose property is closest to the shed has no objections. However, no inside
wall separates the new construction from the recently enclosed boat storage shed. Staff is concerned the
open design allows for the potential use for automobile storage, which is not allowed by code (the existing
three-bay garage is already above the 900 sq. ft. maximum allowed for garages). SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Go, sir.
MR. MILLER-My name is Don Miller. This is my wife Helen. We both reside at 14 Jay Road East. First of
all, I’d like to apologize for constructing this prior to coming to the Board. I had my head in the wrong place,
I believe. I’d like to make a correction, if I could. It is not a garage boat/storage area. It is a boat storage
area, and the addition that I put on is a tool storage for my garden tractor and my four-wheeler and my (lost
word).
MR. STONE-Which part is the boat storage? All of it?
MR. MILLER-The boat storage is where it says existing boat shed.
MR. STONE-The one that’s closest to the lake?
MR. MILLER-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-That door there.
MR. MILLER-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Now is that all open? Is that on the one building?
MR. MILLER-It is now, yes. What I have, I have two garden tractors, one is a John Deere 318 garden
tractor. It’s got a four foot mower deck and attached bagger which is approximately five and a half feet wide.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
I need like a six or six and a half foot opening to get it in and move it around a different place. So I do come
in the front of the boat shed when the boat’s not in there in the summer time, and park it in the back. That’s
my intent.
MR. STONE-And the three garages are used for vehicle?
MR. MILLER-That’s correct. I have a restored antique car in one and (lost words) when I have the other
two stalls. I do have a letter, also, from my neighbor, I believe it’s in the record, or I have copies, if you’d like
to see them.
MR. STONE-We’ll read it in at the public hearing.
MR. MILLER-Okay.
MR. STONE-Bruce, this requires site plan review?
MR. FRANK-I don’t believe so, because he’s only looking for relief for the storage shed.
MR. STONE-Well, it says accessory structures of less than 120 square feet shall be a permitted use.
Accessory structures in non-residential zones that exceed an area of 120 square feet shall be subject to site
plan review in the zoning district shown, and all we have is it’s an allowed use? Is that all we’re saying? Even
though it’s oversized?
MR. FRANK-You brought up an interesting question. From my recollection and conversations with the
Zoning Administrator, he didn’t require any site plan review. I will ask him again. It could be an oversight.
MR. MILLER-I was informed it was not a (lost words).
MR. FRANK-That’s what I, maybe.
MR. STONE-It’s 120 or it used to be 100, you could almost put it anywhere as long as it’s no closer than five
feet, but when you get oversize.
MR. FRANK-Actually, the Code has changed, myself, Mr. Hatin and Craig all discussed this application. I
don’t recall that. I can look into it for you.
MR. STONE-Well, I’m reading this 179-5-020. It’s a permitted use, but it does say, as I read this thing,
maybe I’m not reading it as clearly. This is Page 53.
MR. MILLER-Is that a County Planning Board, is that what you’re asking?
MR. STONE-No. I’m talking our Planning Board.
MR. MILLER-Because they had me scheduled for May 8 to go out, to Lake George.
th
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, that reads accessory structures in non-residential zones, that exceed an area of
120 square feet shall be subject to site plan review.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. As I say, I knew I was not reading, I read it quickly. Thank you for that.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Staff.
MR. STONE-Yes, go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-Actually, I have a couple of questions. We’re talking about accessory structure, but isn’t this
nothing more than a giant garage with rooms? I mean, because basically that’s what it is. Aren’t we talking
about a garage? That’s the first question, and the second question is, if the boat area/storage area/addition to
the garage, whatever you want to call it, was built already and then enclosed and then this other room was
added on to it, from my calculations, shouldn’t there have been a variance for that portion of it alone, because
if you figure it’s four feet from the line, now, and you take 14 feet is 18 feet, and actually, if you draw a
straight line to the line, it’s going to be less than 18 feet. So, in reality, the first structure should have had
variance before this additional structure should have been put up. Back to my original question. In my view,
this is nothing more than an addition to a garage.
MR. FRANK-I agree with what you’re saying. That setback from the boat storage would be approximately
18 feet from the property line. According to the Director of Building and Codes, that structure was an open
structure, pre-existing before the Ordinance. He had gone to Mr. Hatin and requested, hey, I want to do
what’s right, can I enclose this? Mr. Hatin directed him he could. The applicant, I guess, constructed the
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
shed after that, and he may tell you the same, and Mr. Hatin returned to the property and saw that and said,
you’re going to have to have a variance for that I’m sure.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but if there’s no wall between the boat storage area and the tool shed, then you probably
built the shed at the time that you enclosed the boat area. Right?
MR. MILLER-Correct.
MR. FRANK-The applicant explained to me, and I saw this also, he has a four by four all terrain vehicle in
the storage shed that he accessed through the garage opening, I shouldn’t call it a garage opening, the boat
storage door opening, which I’m showing on screen right now. He can’t get it through the other door. So I
talked to the Zoning Administrator about this. The only thing in the Code that dictates what is a garage is, if
you storage automobiles in it.
MR. BRYANT-Well, this is part of the same structure.
MR. FRANK-Well, I noted that in my notes, just what you’re saying. I’m concurring with what you’re saying.
Staff is concerned, what’s keeping him from pulling a vehicle all the way through to the back to that shed. So
I have addressed that. I concur with what you’re saying. There is that possibility. How do we prevent that?
I don’t know. I mean, do we take the applicant at his word that he’s only going to store lawn maintenance
equipment, his four by four all terrain vehicle.
MR. BRYANT-I think, I don’t necessarily agree with that, because I think if the possibility exists to store
vehicles, then it should be considered a garage. Whether it’s used for, because today Mr. Miller may sell the
property to Mr. Jones who’ll decide to put four cars in that building. So, if you’re capable of storing a vehicle
in that area, then it should be considered a garage.
MR. FRANK-I concur with what you’re saying. The Code doesn’t support what you’re saying, though, and I
know exactly what you’re saying, because the new Code does allow for accessory structures, and they limit the
size, the old Code didn’t. You could have a large accessory structure that would not be considered a garage,
and we’ve seen some recent applications where an accessory structure was built that had no doors on it. You
could park any vehicle, you know, large vehicle in those stalls, but that was not considered a garage. So I
guess it’s a gray area in the Code.
MR. STONE-Well, I think what’s being said is that, by the way, when was this garage, when was the main
building built?
MR. ABBATE-’94.
MR. STONE-No, that was the roof.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. MILLER-We had a new roof put on, and that’s what I got the permit for.
MRS. MILLER-The two car was there when we bought it in ’79.
MR. STONE-’79. So it pre-dates Code. That’s all I’m getting at.
MRS. MILLER-We added on the third stall in ’82.
MR. MILLER-’83.
MR. STONE-That is to the right or the left as I look at the lake?
MRS. MILLER-It’s where this new addition is, it’s behind that.
MR. STONE-Okay. That was in ’82, though.
MR. MILLER-Right.
MRS. MILLER-’82.
MR. STONE-That was still before Code.
MRS. MILLER-Yes.
MR. MILLER-Correct.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. STONE-Okay. So wherever it was was legal at the time.
MRS. MILLER-Yes.
MR. STONE-And I hear what Mr. Bryant says. This is one big area now. If this were all re-sided. This is a
hypothetical. If it were all re-sided, and it all looked the same, I couldn’t tell where new construction ended
and old construction began, it would be one big open space, approximately, I didn’t do the square footage,
but a very large garage.
MR. MILLER-I think you’re misinterpreting. The three car existing garage is, there’s a wall between that and
the boat shed. It’s not all open in there.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MILLER-Where that new garage door that he just had up there, that is solely separate from the three car
garage. The back of the garage is all the way through the whole three pieces of that.
MR. STONE-Okay, and how about the last, the tool shed that we’re talking about? Is that open to the garage
or open to the boat?
MR. MILLER-No, it’s open to the outside, open to the boat, that’s all.
MR. STONE-To the boat. So, in other words, that back area is a separate room?
MR. MILLER-It’s only 12 foot by 39 feet.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MILLER-It’s totally separate from the garage.
MR. STONE-That helps me, at least I understand it. Did anybody else have questions that way? If you
didn’t, that’s good. Any other comments, questions? Let me open the public hearing, see if anybody wants
to speak in favor of this? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-There’s one piece of correspondence, addressed to Bruce Frank, from John Bernhard, and
it says, “From our recent conversation, I am the immediate adjacent Jay Road East property owner of Don
and Helen Miller most directly affected by their application for a variance and relief from side setback zoning
restrictions. Please take notice that I have no objection to the Town of Queensbury granting the Miller’s
request for a variance. Very Truly Yours, John H. Bernhard”
MR. STONE-Their property is to the left of that picture?
MR. MILLER-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any others?
MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else.
MR. STONE-All right. Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions? So, as I understand, you have a three car garage with three vehicles in it,
and that’s separate, that’s been there since at least 1982, the total building. You have an area that you
enclosed, when?
MR. MILLER-Originally an open boat shed with latticework on the sides. I enclosed it with plywood and a
door.
MR. STONE-When was that?
MR. MILLER-When I constructed the tool shed.
MR. STONE-So that whole thing was done at the same time, and that’s the one that you did without a
variance.
MR. MILLER-Yes, the tool shed was, yes.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. STONE-All right. Let’s talk about it, gentlemen. Let’s start with Mr. Abbate.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My initial reaction to this is concern. Allan has raised
an issue, in terms of possible requirement for a variance, but apparently no variance is required for this.
There is currently a three bay garage that I believe somewhere in the notes indicates about 900 feet, square
feet, which is above what is allowable, and at the present time, I’m not sure I know which direction I’m going
on in this one, Mr. Chairman. So I’d like to conclude my remarks at this time, and listen to what the other
Board members have to say.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-Well, I think it’s insane to have a Code that says that a building that primarily houses
automobiles is a garage, and a building that primarily houses boats a boat storage building when in reality you
could store a car in the boat storage building or a boat in the garage. So, you know, I don’t know. The
building is already built. I don’t know how I feel about this. I view it, and I know that Staff disagrees with
me, but I view it as nothing but a giant garage, and as I calculate here, you know, the garage is 200 plus square
feet above what it should be. So I really don’t know how I feel, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Urrico?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I tried to look at this application as if it was coming to us before something were being
built, and using the test that we’re asked to use in judging this, I’d like to go down the list. The benefit to the
applicant, well, the applicant would be permitted to maintain the 168 square foot attached accessory structure
in the current location. If this were new, he would be asking for permission to put this up, and probably have
more storage space. So I’ll give that to the applicant. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited, because
without that you’d have to either remove the structure or construct it in a compliant location. Had you come
to us, I don’t know I would have been in favor of that, of the construction at all. Is the relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance? Well, 16 feet of relief is substantial. It’s only one foot more than the current
garage, boat storage area, excuse me, but again, it’s, this is pretty close to the side setback, and presented new,
I don’t think I would be in favor of it. There are no effects on the neighborhood or community as far as I
can tell, though one neighbor did send something in saying that he was in favor of it, and, yes, the difficulty is
self-created, and I think, based on the test, I’d have to come down against it. I’m sorry.
MR. STONE-Jaime, before I go to you, I have a question I want ask. I believe Mr. Miller said, Bruce, that
this was all done at one time. I mean, he enclosed the overhang area, and continued on with what we’re
calling the tool shed, but it sounds to me that this is not a 12 by 14 building. This is actually a 39 by 12
building.
MR. FRANK-The boat storage structure was pre-existing.
MR. STONE-But that was a lean-to. It wasn’t a building. It wasn’t enclosed.
MR. FRANK-He could legally enclose it.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-So that’s why it’s not included in this application. The storage shed is what we’re considering.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think Mr. Stone’s question, as asked, and Mr. Urrico’s depiction of the thing also, I have
the same trouble, in a sense, and I certainly understand Mr. Bryant’s opinion as well. I think in this particular
case that there’s already a very large structure there, as a three car garage. That’s what it is, and you’ve said
that’s what it is, and that seems perfectly logical to me, and also honest, but in this particular case, I think, by
enclosing the boat storage area, which was your right to do, the practical reality was that you gain more space,
and you have a building that’s larger, in cumulative, than garages are allowed in this particular case, and that h
has to be something that we consider. When I couple that with the idea that you’re asking for 80% of relief
for another structure, which is also attached to the structure that you just kind of gain more space in my
mind. I think the overall test would weigh against the applicant. I think that I have sympathy for the
applicant in that Mr. Hatin said you could go ahead and enclose that and Staff concurs that he, that was
correct for Mr. Hatin to say that, that he could, but I don’t think that it was reasonable for you to presume
that that would also allow you to put this additional tool area in. I don’t think it has a great impact on the
neighborhood, and I don’t think it’s visually improper or troublesome or anything in this particular
circumstance, but I think, on balance, there is a certain amount of creeping non-conformity here that I think,
in the end, weighs most in my mind, as far as effects on the neighborhood or community. So I would be
against this application.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. MC NULTY-This is a tough one. If what was before us was construction of that whole structure on the
back side it would be a little easier to say no. I, too, have a concern that a three car garage, in effect you’ve
got a fourth stall on the back side, even without considering the tool shed, and as it’s been pointed out, the
concern may not be what you do with it but what a successive buyer does or the guy after that, and yet what
you’ve done, in many ways, strikes me as being logical, but I guess what I’ve got to do is what another
member mentioned, is look at it like we do sometimes and say, if you had come to the Board before
constructing the tool shed, and asked for permission, would I or would I have not given my approval, and
I’m afraid, looking at it, considering that you already had, in effect, a fourth stall there, and that this was
encroaching on a side setback even more, I probably would have said no, and so that’s where I’m going to
have to be tonight and I’m going to be opposed.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Before I give how I feel, I’d like to comment on one thing, that with all the space
there on your property, I guess to the east or to the north, there’s quite an assembly of stuff that’s laying out
there. It kind of looks a little bit like junk, and there was a trailer hitch on the other side of your garage
leaning up against the rope.
MR. MILLER-Most of that stuff is supposed to go into that shed when it’s completed. That’ll clean up the
yard.
MR. HIMES-Okay. That was what I was going to be asking. If it is the technicality in the Code that we can
have a garage, three car garage some 900 square feet or a pre-existing one such as yours, it’s a little more
perhaps, and then we’ve got this pre-existing shed type thing which is within your right to enclose, and then
you put on this other thing, the storage shed. Well, the thing that you sided was, I guess, from what I
understand, technically speaking is not part of the garage, even though from all sensibilities I have to agree
with what Allan has said, is that, I don’t know how that can be so, but that’s the way it is. Now, between that,
where I guess that’s your boat, and the storage shed, is that wide open?
MR. MILLER-That’s correct.
MR. HIMES-Okay. I don’t know whether the aspect of the storage shed being possibly used for some
additional storage, for vehicles. Some time in the past we had a similar situation that I recall and we
compromised on there being something built to narrow it slightly so that a vehicle couldn’t get in and out, but
other stuff like what you’re speaking about could be. So, although I feel somewhat negatively about the
application, I can understand your situation because of all these technicalities in this particular case, it seems
to me, and I would tend to support the application, if it could be agreed upon that there would be some
construction done inside, so the storage shed is actually a storage shed separating it’s end from the boat
storage one.
MR. MILLER-I would have no objection doing that.
MR. HIMES-And I don’t think that I’m throwing the baby out with the bath water by making that kind of a
concession, although I do sympathize with what Al said and so on, but I think you’re in an okay position as
far as I’m concerned. So, with that as a concession, I would support the application. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Unfortunately, I can’t be that magnanimous. We’re charged, on the Zoning Board of Appeals,
with balancing the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
community, not just the neighborhood, and the criteria, according to Town law, says both the neighborhood
and the community. Now in terms of the neighborhood, you’ve got a neighbor who says no problem, but we
have a Town of approximately 12,000 parcels of land that we have to think about and we have to think the
effect of what we do might have on other pieces of property. This is a big storage building. This is a huge
garage. If you had come to me, as we say, with clean hands, as some of our people have indicated, and said,
could I put this shed on the back, that close to the line, on the back of this building, I feel definitely I would
have said no. I would have seen no justification. You’ve got an oversized building now that you use as a
garage. The Town Code calls for 900 square feet, for a three car garage. Somebody did the math, but it’s well
over the 900 square feet for the garage part of the building, which is adequate for the residents of the Town
of Queensbury, and I certainly would have looked at it then and said, no. I think that, certainly it’s going to
benefit you, but I think, in terms of the overall effect on the community, I think it’s going to have a very
negative effect, and I really don’t think it’s that much of a hardship with that much garage space, I certainly
can be sympathetic, you want to store things inside. I certainly understand on the lake you want a boat and
you have boat storage. You’ve taken care of that, but I think it’s, quite frankly, I think it’s overkill to put this
thing on the back of the building, right next to the property line, and so, looking at my survey of the votes, I
will ask for a motion to deny this application, to deny.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2002 DONALD W. MILLER, Introduced by Paul
Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
14 Jay Road, Glen Lake. The applicant has already constructed a 12 by 14 attached accessory structure onto
an existing garage/boat storage structure. The applicant requests 16 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum
side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-4-030, and for the accessory structures regulation
179-5-020. Benefit to the applicant would be that he would be permitted to maintain the 168 square foot
attached accessory structure in the current location. Feasible alternatives. I believe that there are feasible
alternatives to locating this additional structure within the setback zone. I think that there already is a very
large garage there, in this particular circumstance, and I see that there are feasible alternatives to the
placement of this structure where it is. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Certainly 16 foot
relief from the 20 foot minimum requirement, which is 80% relief, is substantial. Effects on the
neighborhood or community. I believe that while not a large impact, in this particular circumstance, on the
immediate neighborhood, I believe that the effect and precedent on the community of allowing additional
structures in the setback zone for buildings which already exceed, in total square footage, our garage
requirements, I believe that that is possibly a precedent that could have a negative impact on the community,
and, in this case, in this circumstance. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe that it is. I do believe Mr. Miller
was not aware of this. I think he came here and said that, and I believe him, but I believe that it certainly is
self-created, in that he constructed the additional area himself, without permission, in advance. So it’s a self-
created difficulty. On balance, reluctantly, I think this test that we’re charged with falls against the applicant,
in this case, and I think, therefore, we should deny the variance.
Duly adopted 22 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Himes
MR. STONE-This means two things. One, you’ve got to go see the Zoning Administrator, Code
Enforcement, and discuss with them. In other words, your building is now illegal.
MR. MILLER-Okay.
MR. STONE-You have two remedies, and he can explain those to you. You can possibly come back with a
modified proposal, but then we have to agree that it is, in fact, significantly different than what you already
have, which is kind of hard, or you have other recourses, but Mr. Frank, our Code Enforcement Officer, and
Mr. Brown, our Zoning Administrator, can tell you what those are. I’m sorry, but that’s how we feel.
MR. MILLER-Okay.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED PROSPECT CHILD AND FAMILY
CENTER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES
ASSOCIATES LOCATION: 133 AVIATION ROAD ZONE: SFR-1A APPLICANT HAS
CONSTRUCTED A 4 FT. STOCKADE FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE PARCEL
AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FENCE ORDINANCE.
CROSS REF. SPR 26-2002 AND SPR 10-2000 MODIFICATION SPR 2-88; AV 22-2000, AV 54-2000
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/2002 TAX MAP NO. 289.18-2-10 LOT SIZE: 1.86 ACRES
SECTION 179-5-60
JON LAPPER & RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2002, Prospect Child and Family Center, Meeting Date: May 22,
2002 “Project Location: 133 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed
a 4-foot high stockade fence along the east property line that extends 15 feet into the architectural front yard.
Relief Required: Applicant requests 15 feet of relief for that section of stockade fence in the architectural
front yard per the Fence Ordinance, § 179-5-060 (C4). Criteria for considering an Area Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to
keep that section of stockade fence in the architectural front yard. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives may include converting the 15 feet of stockade fence into a “picket-type” fence. 3. Is this relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 15 feet of relief from the requirement may be interpreted as
minimal to moderate being the fence extends 15 feet into a 50-foot front yard (30%). 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this
action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the applicant appeasing the
neighbor to the east (Stanley Koskinski) who requested the fence be constructed (see letter from Mr.
Kosinski submitted with application). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 10-
2000 Modification: to be reviewed 05/23/02; addition of a 4’ stockade fence along east property line. BP
2001-389: 06/25/01; commercial addition to school. BP 2001-386: 06/07/01; septic alteration. SP 10-
2000: 09/26/00: commercial addition to school. AV 22-2000: 05/17/00; impermeable area relief. Staff
comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipate as a result of this action being the fence was constructed to
appease the neighbor to the east. The neighbor, Stanley Kosinski, requested the fence be constructed so as to
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
prevent debris such as paper and sand from blowing on his property and to prevent cars from parking on his
land. The violation was discovered by the Code Compliance Officer during his inspection of the approved
Site Plan 10-2000. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. STONE-Any County?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t believe so. The agenda says there’s County, but I don’t find any in the file.
MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen?
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Dick Jones. Putting this request in context
for a second, of course I know you were all at the site, and the building addition that was designed by Dick
Jones has been very well received by the community and by Prospect School. I was just up there this week,
and it’s really something compared to what was there. As part of that process, which you all helped in,
because we did need a few variances to get it accomplished, the neighbors, I don’t know if it was here or
during site plan, the neighbors requested that the area in the back be fenced and that the significant Canadian
Hemlock planting be added as well, and I know the neighbors have been pleased by how that came out. It’s
one of those mitigation measures that comes out even nicer than it looks on paper. It was not anticipated
that there would be a variance needed for this 15 feet in the front that was done as the application provides,
because the neighbor requested it. So we’re sort of here at your pleasure, and if the Board feels it should stay,
it’ll stay, and if the Board feels it should come down, of course, it’ll come down. Generally, the rule about
having fences in the front yard is because a fence can be an eyesore or an obstruction, and in this case it
seems that it’s there, something positive to separate the School use from the residential use. So we would just
like to make the neighbor happy, and that’s why we’re here, and we’ll do what you ask.
MR. STONE-Those two collection boxes, three collection boxes, they were in site plan?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-So they were approved?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-And what is, is that the traffic light box there that almost looks like it’s a sign?
MR. JONES-Yes. It’s actually a telephone service equipment box.
MR. STONE-Is it? Okay. So nothing to do with you?
MR. JONES-No, thank God.
MR. HIMES-I’m surprised that the collection boxes, it wasn’t considered to put them in back of the
property, even though I can see it being a convenience to have it close to the road for the people that are
dropping stuff off, and the reason I say that mainly is because when I was over there, there was a huge pile of
old cardboard boxes and stuff all piled up, just on the right hand side of those things, occupying almost as
much area as two of the storage boxes. It looked awful. I was kind of surprised.
MR. LAPPER-Admittedly, it’s not one of the nicer parts of the site plan, but it’s an important part of their
fundraising that they tell us from Prospect.
MR. STONE-Just out of curiosity, Mr. Lapper and Mr. Jones, during site plan, this neighbor who requested
the fence, was he aware those boxes were going to be there before the fence was requested?
MR. JONES-They were actually there prior to our site plan review.
MR. STONE-They were?
MR. JONES-Yes, they were.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s helped Mr. Kosinski, in a sense?
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-I have a question for counsel. Was counsel aware of the fact that the applicant had
constructed a four foot high stockade fence?
MR. LAPPER-No one asked my opinion before they put the fence up. I learned about this through Dick,
two weeks ago.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. ABBATE-That’s a good answer.
MR. LAPPER-I would have looked it up and got them the right answer if they’d asked.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, counsel.
MR. STONE-Is that why you’re not even listed on the application?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Dick can do a lot of things without counsel.
MR. HIMES-Was there any thought, I mean, what you referred to, the further back. You’ve got the plantings
on top of like a berm. It looks so nice. You can’t see it in the picture. It’s to the right where the fence gets a
little higher, you know, but on the School side of the fence there are these landscaped berms and plantings on
them. They look very nice. I was wondering why you didn’t bring that out, that concept out, instead of just
stopping it and continuing with a shorter, but.
MR. JONES-When we went to site plan review, what really predicated the location of the taller fence with the
berm was the directional flow of surface runoff on the site, and it was determined, at the site plan meeting
when that was approved, or added to the site plan review, that we continue it to point where the grade
actually starts to go back up hill, and that’s why we stopped it at that location. At that point we could have
continued it, but we didn’t. During the actual construction process, and you can see from this picture, the
contractor actually started to cut a blaze line all the way to Aviation Road because the contractor who was
doing the cutting assumed that the fence was going, along with the berm, to Aviation Road. At that point,
with the construction on site, and him cutting the lower branches on those trees that were there, we actually
had site staff from the facility parking in that area because of the parking conditions on site. With the
expansion of the parking, the expansion of the facility, parking is much more reasonable now because we
have the additional parking behind the addition and the Administration Building to the west. So that has
been alleviated, but we still, at the request of the neighbor at that point, opted to continue the fence. We
didn’t feel that it was appropriate to continue the berm, and we wanted to provide the fence, at that point to
stop his visibility. He was complaining about the cars. He was complaining about things blowing through.
So we continued the fence, not really realizing that it was a front yard setback. We assumed it was side yard.
MR. HIMES-Because you do have chain link fences though on a lot of the rest of the area.
MR. JONES-Yes. That is on the other side in the enclosures of the playground. That’s correct.
MR. HIMES-Yes. I might think that the short stockade fence would be better than the chain link, myself.
MR. URRICO-Theoretically, if that four foot fence were not there, would those collection containers be
moved further back?
MR. JONES-No, there’s not room to move them further back.
MR. URRICO-So they would be there regardless of whether the fence was there?
MR. JONES-Right. With the construction of the berm, now the berm comes right out to the edge of the
existing parking lot on this side, and as you go to the back of the other building, there’s actually gates that
were added as part of the site plan review, to close off that loop at night. So there’d be no access back there.
MR. STONE-Anything else, before I open the public hearing? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody
wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KEITH KOSINSKI
MR. KOSINSKI-My name is Keith Kosinski on 150 Aviation Road. I’m here representing my dad, the one
that was complaining before.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s the property to the east?
MR. KOSINSKI-Yes.
MR. STONE-Immediately to the east.
MR. KOSINSKI-Yes.
MR. STONE-Other side of the fence. Okay. Go ahead.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. KOSINSKI-Yes. We were having a lot of problem with the garbage, and like on the weekends, people
come and they pile up, whatever, just garbage to get rid of, old papers, clothing, and any kind of really thing
they can get rid of out of their house. Like I took a picture this past Sunday, and I didn’t get it developed yet,
but it was stacked to the right, probably, I would say, six to eight boxes.
MR. STONE-I’m digressing, but have you brought this to the attention of Prospect School?
MR. KOSINSKI-Well, I just saw this one, I think my dad has said it, but it hasn’t been too bad, but lately
spring, spring clean up.
MR. STONE-So you’re saying people, ostensibly, contributing clothes, which I assume those are for, leaving
other things?
MR. KOSINSKI-Yes. Sometimes it’s more beyond clothes, busted up stuff, you know, things they can’t get
rid of, but we’ve been having a lot of problems with papers, and actually there’s still like, I would say a five
inch space between that fence, which I wouldn’t mind seeing them continue on out and blocking that out.
MR. STONE-Okay, but you’re certainly in favor of what has been constructed?
MR. KOSINSKI-Yes, I have no problem.
MR. STONE-That’s the only thing that we have on the agenda, is the 15 feet.
MR. KOSINSKI-Plus, like he was saying before, when they were constructing the other part, the guy just cut
down all the branches which we had blocking the parking lot, and so if that fence was to come down, it
would be a wide open shot right now.
MR. STONE-I had heard something about cutting. It was branches that were cut, not whole trees?
MR. KOSINSKI-No, branches. They were all way down to the bottom which, they sort of blocked out the
view, you know, not much, but now if it came down it would be just a wide open.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anything else?
MR. KOSINSKI-No, that’s it. I’m in favor. Thanks.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to
the application? Opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-We have one piece of correspondence. It’s a letter from Roman G. Jarosh, at 8
Crownwood Lane, he says “To paraphrase a poet or writer of the past “Fences do not good neighbors
make”. What an eyesore stockade fences present to those who live next to them. They almost invite creative
graffiti to add beauty and color to them. I would not object to the fence if it was taken down after the bushes
and trees grew up and filled out to create a natural border and fence around the wasteland of the beautiful
parking lot. To let property owners do as they please without regard to zoning requirements, especially after
the fact (is this arrogance or what?) denigrates the reasons for the creation of these ordinances. As you may
have guessed I am not in favor of any variances or modification, unless Prospect School institutes a tree
planting campaign for their property especially a creation of a green space of islands in and around their vast
parking areas. Sincerely, Roman G. Jarosh 8 Crownwood Lane”
MR. STONE-Can you show us where this property is, Bruce?
MR. HAYES-Probably it’s over here. It would be across the.
MR. STONE-Well, you’ve got the GIS, don’t you? It’s across?
MR. HAYES-It’s across the street.
MR. STONE-It’s the new building. Is he talking about the new building?
MR. JONES-No, he’s headed back toward my office on Aviation, toward the School.
MR. HAYES-Yes. It’s that thing that goes like this. The “L” shaped thing.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Right there. That’s Crownwood.
MR. STONE-That’s Crownwood. So he is far removed, he is closer to the north building.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. JONES-Yes. He sits behind the old building somewhere.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to be sure that we know, and you have chain link fence on the other?
MR. JONES-Yes. There’s chain link.
MR. STONE-On the back on the new building.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MR. LAPPER-And plantings.
MR. STONE-And plantings, yes. Okay. Anything else?
MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else.
MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Let’s talk about it. We do have to do a Short Form EAF, but we can do that after we talk
about it. Well, let’s do that now. Does anybody have any negative environmental impacts of this particular?
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, AREA
VARIANCE NO. 34-2002 PROSPECT CHILD AND FAMILY CENTER, Introduced by Lewis Stone
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it, now. Allan, I’ll start with you.
MR. BRYANT-As far as I’m concerned, I have no objections to the fence. It does separate the residential
area from the School. I hate those blue boxes, though. I wish there were some place else you could put
those blue boxes, but as far as the fence goes, the neighbor agrees with it, has suggested it, and there are no
real complaints to adjacent neighbors. So I’m in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in favor of it as well. I think in all cases, the criteria, in my estimation, falls in favor
of the applicant. I also would like to chime in on those blue boxes there. I think in this case the stockade
fence actually helps the look of that area because of those blue boxes. I think, if I lived next door, I wouldn’t
want to be looking at them, and it sort of helps, but they do stick out over the top a little bit.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree. I think, in this particular circumstance, it’s a classic case of responsible development,
spending their own money to improve a condition at the request of a neighbor, and if we had more of that in
our community, certainly there would be less negative feelings about neighbors. So, in this particular case, I
was a part of the original approval process for the addition, as had been alluded to by counsel and Mr. Jones,
and I know that there was a great deal of discussion about screening and plantings, and a lot of things to
mitigate the impact on the neighbors, and having visited the site, it seems that the School did exactly that.
There is substantial plantings, and I think it did improve the overall project, and I think that this fence, albeit
a technical violation of the Code, in this particular case, is a logical extension of mitigating the impact of a
semi-commercial use on a residential neighborhood. I think, if I was Mr. Kosinski, in this particular case, I
would want the fence, for the very reasons that his son has pointed out. I think it’s perfectly logical, and I
think it makes sense, and I don’t think there’s any real negative impact on the neighborhood in this particular
case. I actually think it’s attractive, and as my fellow Board members have pointed out, it, in a small way,
mitigates the blue boxes as well. I mean, it certainly covers the back of them for people traveling west on
Aviation Road. So I see it as being positive in every direction, and I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. While this Board typically comes down very hard on stockade fences in the
front yard, I think there’s a lot of mitigating circumstances here, as far as the impact of the fence. It’s far
enough removed from the main building that it almost doesn’t seem like it’s a front yard. It solves a problem
instead of creating one. I’ll agree with everybody else. I’d love to see those blue boxes somewhere else or at
least not bright blue, but I think in this case, the balance comes down definitely in favor of the request, that
it’s going to make an improvement to the neighborhood. The benefit to the neighborhood is plus rather than
minus, and I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree with my fellow Board members. I’d only add a couple of comments,
one being the fence is modest in height. It doesn’t even cover up, come all the way up to the top of the blue
boxes, but it’s modest in height. It has kind of a pleasing appearance in my mind anyway, and it comes out
part way into the architectural front yard, but I don’t think it goes all the way to the property line or out to
the road, which is another factor, too. So, I’m in favor of the application. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, thank you. I note here that the applicant has constructed without a permit. Now, in my
opinion there’s no such thing as a technical violation. Either it is a violation or it is not a violation. Having
said that, however, I think there was an attempt at goodwill on the part of the Prospect Child and Family
Center to appease a neighbor. I don’t think that there was any motive to deceive the Board or anyone else,
and I’m convinced that capable counsel would have advised against constructing this fence without a permit.
However, counsel was not advised. Having said that, I will support the application.
MR. STONE-I certainly agree with everything that’s been said, well, not everything that’s been said, no, I
agree with everything. I do want to congratulate the Code Enforcement Officer for noticing this. I think, we
do know that in the Town of Queensbury we have a lot of fences that don’t conform, and, hopefully, if we all
live long enough and we have enough help, we will get these fences to the point where they should be, but in
this particular case, this particular fence is really an asset. As you look at it here, certainly that, I guess you
said it was a telephone junction box or something, is garish all by itself. I wouldn’t want it in my front yard. I
think the fence actually makes the property look even nicer than it is. I think Mr. McNulty and somebody
else said, you almost don’t know you’re in the front yard. It’s so far away from the building, and I think that
that’s good. I, too, would add a comment about the blue boxes, and that’s my comment. They just, I wish
they weren’t there. I understand their need. I understand the value to the Prospect School. However, it
always bothers me that they get misused, as Mr. Kosinski said. I mean, people use it as, this must be a
transfer station and we’ll put all the junk we have here, but, having said that, I think this is certainly a good
use of fencing. I think it makes the neighbor pleased with his neighbor. I think it looks good from
somebody driving by, and, with that, I need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2002 PROSPECT CHILD AND FAMILY
CENTER, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
133 Aviation Road. The applicant has constructed a four-foot height technical fence along the east property
line that extends 15 feet into the architectural front yard. The applicant requests 15 feet of relief for that
section of stockade fence into the architectural front yard, per the Fence Ordinance, Section 179-5-060(C4).
Benefit to the applicant. The applicant will be permitted to keep that section of the stockade fence in the
architectural front yard, and we have discussed this matter, and that it was an act of goodwill, and that, in my
opinion, there was no motive to deceive, and this was basically at the request of the immediate neighbor.
Feasible alternatives. The feasible alternatives may include converting the 15 feet of stockade fence into a
picket type fence. Well, the fence is already up, and I think it’s appropriate, even though there is a violation,
that in this instance there are mitigating circumstances. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?
Fifteen feet of relief from the requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate, being the fence
extends 15 feet into a 50 foot yard, which is 30%. Effects on the neighborhood or community. Minimal
effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, and in my opinion it may very well
contribute to improving the area, particularly in view of the fact that there are several huge, blue boxes there.
Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the applicant appeasing the neighbor to the
east, Stanley Kosinski, who requested the fence be requested, see the letter submitted with application, and in
view of the information and our discussion this evening, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Area
Variance No. 34-2002.
Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen. I don’t want to see you for a while. You’ve got two new buildings, a
new fence, parking lot.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. JONES-What more could we ask for?
MR. STONE-You’ll figure out something.
MR. ABBATE-Check with counsel first.
MR. JONES-Yes.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 38-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED NEMER FORD PROPERTY OWNER:
ROBERT NEMER AGENT: FRANK ROMAINE LOCATION: 323 QUAKER ROAD ZONE:
HC-INT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 100 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING
SIGN AND A 14 SQ. FT. ON-PREMISES DIRECTIONAL SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FOR
OVERSIZED SIGNS AND HEIGHT RELIEF FOR THE 100 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/2002 TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-7 LOT SIZE: 3.72 ACRES
SECTION 140-6
FRANK ROMAINE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. STONE-Before we read it, did any of you gentlemen get the sign? Mr. Frank, none of us got it. It’s just
that we’ve got to be more careful.
MR. FRANK-I have a copy of it in my application. Why the rest of the Board members didn’t get it I don’t
know. Because it was definitely submitted.
MR. STONE-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 38-2002, NEMER Ford, Meeting Date: May 22, 2002 “Project
Location: 323 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 100
sq. ft. freestanding sign with a height of 33 feet 8 inches and a 16.84 sq. ft. on-premises directional sign with a
height of 7 feet. Relief Required: Applicant requests 36 sq. ft. of relief from the 64 sq. ft. maximum
allowed for a freestanding sign with a front and side setback of 25 feet. The applicant is also requesting 8 feet
8 inches of height relief from the 25-foot maximum allowable height for a freestanding sign, per § 140-6(B) of
the Signs Code. Additionally, the applicant requests 12.83 sq. ft .of relief from the maximum allowable 4 sq.
ft., and 1-foot of height relief from the 6-foot maximum allowed for on-premises directional signs, § 140-
3(G) of the Signs Code. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town
Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to place the desired signs in compliant
locations. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include placing a more compliant
freestanding sign. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Relief for the size and height of
the freestanding sign may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance when considering size and
height alone (56.3% and 34.7% respectively). However, the proposed placement of the freestanding sign is to
be setback 145 feet from the right-of-way of Quaker Road. When factoring in the placement of the sign
relative to Quaker Road, the relief may be interpreted as minimal. Relief for the size and height of the on-
premises directional sign may be interpreted as substantial for the size and minimal to moderate for the height
when considering size and height alone. However, the proposed placement of the on-premises directional
sign is to be setback 190 feet from the right-of-way of Quaker Road. When factoring in the placement of the
sign relative to Quaker Road, the relief may be interpreted as minimal. Additionally, the area covered by the
text of the proposed sign could be split up into three separate directional signs, which would be allowed by
Code. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. The auto dealership to the immediate west of the applicant was granted
a sign variance for a 100 sq. ft. freestanding sign. However, that sign was replaced with a new compliant sign,
which has an area of 64 sq. ft. and a height of 25 feet. However, the unique design of the sign is such that the
pylon and sign are the same width and one continuous surface with a combined area of 200 sq. ft. (64 sq. ft.
of this is the actual sign). 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the inability
to place a sign close to Quaker Road due to the 110-foot wide parcel owned by Niagara Mohawk between
Quaker Road and Nemer Ford. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP99-436:
07/23/99; commercial interior alterations BP96-683: 1996; commercial addition. Sign Permit 95-1828:
08/03/95; 90 sq. ft. wall sign. SV 1201: denied 01/26/87; to maintain existing wall sign and 2 freestanding
signs for Quaker Ford. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action for
the area relief when considering the setback distance of 145 feet for the freestanding sign, and 190 feet for the
on-premises directional sign. However, consideration might be given to a decrease in any height relief if
granted for the freestanding sign. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 8, 2002 Project
Name: Nemer Ford Owner: Robert Nemer ID Number: QBY-SV-02-38 County Project#: May02-39
Current Zoning: HC-Int Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes the
construction of a 100 sq. ft. sign that does not meet the minimum size requirements for a freestanding sign.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
The maximum size freestanding is 64 sq. ft. at a 25 foot setback. Site Location: 323 Quaker Road Tax Map
Number(s): 296.20-1-7 Staff Notes: The applicant proposes to construct a 100 sq. ft. freestanding sign that
does not meet the minimum size requirements or the height requirements. The applicant proposes the sign
to be 33 +/- feet in height where 25’ is required. The maximum square foot for a freestanding sign is 64 sq.
ft. at 25 foot setback. Staff recommends concurring with the local ordinance in regard to height and size of
sign. County Planning Board Recommendation: Concur with Local Board The County Board
recommended to concur with the local ordinance in regards to size and setback requirements.” Signed
Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 5/10/02.
MR. STONE-It’s your nickel.
MR. ROMAINE-Frank Romaine. I run Nemer Ford, and I live in Queensbury. The only thing, I was at a
Ford meeting today, because I really have forgotten the size of the sign that we have now, which I think
everybody’s seen, which is directly in front of the showroom, and it was brought to my attention and
apparently does not agree with this, but I was told that this sign is 119 square feet, that’s up now, and if that’s
the case, you know, I’m looking for 100 square feet. So I’m really reducing 19 square feet on this sign, and
this is, this was Ford’s idea, you know, to get aesthetically into the 2000 year and make the place look a lot
better. I like the idea. I mean, we’re spending a lot of money for the signs. There’s no two ways about that.
Where my sign is now, it is extremely hard to see coming down Quaker Road, because it is really right up
against the façade of the building. Okay. So to bring it out a little ways to, in the lot, would be a lot better for
us, you know, business wise, people going.
MR. STONE-Well, you can bring it out a lot, though. I mean, you could. Have you got the sign, the current
sign? I mean, that sounds very big for that sign.
MR. ROMAINE-I just got that information today. Again, that’s what they tell me from when they did the
sign. That was in ’87 probably.
MR. FRANK-I actually looked for that. I would concur with that size. If you look at it up close, it may not
look that way from the road, but when you’re up close, it’s a big sign.
MR. BRYANT-How big is that Honda sign?
MR. FRANK-The blue portion itself is 64 square feet, but because of the unique design of the sign, the pylon
being as wide as the sign is, the total area is 200 square feet, but that doesn’t count.
MR. STONE-That doesn’t count.
MR. FRANK-You’re looking at the blue portion is the sign. The white portion is the pylon. That’s what I’ve
been told by the Zoning Administrator.
MR. STONE-And you’re looking, Mr. Romaine, for a wider than a single pole. You’re talking this, what
you’ve showed us here?
MR. ROMAINE-Yes.
MR. STONE-This picture. So it is wider than just a straight pole.
MR. ROMAINE-It is, but if you look at the existing sign that’s there now, it’s almost like a beam
construction.
MR. HAYES-Eye beam, like.
MR. ROMAINE-Yes, and this really, I mean, it may be bigger, as far as size, but it looks smaller, to me.
MR. STONE-I meant, the pylon is, not the sign.
MR. ROMAINE-Yes.
MR. HAYES-How high is that sign, the Honda sign? That’s the other question. Do you know?
MR. FRANK-The best that I can interpret it is 25 feet high.
MR. STONE-Is that the one we gave relief for?
MR. FRANK-According to the Zoning Administrator, that is not the sign you granted relief to. There was
another sign that was a 100 square foot sign, and they chose to replace it with this because they moved their
Honda dealership from Route 9 to Quaker Road.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. STONE-I know it was supposed to be a Cadillac sign at one point that they did get relief for. That was
setback, I think.
MR. FRANK-I’m not really sure if they put it up, but they were granted a Sign Variance for an oversized sign
that was 100 square feet, according to the Zoning Administrator. Now this was before my employment with
the Town.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-Mr. Romaine, there seemed to be some other possible sign that you could choose from, in
terms of size, according to that brochure you kindly passed around.
MR. ROMAINE-That there’s more available, you mean?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. ROMAINE-Yes. There is.
MR. STONE-I was going to ask that question. I mean, I understand that they provide the sign at your cost.
MR. ROMAINE-Right. Actually, they’ve changed. We used to lease the sign, and they would maintain it,
now we not only have to buy the sign, we’ve got to maintain it also. So all the expenses have been shifted to
the dealer.
MR. STONE-They offer signs from 31 square feet to 200 square feet, and heights, overall heights from 15
feet to 47 feet, and you want to go 100 square foot at about 33 feet?
MR. ROMAINE-Yes, sir.
MR. STONE-You’ve got a lot to do to convince us.
MR. ABBATE-The current sign now, you indicate was calculated at 119 square feet?
MR. ROMAINE-That’s, I was with the Ford Motor Company people today at a meeting, and one of the
guys, I asked them to research that, because that had been there long before me, and he got back to me
probably an hour and a half later and he said, the sign, the existing sign that is there now is 119 square feet,
according to Ford Motor Company.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. So, in effect, you’re looking, really, for a reduction.
MR. ROMAINE-I can’t tell you that I know that for a fact. I don’t. That’s what they told me.
MR. ABBATE-Well, we’ll take it at face value.
MR. BRYANT-Any idea how big the Della sign is?
MR. FRANK-Are you talking about the Honda, Della Honda sign?
MR. BRYANT-No, the Della sign that’s close to the road.
MR. FRANK-I don’t. I know that it’s very close to the road. I do not know the, even the approximate
square footage. I never really took a close look at it.
MR. URRICO-Do you know the height of the Honda sign?
MR. FRANK-I actually measured it by counting the height of the panels. Those panels are all uniform in
size, and by doing that, it was like 25 feet.
MR. URRICO-And what about the Midas sign to the east?
MR. FRANK-It’s not 25 feet. I really don’t know. It’s obviously shorter.
MR. STONE-Mr. Romaine, you seem to make more use of NiMo’s property than the other guys do. Do you
have, there’s cars parked closer to the road than they have. You have permission from NiMo?
MR. ROMAINE-Yes, plus we pay, I forget how much it is every month for usage.
MR. STONE-You do?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. ROMAINE-Yes, and I won’t kid you, that’s something I didn’t know about until I took over the
dealership eight years ago. I didn’t realize it either. Because we had talked about it. I said, well, that’s, you
know, Niagara Mohawk’s right of way.
MR. HAYES-You rent that from them, that right-of-way?
MR. ROMAINE-Yes, we rent the right-of-way.
MR. STONE-That’s interesting, when you see you guys are way out, and the two other dealerships.
MR. ROMAINE-Our friendly competitors. Yes.
MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? I’m trying to figure out, from this drawing, exactly how close
to the property line do you want to put this thing? 36 feet? Do we know? And obviously you’re going to
conform, you’re going to be at least 25 feet?
MR. ROMAINE-Yes.
MR. STONE-But you could be closer to the road.
MR. ROMAINE-Actually it’s a long way back from the road.
MR. STONE-I know that.
MR. ROMAINE-It will be definitely closer than the sign I have now.
MR. STONE-Yes, but it could be even closer.
MR. ROMAINE-If you let me, yes.
MR. STONE-No, you can be, what, 25 feet. Is that, Bruce?
MR. FRANK-You’re allowed a 64 square foot sign at a 25 foot setback, and they’re proposing to put it at a
36 foot setback. I think that’s more dealing with site constraints.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. FRANK-The area that they’re using, there’s a pole there. There’s a couple of other, I think the way their
layout, their vehicles, I think that was their consideration.
MR. HAYES-But it’s still 11 more feet back.
MR. STONE-Eleven feet further than it has to be.
MR. FRANK-It’s further back. That’s why they’re trying to go for a larger sign.
MR. STONE-But they could be at 25 and have a smaller sign.
MR. FRANK-They could, but I believe there were some site constraints. I think Mr. Romaine did explain
them to me. I just can’t remember exactly what they were.
MR. ABBATE-Bruce, would it be fair to suggest that the sign that this gentleman has requested should be at
least the distance of the Honda sign to the road? In setting a standard of fairness?
MR. FRANK-Well, the Honda sign, now remember, the Code is for the property line. I’ve been told that
that Honda sign is set back approximately 25 feet from the property line, and what they’re proposing here is
36 feet back from the property line, but they also show the right-of-way as being 145 feet. I don’t know what
the setback is for the Honda sign from the right of way. I had no reason to measure it. This happened to be
in the photo because it’s a good angle, going along the line of sight where the power line runs, and that shows
you where the property lines begin.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t want to complicate the issue, I’m just trying to, I was hoping you were going to give
me information that would support my position that the request is reasonable.
MR. FRANK-I thought that that Honda sign, the Zoning Administrator discussed this with me, I thought he
told me that’s like 25 feet back.
MR. STONE-That’s right where, that’s the closest it can be to the property line.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. FRANK-That’s correct, for that size sign, 64 square feet.
MR. STONE-And Mr. Romaine is, for his own reasons, I can ask you, want it at 36, even though you could
be at 25, without need for a variance.
MR. ROMAINE-Yes. Mainly for placement of the cars, placement of my automobiles the way I’ve got them
now.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine.
MR. ROMAINE-Which would be, I’ll get more front view of the cars, having the sign back a little bit further.
I mean, I’ll do what you want me to do.
MR. STONE-Well, no, it just seems to me that if visibility is what you’re concerned with, obviously that’s
what you’re concerned with, you’re coming to us and saying, you want an oversized sign, further back than
the Code calls for. So, in other words, you’re creating , in a sense, your own problem of visibility by needing
an oversized sign further back.
MR. ROMAINE-Actually, I would probably rather do it the 25, and have it closer to the road, but being that
it was an oversized sign, I said, you know, let’s not push the envelope, so to speak.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, but we haven’t granted the oversized sign.
MR. MC NULTY-That does mitigate it a little bit, though, the fact that it’s further back.
MR. STONE-Yes, but we’re asking, Mr. Romaine is asking for relief because of visibility, and yet he is
hurting himself by putting the sign at 36 feet when he could go to 25.
MR. ROMAINE-It’s visibility and it’s a lot of pressure from Ford.
MR. STONE-For a larger sign.
MR. ROMAINE-Yes, to get those signs, yes, replace the sign. That’s Ford’s thing now.
MR. URRICO-Replacing the sign, not necessarily the size.
MR. ROMAINE-Right.
MR. HAYES-See, some of it’s going to be how those rows of cars park there and stuff, too.
MR. ROMAINE-Right.
MR. STONE-All right. Well, we have no further questions. Let’s open the public hearing to these throngs of
people here. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor
of?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KEITH KOSINSKI
MR. KOSINSKI-Keith Kosinski, again. I’ve seen the new sign down at the Exit 15 car dealership there, and
I think the new sign’s an improvement. That sign’s a little outdated, I would say.
MR. ROMAINE-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-I agree. The old sign, when you see it, it looks like it’s from ’67 or something.
MR. STONE-Henry put it up.
MR. ROMAINE-I think that was originally put up when it was Glen Ford.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? No
Chevrolet dealers in the building? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. STONE-All right. Let’s talk about it, gentlemen. Let’s start with Mr. Urrico.
MR. URRICO-Okay. The Code, I think, already makes an allowance from 15 to 25 feet, in terms of the size
of the sign, and I don’t think necessarily, by going back further, has to get bigger because of that. I think I’d
like to see the sign conform to the rest of the neighborhood there, and in doing so I would like to see it at 64
feet, and the height at 25 feet. In addition, we didn’t talk about the smaller signs, the directional signs. I
think I’d like to see those also in compliance as well. I don’t really see a good reason for those being
oversized. I think it’s a good idea. The sign would be an attribute to the area, otherwise. I think it would
update it. The look would be really nice for that particular section of Queensbury which obviously has
become automobile row. So, having it conform to the rest of the neighborhood, I think, is going to be
beneficial to everybody. Because otherwise we’re going to be in a situation of one-upmanship, where the guy
next door is going to try to do the same thing, and I think, getting them to comply and getting them to be in
line is what I’d like to see. So I would be against the variance, but I would like to see some changes to the
application so that we could get it done.
MR. STONE-Before we go to Jaime, the material that Mr. Romaine provided, Ford’s identification catalog,
interestingly enough, there’s one column in here which calls for 73 square feet, which is slightly oversized,
and a height of 24 8 and a quarter inches. It sounds like it’s made for Queensbury, and would require some
relief. It would require nine foot of relief, but I think it certainly would conform to height and everything
else, but, Jaime, go ahead.
MR. HAYES-Well, I think in this circumstance that the Niagara Mohawk right-of-way does present a unique
circumstance, in that I think, as a Board, that allows us to examine the impact on the applicant in a unique
way. That wide, relatively wide strip of setback in front of their properties and off of the road does create an
unusually wide berth at which the signs are set back, and that’s a good thing, and I think, to some extent, in
my mind, that mitigates some of the relief that the applicant is requesting. Looking at this application,
knowing that we were already a part of approving, as my understanding and memory serves, a 100 square foot
sign for Della, that’s approved. They didn’t choose to do it, but they were granted relief for a 100 square foot
sign. Right?
MR. FRANK-That’s what the Zoning Administrator told me. That was before my time, but that’s what I was
told.
MR. HAYES-To me, to be consistent in this particular circumstance, that means that, by right, at this point,
Mr. Della could go out and put a 100 square foot sign in his Honda dealership. I think that it would be
difficult for me to imagine not saying that Mr. Ford or Mr. Nemer, in this case, couldn’t do that thing. I
don’t think, as far as the size, a 100 square foot sign would trouble me that far back from the road. I think
that that, at this point, is the standard that we’ve set, and that, under examining mitigating circumstances.
From a stylistic perspective, I have a business on Quaker Road, and I’ve often looked up at that Ford sign
and said that’s something from ’72 or whatever. It does look like it with the eye beam and everything else.
Not that it’s a bad sign, but as Mr. Kosinski pointed out, when you drive down the Northway and some of
these other things, the new Ford logo and the sign is, you know, kind of an improvement, a corporate
upgrade, and we’re not always for corporate upgrades. We just turned down a sign for Kentucky Fried
Chicken, you know, their idea of a corporate upgrade because we didn’t agree with it, but in this particular
case, I think the sign itself would be an improvement, as far as strictly aesthetically. I agree with Roy that the
directional signs, I don’t see the rationale there to necessarily expanding what the Code has set forth there. If
they’re truly direction signs, for when people are on your lot, they’re already there and they just need to know
where to go, I think that you could comply with that regulation. I’m not really troubled by the one foot
higher, just because it is so much further back from the road, but the additional overall square footage of the
signs, I think that you could comply with that. The one foot I would not have a problem with because I
think that’s very, very inconsequential, that far from the road, and the other thing is, I would think that Mr.
Della’s sign is 25 feet high, and I think that that, as the Chairman has pointed out, that there seems to be a
trend in the sign code business, if you will, to have signs be lower to the ground, less skyscraping, stuff like
that, and I think that’s a great, and I think that’s something we should continue to seek in Queensbury. I
know with the Cumbie Farm applications, we’ve pressured people into having their signs be as visually
unimpacting from a height standpoint as we can, and I think that’s something we should consider. So I
guess, in the broadest sense, the 100 foot sign, and that’s really what you want, I think that that is okay with
me, at the height of the signs along the strip there, which is Honda, which is Code. I think you should meet
Code in that perspective, and then I think, on the directional signs, if you can meet Code on those, I don’t
have trouble with them being one foot higher because you won’t even be able to notice that from Quaker
Road. It will be imperceptible from a visual perspective. So I don’t have a problem with that relief either.
So, in essence, I think, you know, I’m in favor of part of your application and just keep the height.
MR. ROMAINE-I’d have to see a booklet for the directional signs, because I don’t know if they offer
different sizes on that one.
MR. STONE-There they are, these little ones here?
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. HAYES-I imagine that that’s a burden you’ll have to take care of, I mean, in the end. I think that you’ll
have to work that out.
MR. ROMAINE-Are we taking into consideration when you’re talking total square feet that big block of
cement that the sign that I now have is sitting on?
MR. STONE-It’s overall height above the ground. Is it not? I believe.
MR. FRANK-I believe it’s total height.
MR. STONE-Yes, it’s total height.
MR. FRANK-The footings and the sign.
MR. ROMAINE-But the height, I think what we’re saying, though, is the height we’re only looking for a foot
difference. Correct?
MR. STONE-You were 33.
MR. HAYES-Yes, you’re looking for eight feet, over the 25 foot.
MR. ROMAINE-No, no. I’m sorry. I’m talking about the directional sign.
MR. STONE-The directional. That was a foot.
MR. HAYES-Yes, I don’t have a problem with that one foot.
MR. ROMAINE-But what I said, I think they’re saying that I’m looking for a much bigger square foot than
what the other one is. Are we taking into consideration that, the cement footings that it’s sitting on?
MR. HAYES-It’s not what the other one was. It’s the Code.
MR. ROMAINE-See that? Are we taking that? Because it’s not going to look anything like that.
MR. STONE-No, but it’s from the ground to the top of the sign, whatever it’s on. If you stick it in the
ground, it’s from the top of the surface up.
MR. ROMAINE-Okay. Right.
MR. HAYES-In a sense, I’m honoring your desire to have a bigger sign because I think that’s in order here. I
really do, but I think the height requirement, you should meet that. I think that’s a good thing.
MR. STONE-All right. Chuck? In other words, you’re saying, yes, no, maybe.
MR. HAYES-No. I’m saying yes on the 100 square foot, no on the eight feet of height relief, no on the
square footage relief for the directional signs, but yes on the one foot of height relief for the directional signs.
MR. STONE-Good. Well spoken.
MR. HAYES-Yes, no, yes, no.
MR. STONE-Go ahead, Chuck.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I think on the square footage for the main sign, I could go along with 100 square
feet, as long as it was at the 36 foot setback that is specified. I, traditionally, have been kind of down on signs
on Quaker Road, but, as has been pointed out, you’re back a considerable distance from the road, like a lot of
the other signs on that side, and I think probably at that point the 100 square foot sign would be reasonable,
and especially if that means it’s a little smaller than your existing sign. I also concur with comments that have
been made that I would like to see the height stay at the 25 feet. The directional sign, I’m not sure. I’m a
little bit bothered by the height. I’m not as bothered by the square footage, because as Staff pointed out,
what they’re proposing here is three directional signs combined into one, and they could cut that thing in
thirds and be in compliance with square footage. So total square footage for directional signs on the
property, they’re not exceeding what they could have.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. They could cut that up, and I think they could place all three of those signs if
they were to cut them up in the same general area. I mean, and they need them in the same general area the
way it was explained to me by Mr. Romaine, because that’s where they’re showing which way the service is,
sales, whatever. So, I mean, do you want more small signs split up and spread around the property or put in
one spot? That’s the way it was explained to me.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. MC NULTY-That’s the way it strikes me, but it might be neater to have one sign rather than three
scattered around, but I guess my feeling is, as it’s been said, a foot isn’t a great deal of difference, and if it’s
not a great deal of distance, then let’s stay at the six feet requirement, and keep that in compliance. So, I
would go with the 100 foot main sign, at the distance proposed, and I would go along with the size of the
directional signs if they were six feet maximum height.
MR. STONE-Mr. Himes?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. It just seems to me if we get 50 square feet at 15 feet, and 64 at 25, then there
ought to be something for 35 and 50 and 70. I mean, are you supposed to assume, well, you can’t have
anything bigger than 64 square feet, or what? So that, to me, seems to open some things up a little bit, and
I’ll just say that Jaime expressed my sentiments exactly, and I agree with everything he said, and I feel the
same way, and therefore would support this application.
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Abbate?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I had no problems with the 100 square feet, and I based it on a standard
of fairness. We have approved others, and in order to maintain some standard of fairness, we have to be fair
to all the businesses in a similar type of occupation, and I would also support the position of Jaime, and
there’s no reason to go into a long dissertation. I think Jaime basically said it all that I would support.
MR. ROMAINE-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Jaime, just repeat. You’re recommending yes to the 100 foot, no to the height, and then
directionals.
MR. HAYES-I think that they should stay within Code on the directionals, and that.
MR. STONE-Both height and size?
MR. HAYES-I think the one foot of height, I don’t necessarily have a problem with one foot of relief on
that. To be consistent, I did say that.
MR. STONE-Okay, but the size should stay what it is?
MR. HAYES-Yes, I mean, within Code. Directional signs are directional signs.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just want to, okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, no, maybe. I’m in agreement with Mr. Hayes somewhat. If you’ve got a 119 foot sign,
you should be able to replace that sign without any problem. I agree on the height. I don’t think it should go
above that. I think we’ve got to be very careful, especially on Quaker Road, three car dealers in a row, and
before you know it, we’re going to have 100 foot signs. So I’d like to see the height stay down there. As far
as the directional sign, I really have no problem. It’s far enough away from the road, and I’d rather have the
three signs in one than three little signs across the lot, but I do disagree with you, because I pass that every
day, and I look at that sign, and I do see Ford. I know that’s a Ford dealer, and I know next door is a Honda
dealer. I know next door is Della/Isuzu/Oldsmobile, whatever. So, I see your sign, you know, and I see that
it’s a Ford dealer, but I think it would enhance the overall corporate image, and you should change your sign,
and you should have that opportunity. So I’m kind of in favor as long as it’s under 25 feet, and the rest is
okay by me.
MR. STONE-Well, I certainly, in terms of the main sign, I agree with the majority here. I mean, 25 feet, I,
quite frankly, as I drive around Queensbury and I drive around other communities, and I do a lot of traveling,
I’m very proud of our 25 foot height requirement, because you go some places, and even on something like
Quaker Road you’ll have 100 foot signs each screaming at you for whether it’s an automobile dealer or a hot
dog stand, and they go on and on. So I certainly couldn’t grant any relief from the height. The 100 foot,
particularly since you want to put it back at 36 feet, for your own purposes, I have no real problem with. I
guess I would prefer not to, to grant relief, but as has been pointed out, we have, for similar businesses in the
same area. You are way back from the road. I’m a little conflicted with the directional signs. One of the
things that I was sitting here listening, of course I have the benefit of being last, is the safety aspect, and I
don’t know the answer, whether a sign, one sign that says service is less confusing than a sign that says
service, showroom, and body, and I’ve got to look for these arrows, because now I’ve got three things that
I’m looking for going through your lot. Now I know if I bump anybody on your lot, your body shop’s going
to be very happy, because maybe I’m going to leave it there and get it fixed, but I don’t think you want that. I
certainly don’t want that, and I don’t know the answer.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. ROMAINE-I agree with you, but I think it’s just as dangerous the other way, if you had the service sign,
and then somebody’s looking around for the showroom sign, and/or the body shop, they’re even going to
look further, where, if they see one sign, they’ve seen it all in one particular spot.
MR. STONE-I mean, we have been very lenient with directional signs in our Code. I mean, we allow little
signs on property that seem to be almost more than directional signs, but that’s what the Code allows. I
wouldn’t have a problem with the oversized sign if we kept the height down, I guess. So, the problem that
we have now is you have to make some decisions. We have one variance before us, which is for the total
package that you asked for. It is certainly the consensus of the Board that we can’t grant everything that
you’ve asked for. Bruce, do you have any suggestions about what we should do?
MR. HAYES-I could make a motion that splits in half the relief on the directional sign, then we’ll see if it
carries. I mean, that’s going to be somewhere between the allowable and what he wants.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-And let’s see if it carries. There’s four pieces of relief here, and the only way we’re going to get
it done is through a motion eventually anyway.
MR. STONE-Do you have any thoughts, Mr. Romaine, about, what your druthers would be, knowing you’re
not going to get everything?
MR. ROMAINE-I will do what the Town requires us to do, and I’ll be happy with it. Whatever I do is going
to be better than what I have right now. The directional sign, I guess I would, if you take a look at the
pictures, and I think you have a picture of the old one, that’s been hit about 40 times.
MR. STONE-I was noticing that.
MR. ROMAINE-I figure bigger is better in this case, because they’re not seeing it.
MR. STONE-No, I saw that sign had been dinged fairly often. Yes. Well, first of all, before we go, let’s,
anybody have any concern about the environmental impact of these signs, except the visual impact that
there’s going to be a sign?
MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY SIGN VARIANCE NO.
38-2002, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
nd
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-Okay, Mr. Hayes. Do you want to take a crack? Go ahead.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 38-2002 NEMER FORD, Introduced by Paul
Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
323 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 100 square foot freestanding sign with a height
of 33 feet 8 inches and a 16.8 square foot on-premise directional sign, with a height of 7 feet. In this motion,
I am proposing to change the relief requested to 36 square feet of relief from the maximum allowable size for
a freestanding sign, with a front side setback of 25 feet. I am deleting the request for 8.8 inches of height
relief so that the sign will be at the maximum allowable height of 25 foot. I am granting six feet of relief from
the maximum allowable four square feet for directional signs, so that he can have a ten square foot sign
instead of a four square foot sign, which is half of the relief that was requested by the applicant, and I am
making a motion to approve a one foot height relief of the six foot maximum allowable on-premise
directional sign per Section 140-3-G of the Sign Code. So just to repeat that, I am proposing six feet of relief
from the maximum allowable square footage for directional signs, and one foot of relief from the six foot
maximum allowable height for directional signs. So it’s one foot of relief for the height. Six feet of relief for
the size, and on the main sign, the large sign, we’re granting 36 square feet of relief to allow for a 100 square
foot sign, which under this circumstance would normally be permittable to be 64 square feet, and we’re not
granting any relief to the height. I would also condition this approval on the fact that, as has been brought up
by several Board members, that the relief for the size is mitigated by the fact that the sign is going to be
placed at 36 feet from the property line, which is further back from the, a larger setback than required, which
partially mitigates the increase in size. The benefit to the applicant in this particular circumstance, he would
be permitted to purchase a new sign and place it in a location that he has indicated would be beneficial to his
business, and also to meet some of the franchise requirements associated with his parent company, Ford.
Feasible alternatives, I believe that feasible alternatives in this case are limited, based on the unusually wide
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
right of way owned by Niagara Mohawk between the travel corridor, which is where the cars are that view the
sign, and the applicant’s business per say. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I don’t believe
that it is. I believe that the 36 feet of relief that we’re granting for the large sign, in this particular case, is
mitigated substantially by the overall distance from the travel corridor that the sign is going to be located in,
in this particular case. We’re not granting relief for the height. So that is not substantial to the Ordinance,
which in my viewpoint that was substantial. That has been eliminated from consideration in this case. The
on-premise directional signs, the applicant has indicated a special need in this case, based on some impacts
with the old sign, and I don’t think that, from the road or from any normal viewing point, that the small relief
of six feet in maximum size and one foot in height will impact the neighborhood in any substantial way
whatsoever. So I don’t think it’s substantial, really, whatsoever. Effects on the neighborhood or community?
I believe, as the relief has been modified downward, and changed, I think that there’ll be very minimal
impacts on the neighborhood. As it’s been pointed out by the public, in this case, Mr. Kosinski, that in fact a
new more modern sign, in this particular case could, in some way, have a positive impact on what already is a
heavy commercial area. I don’t think that the addition of a slightly larger than allowed sign, in this case, is
going to change the character of Quaker Road in any meaningful way. So, in this sense, I think that there are
no impacts, possibly even a small positive one with the improvement of a site and a new sign. Is the difficulty
self-created? As I’ve already pointed out, I don’t think it is totally, based on the unique right of way that
Niagara Mohawk is kind enough to rent to the neighbors in this particular case. So this sign, there’s a
difficulty there by the unique nature of the property, and I don’t think it’s self-created. On balance, I think
the test falls in favor of some relief for the applicant, the relief that we have modified downward, and I’m in
favor of it. I move for its approval. I’m proposing that we grant six feet of relief to allow for a 10 square
foot total directional sign in this particular case. I would like to amend, specifically, the relief that we are
proposing to grant to indicate that, in this particular case, that as far as the total square footage of the
directional signs, that we are granting 12.83 feet of relief from the maximum allowable 4 square feet, at 7 feet
high at the top of the sign.
Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2002, by the following vote:
nd
MR. STONE-I’ll ask you a question, 10 square feet, where did you come up with that? I mean, is that any?
MR. HAYES-Well, I came up with that, Mr. Chairman, the applicant requested 12 feet of relief, which would
have been a 16 square foot sign, theoretically. So I cut his 12 feet of relief into 6 feet of relief, which allows
him a 10 foot sign.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-I should clarify that that I’m proposing that we grant six feet of relief to allow for a 10 square
foot total directional sign in this particular case.
MR. STONE-I’m only wondering, for Mr. Romaine, if such a sign is available.
MR. ROMAINE-That’s what I don’t know. I think the directionals are one, I think.
MR. STONE-Well, you don’t have a combination. There’s no combination directional here.
MR. HAYES-I think, in this particular case, that we’ve granted the relief to Mr. Nemer, in this case, and that
he’s got the benefit of that, and he’ll have to make that work. There’s something there that works. It might
not be exactly 10 feet, but if the nearest sign is 8.8 feet, then that’s the one he’ll have to get, or whatever.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-I think we’ve granted a reasonable, or are proposing to grant a reasonable amount of relief, as
requested, and then the burden’s got to fall on the applicant at some point.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you understand the motion says 100 square feet at 36 feet, no higher than 25.
MR. ROMAINE-Got it.
MR. STONE-And the directional at seven feet, and no more than ten square feet, and if you have a sign that
comes out to be ten feet two inches, you’ve got to come back.
MR. ROMAINE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Yes. He’ll just have to have them design something within that perimeter. We have to set
some quantitative number that can be enforced by the Board.
MR. ROMAINE-Okay. If that’s not available, if this is the only sign that they offer for directional in that
size, then I would have to come back and try over?
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. STONE-Yes. Any other questions about the motion?
MR. BRYANT-I just have one question. Was there that much objection, I didn’t take a poll, relative to the
size of the directional sign? I mean, I didn’t have a problem with the directional sign.
MR. ABBATE-No, I didn’t have a problem with it, either.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t think Chuck had a problem with the directional sign. So, I mean, the question is, I
mean, can we pass a motion and just leave the, obviously, they came to this conclusion because he’s seen a
sign they picked, and that’s the size of the sign. So, if we’ve got the votes to pass the motion, with the
directional sign in there, I think the major objection, really, was the height of the main sign, for everybody.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Agreed.
MR. BRYANT-And so if we have the votes to pass it with the size of the directional sign, we ought to just go
with that and get it over with, and Mr. Romaine will go by.
MR. STONE-Okay. If you guys don’t mind me putting you on the spot, maybe we can just go down the
Board on that one issue. Let me start with Norm. Would you be willing to go with the full relief?
MR. HIMES-Well, I think that I would. That’s what I thought before.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HIMES-I agreed with what Jaime specified, but I would, given how far away that is from everything, I
wouldn’t vote against it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I would go along with it.
MR. STONE-All right. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I would go along with it.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Are we talking about the directional sign?
MR. STONE-The directional sign going for the full six?
MR. URRICO-No, I would not be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I guess, if most of the Board members feel it’s all right, that’s fine. I don’t have any personal
objection to it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I’d prefer it be six feet rather than seven feet in height, but I’d go along with it seven
feet high and the full size.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-I would like to amend, specifically, the relief that we are proposing to grant to indicate that, in
this particular case, that as far as the total square footage of the directional signs, that we are granting 12.83
feet of relief from the maximum allowable 4 square feet, at 7 feet high at the top of the sign.
MR. STONE-Okay, and therefore that sign would be, as submitted, four feet five and seven eighths inches
wide by three feet nine inches.
MR. HAYES-Right, at seven feet high.
MR. STONE-Seven feet high at the top of the sign. Okay.
MR. STONE-Do I hear a second?
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. ABBATE-Second.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
NOES: Mr. Urrico
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ROMAINE-Thank you.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 31-2002 TYPE GETTY PETROLEUM PROPERTY OWNER: GOLUB
PROPERTIES, INC. AGENT: SAXTON SIGN CORP. LOCATION: 538 AVIATION ROAD
ZONE: HC INT. (EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2002); ESC-25A APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
REMOVE A 50 SQ. FT. PYLON SIGN AND INSTALL A 75 SQ. FT. PYLON SIGN. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR AN
OVERSIZED PYLON SIGN. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/8/2002 TAX MAP NO.
302.05-1-94 LOT SIZE: 0.63 ACRES SECTION 140-6
PAT BONNIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 31-2002, Getty Petroleum, Meeting Date: May 22, 2002 “Project
Location: 538 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove a 50 sq. ft.
pylon sign and install a 75 sq. ft. pylon sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests 25 sq. ft. of relief from
the 50 sq. ft. maximum allowed for a freestanding sign with a front and side setback of 15 feet, per § 140-
6(B2a) of the Signs Ordinance. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of
Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to place the desired sign in the
preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include increasing the proposed
front setback for the proposed sign. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 25 sq. ft. of
relief from the 50 sq. ft. maximum allowed for a freestanding sign at a 15-foot front and side setback may be
interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance (50%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this
difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-190: 04/01/02; 1612 sq. ft. commercial interior
alterations. BP 2002-001: 01/09/02; 30 sq. ft. freestanding and 16 sq. ft. wall sign. BP 95-1827: 07/25/95:
48 sq. ft. freestanding sign (for Citgo). Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as
a result of this action. The proposed sign appears to be consistent with the others in the area. However, the
applicant has requested 25 sq. ft. of relief for a sign set back 15 feet from the front and side boundary lines.
Should the Board approve the application as proposed, the correct relief needed would be 11 sq. ft. of area
relief and 10 feet of front and side setback relief as per the ordinance (64 sq. ft. at a 25-foot setback). SEQR
Status: Type Unlisted”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 8, 2002 Project
Name: Getty Petroleum Owner: Golub Properties, Inc. ID Number: QBY-SV-31-2002 County Project#:
May02-29 Current Zoning: HCInt Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes
to remove a 50 sq. ft. pylon sign and install a 75 sq. ft. sign. Relief is requested from front, side, and size
requirements. Site Location: 538 Aviation Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.05-1-94 Staff Notes: The
applicant proposes to remove an existing 50 sq. ft. free-standing sign and install a 75 sq. ft. free-standing sign.
The applicant requests relief from the 50/64 sq. ft. 15/25 foot setback requirement for signs. The applicant
indicate that they would like to advertise the sale of gasoline and the convenience store “Kwik Farms”, as
shown on the drawing. Staff recommends the concurrence with the local sign ordinance in regards to size
and setback requirements. County Planning Board Recommendation: Concur with Local Board The County
Board recommends the concurrence with the local sign ordinance in regards to size and setback
requirements.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 5/10/02.
MR. STONE-You’re on, sir.
MR. BONNIE-My name is Pat Bonnie from Saxton Signs. Since we have applied for this, they did add
diesel. So we do have a revised layout. The sign is the same size. It’s the same square footage and
everything. It’s just the word “diesel” at the bottom, and the application pretty much speaks for itself. We
want to put the 25 foot sign 15 foot from the property line on the left and 15 foot back from the front.
MR. STONE-You’ve made the price sign, each set of figures is smaller?
MR. BONNIE-Yes. The box is the same size. That’s a standard sign for Getty.
MR. STONE-I’ll take a lot of gallons right now at the $1.29.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. ABBATE-Let me ask, he said he’d take a lot of gallons at $1.29. May I ask a question when this picture
was taken?
MR. STONE-A while ago.
MR. BONNIE-Not that long ago.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, because I’ll take all you can give me for $1.14.
MR. BONNIE-Yes, that’s pretty, about a year ago, I think.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-Before it went up in a hurry one day.
MR. BONNIE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, is he also aware of the fact that the request has been basically modified by
zoning from the 25 to 11. Are you aware of that?
MR. STONE-What do you mean?
MR. ABBATE-Do you see on the back, on the staff comments.
MR. STONE-Yes, well, it’s 11 feet of relief on the sign, but to get, that means, even at that point, it would
have to be at 25 feet. He wants 15 feet. So there’s 10 feet of relief. You’re asking for relief for two things.
MR. FRANK-I had this discussion with the applicant. You don’t get your choice, and I discussed it with the
Zoning Administrator, and I was basing it on a Sign Variance that was approved, I’m not sure by what Board.
I don’t know how many years ago. It wasn’t too long ago, though, for Hess, and the variance was granted,.
but what relief was granted was incorrect. It was exactly the opposite of what we’re trying to correct here,
and the Zoning Administrator said a mistake was made back then. I believe it was one of his first
applications. He took the credit for it, and so now he says, I made a mistake then. I don’t want to make the
same mistake again. So that’s why the relief is specified the way it is in the Staff notes.
MR. URRICO-Do we know what the size of that Hess sign is, by the way? As long as we’re talking about it.
MR. FRANK-I believe it was, I didn’t put it in my Staff notes, I’m sorry. I had this discussion with Craig. It
was comparable to what they’re proposing, if not a little larger.
MR. STONE-One of the things that you should understand, two businesses in the same building do not get
relief, automatically, from our sign code.
MR. BONNIE-Okay.
MR. STONE-If you have a strip mall, with individual stores, each store can have its own sign.
MR. BONNIE-Right.
MR. STONE-But two businesses in the same building, you’ve got to conform to the overall signage for one
business, just so that, I mean, there was a comment made in your application, and that’s nice, but it doesn’t
help you.
MR. BONNIE-That’s for square foot relief.
MR. STONE-Yes, it’s square foot relief, yes. So what you’re saying, Bruce, is, in a sense, we have to grant, I
would say sequentially, if you grant a variance for the sign pole to be 15 feet, that’s 10 foot of relief, and then
you’re saying, the sign, it should be 50 feet at that, which is 25 feet, not 64.
MR. FRANK-At 15 feet, that’s correct.
MR. STONE-Right. It’s 25 and 10.
MR. BONNIE-The existing sign is 18 square feet from the property line.
MR. STONE-But unfortunately when you take it down you’re going to have to take it down, and then it
doesn’t count anymore.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. FRANK-And again, I think for clarification, well, I’ll let the applicant describe. I think we had this
conversation about where the new sign is proposed, it’s going to use only one of the footings that exist now.
The current sign is on one footing, and I believe there’s going to be two footings for that proposed sign.
MR. BONNIE-Right.
MR. FRANK-So, I’m not really clear exactly where is the top part of that Getty sign that’s going to be closest
to the road? Where is that in relation to the footing that it’s going to be resting on? It’s the sign that needs
relief, not the footing, and you’re showing, right now you’re showing on your.
MR. BONNIE-We’re going to be putting in two new, one big footing. We’re not going to be using the
existing.
MR. FRANK-Okay. You’re not?
MR. BONNIE-No.
MR. FRANK-That’s not what I was told by someone, two days ago.
MR. BONNIE-According to the setback here, the existing sign is 18, and the new sign is going to be 15.
MR. FRANK-Well, there was some confusion because your site plan shows 15 feet.
MR. STONE-It’s the edge of the sign, not the pole.
MR. BONNIE-No, I realize that, but by looking at this, it wouldn’t work by using the same footing.
MR. FRANK-And I’m asking that because you’re showing 15 feet on your site plan map, and you have 18
feet on your application. So is 18 feet to the footing? Is that 15 feet correct to the sign?
MR. BONNIE-Eighteen feet to the leading edge.
MR. STONE-Eighteen?
MR. BONNIE-Well, we want to go 15, but the existing one is 18.
MR. STONE-Okay. There are two there, aren’t there? What is that other pedestal there?
MR. BONNIE-There’s only one sign.
MR. STONE-Yes, there’s only one sign.
MR. FRANK-There’s an older footing for an even older sign.
MR. STONE-There’s another pedestal in the ground, which is not used. See, here it is.
MR. BONNIE-Yes, it’s not being used.
MR. FRANK-That’s not part of this proposed application, I was told.
MR. STONE-Just out of curiosity, I notice the light fixture here. That’s going to be replaced by this more
cantilevered one that is shown on the site plan?
MR. BONNIE-No.
MR. STONE-Or is that it?
MR. BONNIE-We’re just doing the sign.
MR. STONE-I know you are. I’m just curious.
MR. BONNIE-I’m not sure what they’re doing.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask Staff a question?
MR. STONE-Go ahead.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. BRYANT-In the Staff comments, you say that this is consistent with other signs in the area. Other than
the Hess, I mean, I went up and down there. I was looking for that. I mean, the hot dog place is in
compliance. The stream is in compliance. What is not in compliance, in that street between 87 and Route 9,
the Hess is the only one that you’re saying is not in compliance.
MR. FRANK-I have to correct my Staff notes. I agree with what you’re saying. It’s really just the Hess sign
in the immediate area.
MR. BRYANT-And then, to me, the Hess sign didn’t really stand out like a sore thumb. I mean, so I didn’t
notice it as being.
MR. FRANK-Initially, I was also considering the curb businesses, Xtreme Sports, they had numerous signs
on, it’s a huge freestanding sign. It has like a fake log façade, and we had some enforcement action where
they needed to remove one of those signs. So when I was drafting these notes, I was thinking about that sign
which no longer, they blacked it out. They took out the neon tubes
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. FRANK-So, you’re right. There’s only one sign, really. It’s the Hess sign, but it’s kitty corner across the
intersection from the Getty Station, but it is only that one sign.
MR. BRYANT-When was that sign approved.
MR. FRANK-I think three years ago.
MR. HAYES-I remember part of why that happened. It was during the discussions, at least, I don’t know for
sure, but if memory serves, it was that the sign architect, or whoever was representing the clients, basically
said that that sign needed to be a little bit larger because people that were traveling east off the arterial, it
almost sits back in the woods there a little bit by comparison, and people that were coming off the Northway
could quickly miss that and be by their station without a little, that was their argument. I’m not saying right
or wrong, and I think that might be the difference between this sign, which you’re kind of alluding to is out
there in the middle of the open, and it was something to do with, they had established that they were keeping
the trees and wasn’t there something about the east travel there that the people couldn’t pick it up quite as
fast, and that that was their argument. I don’t know.
MR. FRANK-I also believe they had setback relief, too, I think that sign’s a lot closer to the right of way than
what the applicant’s proposing here.
MR. HAYES-There was considerable discussion about that sign, and I don’t know why they felt they needed
that, they needed to have the relief. I don’t remember all the exact details, but I think it had to do with the
traffic coming right out the arterial.
MR. BRYANT-Did you do the calculations on the square footage of sign? I did it by hand, and it’s a little bit
more than 75 feet.
MR. STONE-Well, the top one is eight and a third by four.
MR. HAYES-I could do inches and then divide it with a calculator.
MR. BONNIE-Yes, that’s how we did it. Inches and divide it by 144.
MR. STONE-I didn’t calculate it myself.
MR. BRYANT-It’s 30 and a quarter feet, then you’ve got 30 and 15. It’s off by four inches. You’re four
inches over.
MR. BONNIE-That’s 44 inches times 99 inches.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, and then divide it by 144.
MR. BONNIE-Yes. What does that come to?
MR. BRYANT-It’s 30.25.
MR. BONNIE-30.25
MR. BRYANT-And then you add that to the 30 and 15, and you come up with 75.25.
MR. BRYANT-Why do you come to the Zoning Board with a calculator, just out of curiosity?
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. STONE-He’s got a computer over here now, this thing.
MR. BRYANT-He needs a computer. He’s the Secretary.
MR. BONNIE-So that top sign is three inches too wide.
MR. BRYANT-What comes off?
MR. BONNIE-That top sign you’re saying is three inches too wide?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Totally, I mean, in total.
MR. BONNIE-Compared to 75 square feet, right? 75.25 square feet total. I think you have to square them
off, correct, for a calculation?
MR. STONE-Not really.
MR. BRYANT-I think it is what it is. It’s not squared off. It’s what it is.
MR. STONE-It’s what it is, yes.
MR. HAYES-So if you did the actual calculations, it’s going to be a little less than 75.
MR. STONE-I mean, Bruce and I were talking today about ellipses and parabolic curves and he didn’t
calculate this one.
MR. FRANK-This one’s a no-brainer.
MR. STONE-What are you guys saying, it’s a couple of inches or a couple of square foot?
MR. BRYANT-It’s 75.25.
MR. STONE-Okay. So the relief would have to be slightly more.
MR. BRYANT-Just slightly more.
MR. STONE-Okay. That’s not a problem.
MR. URRICO-You wouldn’t have known that without the calculator.
MR. STONE-I was talking to Staff today about a sign that you’re benefiting from on the Sunoco property,
which is still referring to your credit card things up above. I don’t know if you noticed that sign. See that
sign right down there, that blue one?
MR. BONNIE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Which says use credit. That’s right above it you’ve got your credit cards all there. That’s
supposed to not be there.
MR. BONNIE-Okay. So that sign’s got to come down.
MR. HAYES-It’s not on their property, though.
MR. STONE-No. It’s not up to you.
MR. BONNIE-That’s next door.
MR. HAYES-That’s not your problem.
MR. STONE-No, that’s not your problem, no. Our Code Enforcement Officer is going there tomorrow
with a wrench and take it down. I’d like to see it go. See, I pulled into that property when I looked at, I
didn’t want to pull into their lot. So I’m staring at this sign, what the devil is it. Anyway, any other questions?
Any other comments? Let me open the public hearing.
MR. HIMES-Just a minute. I’d like Bruce to explain the comments, the Staff comments in connection with
the figures and relief, as opposed to what’s on the first page. I’m real punchy tonight, I guess, but I still don’t
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
follow it, and what the reference is there for 64 square feet at a 25 foot setback, what relevance that has. I
can’t piece it together. I’m just dropping through the slates.
MR. FRANK-I think that it needs more explanation, and I have no problem explaining it to you, because I
felt the same way you did when I was drafting these notes. Based on what I reviewed Hess’s Sign Variance,
and the relief granted then was incorrect, I guess, but it was granted, and according to the Zoning
Administrator, he needs two kinds of relief here. He needs setback and size. You can’t just go for size relief
at a 15 foot setback, because what they’re proposing is a 75 square foot sign. It’s not only over the 50 square
foot that’s allowed at a 15 foot setback. It’s also over a 64 square foot sign at a 25 foot setback. So you need
both of those relief, not just one relief for an oversized sign. You also need setback relief.
MR. HIMES-You’re applying the requirements for a 25 foot setback and 64 square foot? That becomes the
basis for what determines the amount of variance being given?
MR. FRANK-The Code is you’re allowed a 50 foot sign at a 15 foot setback, and you’re allowed a 64 square
foot sign at a 25 foot setback.
MR. STONE-Yes, but if this is going to be at 15 feet, in the sense, you’re providing 25 foot of relief, 25
square foot. You need 50 feet at 15. Right? This sign’s going to be at 15.
MR. FRANK-It’s going to be.
MR. HAYES-I think everybody’s stuck on the same point, but maybe we should just go with what the
Zoning Administrator says. I know exactly what you’re saying.
MR. HIMES-Just don’t ask me to do the math.
MR. FRANK-I think it would be simpler to grant them the relief for an oversized sign than for setback.
That’s what I was going for.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. FRANK-And I was basing it also on a previous application, but the Zoning Administrator said, no,
that’s not the way it should be, and he’s the one that made the mistake on the first application three years ago.
MR. STONE-The point is, if you do what he’s saying, and I think you’re right. If we’re just going to go, we’ll
do what he wants, but the question is, it’s chicken and egg. Which comes first? Do you place the pole, and
then give relief, or do you build the sign and then say, you can move it forward. I don’t know.
MR. HIMES-One other little question, and maybe this gentleman can’t answer, but there’s another Getty
Station a little further down the road to the west, and I’m just wondering, is that going to come up with this
same thing now? It looks like their existing signage, although it’s a smaller operation as far as the.
MR. BONNIE-I’m not familiar with it. We don’t have any jobs for it right now.
MR. STONE-This is not a corporate?
MR. BONNIE-No, it’s not a corporate store.
MR. STONE-I mean, does Price Chopper still own, they own the property?
MR. HAYES-It is a franchise, though. It’s still a franchise, though.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, well, Getty in Jericho is applying for the variance.
MR. STONE-Is that who it is?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. FRANK-Golub does own that parcel.
MR. HAYES-Yes, that’s Price Chopper.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the applicant is Getty Petroleum in Jericho. So it is corporate.
MR. HAYES-If that’s what’s on there, then you’re right.
MR. BRYANT-It’s probably going to happen all over.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. STONE-Yes. Well, I think it depends what their, you know, they want to put this convenient store in.
This is, everybody, one stop shopping. We’re so in a hurry these days. We go one stop. Okay. Everybody
got all their questions answered? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this
application? Anybody in favor? Anybody opposed to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS VANDERZEE
MR. VANDERZEE-My name is Chris Vanderzee. I live on the infamous Greenway North neighborhood.
I’m opposed to this, not nearly as much as I was to Hess. I don’t know how that got through, and how Hess
is overtaking that corner and that green space, but it’s the entrance to Queensbury at Exit 19. You have the
Welcome to Queensbury sign right there. It’s pretty, and I don’t know what’s going to happen with where
Xtreme Sports is. I know they’re not there very long. They’re not paying any rent until that building gets
knocked down, and if we start to grant another sign at 100 square feet, what’s going to go but the big box
store that’s going in there, and the whole rest of that corridor, I think we need to protect that. As far as the
setback, you know, if they want to put the sign on the border of the next gas station, fine, that blends them all
in and that’s good. I think the sign should be as far back as possible away from the road, just the confusion.
I’ve watched the accidents and hear the accidents on a regular basis, and put more signs in the middle of the
road, I think that’s going to increase more confusion, and if there’s anything you can do about the Getty sign,
please do it.
MR. STONE-Let me just ask you a question. The sign where it sits right now, which is about where this new
sign is going to go, sir, do you think that’s too close to the road, the pylon sign?
MR. VANDERZEE-No, if it doesn’t come any closer. I understood that it was coming closer.
MR. HAYES-It’s getting bigger.
MR. BONNIE-Three closer.
MR. STONE-The top will be closer, yes, correct. Or is the pole coming?
MR. VANDERZEE-The pole’s on the outside.
MR. BONNIE-The pole will be, well, the outside of the pole will be two feet closer than that sign.
MR. STONE-The pole or the sign?
MR. BONNIE-The overall sign, the top of the sign that sticks out, the top is going to be three feet closer to
the road than that.
MR. STONE-The top of that sign?
MR. BONNIE-Yes. The leading edge. The leading edge is what you have to go by.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. BRYANT-The application says that the existing sign is 18 feet setback, the proposed is 18 feet setback,
is the same.
MR. BONNIE-That was changed, I was told. The application was changed.
MR. BRYANT-The application has changed?
MR. BONNIE-That’s I was told.
MR. BRYANT-Well, the application, that’s what I’ve got.
MR. STONE-That’s what we’ve got here.
MR. ABBATE-I’ve got the same thing you have.
MR. STONE-Bruce, has there been a change?
MR. HAYES-Yes, there has to be, because Bruce’s relief is 10 feet. Do you know what I mean? So
somewhere along the line 15 feet became the basis, from the road.
MR. FRANK-There were a lot of questions over this application, that I spoke with.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. BONNIE-John Renzi.
MR. FRANK-That’s who I spoke with, and that was over a phone conversation, and what I have here is
based on the phone conversation with John Renzi.
MR. HAYES-So they’re proposing 15 feet then? That’s what we have to know.
MR. BRYANT-In the front.
MR. HAYES-Right. So that goes along with Bruce’s Staff notes of 10 feet of front setback relief.
MR. FRANK-And I actually measured in the field to the base, and it was about 18 feet. So if you look at the
site plan, the way they show the sign proposed, it extends in front of the base, closer to the road, and I would.
MR. STONE-You penciled in on my thing, or somebody, 15 feet to the edge of the sign.
MR. FRANK-No, I didn’t do that. That’s how I received the application also.
MR. STONE-That’s how you received it. Okay, and the edge of that sign is, what?
MR. BONNIE-Eighteen feet.
MR. STONE-So it’s going to be three feet closer than that, where it says Getty, probably three feet closer.
We’re dealing with, what, a foot maybe on either side.
MR. BONNIE-I’m guessing a question of one foot, probably. The radius makes it looks like it’s (lost words).
MR. STONE-The poles are 60 feet apart. That’s two and a half feet. So it’s going to be two and a half, that
pole’s going to be two and a half feet closer. So it’s going to be at least three feet closer than that. I thank
you for bringing that to our attention.
MR. BRYANT-How far does the Getty, the red part, stick over the pole?
MR. STONE-He’s saying about a foot.
MR. BONNIE-Roughly that, probably 10 inches just by looking at it.
MR. BRYANT-How fat is the pole?
MR. BONNIE-They’re eight inch.
MR. BRYANT-The poles are eight inches square?
MR. BONNIE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-So that’s 16 inches. That’s 76. That makes it 23, so, yes, they’re about a foot apiece.
MR. BONNIE-Yes, it’s a foot overhang.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BONNIE-Approximately, yes.
MR. STONE-So that means it’s going to be three to three and a half feet closer than the edge of that sign is
up there.
MR. BONNIE-Actually it would be three to two and a half feet. The leading edge is three feet, but the
pole’s.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-So that site development data, then, where it says sign setback, where it says proposed, it’s
really inaccurate, 18. It really should be 15.
MR. BONNIE-Correct.
MR. HAYES-You’re right.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. BRYANT-Right.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Then the application should be revised. Have you revised this application?
MR. BONNIE-I was told it was revised.
MR. ABBATE-But it hasn’t been, and since it hasn’t been, I don’t believe we should act on it. I don’t think
we should be in a position to revise your application. Revise it. I think you should revise it.
MR. HAYES-The only thing with that is that the relief that he’s requested has been spelled out, and if we do
that, just on the agenda.
MR. ABBATE-Good point. You’ve got a good point, Jaime. Okay.
MR. FRANK-And again, I brought this up also with the Zoning Administrator. I mean, we’re being
inundated with applications. Do we want to keep tabling applications if we can settle it. If it’s on everyone’s
mind. I wouldn’t want anyone to vote if they’re not really clear what the application is, but I did call up.
MR. STONE-Let’s finish the public hearing. Is there any correspondence?
MR. FRANK-I’m sorry.
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-Well, let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-So what we’re talking about is what, let’s see if we can get it straight, is we’re talking a sign
which is approximately 75 square foot. We’re debating whether it’s a couple of inches, so 75 square foot, and
the leading edge of that sign, the edge closest to Aviation Road, is going to be approximately 15 feet from the
property line. Current sign, that same edge, is 18 feet. Do you agree with that?
MR. BONNIE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. So, gentlemen, that’s what we’re talking about. We’re moving the upper edge and
consequently the leading pole, we’re moving it closer to Aviation Road, if we grant this variance as requested.
MR. HIMES-Just a conjectural question for everybody and what not. Now the property to, on the same side
of the road but toward Exit 19, there used to be another thing there that was torn down. I don’t know, does
anyone know what’s going to go in there? The question being that if another business goes in there.
MR. STONE-You mean the Sunoco station?
MR. HIMES-You see the blue, that blue down there? That’s left from the previous tenant I think.
MR. STONE-Right.
MR. BRYANT-The Sunoco station.
MR. HIMES-Now, if another business were to occupy that lot, and it seems to me that that has something to
do with Pyramid, and maybe there’s, so I don’t know, but if one does, is it going to put its sign right down
there in the corner, too, and it’s going to go right up and kind of eclipse the new Getty sign? I was thinking,
well, why doesn’t Getty put their signs more in the middle, but I guess there’s just no room there. I thought
there used to be like a.
MR. STONE-It’s like who gets first on the cell tower pole.
MR. HIMES-Yes, but I think the gentleman is right.
MR. STONE-Well, let me ask you a question, sir, because I don’t know where we’re going to come down,
but are you empowered to place this sole sign further back from Aviation Road?
MR. BONNIE-We can go as far, where that sign is now, that 18 feet, I can do that.
MR. STONE-Okay. The one person from the public that’s concerned with signs being too close to Aviation
Road. You want to be closer than the current sign, and I don’t know where the Board comes out, but I want
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
to be sure that we’re not wasting our time if we come up with the idea that place the sign so that the leading
edge is no closer to Aviation Road, with the other relief that you’re looking for.
MR. BONNIE-With the existing sign, right?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BONNIE-Yes, we can do that.
MR. STONE-I don’t know if that helps anybody.
MR. ABBATE-I think that’s reasonable.
MR. HAYES-I guess we should see what everybody has to say.
MR. STONE-Yes, let’s go do that, Jaime, I think you’re right, because it’s getting late. Jaime, you start.
MR. HAYES-Well, unfortunately, in this particular case, you know, with the last Sign Variance, I thought we
had an unusual circumstance because of the large right of way that Niagara Mohawk had, and how far back
the sign would be that allowed me to make a decision to logically derivate from what the Code requires I
think there was a special circumstance, and that’s why we sit here. I mean, the Code is the Code, and we try
and keep that the best we can, but when there’s extenuating circumstances, or a logical reason, we can grant
relief, and we do, but in this particular case, I don’t see what the extenuating circumstance is, at all. The Code
calls for certain size signs a certain amount of relief from the road, and I think, in this particular case, that
sign, I can see that sign, coming up Aviation Road or going down it, at its current size. So I don’t, this 50%
relief for sign size, which I know Bruce has further modified down to 11, you know, again, we won’t get into
that thing, but in my mind, if the applicant wants the sign at 15 feet, then it should be a 50 square foot sign
just like the Code calls for, because I really can’t see what is the circumstance here that compels or presents
an unusual hardship to the applicant for us to change the Sign Ordinance. We’ve stuck pretty close on the
Sign Ordinance in the past, unless there was an extenuating reason, and I really don’t see it here. I think, as
the gentleman from the public has pointed out, that this is the entrance to Queensbury, and that do we just
need bigger signs here just to have bigger signs? I, personally, don’t think so, unless there’s a good reason,
and I don’t see it. So I wouldn’t be in favor, really of any relief, in this particular circumstance. I don’t see
what the compelling reason is.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-No, I ducked out for a minute. So I may have missed something, but looking at the
comments that the applicant had at the beginning, he seems to be saying that they’re consolidating sign at the
pylon. Now does this mean there’s going to be no signs on the front of the store?
MR. BONNIE-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-So we’re, in effect, trading signs that normally would be on the front of the store, for more
signage on the pylon sign?
MR. BONNIE-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-And that strikes me as some mitigation. I think I would be willing to go along with the 75
square foot sign with the leading edge no closer to the edge than the existing sign there, with the condition
that there would be no other signs on the building or on the canopy.
MR. STONE-Is that it? Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I’d clash a little bit with what Chuck has said, although I can appreciate,
certainly, his feeling, and also agree with what Jaime has said, that I kind of think they ought to meet the
Code requirements for the sign, and there are provisions for wall signs, window signs, and canopy signs
within the Code, and since they are there, to exercise them might meet some of the requirements that I read
somewhere in the file about the fact that there’s something there besides gas and so on, the other businesses
there, or that there be some change in the way the sign is designed, to get all the business entities on it. So, in
short, I’m not in favor of the sign, again, as Jaime said, there just hasn’t been substantive enough reasons
given to show that there is going to be any great loss to the business operation with a sign that meets, that is
compliant. Thank you. That’s all.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. I, too, will have to side with Jaime as well as Norm. I don’t really see
any mitigating circumstance. I will concede the fact, and looking for it now, that they are attempting to
consolidate, I think that’s the term that they were using, to consolidate, here it is, by consolidating signage at
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
the pylon sign for both convenience store and gas station. That is a concession, but, overall, I don’t believe
that concession really mitigates consideration for approval of the application. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Al?
MR. BRYANT-I agree with what the previous Board members have said. In that corridor, I know that there
was a previous application for Hess and they got a bigger sign, but in reality, that’s a corridor that we should
protect, and I think that we should keep the size of the signs to Code, so that it doesn’t become a Quaker
Road at that point. As far as the trading one sign for another, one is not related to the other. So I think that
I would be more inclined to go with a different wall sign than have a larger sign near the road. It’s just not
appealing to me. So, I’d be opposed to it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-To me the critical issues are the future growth and future impact. This is a critical area of the
Town, and much has been made of the Aviation Mall properties, as you enter into this area off the Northway.
Being bombard with oversized signs can be perceived as a glut, and I think it’s important, on Aviation Road
as a whole, and if this section, in this section in particular, being in compliance, or at least pretty darn close to
it, and I think I would be more receptive if this were back 25 feet. I might consider it more within line, but at
the current location and the size that’s being proposed, I would be against it.
MR. STONE-My basic concern here is similar to what everybody is saying, that this is kind of double
dipping. You want an oversized sign closer than it should be, and that’s why we’re having a little confusion in
trying to figure out which comes first, the distance from the road or the size of the sign, but an oversized
sign, oversized even for the correct distance, is a lot of relief I think. I mean, that was the comment I wrote
down when I looked at the property. My note said very simply, too much , and I guess I haven’t really heard
anything. I mean, we’ve tried to do some mitigating, but as you start to think about it, I think basically what
they’re asking for, and I know it’s not you, what they’re asking for is an oversized sign much closer to the
road than the size, even at 64 feet, should be. I mean, we’re just too close. So I’m going to ask for a motion
to deny this variance. I gather that’s what we’ll get is a vote. You have two alternatives. Again, you can
withdraw the application, come back at a future time with a modified plan, or we’ll deny it and you still have
the option of coming back with a significantly modified plan. It’s your call. I mean, I understand, as Mr.
Frank says, we don’t want to table things. So we’ll either make a motion to deny or you can withdraw the
application.
MR. FRANK-And again, Mr. Chairman, I don’t want you to think that you can’t table applications.
MR. STONE-I know we can. I know.
MR. HAYES-But it’s a good point, though.
MR. STONE-But there’s no reason to table unless we could, they could always come back with a modified
plan, but they could do that anyway.
MR. BONNIE-We’ll probably just go for a normal permit, which is 50 square feet, and what setback?
MR. STONE-Fifteen feet.
MR. BONNIE-Fifteen feet, with fifty square feet.
MR. STONE-Or 64 at 25.
MR. HAYES-That’s their choice, though.
MR. STONE-That’s their choice, yes. All right. I need a motion to deny.
MR. BRYANT-He’s withdrawing the application.
MR. STONE-You’re withdrawing it?
MR. BONNIE-Yes. I’m going to get denied anyway. Is that correct?
MR. STONE-That’s correct, and that puts greater, so the application is formally withdrawn?
MR. BONNIE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/22/02)
MR. BONNIE-And if for some reason the client wants to come back, we can still come back for another
variance. Is that correct?
MR. STONE-That is correct. You certainly can, with much less problems. Okay. Anything else, gentlemen?
All right. You all know we have a special meeting June 6. One item. You all were called.
th
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I’m not going to be here.
MR. STONE-You’re not going to be here. Mr. Underwood, are you going to be here?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess I can be.
MR. STONE-Good. Okay. The meeting’s adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
50