2009.05.20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY20,2009
INDEX
Notice of Appeal No. 3-2009
Dr. James Keller
Countryside Veterinary Hospital
Tax Map No. 303.8-1-6
1.
Area Variance No. 17-2009
Tim Riley
Tax Map No. 309.5-1-56
23.
Area Variance No. 18-2009
Eugene Timpano
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-14
Greg Canale (Cont'd Pg.64)
Tax Map No. 296.16-1-11
32.
Area Variance No. 19-2009
37.
Area Variance No. 20-2009
Mary Sicard
Tax Map No. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17
289.10-1-4; 289.6-1-36
44.
Area Variance No. 21-2009
NPA, llC
TaxMap No. 296.18-1-47
60.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIAllY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS Will APPEAR ON THE FOllOWING MONTHS
MINUTES (IF ANY) AND Will STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
o
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 20, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO
JOAN JENKIN
RICHARD GARRAND
JOAN JENKIN
BRIAN CLEMENTS
GEORGE DRELLOS
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MIKE HILL
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll call the May 20, 2009 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board
of Appeals to order, and first off let me do a quick review of our prQceduresin general.
For each case, I'll call the application by name and number and the secretary will read
the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes, as well as the Warren County Planning
Board decision if applicable into the record. The applicant then will be invited to the table
and be asked to provide any information that they wish to add to the application. The
Board, then, will ask questions of the applicant. Following that, we'll open the public
hearing, and I'd caution that the public hearing is not a vote, but it's a way to gather
information about concerns, real or perceived, and it's a way to gather information and
insight in general about the issue at hand. It should function to help the Board members
make a wise, informed. decision, but it does not make the decision for the Board
members. As always, we'll have a five minute limit on each speaker. So that basically
tells us everything they want us to know in that five minutes. A speaker may speak again
if, after listening to other speakers, they believe they have new information to present.
Following that, we'll read correspondence into the record, and then the applicants will
have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment, and Board members
then will discuss the variance with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will
be polled to explain their positions on the application, and then we'll close the public
hearing, unless there's a reason to leave it open, and that would be only if it looks like
the application will be continued to another meeting. Finally we'll have a motion .to
approve, disapprove or table and then we'll vote on it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what I'm going to do to start is I'm going to read in Craig
Brown's letter that was sent, and then I'm going to read just the intro to the letter from Mr.
Lapper, because I'm sure you're going to fill us in as to all the details.
MR. LAPPER-Certainly.
MR. LAPPER-And, Roy, I'll have you, after I get done, read the Staff Notes in regarding
this. It's addressed to Dr. James Keller, and again, this is Building Permit application
2009-022, which is the Countryside Veterinary Hospital "Dear Dr. Keller: I am writing to
you in response to your building permit application referenced above. As I understand
your current proposal based on our conversations, the conversations that I have had with
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
Mike Palmer, Fire Marshal and Bruce Frank, Code Compliance Officer and the review of
both your current application as well as the original Use Variance application for this
property; Variance 316, I offer the following information. The property in question is
located within a Suburban Residential, (SR-1 A) zoning district within the Town of
Queensbury. Currently, a Veterinary Clinic is not an allowed use within the SR-1 A zone.
A. "use" variance (Variance 316) was granted by the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board
of Appeals on July18,1973, to aUow the applicant, Dr. Edward French to operate a
veterinary clinic. The written record for this meeting shows that the use was approved
specifically for......" "farm" calls for large animals (rather than caring for and boarding i.e.
cats and dogs.)" The current definition for Veterinary Clinic is as follows:
A facility pro 'ng health services and medical or surgical care to animals suffering
from illness, d . ., injury, deformity and other abnormal conditions, including related
facilities such laboratories and boarding facilities. The definition includes the term
"veterinary clinic."
Additionally, Kennel is listed and defined separately as follows:
An establishment to house dogs, cats, and other household pets where grooming,
breeding, boarding, training or selling of animals is conducted as a business. The
occasional sale of puppies, kittens or other offspring from household pets shall not be
considered a kennel.
My review of your application materials for the proposed work; much or all of which has
already been completed, reveals that an area for the keeping of 14 dogs is planned for
the southerly end of the main building on the property. This information is shown on the
plans that you submitted that also indicate that new floor drains, a new septic system,
and a new heating/cooling system is planned for the approximately 810 sf space in
question. Further,. based on my external visual. inspection. of your property I note that
several pole.lights have been added to the site along the driveway and that a new sign
has been installed on the property. A review of our records shows that no approvals
have been issued for these modifications to your site. Additionally, based on your recent
advertisement in the January 22, 2009 edition of The Chronicle, I note that the above
referenced dog boarding areas are new and that an additional "Grooming Salon" is
planned for the near future.
My determinations on these issues are as follows:
.
A Sign Permit is necessary for the revised sign that has been installed.
A Sign Variance may be required as it appears as though the placement does not
meet the minimum front setback requirement for such a sign. While the current
sign replaces a previous sign, the current sign is larger and shall. be treated as a
new sign.
A Use Variance is necessary for the addition of the kennel operation if dogs are
to be boarded without receiving medical or surgical care that requires an
extended stay at your facility. Further, a Use Variance is also required if the
"Grooming.Salon" is offered to.any animals other than those animals in need of
medical or surgical care at your facility.
An Area Variance is necessary for the establishment of the kennel use. While
your property may meet the minimum 10 acre lot size requirement for the
operation of a kennel, not all of the areas where dogs will be kept are located at
least 200 ft from all property lines.
A Special Use Permit. is necessary for the addition of the kennel operation
including the grooming components. Further, this review must address the
addition of the lights and other existing and proposed site improvements to your
commercial facility.
.
.
.
.
It is my expectation that these items will be addressed expeditiously in order to avoid the
issuance of an Appearance Ticket. before the Town of Queensbury Justice Court.
Please note our February 17, 2009 submittal deadline for applications to be considered
for our March 2009 agendas. ... Should. you. have any further questions or comments,
please.do not hesitate to contact this office." And that's signed Craig Brown. Okay. The
initial response letter, and again, you're going to go into detail here when we get into the
gist of it, but, I guess, Dr. Keller, then, is appealing the Zoning Administrator's
determination, and this letter basically sums up the basic points of that. "Dear Chairman
Underwood: Please be advised that we represent Dr. Keller in the operation of
Countryside Veterinary Hospital on the above referenced property which is owned by
AJK Properties, a corporation owned by Dr. and Mrs. Keller. On February 5, 2009,
Zoning Administrator Craig Brown made the determination that although the veterinary
hospital operates on Queensbury Avenue, under a Use Variance that was obtained in
2
(QueensburyZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
1973 by Dr. French, it is prohibited from boarding and grooming cats and dogs. Due to
the fact that this property operates with a Use Variance which allows for a veterinary
clinic, we respectfully disagree with this determination. As we expressed to Craig Brown
in multiple letters, and at a meeting in his office, his narrow interpretation of veterinary
clinic, stating that they should only board animals that they are caring for is an
interpretation that we believe has never been applied before by the Town. There are
multiple veterinary clinics that operate in the Town of Queensbury that board animals
which they are currently not caring for. In addition, this type of restriction was never
imposed in the resolution that was issued for the Use Variance for Dr. French in 1973.
As a result, no such limitation ever existed. Moreover, at the time in which Dr. Keller
was purchasing the property, his then attorney, Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, Firth, asked
the Town of Queensbury to confirm that the existing uses were in compliance with the
Town of Queensbury Code. In response to that request, . David Hatin indicated that the
current business operation of the property was not in violation of any Town or local laws,
. ordinances or codes. Obviously atthis time to provide that such a limitation exists is
unfair and arbitrary. This determination would place a restriction on Dr. Keller's business
that has never been imposed before, upon Dr. Keller or any other veterinary clinic that
we are aware of. Dr. French has been boarding and grooming dogs and cats at the
facility for decades. In facthe boarded strays for several municipalities under contracts
continuously since the 1970's. Additionally, boarding and grooming are typically
ancillary uses to a veterinary clinic. As a result, and with this Appeal, we request that the
Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown, reconsider his determination and if such
determination is not reversed, to place this on the next available Zoning Board of
Appeals Agenda. Very Truly Yours, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, P.C. Jonathan
C. Lapper, Esq."
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 3-2009, Dr. James Keller - Countryside Veterinary
Hospital, Meeting Date: May 20, 2009 "Project Location: 270. Queensbury Avenue
Description of Proposed Project: Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals
relative to a February 5, 2009 decision made by the Zoning Administrator regarding the
operation of a kennel on the property.
First, Standing:
Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing
party aggrieved?
. The appeal, signed on April 3, 2009 was filed on April 6, 2009 with the Town.
. The appellant is the property owner.
It appears as though this appeal is timely and the appellant is an aggrieved party.
Second, Merits of the argument:
It is the appellant's position that the 1973 Use Variance that was granted for the property
allows for the recent building renovations and addition of kenneling areas on the
property.
It is the position of the Zoning Administrator that the 1973 Use Variance that was granted
for this property was intended to be specific to large animals and not intended for the
care of other animals. The" it didn't say we couldn't do it" logic offered by the appellant
is unsound and not consistent with the issuance of a Use. Variance. When an
unallowable use seeks a Use Variance to establish an operation, the approval is very
specific to only those uses approved and it does not allow for all of those that are not
disapproved. While the current definition for a Veterinary Clinic allows for such related
facilities as laboratories and boarding, the current Zoning Ordinance does not allow for
such a facility on the subject property. Further, as the zoning ordinance specificallv calls
out KENNEL as a separate use, allowable in other districts, but not allowed on the
subject property it is the position of the Zoning Administrator that the recent changes to
the appellants property are consistent with the definition of a KENNEL therefore such a
use is not allowed on the subject property without a Use Variance.
The appellant references a letter from Dave Hatin relative to the existence or non-
existence of any Town Code violations that was drafted on February 6, 2007. The
current work performed by Dr. Keller did not occur until late 2008 and/or early 2009. As
such, the Hatin letter may have been accurate, however, it must be noted for the record
that Mr. Hatin is not empowered to render any determinations relative to the Town of
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance... No inquiries were made by the appellant to the Zoning
Administrator prior to either the purchase .or the recent, unpermitted work on the site.
The appellants offer that the renovations on the property do not expand the area of the
pre-existing, non-conforming use on the property. . No such determination has been
made by the Town. The current determination is th~t the addition of a KENNEL to the
property requires further reviews including. a Use Variance, Area Variance and Special
Use permit. Further, the new, non-conforming sign andsite lighting also. requires reviE!w.
The appellant offers that Site Plan Review is not required. for this property as such is not
cal.led for per Table 1 of Chapter 179. Table 1 does not require Site Plan Review for this
operation because NEITHER a Veterinary Clinic or Kennel is listed as an allowable use
for the subject property. Site Plan Review is required as is the case for any use that
requires a Use Variance.
There have been no inconsistent or arbitrary determinations on this matter."
MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Lapper?
MR. LAPPER-Goodeveningj~veryone. For the record, Jon Lapperand Stephanie
Bitter. Directly behind us are Dr. and Mrs. Keller, and .behind them Dr. and Mrs. French.
We will explain the situation as we see it, and then the.doctors are available to talk to the
Board and answer any questions. Obviously this is a very serious matter for Dr. Keller
who bought the practice and bought the property, and.with the expectation that he would
be able to continue to do what Dr. French had been doing on the property for some more
than three decades. It's our position that the boarding and grooming are ancillary to a
veterinary practice, and ultimately that was codified when there was not a definition at
the time, in '73, there is now, but that definition says that boarding is included as an
ancillary use with a veterinary practice. We think that that's a very significant point, in
terms of how you interpret this, because that doesn't. change anything. It's just an
acknowledgement,. and.. moreover, before Dr. Keller. closed on the purchase of the
property, he did check with Dave Hatin.So, you know, when you come to Town, all you
can do is ask to make sure and he certainly checked, but to get into the specifics, the
1973 Use Variance, the Staff Notes did not include the last page of the resolution from
'73, which was the resolution itself. There was discussion in the minutes, and Dr. French .
will talk about that, there was discussion in the minutes about what he primarily did at
that time in terms of the practice, but there was no condition restricting this to only horses
and cows, and in fact there was discussion that he did service dogs and cats, but the
resolution didn't have any restriction. It just said a veterinary clinic, and based upon that,
he immediately started to continue to serve horses andcow~, but to serve dogs and cats,
to service them,and to board them, and it's just a unique situation here, because we
wouldn't often have proof, these years later, but because he had municipal contracts in
addition to just boarding resident's dogs and cats when they were on vacation, we were
able to get a hold of that documentation and to submit this .in the record, that that was
just for boarding. It had nothing to do with treating them. It was just for boarding strays.
That, the documentation shows that that started in approximately 1976, three years after
he got the variance, and it continued until right when he sold the practice. So this use
has been going on. It's been 38 years, excuse me, 36 years since the variance was
granted. It's been going on for 36 years. .We find it incredible that there could be a new
interpretation after.36 years, that something that's.be~n.ongoing can no longer continue.
We believe that there's vested rights because there was a Use Variance granted. The
Use Variance didn't condition this that you couldn't have dogs and cats, dogs and cats
were boarded here and groomed here continually since that time. So it would be too late
to challenge that now, to try and .overturn that, because it's been used. The boarding
area has been there for all this time, and what, the changes that were made in 2008. did
not add any new boarding area. It just changed the interior of the building to make
smaller areas, so you could fit more dogs, but it didn't change anything. There had been
dogs boarding and we'll have testimony on the record. That was not an expansion of the
area. It was not an expansion of the. building. It was just how that room was used. In
terms of the ancillary use, I guess the definition was read into the record, in terms of
boarding, as a related use, and our point is that it was used for grooming, as well, and
that, just the same that you bring your dog to your veterinarian when you go on vacation,
and you bring your dog to your veterinarian when it needs to be groomed, and these are
just typical uses that, other services that that veterinary practice will perform. The Staff
Notes and the determination from Craig .now has a spin that they can only, that a
veterinary practice can only board dogs and cats if they're being treated, if they're in
surgery,. for example, and that's certainly not something that's in the definition in the
Town Code. So that's a new restriction. It's not applied to anybody else in Town,
because the other veterinary practices, I know, personally, that I. used Dr. Glendenning
on Ridge Road for many years, and you'd call up and say you're going on vacation and
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
leave your dog exactly the same as Dr. Keller. So it would. be arbitrary to apply this to
one practice and not to somebody else, but, you know, residents in Town go on vacation.
They call the vet and they leave their dogs. It's an ancillary use to a vet practice. It's
different than a kennel, which doesn't have a veterinary practice, which is Just a business
practice, which may sell dogs, but certainly there's an acknowledgement that it's an
ancillary use because it's right in the definition in the Town right now. Dr. Keller is not
doing anything differ~nt than Dr. O'Connor on Glenwood is doing or Dr. Glendenning on
Ridge Road. Exactly the same. So if the Zoning Administrator were going to make that
determination, that narrow restriction, which I don't think he can because it's not in the
Code, but if he were, he would certainly have to apply that to apply that to everybody
else, and call everybody el.se up and say you can't do that anymore because that's the
definition of arbitrary to apply this restriction to one kennel, to one veterinary practice in
Town and not to another. In this case, we're sort of shocked that there's somewhat of a
conflict of interest with Craig, and, you know, we deal with Craig every week, if not every
day. I certainly don't relish disagreeing with him on something like this. We tried. to get
him to back down, just because the neighbors moved in, and they've been there for two
years, and they're shocked to find out that there's boarding going on when it's been
going on for 36 years, but it turns out that Craig lives three houses down,so these are
his neighbors who are complaining, and we believe, under the Town Ethics Code, that
he had a requirement that he had, to not make this determination, to recuse himself,
because he is a neighbor, and he actually lives closer than some of the other people
who've sent letters in. So if they're affected, he's affected, you know, feels they're
affected. So we don't think it's appropriate for him to have made a determination in this
<::ase. He should have recused himself, but we just want that to. be on the record, and
just in terms of the nature of the use, I guess I think that it's important for Dr.. French to
get on the record and just answer some questions and just talk to you about what's been
going on for the 30 some years that he ran the practice here, based upon that Use
Variance. The specific reason for the Use Variance was so he could use this as a
veterinary clinic, certainly including grooming and boarding. He immediately, and
continued to do that So to hear, all these years later, that that's wrong, and that wasn't
authorized, you know, in those days, the minutes are very sketchy. He can talk more
about what was said that night, but it's not like we have a verbatim record. It's just a
summary. The wording in theminutes were, was it principally, principally farm calls for
large animals, but the resolution, as the application had stated, just says to place an
office and a veterinary clinic in in an M-1 zone, without restriction. So let me ask Dr.
French, at this point, to come up and just answer a few questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to assume at the time that the. variance was grpnted,
that somebody must have been concerned about dogs being kept on. site, some
neighbors in the near neighborhood or something of that nature. That's way in the. past,
as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it. probably was a legitimate thing. It was addressed.
There seems to be some language that addresses that within the resolution.
MR. LAPPER-Well, there was a little bit more that Dr. French has told me. So it would
probably be good for you to hear it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I'll follow up with that. What I would like to know is this,
you know, over the years, you've been practicing for many, many years, many decades.
Was it a, I mean,1 would assume that you had dogs coming in on occasion, that wasn't
the primary part of your practice at that time.
DR. EDWARD FRENCH
DR.. FRENCH-Well, from about 1979 on that was the primary practice, because I had to
give up the large animal work, for health reasons, but that was a major part of it from
then on.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It seems to me that you substantiated with all, you know, the past
records and the surrounding communities that took note of your services out there, that
you were boarding dogs there, taking in strays the whole nine yards, like everybody else
does. .
DR. FRENCH-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Board members, do you have any questions about that, regarding
the old times?
MRS. JENKIN-Well, I have one question about the zoning, for Staff, guess. When it
was zoned, when the original Use Variance was granted, it was Light ndustrial. It was
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
zoned Light Industrial at that time, and since then it's been changed. to Suburban
Residential. Now, does that change the applicability of the Use Variance or the approval
of the Use Variance? Would that carry over?
MR. BROWN-The change in zoning is does not change the Use Variance. That carries
with the land.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So it still would be valid?
MR. BROWN-That's correct.
MRS. JENKIN-Even with the change in Code?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Over the course of all those years of operation, were you getting
complaints about dogs through the years, or occasionally, or ever?
DR. FRENCH-Not one. Not from any of the neighbors, and at the time of that, the
variance meeting, that was a heavily discussed question about noise, odor, and at the
time, the other hospitals had outdoor runs, and that's why they were concerned about
noise and odors, .and I assured them I had no intention at all of ever having outdoors
runs, because not only was it obnoxious to the neighbors and us living next door, but it
was a good way for disease to be transmitted from animal to animal from mosquitoes
and stray dogs around the outside, and wildlife. So it was heavily discussed, and I
fielded all the questions about the use, and it was understood at that meeting that part of
my practice was going to be small animal and boarding and grooming, and there was no
objection to that, as long as there was going to be quiet and no odors.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It would seem legitimate to me that in a normal veterinary practice
tHat boarding occurs. I mean, almost aU of us probably have had a dog at one point in
our lives and had to put itin for a vacation trip or something .I.ike that. So I mean, I don't
see that. that's an extraordinary request on the part of any other veterinary business in
Town. So, any other questions from you Board members at this time?
MR DRELLOS-I've got one.. Is there a need for large animals to be taken care of
anymore, like horses or cows?
DR. FRENCH-Not really in this vicinity, other than horses. There are a few, what we call
backyard horses, that are still around, but the cattle have all pretty much disappeared,
the sheep and the goats and those kind of things have all gone, and most of the horse
work is in the rural areas surrounding Queensbury, Fort Ann and Kingsbury and places
like that, but not really.
MR. DRELLOS-Did people bring large animals?
DR. FRENCH-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-They did. So you bOarded them there?
DR. FRENCH-Yes. We did surgery thereon them, and they recuperated in that barn,
a!ld that was pretty common up until the 80's when I had to give it up. So after that, it
was just small animals, and we did keep large dogs out in that barn, and on the occasion
when we couldn't fit them in the cages, and we had stalls outthere.
MR. DRELLOS-But todayyolj'd probably Just travel to the farm and work on them at the
farm?
DR. FRENCH-Yes. Well, if you can get them to come, I mean, that's the bestway to do
it, because we've got a tabl.e. there. We could put the animals right on the table and lift
them up and turn them over and work on them right there,. but even then we were going
out to the farm a lot, but you'd have people bring them in on trailers for vaccinations and
castrations and, you know, minor surgical procedures there, that I needed to do right
there, and they would recuperate in the stalls in the barn, and by the way, thatbuilding,
when I bought it in '73, it's, the use the year before was, it was a poultry farm, and there
were thousands of birds being boarded there all the time, and had been for years, when
Liam Nassivera owned the building, and it was zoned Light Industrial, and my
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
understanding was the parameters were, it was zoned>along with garbage dumps and
slaughter houses. So you can see at the time that rural environment out there really
wasn't that demanding, as far as the zoning goes, and they thought, when I. came, that
was probably the best thing that happened in there for a long time, because there was no
more smell from the chickens. There was no more racket from them squawking all the
time, and it was a different environment altogether. So, I mean, you put it in perspective
of what was there at the time it was, when it happened, it was in the 70's, there really
wasn't much going on, other than farming and rural activity.
MR. URRICO-I have a question, Jim. I'm looking at the variance that was passed in
1973, and in the notes, it says that Dr. French told the Board that his work was principally
farm calls for large animals. So that pretty much hasn't changed. At that point, you were
making calls?
DR. FRENCH-That was part of what I did, but I said farm calls as well as surgery and
care of the animals in the hospital. Obviously that's why I had the hospital there, so I
could take care of them.
MR. URRICO-Yes. It says farm calls for large animals rather than caring for and
boarding, i.e. cats and dogs. So that was not the case at the time?
DR. FRENCH-No, no. That was never.
MR. LAPPER-You said there was much more discussion about dogs and cats at that
time.
DR. FRENCH-Yes, at great length, what I was going to do with them, how I would look
after them there and what did I expect for the length of stay and that kind of thing.
MR. LAPPER-The fact that you had an indoor run was discussed, and you did. build an
indoor run.
DR. FRENCH-Yes. We have indoor runs.
MR. LAPPER-They're still there.
DR. FRENCH-Yes, they're still there.
MR. LAPPER- They're there for dogs and cats, but horses don't run inside buildings.
MR. . UNDERWOOD-Okay. Getting back to the determination of the Zoning
Administrator, I guess a lot of construction's gone on. It seemed to me that what it
involved was it was a matter of a little bit was added, or you were chahging over some of
the bigger berths for larger animals?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Nothing was added to the building. It's just that the room that Dr.
French talks about as the barn, it's the same room. It's just .that it was cleaned up. It
was modernized because it's been there since the 70's, and it was certainly, the horse
stalls were cut in half, so you could have, you know, twice as many dogs as horses, but it
had been used for dogs and cats. It's a use question here, and that room was where the
boarding took place, or primarily where it took place, and it was used for dogs and cats
as well over all these years. Right?
DR. FRENCH-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-So that room that's been renovated and changed, that was the,where the
chickens were housed? It's the big building?
DR. FRENCH-This was in the smaller building, hooked onto it, the gambrel roof building?
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
DR. FRENCH-That's what we're talking about the new addition. That new room that he
made was where the horse stalls, used to be cattle stalls when I came there.
MR. LAPPER-When you say new, you mean your predecessor and owner, new, before
you bought it. Are you referring to?
DR. FRENCH-Dr. Keller.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. LAPPER-But he didn't add the room, he just fixed the inside.
DR. FRENCH-He fixed the inside up, yes, the bUilding was always there.
MRS. JENKIN-And that's where you've always boarded the dogs before.
DR. FRENCH-Large dogs.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes.
DR. FRENCH-Most of the dogs were inside. Just the large dogs and farm animals, deer,
whatever the game warden would bring up.
MR. LAPPER-That was the boarding room.
DR. FRENCH-That was part of the boarding, yes, it was.
MRS; JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let's go to the flipside of the coin. Craig, let's go to you and
let's just ask a few questions of you. You seem to be very concerned that there's been
some major change here. After listening to the explanation, do you, I mean, like, I don't
know the history. You live out there. You've been living there for quite some time, I
would think, at this point. Has it been a problem with the neighbors, as far as you're
concerned?
MR. BROWN-Well, just for the record, I'd like to address the conflict of interest issue.
When you get this zoomed down as far as it'll go, the last house on the bottom of the
picture is the neighbor to the immediate north. So my house is directly beneath that
house, right about where the cursor is. Outside the 500 foot notice area. For the record,
never knew there were dogs there barking. Never heard anything. Don't have any
conflict there. The first I heard of it was when Mr. Allison contacted me with a concern.
So I didn't know aboutit. There's no conflict here. I don't board my animals there. I
dbn't know anybody that boards their animals there. So, I don't feel there's any conflict
here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I wasn't really concerned with that, but, in other words, the
Town has not recei"ed any real complaints. There's no record of complaint about this
facility previous to these renovations that have occurred, as far as you know?
MR. BROWN-As far as I know, no.
MRS. JENKIN-So this complaint just came to you, did it? Because it's not part of our
record, of our packet. So it's not a written complaint?
MR. BROWN-I think there was a letter that was submitted; that identified some concerns,
yes, but it wasn't part of the AppeaL I mean, what you have in front of you is what the
appellant has submitted and the original determination. So the history before that is not
going to be part of your package. Just a couple of the. points, if you don't mind. I guess
a couple .of points were made that the new restriction that says they can or can't do
anything on the property. We're not talking about any new restriction. I've taken no
exception to the previous Use Variance. I'm.notsayingyou can't continue that previous
Use Variance at all. My issue is with the new work on the site,the addition of the kennel.
Under the current zoning, which is what this property is subject to, because this is when
the developments occurred, kenneling is an allowed use in the zone. What they've done
there is create a component of this use, different than the vet clinic, that's just for
kenneling. If you use the analogy that if you go to the hospital, you're going to stay
overnight there, but you don't go to the hospital when you go on vacation, you're going to
go to a hotel. When you think that you're going to go get your haircut, you're not going to
go to the hotel. You're going to go to a hair salon, and those are all different uses that
are listed in the Code. So to say that the kennel is a part of the vet clinic, it's only part of
the vet clinic, the kenneling portion, is if you have an animal there that's being cared for,
and as long as they're under the care and the. need .to stay, they're allowedto be
boarded there. It's not a new determination. . It may not be spelled out like that in the
Code, but that's what I have. to do as part of my job. If there's .any gray areas in the
Code, I have to interpret it and make a reasonable decision.. I think that's what I've done
here. So, I think that addresses the ancillary boarding and grooming. It's allowable,
certainly, with a vet clinic, if the animals are there for care, but as somebody off the street
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
who wants to come and board or have an animal groomed, that's clearly under the
definition of a kennel. I think that's the. component that they've added here.
MR. LAPPER-Can Dr. French respond to that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly.
DR. FRENCH-That was always part of the veterinary practice, having a boarding facility,
usually for your own clients, but sometimes for others, but whether they were being
treated or not was beside the point. It was a place that had room for animals that
needed to be boarded and it was allowed, whether they went on vacation orjust over the
weekend .or for injury. So it wasn't, it was never spelled outthat way when we had the
practice going or when we applied for the variance. Thatwas never a problem, having
just separate boarding, and very seldom do you ever just board animals that .are not
being treated there. I'm sure that facility right now is boarding, putting animals into those
cages that have been. spayed, neutered, broken legs, you know, fractures, anything.
They're being housed. in that facility just as well as somebody that comes down the road
that wants just to keep the dog there just for the weekend, that doesn't have any. medical
problem, or surgical problem. So there's no cut and dry area there. The thing is being
used for medical, surgical, and just boarders.
MRS. JENKIN-Could I ask something, too?
DR. FRENCH-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Because of the contracts you have with Glens Falls, Kingsbury and
Hudson Falls, for the boarding of strays and things, that's considered part of. your
veterinary clinic, correct?
DR. FRENCH-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-It's not a separate. I'm confused, Craig, because you have injected the
word "kennel" into this several times, but there's no mention of a kennel in any of the
other information we have,~s far as the Use Variance that was granted. . It didn'tmenti9n
kennel. The contracts with each of the towns doesn't mention anything about ~ kennel.
It talks about a shelter, and .itdoes mention what kind of care has to be given to these
animals, but it doesn't say kennel, and I don't understand where the kennel is now, how
you've brought kennel into it.
MR. BROWN-Well, I guess I didn't bring the kennel into it. The work that was done on
the property to create the kenneling component, where the former, I guess, large farm
animal stalls, the stable portion of the barn, has been converted into, I think, 14 kennels
to keep dogs.
MRS. JENKIN-So when you got your application, it stated kennel on the application?
MR. BROWN-When I got what application?
MRS. JENKIN-You got an application for the changes being made?
MR. BROWN-Well, eventually, after we found that they weredoing some work there
without some permits and we got them to come in and submit for a building permit
application, the application didn't say kennel, but again, part of the job that I do is get
information and try and determine what it is and see where it fits in the Code and how it
can be defined, and it was my determination that the work that they've done there isa
kennel. That's where it came from.
MR. CLEMENTS-Excuse me. Could I ask? Craig, could you tell me what your reason
for visiting the property was originally?
MR. BROWN-A complaint.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Excuse me, Brian. What we're talking about is this distinction between
boarding, which we know is in the definition of veterinary clinic, and kennel, which isa
separate definition. . The way I read the Code, a kennel doesn't have a veterinary clinic.
It's boarding that happens in a commercial setting without a medical setting, but because
boarding is an ancillary part of the veterinary practice, not just Dr. French's and Dr.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
Keller's, but everybody else in Town, and I'm sure many of you have dogs that you leave
over the weekend, there .is no requirement that they have to be sick or surgically treated.
So that boarding component isan ancillary, typical use of a veterinary clinic. It's how
they earn some of their funds, and it's been going on, as Dr. French said. So I don't
understand the distinction of the room was r~novated. There was already an area where
there were dog cages in the building, separate and apart from this room,and this room
was made more conducive to dogs, but the use was always for boarding, asan ancillary
use, whether it was horses, deer, stray dogs, or dogs that people leave for the weekend.
That's what I think is an incorrect distinction.
DR. FRENCH-The other thing is that this is not like a regular boarding kennel. . There is
no dog or.cat that ever gets into that place without having a thorough examination before
it ever gets put into a cage. First they're looked over for fleas. They have stool samples
taken for worms. They do a complete workup on them. They don't let them just go in
there and run around free and give this stuff to everybody else. So they all are checked
anyway, and most of them want vaccinations given. The dogs are wormed while they're
there. Any other little malady that they have seen off and on throughout the last month
they. usually have that done while they're there. So these dogs really aren't just going to
a-boarding kennel, but they're looked over. They're examined. They have the benefit of
the professional veterinarian to make sure that they're in good shape and that they aren't
passing things aroundfrom one animal to the other, and so I think what was done or he
expanded the hospital, not the boarding kennel. That's the hospital. That's all part of the
hospital.
MRS. JENKIN-Are the contracts with the town still in place? You're still boarding?
DR. JAMES KELLER
DR. KELLER-With the three towns, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Thank you.
MR. URRICO-May I ask, how many, in a typical, when you had the practice, full capacity,
what was the percentage of the number of boarded animals that you would have at one
particular time, just roughly?
DR. FRENCH-Well, it probably could be in the neighborhood of 20 to 25, I guess,
because I didn't have a very big place, but I had probably 40, almost 50 kennels in there,
and probably an average throughout the year would be 25 at any time.
MR. URRICO-So about half.
DR. FRENCH-Sometimes it would be so full we'd have to send them away.
MR. URRICO-And they were there just to be boarded? They weren't being cared for?
DR. FRENCH-No. Yes. . One. of the requirements I always had there was not one of
them gets into the place without having me examine. them, because I don't want the
people coming back and saying they caught fleas here or they got a respiratory infection
when they were there. That wasn't the way I wanted to do this, and that's the reason I
pretty much limited it mostly to my own clients, because I knew the animals, but if I didn't
know them and they were recommendedby someone else, it was a rule .that I had to
examine them before they got into the place, before I'd accept them into there.
MR. URRICO-Okay, and what about now?
DR. KELLER-We have a long list of requirements for every pet that comes in,
vaccinations, heart worm, fecals, and just like Dr. French had mentioned, that, you know,
there are lots of owners that will say, you know, I've noticed by dog scratching his ear
can you go ahead and take a look at it, I think we've got an infection here. So, sure,
while. that pet is there, we're making sure that, one, he's current on all his vaccinations,
that he .is healthy to come into our hospital, and from there, sure, we'll check out an ear
infection. for them, make sure that that pet.ishealthy and goes home with likely
medication that the owner requested. So the same exact thing that was going on now.
MR. URRICO-So now you have roughly, what, 54, 55?
DR. KELLER-Off the top of my head, I don't know exact number, truly. In the area that
had been renovated from stalls to runs, basically they're runs now, and in that area pets
10
(QueensburyZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
are kept for, you know, for a pet that maybe has, is recovering from a surgery. Are there
pets that are boarding? Yes. Are there town strays in that area? Yes as well. Soin that
area that the renovation took place, we can house in that area 14 pets, either being
boarded, being looked after for care, a stray as well. So in that area there.'s 14, then
throughout the hospital there are a number of cages for smaller pets. There's another
area that is original, through the pr~ctice, hasn't been renovated. A lot of the practice
has been renovated, just from when we came in there, we wanted to, you know, kind of
bring it up to the 21st Century, so to say, and so we've renovated a lot of the practice.
There is still the original, there's a, if you, somewhere there's a plan here, original plan,
that had been submitted. There are four original runs. Those original runs are chain link
fencing. Indoors, everything is indoors. Nothing outdoors at all. Original chain link
fence that still exists to this day. that is still used for housing dogs as well.
MR. URRICO-And what percentage, or what number do you normally have there that are
strictly boarded and not being cared for?
DR. KELLER-Well, that's difficult to say, you know, as far as being cared for. Do you
consider an owner who brings a pet in for, say, we're going to be gone for the weekend.
Can you check my pet, I.think he has an ear infection, as a pet who's strictly a boarder,
or dowe now consider that a pet who has some sort.of ailment that I'll now be looking at
and treating while he's there for the weekend? So I would say that's a tough distinction
to make, strictly boarding versus something else that may be going on with that pet, and
it varies, truly. Like Dr. French said. There are times that the office will be very low in
numbers of boarders. This past weekend, not a lot going on, obviously, very low
boarders. Spring break weekend when the kids were away, sure, we had a lot. Folks go
away, they want somewhere that a veterinary can watch over their pet while they're
being boarded.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask you a question also? I mean, you've been in practice for
a few years now. Are you receiving complaints from the neighbors about noise?
DR. KELLER-The only complaints, and obviously, and that's through where we a,re
today, is from the neighbor next door.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
DR. KELLER-Any other questions?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you.
DR. KELLER-Sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have a public comment component here?
MR. BROWN-Public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think maybe what I'll do, then, is open up the public hearing.
Is there anybody here from the public wishing to speak on this matter? Please raise your
hand. Why don't you come up, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LAWRENCE HOWARD
MR. HOWARD-Thanks, good evening. My name's Lawrence Howard. I represent Andy
Allison, sent a letter in. I think some of you might have seen that. I'd like to thank you for
giving us this time, and I'd like to, I think Andy brought a DVD that we're going to listen to
in a minute, but I'd just like to make a few points about what we've heard and I'm not
going to reiterate the five or six page letter that I sent, but I think one of the most
important points is that there was a change. Okay. The Allisons, Andy and his wife,
who've lived there for three years, they were neighbors with the Frenchs and good
friends with the Frenchs. Andy can elaborate on that. They had a good relationship with
the Kellers after they moved in. The change happened when the building was renovated
and the dogs moved into the area that is less than 20 feet from Andy's property line.
Now, .1 can talk about the legalities of whether or not the original variance is appropriate,
whet.h~r or not, you kn~w, I ~gree, ?bviously, with the interpretation by the Zoning
Administrator, that a variance IS required. There's. no doubt in my mind that there is
additional public process required to expand this use under any circumstances, and that,
at a minimum, if not before this Board, before the Planning Board. You heard the
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
discussiOn. The animals should be cared for if they're being taken care of at the
veterinary hospital. I don't think there.'s nlUch ofa question .about that, and I just want to
reiter9te one more point, and I'd be happy to answer all kinds of questions, and I want
Andy to say a few things and to play this DVD, but the time that has passed, while it
might seem unfair to . some of the members of the Board, is. not a relevant legal
consideration. If this operation is inconsistent with the variance, before the expansion of
the kennel, (3fter the expansion of the kennel, today, tomorrow, at any time over the last
30 years, the Town has the right to enforce those rules. Okay. . Latches, a legal term,
doesn't apply to the Town. There's no question that the nonconforming use, which is
how you define it, he can do .it for 50.years. That doesn't mean the Town can't decide to
enforce it leg9l1y. So I just want to make that point perfectly clear, and there wasn't an
issue untiUhischange occurred, and it's asignificant change, and again, I'd be happy to
answer all kinds of questions.
MR UNDERWOOD-Would you want to elaborate what those changes were, from your
perspective?
ANDY ALLISON
MR. ALLISON-Sure. Whenwe, like Mr. Howard said, we boughUhe house about three
years ago. We bought it from Pat and Ed French who were familyfriends of ours, and
they used to be our vet. We used to take our dogs up there. So I was well aware of what
the use was of the vet clinic, even though Mr. Lapper chose to tell you otherwise. We
actually looked at buying the barn property, and had been through it extensively, prior to
us buying the house and held first right of refusal on the barn property, in the hopes that
we could eventually buy it. So I knew that property well and I knew what was going on
up in there, and in the barn that's located between the vet clinic and my house, they are
one structure. They're attached, but they're two different buildings. That building was
being used for storage when we bought it It'll show you on plans that there were box
stalls in there, but if they had been used .in the last 20 years, I'd be very surprised. So
when we bought it, they were. storage. That was an unheated space. It had a concrete
and dirt floor in it, and the lighting in it was poor to minimal, and there was no insulation
in it. So when Dr. Keller came over and proposed that he was going to build, expand into
that and expand his kenneling operation into that, I told him that, you've got to do what
youv'e goUo do, but I don't want to hear dogs coming out of that space, and after it was
all said and done, on Thanksgiving weekend, when it was fully loaded with dogs in there,
I'm, for the first time. in three years, Sitting in my living room, and all I can hear is dogs
barking over top of my family at Thanksgiving dinner, and that's what we've endured
since then. . So he's saying that he hasn't changed anything. I'm saying well either my
hearing got dramatically better, or he's obviously changed something. So I called him
about it the next day, and I said, you know, James, this isn't going to work for us. We've
got to figure out something that works for everybody up here, and his response to me,
after a lengthy discussion, was, well, if yOu didn't want to hear the cars, you shouldn't
have bought a house by the highway, and I said, well, James, the highway wasn't here
when I bought the damn house, and I asked him point blank, I said, are you going to try
to work this out with me, are we going to try to come up with some conclusion that's
going to work for everybody, and he said my hands are tied, and that was the response I
got. So. at that point, I had no other option but then to talk to the. Town, and in the
meantime we've actually been forced, because it's so bad at my house, to put our house
on the market. The house is noW for. sale, and we also hear from the local realtors that
the value of our house is very minimal right now, because of the advertisement, the
extensive advertising that's out there, abouUhe newkennelsupat Countryside. So our
house value has fallen down almost completely, to the point where in four months, we
haven't had a single person look at our house, you know, and that speaks a lot. That
speaks a lot about there not being a change up there. I did bring a video in, that shows
some of the noise. Is that DVD loaded in here? We had dropped it off at the Town this
morning.
MR. BROWN-I mean, if the Board wants to hear it. I'm not sure of the quality of the
speakers on this, but.
MR. ALLISON-We've been just taking random videos, just to kind of record for the
Town's perception of what it's like out there, and hopefully this'll play some of the sound.
This is standing in my back door, and that's what it's like when the door to the kennel is
closed. He chose to put the door getting in and out of the kennel facing my house for
some reason, but this is what we hear now, and you can hear that inside our house. We
can hear it at night now, especially up into our rooms and our kids' room, and that's it,
and that wasn't there before. We would hear occasional barking out of the back because
the kennels used to be, used to have this building as a buffer between us and the actual
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
kennels in the building, and the door to get in and out was faced toward the back of th~
property,. and those are two big things. That's the change we're talking about. . Also, you
know, the amount of dogs up there now, they've basically doubled the amount of cages
they've had. So, you know, for us it has been a dramatic change.
MR. HOWARD-So as we wrap up, I know you know this, but the special permit uses that
may be permitted in zones where kennels are permitted require a 200 foot setback.
There's a reason, when you drafted and adopted this Code, that you considered that
distance, a minimum that would be appropriate from a kenn~1. Again, it was fine until
they moved into this space, but at this point, they're 20 feet from the property line and 50
feet from Andy's living room. Something that would not be permitted in a zone where it's
permitted, to. get a special permit use. My position, which I said in the letter, is that, you
know, the original variance didn't really account for small animal care to begin with, and
the record, the minutes are the record and that's what you would use to interpret this
variance. However, it's obvious that that would probably be a harsh result for this
particular business, and I can see why the Town might not want to do that, but the idea
that allowing to expand the kennel to the detriment of the neighbor and if you can put that
map back up, I don't know if you have it, but I think everyone understands that, if you
could zoom in just a little bit on that, okay, that blue line is the Keller's property line. It
goes right past the edge of that small building where the animals are housed, and the
house just below it is Andy and Laura's. So, again, we're talking about 50 feet between
the structures, where all these dogs are now being proposed to be kept, and you can
hear what it sounds like on a regular basis.
MR. ALLISON-And the lights are also a violation to us. We bought that house because it
was in a rural area, and we bought it because it was nice and dark out there at night.
Now I. can walk down, in the middle of the night, and see my shadow down my driveway
because of the lights that were put up there, despite my having told Dr. Keller, before he
put them up, that the Town was dark sky compliant, and offering my assistance on, I'm a
(lost word) rated architect and I know all about this stuff, to give him help with that, he
chose not to do that. Additionally, you can see the property line on the south, how it
goes on an angle. Dr. Keller has taken it upon himself to take down half of my hedgerow
along the roadway myself. These are not your things, but these arethe things that we'v~
been dealing with up there, and it goes along to the fact that he was just going in and
expanding this kennel without coming and wanting to ev~n talk to the Town about it, but
he's been treating us the same way, and so for us, we're the ones who've been bearing
that burden, while, you know, this all started in October, and weare still hearing dogs on
a daily basis, and on a nightly basis, night in and night out, and we're the ones who are
bearing the burden of our property values sinking like a rock, and our quality of life
sinking like a rock. The Kellers are lucky. They get to go back to their house every
night. We don't have that benefit.
MRS. JENKIN-Sir, you realized when you bought the house that there was a veterinary
clinic next door?
MR.ALLlSON-1 used the vet. My dogs went to that vet. So, yes, I knew, and like I said, I
went through that.
MRS. JENKIN-And you knew that building, buying that business, they would be planning
to make it more, build the?
MR. ALLISON-No. I knew nothing of any expansion plans or anything like that. When
we moved there, the Frenchs were our vets. They were a viable, profitable veterinary
clinic.
MRS. JENKIN-And the practice was very small at that time.
MR. ALLISON-Why would I assume otherwise that it was going to change when I bought
my property? Who would I ask? It was sold after I lived there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don't we do this. I'm going to ask you guys to step
down for a minute and just make sure that there's not anybody else thatwants.to speak.
Is there anybody else from the public wishing to speak on this matter? Any
correspondence, Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I do have. some. I have the letter from, that was just spoken about,
from Lawrence Howard. I'll read that in.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. URRICO-"Dear Chairman Underwood: .1 represent Andy and Laura and their family,
who are the immediate and closest neighbors of Countryside Veterinary Hospital (the
"Clinic"). My clients have suffered from Dr. Keller's disregard for the Town's laws as well
as his disregard for their property rights. They hope that the Board will support Craig
Brown's interpretation and allow the Town to .enforce its regulations against Dr. Keller. I.
Introduction Andy and Laura have lived at 262 Queensbury Avenue, for almost three
years. During the time when Dr. French was their neighbor and for almost two years
after Dr. Keller took over, Andy and Laura had no problems with the Clinic. Six months
ago, however, everything changed. Now, every activity in Andy and Laura's home is
accompanied by the nearly continuous sound of barking dogs. Needless to say, given
the disruption that has come with the expansion of the Countryside Veterinary Hospital,
Andy and Laura oppose Mr. Keller's attempt to. legitimize this illegal use. The barn area
that Mr.. Keller has renovated to accommodate an expanded kennel use is located less
than 50 feet from Andy and Laura's home and less than 20 feet from their property line.
II. The Current Use of the Property is a Violation of the Original Use Variance Based on
the record created .in 1973, .the original. variance for a veterinary clinic was clearly
intended to provide care for the large animals. on the farms. in the area. The clinic's
current focus on small animals such as cats and dogs is contrary to the Zoning Board of
Appeals' (the "ZBA" or "Board") original intent and is a violation of the 1973 variance.
The record upon which the variance was granted includes a statement by Dr. French's
attorney explaining to the Board "that the area is primarily farming and Dr. French's office
would be a service to the people." The record also. includes a statement by Dr. French,
telling the Board "that his work was principally 'farm' calls for large animals (rather than
caring for and boarding i.e.. cats and dogs)" The Countryside Veterinary Hospital is in
violation of the original use variance .even if the use is not changed or expanded. The
principle use of the property for small animal care was not approved. It can be inferred
that some limited small animal care was anticipated. However, the use variance was
clearly premised on the care of large Jarmanimals. The passage of time does not
prevent the Town of Queens bury from enforcing the original variance. There is no right
to continue violating a use variance no matter how long the violations have accrued. Dr.
Keller needs a variance from this Board to operate a Clinic primarily for cats and dogs as
opposed.to large animals. III. A Kennel was Never Permitted by the Original Variance
The operation of a kennel is a second violation of the original variance, increasing the
extent to which the clinic .is operating in breach of Queensbury's laws and regulations.
Even if the Board ignores the fact that the clinic was principally approved for large farm
animals and it is now principally serving cats and dogs, the Board cannot ignore the fact
that there has never been a use variance granted for a commercial kennel. A kennel is a
different.use by definition. Again, even if the use has been going on for over thirty years,
the ongoing violation of a variance does not prevent the. Town. from enforcing their
regulations. Mr. Keller's attorney seems to suggest, in the materials he submitted to the
Board, that a kennel is permitted because it wasn't prohibited in the resolution granting
the original variance. This. suggestion is. ludicrous. The resolution approving the
variance didn't prohibit a slaughterhouse (for processing farm animals), or a meat market
(for the sale of animal meat), ora pet cemetery (for animal burials and cremations) either
- should we assume that these uses are also permitted, because they weren't
prohibited? Any number of other uses c.ould arguably be permitted by any variance if the
Board accepts. this logic. IV. .. . The. Clinic is a Nonconforming Use. Which . Requires a
Variance to Expand According to the definitions section of the Town Zoning Code the
Clinic is a Nonconforming Use. A nonconforming use may only be increased by a
variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The on-going violation of that
variance does not alleviate the need for a variance nor does it prevent the Town from
enforcing their regulations. Even if the Board is convinced that a kennel use should be
allowed the zoning code clearly requires that the applicant get a variance from the ZBA
and be subject to special permit review by the Planning Board in order to expand the
use. V. Craig Brown's Interpretation is Valid In his April20d letter, Dr. Keller's attorney
claims that Craig Brown has not applied the same. interpretation to. the other _
veterinarians in Town. .1 believe it is safe to assume that the next time Craig Brown is
faced with a. veterinary clinic in an SR-1 A zoning district operating with a use variance
that seeks to expand and add a commercial kennel he would treat it the same way as Dr.
Keller's Clinic. Simply because he has not been faced with these facts before does not
mean that his interpretation is somehow flawed. The relevant considerations for Craig
Brown and the Board are the original use variance, the record on which it was granted,
the location of this Clinic, its activities and its impact on the neighbors. Craig Brown's
interpretation of Mr. Keller's variance will have minimal impact on the. other veterinarians
in town, whether or not they are operating under the auspices of a use variance. A
Zoning Administrator's interpretation of a variance has limited value as a precedent;
each use variance is unique requiring its own restrictions and conditions. VI. There is a
Difference Between Boarding Animals for Treatment and a Kennel Dr. Keller's attorney
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
must be hoping to pull the wool over your eyes and confuse the Board. There is an
important difference between boarding animals for treatment and operating a kennel.
This significant distinction is repeatedly glossed over by the applicant. It can be
assumed that in order to treat animals ata clinic, the animals may need to board
overnight, perhaps for several nights. The current definition of a Veterinary Clinic
contemplates this possibility and specifically allows for this activity. As Dr. Keller points
out this activity has always taken place at the Clinic without any problems. As Craig
Brown accurately points out, when the kennel operation is expanded to. include animals
that are not being treated, the problems begin. There is and always has been a
qualitative difference b~tween the limited boarding necessary as an accessory use for a
veterinary clinic and a commercial kennel operatio.n - - in the number of animals, the type
of animals, the length of the stay and the resulting noise and impact on the neighbors.
VII. The Applicant Makes Material Misrepresentations Dr. Keller claims that "[t]h~
renovations do not expand the area of the pre-existing nonconforming use." The barn
area that. is twenty feet. from Andy and Laura's property line formerly contained three
horse stalls. These accommodations for large animals were consistent with the use
variance granted in 1973. The area can now accommodate fourteen dogs, which
explains the change in the noise that the Clinic generates. The attached plans provided
by Dr. French back in 2001 , clearly show that when Dr. Keller purchased the property
there were only three large "Box Stall[s]" in the barn area, the area closest to Andy and
Laura's home. The proposition that the use has not expanded is obviously false. False
statements such as this one are a violation of the Town's zoning code. This means that
if the Board relies on the proposition that the kennel use has not expanded its decision
can be voided. Given his disregard for the permit and approval process, it appears as if
Dr. Keller believes he is above th~ law. Another example of this superior attitude is his
suggestion that the lighting standards don't apply to him. "The Applicant believes that no
other provisions of the Zoning Code requires approvals for the lighting on the property."
On the contrary, the zoning code clearly states at "Section 179-6-020. Lighting.,.......B.
Application. These regulations shall applv to all commercial. industrial. multifamily. office
and recreation uses in the Town of Queensbury." (Emphasis added.) As a commercial
pre-existing use the addition of the lights would be considered "a change" subject to the
Planning Board approval. VII. Conclusion As the ZBA exercises its judgment over this
interpretation it is important that it understand the lack of judgment and concern the
applicant has demonstrated regarding his closest neighbors. In addition to the noise and
that the illegal kennel generates, which is the most significant issue, Andy and Laura
have had to hire a surveyor, at their o.wn expense, to stake the common boundary line
between Dr. Keller's property and their property. The reason they hired the surveyor was
. to determine the location of Dr. Keller's septic field which it turned out was negligently
installed on Andy and. Laura's property. (The septic field has since been relocated.)
Despite the clearly staked property line, Dr. Keller has cut down and removed Andy and
Laura's trees and cleared other sections of their property. Dr. Keller has also installed
driveway lighting which allows Andy and Laura toread the newspaper on their own patio,
at night, forcing th~m to use shades to keep the house dark enough to sleep. In keeping
with his complete disregard for Andy and Laura's property rights, he has decided to
begin riding A TV's with his friends on their property. If the Board allows Dr. Keller his
wishes, Andy and Laura and their family will pay the price for the expansion of any useat
270 Queensbury Avenue. Finally, I ask on behalf of Andy and Laura, that the Town
issue a stay preventing Dr. Keller from using his kennel and his lights until the Town
completes its review. Thankyou for your careful attention and consideration. Sincerely,
Lawrence Howard"
MRS. JENKIN-Mr. Urrico, who was the person who wrote the letter?
MR. HOWARD-That's me.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. You wrote it. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry.
MR. URRICO-"My name is Susan Bayer, and I am very much opposed to the proposed
kennel operations at Countryside Veterinary Clinic I reside at 224 QueensburyAve."
And then there's a few other people. Suzanne Nassivera, Charles Nassivera and Gloria
Mann, who also signed protest, I am opposed to the proposed kennel operations at
Countryside Veterinary Clinic.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You want to make some return comments I would assume.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. That was a pretty impolite letter, and certainly we take exception to
it. A few points that have to bemade. We actually are saying yes that they bought the
house of Dr. French which was next to the kennel that had been there for 36 years,
excuse me, the veterinary practice with boarding. The distinction between a kennel and
boarding, boarding is allowed. This is not a kennel. This is, boarding is an ancillary use
of a veterinary practice, like everybody else. Because they bought a house, Dr. French's
house was waning because he was getting to retirement age, and now Dr. Keller is a
younger vet, obviously, who's cranking up the business, but in terms of, we're here to
talk about use. Whether there were horse stalls with dog cages or whether the horse
stalls were converted to all dog cages, it's a question of whether this is a permitted use.
The use didn't change, the use of that barn area in the building, it has always been for
boarding. It's still used for boarding. So. if the Use Variance permits that, which we
b~lieve it does, this is not a change. It doesn't require going to the Planning Board. .It's
interior renovation. Dr. Keller did nothing wrong. The neighbors should have stopped to
think if they bought a house 20 feet, that was always the veterinarian's house, that's 20
feet from the veterinary practice, that there was going to be some barking, there was
going to be some impact. I mean, so now they're going to try and have the Board say
that no other kennel in Town can do any boarding, no other veterinary practice can do
any boarding, unless it is an animal that they just performed surgery on. That's a new
change. That's the change that they're asking you to implement here, which would
certainly, not only affect this practice but everybody else, if that's how this is being
interpreted, but the point is that that's wrong; that there wasn't a condition in the variance
that this was only for large animals. . There was discussion that didn't become a
condition. The issue of Site Plan, this is not a Site Plan use. It is a Use Variance. So
under the Code, perhaps that's something in the Code that could be addressed, but in
terms of putting lights, if I put lights on my driveway in my house I don't need Site Plan
approval, and this is not a Site Plan use in that zone. So it didn't require Site Plan. If it
required Site Plan, he would have asked for Site Plan. The sign does require a sign
permit, and we said that right off that hewill have to apply for a sign permit to replace the
sign, but the lights are, what, 40 watt bulbs?
DR. KELLER-30, 40 watt bulbs per lamp. I'd encourage you to drive by at night. It's
really not a requirement to close the shades on your house.
MR. LAPPER-I want DL Keller to respohd to these various issues. They really have
nothing to do with this, but they're in the letter.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask you a question, while we're doing this here? The parcel
as it exists now, the house next door that these. people live in, that was part of the
original parcel, or has that always been a separate parcel next door?
MR. tAPPER-It was always the French's house. Steph, do you know if it was on a
separate parcel, or if it was subdivided?
DR. FRENCH-It was after we, we subdivided it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Nassivera's subdivided it before they bought it.
PAT FRENCH
MRS. FRENCH-And we bought the house later.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So it's been quite some time that the subdivision has occurred, or is
it just recently?
DR. KELLER-Since the 70's.
MR. LAPPER-Since. the 70's, yes.
DR. FRENCH-Before we bought it.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. The other question I would have is this. You kind of
like built this hassle for yourself, here, I think, to. a degree, because a little bit of
troubleshooting probably would have legitimized the fact that when you made the
entrance to the new part of the kennel there, which faces your next door neighbor there,
it would seem to me a logical solution to the problem might be, if indeed we go there, is
that, you know, the noise level could greatly be changed by changing the entrance way
or creating some kind of a vapor lock.
DR. KELLER-No, I understand your question,. but the. reality is that no changes were
made to building structure. That door existed there. That always existed there. I didn't
change the building structure. I renovated the inside of the building.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is thatthe primary entrance, though, to gain access?
DR. KELLER-No, that's not the primary entrance to get into the building, but that is the
entrance/exit at which the girls, during the day, will walk pets through that door, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I don't know, Board members have any questions before we
continue?
DR. KELLER-I would just .like to make a few comments about some of the comments
that Mr. Allison and his lawyer have made, to kind of tarnish my character, so to say, in
that the trees that were cut down on the property, like I said, .1 honestly, I feel thatthis has
no bearing, really, on where we're at, but I feel that I need to say something in defense of
my own character. The trees that were cut down on the property were cut down prior to
the property line being staked. It was those trees that were cut down that Mr. Allison
claims were on his property were on an agreement of where he and I both thought the
property line was, and there's an existing stake out there. I had a police officer show up
at my practice, after those. trees were cut down, and I showed him the property stake that
existed, prior to the stakes going out there that Mr. Allison had placed, I showed him the
exact stake that Mr. Allison and I had agreed where the property line was. If you take a
drive by my property, you'll see I've done a lot of change to the property. I've cleared a
lot of trees. It had been 30 years that trees have grown on that property. You didn't
even know that that building really existed behind these trees, So, yes, Idid clear trees,
and it did turn out that two trees were, which still are Town right of way, not actually Mr.
Allison's property, were removed. So, yes, as far as riding ATV's with my friends, that
was my 10 year old nephew riding on Easter weekend. I told him don't cross the
property line after he did,and that was the end of that I have really nothing else to say
other than on the plan that is here, that was submitted by Mr. Allison's attorney, you will
see on this plan that was submitted, I don't have the exact dates of this, but it does show
areas within the hospital that are used for boarding. Plenty of areas, and basically I have
not done anything different than what was done there before, other than a simple
renovation toan area. that was previously used for boarding, and also. stated as well as I
stated earlier, that this isn't an area that's just used for dogs that are boarding. I dO have
pets in there who are being cared for as well.
MRS. JENKIN-Would itbe possible, in the interest of good neighbors, to soundproof that
room?
DR. KELLER-There is already thick foam insulation. The only way to attempt to
soundproof would be to build an extension off of the building that would redirect the door.
That would be the only way to do it There's thick foam insulatio.n in the wall, spray foam.
The newest stuff that you can put in there.
MRS. JENKIN-So you think that the sound is coming through the door?
DR. KELLER-No. I think that, it's hard to say really where the sound is coming from,10
be honest, and I would say mostly probably the sound that you're hearing, as the DVD
did show, was that you could see one of my girls walking out the door with a dog. Sure,
when that door opens, is there going to be more noise? Of course there is.. So, I guess
the noise that they're hearing is when that door opens an if there was sound redirection
with an addition off of that, I guess that would be a possibility, as far as decreasing noise
levels, but, like I said, there hasn't been any change at all that was done to this building,
exterior. That's still the entrance that was there before, exit that was there before.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions you guys want to ask?
MR. URRICO-I just want to remind everybody that we're dealing with an appeal.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we're dealing with an appeal, and that's what we're going to
make a decision on tonight.
MR. DRELLOS-I just want to clarify. If I bring my dog, and he's sick, he can spend the
week there, and that's permitted.
MR. BROWN-That's correct.
MR. DRELLOS- That's right?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-But if I go on vacation, and I just give him my dog, that's not permitted.
That's what you're saying, isn't it?
MR. BROWN-Yes, because our Zoning Ordinance offers two allowable use. One's a vet
clinic for the care and treatment of animals. One's a kennel, for the boarding of animals,
specific in our Code, it calls them out as two separate uses.
MR. DRELLOS-Okay. Let me ask you this question. How do you police it? How would
you go in to a vet and tell me, can you tell me which dog is sick and which one is there
on vacation? I don't know, I'm asking. I want to know.
MR. BROWN-I think we would probably just look for the file that's been taken out on the
animal, if there is one. If it's a patient, then it's a patient. If it's a dog that's being
boarded, then it's partofthe kennel operation.
MR. DRELLOS-Well, do we have other kennels or vets in the area that are like this,
same situation?
MR. BROWN-We may. I would not be surprised to find that if not many or most all vets
offer boarding, but the difference is they may have been doing that for the last 30 or 50
or 100 years. The difference with this is, this is a new component that's been added to
this property, and subject to the current zoning.
MR. LAP PER-Dr. French just said he did it.
MR. BROWN-It's new work that's occurred on the property. There's no question about
that. It's happened within the last six months. That new work is, constitutes a new use.
MR. LAPPER- That's not true.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Why don't we do this.
OR. KELLER-Is it possible I can make one further comment?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, absolutely.
DR. KELLER-Your question, a completely valid question. Based on the Town's definition
of a veterinary clinic, ancillary procedures include laboratories in boarding. It's in the
Town's definition. So to say that you couldn't bring your veterinary hospital is completely
outside the Town's definition, 100%.
MR. BROWN-That's why we're here tonight, because that's the one thing we don't agree
on.
DR. KELLER-Exactly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let's do this, then. I'm goingto close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ALLISON-Can I make one just quick point? I promise I'm not going to go on and on.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I don't think it's necessary at this point in time. I think we've
li~tened to both sides, here, and I think the Board's going to make a determination going
forward here, with some suggestions, more than likely, about how we're going to
proceed, you know, where this is going to go. I'm going to read Craig's determination on
the issues, and what I would like is a little bit of discussion from each one of you on those
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
points. Okay. So open up this page, you know, which was the letter that Craig sent
initially to them, and go to the last page on it, and so when I ask you for your decision on
the various points, I want to have a little input from you.
MRS. JENKIN-I have a question, then, before you do this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-The sign permit that Craig says is necessary. The sign that you put up, is
that, was that an existing sign before, is iton the same?
DR. KELLER-There was a sign actually in front of where this, my new sign is. My sign,
though, turns out that it's a little bit too big, based on setback.
MR. LAPPER-It has to be farther back from the road.
DR. KELLER-Correct.
MRS. JENKIN-So it is in a different place, now?
DR KELLER-It's basically behind where the original sign was, but it. turns out that
supposedly, because the initial sign on this, I guess there were no setback regulations
when that sign went in in '73.
MRS. JENKIN-And how far back is your sign?
DR. KELLER-Probably 10 or 12 feet, and I think it needs to be 15 feet.
MR. LAPPER-That's something that can easily be remedied.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And that's something that they're going to have to get a variance for
anyway.
MR. LAPPER-No. He'll move it three feet back.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Let's go through this, because we've got other things to do here this
evening besides kennels, and I'm sure everybody else iswaiting their turn patiently out
there.
MR. CLEMENTS-So, Jim, you're just going to go down through these right here?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm going to go through the list, and all I'm going to ask each one of
you is this, all right. I'm going to read down through the list. Formulate in your mind
whether you think that's a legitimate thing that Craig has done here, and Craig's
determination. that he made tonight was specifically regarding the kennel use, but, I
mean, we're going to address all the points that you made in your letter.
MR. BROWN-Well, yes, I mean, it's not a determination that I made tonight. It's a
determination I made back in February, and I guess only the points that the applicant has
appealed are the ones that you need to address tonight, and it's basically all thosein the
letter there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Number One, a sign permit is necessary for the revised sign
that has.been installed. I mean, I think that's been legitimized. I'm not going to speak for
everybody, but I'm just going to summarize. It's been legitimized that that sign is a little
bit. It's a little too close. You're going to have to move the sign, and you've agreed to do
that. Correct?
MR. LAPPER--Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So that one's gone.
MR. HILL-ML Chairman, if I may, before you go any further, just to comment, you're not
obliged to render any decision on this appeal this evening.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. HILL-And I think I want to suggest to you that, from Counsel's perspective, I think
the Board might be very well served to consider the idea of working from a written draft
19
(Queens bury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
determination, rather than trying to make a decision verbally, on the fly, so to speak, with
a verbal motion this evening. So I just want to offer that for your consideration.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that's fine, but I think what we're looking for here is solving the
problem, too. In other words, if we're going to agree or disagree with Craig, that's one
thing, but at the same time, I think we can give some insight as to what we would like to
see occur, you know, some time. in the future. Because you. are going to have to come
back, obviously. A Sign Variance may be required as it appears as though the
placement. does. not meet the minimum. front setbacks, and while the current sign
replaces a previous sign, the current sign is larger and shall be treated as a new sign. I
mean, that goes along with that first section there, and I thiok that that's going to be dealt
with.
MR. LAPPER-It doesn't need a variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, I think that that can be dealt with. You can work something
out with these guys.
MR. BROWN-I don't believe the appellant's contesting that at all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. All. right. The third .one is a Use Variance is necessary for
the addition of the kennel operation if dogs are to be boarded without receiving medical
or surgical care that requires an extended stay at your facility. Further, a Use Variance is
also required if the grooming salon is offered to any animals other than those animals in
need of. medical or surgical care at your facility. All right. What I want to hear from the
Board members is this. You all are familiar with veterinary operations. Most of you have
had a dog at some point in your life and you realize what your dog requires. So Craig's
determination is such that he thinks that the kennel operation is something entirely
different from a normal veterinary operation. All right. So,. Number One, I want your
opinion as to that. Yes or no? Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-No. Do you want me to expand on that a little bit?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure, absolutely, yes. Please.
MR. CLEMENTS-Well, I don't think it's an expansion of what they were granted to do,
and as I look at the variance, as a matter of fact, I'm acquainted with Use Variances
because I have one about 200 feet from my house, and know that, and it was done about
the same time as this one, and they were the some of the same members on this Board
at that time, and I know that on that Use Variance, there were certain conditions and
restrictions put on it, and it was written into the minutes. As I look at this one, I don't see
that there are any conditions on the variance to just large animals, for example. I don't
see that there are any limitations on the number of animals, whether they're large or
small, and so, you know, I'm just going to say I don't think this is a different use. So my
answer is no.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-I actually concur with Mr. Clements. There was no condition limiting the
veterinary practice to large animals. It was only made as a comment. It was put on the
U,se Variance it was granted to place an office and veterinary clinic with absolutely no
conditions, and we received no evidence that the approved use, of the veterinary clinic
has been changed to a kennel. We haven't received anything at all except that it is now
being termed a kennel because dogs .are boarded. Dogs are allowed to be boarded at a
veterinary clinic. So I would say that it's an allowed use.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George?
MR. DRELLOS-I would say, no, too. I think the two go hand in hand. I really do. I also
feel, I don't see how you can enforce something like this. I don't see how you can tell
one dog that's sick and one dog that's just being kenneled there. It hasn't been enforced
in the past. So I'm going to say no.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I would have to say that this goes to the intent of the original Board's
decision with the Use Variance. In the applicant's own words, rather than caring for
boarding of cats and dogs, okay. It's the intent, I believe, of the Use Variance, was for
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
not kenneling of animals, was for the treatment of animals on site, and that's it. So I'd
have to agree with the Zoning Administrator.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-In answer to your specific question, which was, is there a difference
between a veterinarian and a kennel, I believe, is what you asked, I think there is, and
the difference is that at a veterinarian they can offer kennel services, but I don't see a
kennel service offering veterinary services. I think when I've taken my dog to a kennel,
they always ask the name. of the vet, as a reference, whereas you go to a vet and leave
your animal, they're not going to ask that question because usually they're in care there.
So I also concur with the Zoning Administrator on this point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I've had dogs all my life, and I've boarded them downstate and
around here, and it's always been at a veterinary clinic, a vet that took the dog in for
boarding when I was on vacation, and I read the definition that veterinary clinic includes
facilities such as laboratories and boarding facilities. So I would think that I would not
side with the Zoning Administrator.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. For myself, I guess I'm going to go with the majority her.e,
and that is that I believe that a veterinary clinic has many functions besides veterinary
medicine alone, and I think that boarding is one of the things, if it's been legitimized
through the years at many other clinics within the community and the Town of
Queensbury. However, you have expanded your business by moving into that other part
of the building, and you've created a real change in your neighborhood over there, and I
think, nonetheless, it's going to be incumbent upon you to deal with it in some manner of
speaking, you know, you're going to .have to deal with the noise factor withyour next
door neighbor because obviously your neighbor would not have been in to see the
Zoning Administrator and filed the complaint if there hadn't been substantial change over
the y~ars that had occurred as a result of these renovations that you've done there. So I
will side and decide against the Zoning Administrator's decision on that one. All right.
The next one is an Area Variance is necessary for the establishment of kennel use.
While the property may meet the minimum 10 acre lot size for th~ operation of a kennel,
not all the areas where dogs would be kept are located at least 200 feet .from property
lines. All right. The Code book reads you've got to be 200 feet from a property line for a
kennel. use, and going back to the members, you've already made your decisions
regarding whether this is a kennel or whether this is a veterinary operation. I would say
~ the primary use here is as aveterinary clinic. Boarding of dogs has always been part of
most veterinary clinics as far as I'm concerned. I don't know if you guys have any other
opinions, but? How about you guys? Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I disagree.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So you guys are keeping the same. All right, and last, a
Special Use Permit is necessary for the addition of a kennel operation, including the
grooming components. Further, this review must address the addition of the lights and
other existing and proposed site improvements to your commercial facility. All right. The
kennel component and the grooming component, I don't think that's going to change. I
think everybody's.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, I think also we need to remember, because they have contracts with
three towns to take. in animals, and grooming the animals is part of that contract, and it's
written right in the contract that they need to groom them to make them safe to stay with
them, so I would assume that that is part of the veterinary clinic.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. BROWN-Well, I think we're starting to blur the lines here a little bit. If it's going to be
your position that this is an expansion of the veterinary clinic use, veterinary clinic use
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
isn't listed as an allowable use in that zone. So we're back to the,. they need a Use
Variance application and then through the Site Plan Review process to modify their
variance. So it's either one or the other.. Either it's not a kennel and it doesn't require a
Special Use Permit, and the work that they've done is not an expansion, they don't need
Site Plan Review. So you can't pick and choose. It's either 6ne or the other.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Then as .a finality here, then, let's go down through the
ranks one more time.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, I don't understand what Craig has just said.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think he's basically saying we either have to accept the whole
package, that nothing has changed, nothing is different, which I disagree with.
MR. BROWN-Well, no, I'm not saying you have to accepUhe whole package. What I'm
saying is if you're going to say that this veterinary clinic has expanded and they need to
come in for review of the lights or whatever other changes may have occurred on the
property, the only way to do that is to go through the Use Variance process, because our
Code clearly says if you have a use that's allowed by Use Variance and you expand that .
use, the only way you can do that is to get a Use Variance.
MRS. JENKIN-But they haven't expanded it.
MR. BROWN-Well, then, if you're saying that the lighting is that, and that they need
review for that, that's the.only way they can get there.
MR. LAPPER-Lighting's not a use issue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let's do this, all right. I'm just going to go through the ranks
one more time.
MR. URRICO-The only thing we should be doing here is discussing the Zoning
Administrator's decision regarding operation of this kennel on this property. That's the
only thing that's on the agenda. That's the only thing that's being appealed. Everything
else is irrelevant. It's just, we're talking about his decision.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right, then, as a finality, then, I'm going to make, then I guess, do
we make any kind of a resolution here regarding your decision? That's what you want,
one way or the other.
MR. BROWN-Yes, absolutely. You want to make a resolution to either uphold or to not
uphold the determination that I've made, or uphold the appeal, whichever way you want
to do it, it's either to uphold ordeny.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I'll make a resolution upholding the Zoning
Administrator's decision.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Upholding? So you're agreeing with?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I'm just saying, I'm making the resolution. You can agree or
disagree, okay?
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I need a second on that.
MR. GARRAND-Second.
,
MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, before you take a vote. You've just made a motion to
uphold the Zoning Officer's determination, which is fine, but exactly what determination
are you making a.motion to uphold?
MR. UNDERWOOD-That he has .called the operation out there an expansion and the
addition of a kennel operation, in essence, that was . the Zoning Administrator's
determination.
MR. BROWN-So in reference to the February 2nd, or whatever the date is on that letter.
MR. URRICO-February 5th.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. BROWN-February 5th letter.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As written in the February 5, 2009 letter to Dr. James Keller at 270
Queensbury Avenue. All right, and in essence Craig made a determination that the
kennel is a separate operation, different than the traditional veterinary clinic that's always
existed at that point.. Okay. Rich, you made a second?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
. MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, are you going to expand on your motion and offer
reasoning and so forth as to that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I mean, he made his determination. It's all on the record. His
determination is all on the record, and we're either going to disagree with it or agree with
it at this point.
MOTION TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATIONTHATHE
HAS CALLED THE OPERATION OUT THERE AN EXPANSION AND THE ADDITION
OF A KENNEL OPERATION. IN ESSENCE. ..THAT WAS. THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION. AS WRITTEN IN THE FEBRUARY 5.2009
LETTER TO DR. JAMES KELLER AT 270 QUEENSBURY AVENUE WITH REGARD
TO NOTICE OF APPEAL. NO. 3-2009 DR. JAMES KELLER - COUNTRYSIDE
VETERINARY HOSPITAL. IN ESSENCE. CRAIG MADE A DETERMINATION THAT
THE KENNEL IS A SEPARATE OPERATION. DIFFERENT THAN THE TRADITIONAL
VETERINARY CLINIC THAT'S ALWAYS EXISTED AT THAT POINT., Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
270 Queensbury Avenue.
Duly adoptedthis 20th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico
NOES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. So that's it for that one.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. .17-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II TIM RILEY OWNER(S): TIMRILEY
ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: 50 OAK TREE CIRCLE, HIDDEN HILLS APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 12 FT. BY 30 FT. INGROUND SWIMMING POOL
PARTIALLY IN SIDE YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD LOCATION
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 89-969 SFD;. BP 90-369 DECK WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO.: 309.5-1-56
SECTION: 179-5-020C
TIM RILEY, PRESENT
MRS. JENKIN-Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that I'm supposed to tell you if I spoke
to anybody when I went to the property. I spoke to the pool person. He came over. He
was building a pool next door, and he explained to me how he was doing it, and what he
was doing with the property. Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-2009, Tim Riley, Meeting Date: May 20,2009
"Project Location: 50 Oak Tree Circle, Hidden Hills Subdivision. Description of Proposed
Project The applicant proposes construction of a 12 ft by 30 ft. in ground pool located
partially in side yard. Relief requested from other than rear yard location requirements.
Applicant requests 18 feet of relief for the portion of the proposed pool to be placed in the
side yard per S 179-5-020C. In terms of square footage, the applicant is requesting 216
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
square feet of relief (12 ft. by 18 ft.) from the requirement that pools be placed in rear
yards only.
In making a determination. the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a. detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. There appears to be
little recourse for the proposed location of the pool due to the presence of the
wastewater system in the rear yard and the corner lot configuration.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request to locate the pool
approximately 18 feet into the side yard may be considered moderate relative to the
ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
P90-369 Deck Approved 1990
P89-969.SFD w/ attached garage 12/19/89
All private swimming pools shall be enclosed by a permanentfence of durable material
at least four feet high per S 179-5-020C4. In the case where a lot fronts on two public
rights-of-way, the pool shall be screened from the view of the public right-of-way and the
neighboring property by means of landscaping as per S179-5-020C5. Note: Landscaping
includes fences, scrubs, trees etc. The Zoning Board may wish to consider, as a
condition of approval, that fencing and / or vegetative screening may be used to satisfy
the landscaping requirement of this proposal.
Type II - No action required."
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Riley?
MR. RILEY-Thank you. My wife and daughter and I have lived at our corner home at 50
Oak Tree Circle for 13 years, and were watching the ongoing proliferation of pools in the
neighborhood and now that it's getting hot we've decided after 13 years it's finally time to
do a pool. Mr. Leland is finishing his pool at our backyard border, and there's one
directly across from us as well. The challenge of living on a corner lot gives us some real
restrictions on what we can. do and where we can locate the pool. Obviously we
essentially have two large front yards and two very small side or double back yards, if
you will. So what we would like to do is do a relatively small pool, 12 foot in width, and
set it partially in the side yard and going as far back into the backyard as we can without
running into one of the three drywells that exist back there, or dropping off the roughly
four foot embankment at the back of the property. So, again, very limited in what we can
do, in terms of locating the pool. So, small pool, tucked back as far as we can. We have
a six foot stockade fence to one side of us where our neighbor has a pool. We will put a
similar type fence at the front, and where Mr. Leland is finishing his pool, he's also
anticipating a solid fence across his property and we'll tie into that from the other side.
So it'll be fully screened from both roadways.
MRS. JENKIN-Would you explain what you're going to do with the landscaping?
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. RILEY-Landscaping will consist of obviously the pool with a roughly three foot
concrete around it. I'm envisioning the tall yews, skinny tall yews, along the fence.
MRS. JENKIN-Next to the fence. Okay.
MR. RILEY-To kind of break and privacy and like that, and then along the front we have
some largeplantings anyway, and we'll probably put another lilac bush or something
along the 30 foot or so that connects over to the edge of the property.
MRS. JENKIN-And where will the fence go on the right side of the property, over here?
Where will you put the fence there? I understand it's going here.
MR. RILEY-Right. It'll be roughly where the deck is, and, from yours going straight up,
and that'll adjoin the fence at the Leland's property next door.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. CLEMENTS-I have a question for Keith. Architectural fence in a front yard, don't
you have to have a variance for that?
MR. OBORNE-For, what's the question again?
MR. CLEMENTS-For like a stockade fence in a front yard, facing the road? I mean, one
of the things that they said in here in the Staff comments is that you're going to need
some landscaping, and you don't want to be able to see the pool. If you put a stockade
fence up there, doesn't that also require a?
MR. OBORNE-You'd be approving that as part of this application. It is a requirement of
the Code to have that fence or buffer for safety purposes.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-A four foot fence, though.
MR. URRICO-Stockade is not.
MR. CLEMENTS-They're talking about a stockade fence.
MR. RILEY-Right, and I'm certainly agreeable to any kind of fence, but the fence which
abuts our property and actually goes out past the front of our house is a .six foot
stockade, and it would seem the least disruptive to have a similar fence, but.
MR. CLEMENTS-That's okay. I'm just trying to, I just want to make sure that after, if he
gets a, whether he gets this or whether he doesn't get this, let'S say that he does, is he
going to, I don't want to have him have to come back in for another variance.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly, and we have that coming up next month with an applicant,
, because he wants to come in and put a six foot stockade fence in his non-architectural
front yard, where he agreed to have landscaping put in, and it was approved that way,
but it's not working for him. So, what I did with this application is to go ahead and let's do
something that will cover both aspects of it.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-Good idea.
MR. GARRAND-And you talked to Steve and your other neighbor about this?
MR. RILEY-Right. I have actually a petition with four diff~rent residents who have
agreed that they have no problem with the fence. I know that at least one neighbor had
some questions, and I believe she's here tonight.
MRS. JENKIN-Were you planning on a six foot fence?
MR. RILEY-That was my thought, only to match the other fences, you know, at the front
of the property, but it certainly wouldn't need to be.
MRS. JENKIN-Because isn't the regulation a four foot fence?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. OBORNE-In the front yard.
MRS. JENKIN-Thisis a side yard.
MR. OBORNE-This is a side yard, correct.
MR. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Any other questions from Board members? Okay. I'll
open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? Come on up,
please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PATTY GREEN
MRS. GREEN-I'm Patty Green, and my house is directly in the side yard. His side house
is here. His side yard is here. My fence is here, and my pool is directly there. He has a
very small side yard, and I just feel that he's going to be right on top of me, directly on
top of me. I have the stockade fence, and nextto my fence I have perennials and all this
and that and then, you know, the cement and the pool, but he's going to be right on top
of me. When I got my variance, I'm also on the corner also. When I got that nine years
ago, I had to make a lot of changes. I had to move my septic system, because of being
so many, I had to be so many feet from the side road, and I had to do a lot of changes on
it. So, I don't know, I'm just concerned that if he couldn't have like a kidney shaped pool
somewhere down there, or even move his shed, which is, I have a shed also at the end,
if he couldn't move his shed down further, so he wouldn't be parallel to my pool, because
h~ will be absolutely parallel to my pool. He'll be right on top of me. There will be
absolutely no privacy. There were two large trees that was, gave us privacy. So I
couldn't see his deck and he really couldn't see our pool, and he cut those down about
two and a half weeksago. So now it's just wide open.
MR. RILEY-I can respond. Between Mrs. Green'spool and the pool that we're proposing
would be about 30 feet, 35 feet. To the deck in her yard it would be about 50 feet, and
what we're looking at is, again, sliding the 30 foot length of our pool as far back as we
can. I will move the shed back further to basically sit on top of one of the three drywells,
but even removing onedrywelldoesn't give me enough room to go any further back,
again, leaving a 10 foot space between septic system and where the pool goes. So what
I can do isbring that back as far as I can while leavingthat 10 feet. So it won't be all the
way to the front of the property.
MR. URRICO-Is a smaller pool a possibility?
MR. RILEY-Twelve foot's about as narrow as they go, if you don't do a lap pool.
MR. URRICO-A pool is not an entitlement. It's something that you need a variance for.
MR. RILEY-True.
MR. URRICO-So one of the options is not granting the variance.
MRS. JENKIN-Would it be possible for you tomove that septic system that's right behind
where you want to put the pool, or the drywell, and put it over closer to the other street?
MR. RILEY-Actually, the other two drywells and the septic tank are all within that very
same area. If I could remove one and just, you know, slide it over, I would, but the way
the property drops off at the back towards Leland's, for example.
MRS. JENKIN-But I'm saying move it fartherto the left, orto the right. Move it over here,
in this area of your other side yard or front yard, whatever you want to call it.
MR. RILEY-Then it's in my front yard, I guess.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, he would need a variance for that also.
MRS. JENKIN-Is there a variance for that?
MR. OBORNE- That would be his non-architectural front yard. It's a corner lot
configuration.
26
. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. GREEN-And I'm just, another thing I'm thinking of, you know, this will devalue, I
mean, my property, if I want to sell my house, you know, I've got one pool right on top of
me.
MRS. JENKIN-How far is your pool from the edge of your property?
MRS. GREEN-Well.
MR. CLEMENTS-Can I ask you a question? This'll go along with that. Right up there on
the aerial view right there, that's your pool right in the middle there?
MRS. GREEN-That's my pool, over there, yes.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-And that's her front yard, too. That's, she's got two front yards
and two rear yards.
MRS. GREEN-I'm a corner. property, yes. Right, but I know I had to make a lot of
adjustments before I got my pool, and I had to move this and move that.
MR. RILEY-Right. I think you moved a drywell as well.
MRS. GREEN-I did. I made a lot of adjustments for it.
MRS. JENKIN-But it looks like your pool is very, very close to the lot line as well.
MRS. GREEN-Yes, it is, but I know it's regulation and all, you know.
MR. RILEY-Right, and again, we did the variance 10 years ago on that pool.
MRS. GREEN-Nine years I've had my pool. It'll be nine years, well, I've been in my
house 10 years and I did it the year after I moved in, and I want him to have a pool and
everything. I just don't want him right on top of me, that's all, and he will be right on top
of me.
MR. RILEY-I think if we consider that there's a six foot fence already in place, and
another essentially 30 foot of buffer zone between the two, and we put some shrubbery
in between the two.
MRS. JENKIN-You were going to put the upright Yews in?
MR. RILEY-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-So they will grow over the fence.
MR. RILEY-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-And that'll provide soundproofing.
MRS. GREEN-So, he has to put his own fence in. I mean, I don't want him attaching to
my fence.
MRS. JENKIN-So there's going to be two fences there?
MRS. GREEN-Yes. I do not want him attaching to my fence. No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think we'll see if there's anybody else that wishes to speak.
Any other people wishing to speak on this matter?
MRS. GREEN-Sarah, do you want to say anything?
SARAH-Just that it's, no, it's just very, very, very close, and if you could see the property
line, if they could move it back a little bit.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Could you tell us who you are?
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
SARAH-I am my mother's daughter. I live in Hidden Hills. The same area. We're over
there constantly, my little boy. We swim there all summer, and it's very close.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Any
letters, Roy?
MR. RILEY-There's signatures from four adjoining property owners.
MR. URRICO-Okay. I'm going to need that for the record. There's a letter here, Mr.
Oborne, I received a notice of a public hearing for a pool being constructed by Tim Riley
at 50 Oak Tree Circle. I am concerned that he will be too close to my property. His side
yard will be right on top of my pool. I also do not want his fence to connect to my fence.
It. seems that it's too large a pool for that side yard area. I'm located at 48 Oak Tree
Circle. Patricia Green" And then this just submitted by Mr. Riley. "We, the undersigned,
nearby property owners, have no objection to this variance or the pool construction as
proposed." And there's four signatures on this, all neighbors, 4 Oak Tree Circle, 65 Oak
Tree Circle, 63 Oak Tree Circle, and 46 Oak Tree Circle.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MRS. HUNT-I have a question for Mr. Riley.
MR. RILEY-Certainly.
MRS. HUNT-It looks like your pool is going to be halfway back from your house. I mean,
it'll be like in the middle of your house.
MR. RILEY-Right, and going back from there.
MRS. HUNT-So you'll be, and her pool is much closer to the street. So you really, you
won't be facing each other.
MR. RILEY-Right, because obviously that's not what we would want either. We would
like it back as far as we possibly can.
MRS. HUNT-All right.
MR. RILEY-And in fact we're really looking at the feasibilityof going a little shorter than
30 feet, and again, having it back as far as possible and not coming as far forward. So
right now we're talking to the pool guy about a 26 foot pool.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So that would put you four feet further back.
MR. RILEY-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-How far do you have to be away from the drywell?
MR. RILEY-Ten feet is.
MR. OBORNE-Ten feet is Code.
MR. RILEY-Is what isthe general thing, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-And you're now 12. You could move it two feet.
MR. RILEY-Absolutely. I'm sort of guessing exactly where it is, because I'm not certain
whether it's eight foot or a ten foot drywell. So, whichever it is,we'll.
MR. OBORNE-And I do want to clarify, it's a seepage pit. It's a leach pit, not a drywell.
There's a bit of a difference between the two.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there's no more further questions from Board members.
Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-So what you're saying is you're thinking about making this 12 by 26,
did you say?
MR. RILEY-Correct.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. CLEMENTS-So that would take four feet off.
MR. RILEY-Right.
MR. CLEMENTS-Again of six feet. The only other alternative I see is to go over in the
front yard, and I don't think that's a.
MR. RILEY-It wouldn't work.
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes.
MR. RILEY-I think I actually asked that at one point, and that didn't sound like that was
going to happen.
KATHY RILEY
MRS. RILEY-Could I ask a question? I'm his wife, Kathy Riley. From our deck, like we
have two front yards and two rear yards. From our deck, if we go straight out to the road,
is that considered our rear yard, or do we have to go back from our deck towards
Leland's property?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You would have to go back towards your seepage pits. Yes, over
the bank.
MR. RILEY-There's a lot of yard we can't do much with except cut grass.
MRS. JENKIN-Why would it be against putting it on the other.side of the house? Why
would you say it wouldn't happen?
MRS. RILEY-Because that's a front yard.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MRS. RILEY-We can't have a pool in the front yard, I don't think.
MRS. JENKIN-You'd have to have a variance for that.
MR. RILEY-That was a pretty straightforward answer I got when I asked.
MRS. JENKIN-You said no.
MR. OBORNE-It was my recommendation that he didn't do that. I mean, a pool in a front
yard?
MR. RILEY-Idoubt my other neighbors would be happy with that one.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, and part of the problem we run into here is just reflective of the
wisdom of the SR-20 zone. I mean, no one ever anticipated, when Mike Woodbury and
those guys did that subdivision, that people, everybody wanted a pool, which everybody
wants a pool. So it's not like we haven't dealt with it before in this area.
MR. RILEY-Right. In fact I had Google Earth up earlier today, and I was looking at a
slightly expanded view, and there's like 14 pools within, you know, the immediate area.
MR. OBORNE-They're all compliant, though.
MRS. RILEY-Could I ask another question? Is her pool in her front yard, partially? Is her
fence in her front yard, the six foot fence?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it would be in a non-architectural front yard.
MRS. RILEY-That was part of the variance, too, the fence, the six foot fence?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. Then I guess I'll cut everybody off, and we'll poll the
Board here. Keep.in mind, with the SR-20 zone, we've done this many times before, and
we always said, just imagine what it's going to look like when everybody has a pool in
the SR-20 zone, and I always ... thought, and it probably made more sense to have a
community pool in a neighborhood that everybody could go to, you know,. not have to
maintain themselves, a lot of redundancy. I guess I'll start down on this end. Roy, do
you want to go first?
MR. URRICO-This goes back to something I've talked about for years in that once we
start granting variances for pools in areas like this, then the changes, the. variances
become the de facto standard, and no longer is itthe exception, but it's the rule. So we
now have a situation where, as Mr. Riley pointed out, there are 14 pools in this
neighborhood already, and so what's the standard? Is the pool the standard, or is not
having a pool the standard? So that being said, I don't. see this as an undesirable
change to the character of the neighborhood since the character of the neighborhood
has already undergone some subtle changes over the years. As I said earlier, the
benefit to the applicant could be achieved by only one method that I can see, of not
having the pool. So that's an option. The requested Area Variance may be considered
substantial, but we've done some cutting, and I know it seems closer to the pool next
door because that pool had a variahce as well. So they're c1oserto that fence than they
probably needed to be, but we granted that variance years ago. So that's already
creating a situation there, and I don't think this neighbor should, this person here should
be penalized for something we did back then, and the proposed variance will not have an
adverse effect on the environment, and, yes, the difficulty is self-created, but I would be
in favor of this application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I want to clarify something. Have you decided on a 12 by 26 or?
MR. RILEY-I would be willing to commit to a 12 by 26, yes, and as far back as we can
slide it.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I would say if you could quantify that in your resolution.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I shall do that.
MR. OBORNE-Thank you.
MRS. HUNT-Well, we have done this before with corner lots, and it's a modest sized
pool, and, you know, you seem willing to put up the fencing and .the landscaping and
ttiat, so I have no problem with it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-Well, I think.as the applicant has so aptly stated, I think this is pretty
much a pool proliferation, which is going to result .in mutually assured property
destruction.. I don't think the variance is excessive. I do believe it's self-created. As far
as an undesirable change to the neighborhood, I don't see how it can create one, since
there are so many other pools within that small area. I think it's a moderate request, and
I would be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George?
MR. DRELLOS-Yes. I would be in favor of the variance, too. I think barrihg moving the
house and the septic system, I don't see another spot a pool could go.
MRS. RILEY-And the house was supposed to be turned the other way, because we have
the water thing in our driveway.
MR. DRELLOS- The pool's a very small pool. So, you know, I'd be in favor of this
variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-My concern is the fence. If you have to put up another fence, what's
going to happen between those two fences? It's going to be a no man zone, and I don't
know how close the fences are going to be to each other, but it just seems that that's
really a lot to ask. I think that the request is not substantial, and I think with your smaller
30
(QueensburyZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
pool you've certainly been willing to make adjustments and it'll be something to cool off
in, but you certainly can't do Olympic laps with it. I agree. I don't think it's going to
change the character of the neighborhood because there's pools all around you. So I
would be in favor of this, but I do think that it would be very nice if you could come to
some agreement with your neighbor and do something about the fence. Maybe you
. could put the shrubs outside your fence so that the shrubs were between the two fences.
I don't know. When I'm visualizing it, it might be a real problem.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and I also will give approval for this request. I don't think it's
out of line with anything that we've done down therein that neighborhood, and we all
recognize the fact that everybody lives in close quarters with each other, and that
respecting the rights of individuals to, you know, party and have a good time, also means
you respect your neighbors and keep it down to a reasonable level as I'm sure your
neighbors do for you, you know. So I need somebody todo the resolution.
MR. GARRAND-I'II make a motion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2009 TIM RILEY, Introduced by
Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
50 Oak Tree Circle, Hidden Hills Subdivision. The applicant proposes construction of a
12 foot by 26 foot in ground pool, located partially in the side yard, and relief is requested
from other than rear yard location requirements. The applicant requests 18 feet of relief
for the portion of the proposed pool to be placed in the side yard as per 179-5-020. For
the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the
applicant. The only means feasible to the applicant is just basically to not have a pool at
all, as Mr. Urrico stated. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or
to the character of the nearby properties? I don't believe it will create too much of a
change to the neighborhood. It certainly won't change the character of the nearby
properties. I don't think this request is substantial. I would deem it, at best, moderate.
Will this request have adverse physical or environmental effects? To the best of my
knowledge, this proposed pool will not have any adverse environmental effects on the
neighborhood whatsoever, and we may deem this difficulty as self-created since it is the
applicant who is proposing the pool, and we give the applicant the choice to put
landscaping and/or a six foot safety fence for screening. So I move that we approve
Area Variance No. 17-2009. .
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. OBORNE-If I may, the safety issue with the fence and the landscaping. If you can
grant him the choice of the applicant to have landscaping and/or a six foot safety fence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. So we'll give him an and/or on the fence.
MR. OBORNE-It's in the very back of my notes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that probably, given the fact that there's already a fence on
the side line.
MR. OBORNE-That's not an issue.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-That's not an issue.
MR. OBORNE-That's not an issue.
MRS. JENKIN-Right So he doesn't have to .put up a fence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-He only needs the fence coming across.
MR. OBORNE-Coming across.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Midway on the front, on the side of the house.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And as long ashe doesn't touch the fence, you'll be happy, right?
He can put the post right up to the edge of it.
MRS. GREEN-I just want him to have. his own fence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, no, he will.
MR. CLEMENTS-Mr. Chairman, I thought maybe we ought to amend that to 12 feet of
relief. He's taking four feet off and he's going to move it two feet back. So instead of 18
feet of relief, wouldn't it be 12 feet?
MR.OBORNE-Maybe have it 10 feet from the leach field, leach pit, and then, well, he
stated that in there in the beginning of his resolution. So that works there, and then if
you say move the back of the pool 1 0 feet, the location of the pool, it needs to be located
10 feet from the leach pit.
MR. CLEMENTS-That's only 12 feet of relief, then, that's needed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you.
AYES: . Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. RILEY-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2009 SEQRATYPE: II EUGENE.TIMPANO QWNER(S):
EUGENE TIMPANO ZONING: HC-MOD. LOCATION: 928 STATE ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 60 sa. FT. DECK WITH HANDICAP LIFT
TO THE FRONT OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE IN .ORDER TO BE
HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE. . APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM
FRONT AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SPR
28-2009; BP 2005-306 ALT.; BP 2005-536 BILCO DOOR; BP 2005-730 SIGN; BP 2005-
731 SIGN. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MAY 13,2009 LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-14 SECTION: 179-4-030
EUGENE TIMPANO, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2009, .Eugene Timpano, Meeting Date: May 20,
2009 "Project Location: 928State.Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes placement of a 60 square foot deck with handicap lift for a proposed ice cream
shop located in an existing commercial structure on the corner of Route 9 and Sweet
Road.
Applicant requests 27 feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement for new
deck per 9179-4-030. Further, the applicant requests 16 feet of Travel Corridor setback
relief for the proposed ice cream shop per 9179-4-060.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated due to
potential traffic issues. associated with Sweet Road and the proposed use for this
building.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. With the limitations
of the lot and the nature of the proposal, an area variance appears to be
unavoidable.
3. Whetherthe requested area variance is substantial. The request for 27 feet or 54%
relief from the 50.foot front setback requirement per 9179-4-030 may be considered
moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 16 feet or 21% relief
from the 75 foot Travel Corridor requirement per 9179-4-060 may be considered
minor to moderate relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may. be anticipated as
most structures in the immediate area are non-compliant in regards to property line
and travel corridor setback requirements.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created. However, the limitations of the lot may be a contributing factor for the
requested variances.
S.P.30-2005 Laundromat Approved 6/28/05
The applicant proposes a 580 square foot ice cream shop. The applicant is proposing a
wheelchair lift as opposed to a ramp as the lot has limited space.
The Zoning Board may wish to seek a recommendation. from the Planning Board
concerning this area variance.
Grading, stormwater, landscaping, and lighting issues will be addressed at site plan
review.
Type II-No action necessary"
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Timpano. This is a conversion of a building that
currently exists. Correct?
MR. TIMPANO-The building does exist. It was built in 1948. As far as I know, all or part
of it was used as retail space over the years. It now has a residential tenant, and it was a
residence, I bought it from a resident who occupied it from, I believe, '75 until '04 when I
purchased it. .
MR. UNDERWOOD-So it's along fixture on Route 9 there, you've now got a nice
sidewalk out in front which previously.
MR. TIMPANO-Well, the entire front of the front space has been blacktopped, which
leads me to believe that at some time the house, or at least the garage space, was used
as retail space.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from Board members on this?
MR. DRELLOS-You have to go in front of the Planning Board anyway, right?
33
(Queensbi.Jry ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-He's going to have to go for Site Plan Review because of a change
in use.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-Is this something we want to send to the Planning Board first?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would it make sense for us to send this on to them first, or not? Or
they want to know what we're going to do?
MR. OBORNE-That's something that you'd have to discuss yourself. I don't want to
influence that. decision. The reasoning behind that, however, is that it is going to the
Planning Board for Site Plan Review, and under the new Code it would be an automatic,
but he's under the old Code, so it's not.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would imagine the review's going to address the parking out front
there on Route 9. I mean, the ingress/egress is probably one of the hot issues.
MR. OBORNE-That would be the hot issue, sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you anticipate the business, were. you going to get mostly walk-
in business from the apartments overthe way, or are you just hoping to hit Route 9, any
traffic coming through?
MR. TIMPANO-It's a residential area. I certainly have no intentions of being a great bitof
competition to Martha's or any of the other ice cream shops there, but because I do own
the Laundromat that operates there, I figure I'm going to pick up some business because
I intend to stay open all year round, where the other ice cream shops don't, but then
again, I will not have as expansive a menu as the other places do. I'm just looking to
bring in enough income in order to cover the taxes on the building, which are substantial
because of the location.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MRS. HUNT-This is not replacing the Laundromat?
MR. TIMPANO-No. The Laundromat is on the Route 9 side, and it is going to stay
operational.
MRS. JENKIN-So you have a step already, a stoop already on that area. Right
MR. TIMPANO.,.So what I'm proposing is replacing that stoop with a five by five platform
that is at the sill level.
MRS. JENKIN-So the stoop now, the stoop is probably three feet, is it?
MR. TIMPANO-It's 32 inches to the sill, and the stoop that's there is like 28inches.
MRS. JENKIN-So you're essentially going to maybe, to the flat surface you're going to
add maybe two feet.
MR. TIMPANO-I'm removing the existing stoop. I'm replacing it with a five foot square
platform at the sill level, and then coming down a step and placing another five foot five
piatform in front of the right window, and then another step and you'd be at the street
level.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So coming in to Mannis Road, therewon't be, how much?
MR. TIMPANO-Right now, the steps.
MRS. JENKIN-Sweet Road, sorry. I guess I'm just wondering, you're really going to
only, from the building it will be five feet from the building at the most. Right now it's
about three feet.
MR. TIMPANO-Five foot from the building, but right now the front step is more than five
foot in front of the building.
MRS. JENKIN-Because of the steps coming out.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. TIMPANO-So the egress will be to the right.
MRS. JENKIN-So you won't be adding very much difference. You'll still have the same
space for parking.
MR. TIMPANO-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Is parking allowed on Sweet Road? And that isn't anything with us, but.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Too close to the corner.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay, I don't see a lot of difference.
MR. TIMPANO-Because the entire front of the house is paved,. there. is no curb. It
empties right out onto Sweet Road. Across the street from me is Gambles Bakery, which
is paved. So there is no, there's no curb there and no parking on the road there. The
only one that has a lawn is the neighbor to the, well, what's that, to the east of me, which
is Kim Winchip, because next to her is Winchip Garage Door which is all paved, and thEm
several other businesses for the next couple of blocks down Sweet Road.
MRS. JENKIN-I guess the point I'm trying to make is by adding this new stoop area, or
the new deck area, you're not really encroaching on the area from the building to the
road.
MR. TIMPANO-No. ..1'11 be picking up a few inches, and the depth is really about two car
lengths deep to the road, and I have no problem making a turn, pulling out of a spot,
perpendicular to the house, and either facing east or west before I get onto Sweet Road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. . I have a question for you, Keith. The stormwater,
landscaping, lighting issues, I mean, that's all got to be dealt with at Planning Board? Do
you anticipate, I mean, this building is where it's at. You're going to be slightly adding on
to the outside with those decks and all.
MR. OBORNE-Very, very minimal, as far as increased permeability.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. I'll open up the public
hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any letters?
MR. URRICO-No, no correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. What do you guys want to do? Do you want to send this to
Planning Board first? I mean, it seems to me what we're being asked for is minimal,
compared to what (lost word).
MRS. JENKIN-Absolutely. It's not going to change the character.
MR. GARRAND-I'd like to see what they have to say before we make a decision on it.
MR. UNDERWOOD~Do you want to go to the Planning Board, then? You want to go to
the Planning Board?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. How about you, George?
MR. DRELLOS-I think you should, just to let them look at it and see if there's something
different that they would want to. .
MRS. JENKIN-So then he has to come back here after, to us again?
MR. UNDERWOOD-How about, you, Joan, what do you want to do?
MRS. JENKIN-I thinkwe should settle it. I don't think that it's going to have much impact
on any of the issues that the Planning Board is going to discuss with him. I don't think
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
there's going to be much change. I think that it's just adding to Mr. Timpano's going back
and forth and back and forth and back and forth. He's asking for very little. change,
except.for adding a deck, and he's putting it so that it's actually less.obtrusive in that area
that he's going to have cars in anyway. So, I don't know why we just don't do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I have to agree with Joan, I would do it tonight.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Let's settle it tonight.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT~Tonight.
,
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think I'll go along with settling it tonight also.
MR. DRELLOS-Is that an approved building for an ice cream store?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It's Highway Commercial.
MR. OBORNE-It's an allowable use.
MR. TIMPANO-And may I say regardless of whether an ice cream store goes in there or
not, it's still an improvement in the . direction of making it usable as a commercial
establishment, and it is commercial property,
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Then I guess I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And have somebody go ahead and.
MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2009 EUGENE TIMPANO,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
928 State Route 9. The applicant proposes placement of a 60 square foot deck with
handicap lift for a proposed ice cream shop located in an eXisting commercial structure
on the corner of Route 9 and Sweet Road. The applicant requests 27 feet of relief from
the 50 foot setback requirement for a new deck per Section 179-4-030. Further, the
applicant. requests 16 feet of Travel Corridor setback relief for the proposed ice cream
shop per Section 179-4-060. In making our determination, we should consider whether
the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible.to the applicant and there are lots
of limitations with this lot, and the nature of the proposal is rather moderate and an Area
Variance seems to be unavoidable. Will there be an undesirable change in the character
of the neighborhood or nearby properties? I don't think so. Whether the request is
substantial? I would say it was moderate to the Ordinance. Whether the request will
have adverse physical or environmental effects, I don't think so. There'll be minor
impacts on the neighborhood. Most of the structures. in the area are non-compliant in
regards to the property line and Travel Corridor setback, and whether the difficulty was
self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created, however the lot has
limitations and that's a contributing factor to the requested variance. So I move that we
approve Area Variance No. 18-2009.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Garrand
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're all set.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. TIMPANO-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2009 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED GREG CANALE
AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S): HARRY RUECKER ZONING:
PO LOCATION: 456 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
502 sa. FT. ENTRY DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT, SIDE, AND
TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACKS. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED. FROM
MINIMUM DRIVE AISLE WIDTH FOR PARKING LOT. CROSS REF.: SPR 7-2009;
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 19-2009; BP 2008-644 SIGN; BP 890 YR. 1970 FOR AN
ADDITION; BP 2005-898 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MAY 13,
2009 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-11 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-
4-060
GREG CANALE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2009, Greg Canale, Meeting Date: May 20,
2009 "Project Location: 456 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes conversion of a two family home into a professional office with residence in the
Bay RoadP.Q. zone.
Applicant requests 19.67 feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement, 4.5 feet
of relief from the 20 foot north side setback requirement and 16.07 feet of relief from the
20 foot south side setback requirement per S179-4-030. Further, the applicant requests
44.67. feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirement per
S179-4-060C. Finally, the applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 24 foot access drive
aisle requirement for parking lots per S179-4-040B.
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
reduce the size of the proposed deck in order to reduce the amount of front and
travel corridor setback relief needed. Further, a reduction to the width of the deck
may facilitate re-orientating the parking spaces to eliminate the need for a drive aisle
width variance.
Concerning all. setback requests, the limitations of the lot and the existing non-
conforming conditions contribute to the need for these variances.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 19.67 or 39% of
front setback relief may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The
request for 4.5 feet or 22% of north side setback relief may be considered minor to
moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 16.07 feet or 80.35% of south
side setback relief may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the
request for 44.67 feet or 60% of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback
requirement may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Finally,
the request for 4 feet or 17%. relief from the 24 foot access aisle requirement may be
considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as
most structures in the immediate area are non-compliant in regards to property line
and travel corridor setback requirements.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
SP 7-2009 P.O. with residence Pending
B.P. 20050898 Septic Alteration Approved 11/23/05
B.P. 890 Addition Approved 8/6/70
Has the applicant explored different configurations to the parking plan in order to
possibly eliminate the need for a drive aisle width variance?
The Zoning Board may wish to seek a recommendation from the Planning Board
concerning this area variance, in particular the drive aisle width variance request.
Grading, stormwater, landscaping, and lighting issues will be addressed at site plan
review.
I Sl!aRStatus:1
Type II-No action necessary"
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. CANALE-Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Greg Canale. This
is Don Tealing, my project manager, and the title holder is Harry Ruecker who sits in the
back there. In October of 2008, myself, through Mr. Huecker, acquired456 Bay Road for
the purpose of putting my law office there. I'm a sole practitioner,and have been in this
area for about 20 years now. The thing that appealed most to me about the property was
that there's a small apartment in the back where I could live and practice law out of the
front, and in preparing for the renovations, we explored what it was that would be needed
to be compliant. The property is in a professional office zoning, but it's always been
residential. So I needed Site Plan approval, and in going through that process, it was
determined that I would need to provide adequate parking, and I guess the amount of
parking spaces I would need was dependent on how many people would be working with
me in my office, and that wOuld just be my secretary. Based on that, I was told I needed
a total of five parking spots for me and my secretary and I guess anticipated clients. One
of those parking spots would have to be handicap parking spot, which would entail a
sixth spot used for loading and unloading ofthe handicap parking. So, I had to put six, I
guess, parking areas in the front of the building, facing Bay Road. Another issue that
came up was that I would have to provide for handicap accessibility, and that I could. do
this either by a lift or a ramp, and in either instance I would be running into difficulties
with the setback requirements. The least problematic would be the lift. It would require
less of an encroachment upon the setback requirements. Apparently, .as the setback
requirements exist now, today, many of which go into the house, cut through the
building, and I guess anything you would do to convert this residence into conformity with
your intended purpose of a professional office would require setback variances. So I
know that I have to go to the Planning Board, and I have been on their agenda. They've
tabled it a few times. I'm not sure why, but I would assume they need some more
material, and also probably would like a clarification on the variance requirements. So
basically I need a variance for the setbacks for the driveway, in order to put the parking,
adequate parking there, I need to basically go from one side of the property line to the
other and level it out and make the adequate parking, which would be three parking
spots facing the College north, and three facing Quaker Road to. the south. So you
would pull in like so and back out like so, into the corridors, and the deck that I need is
basically to accommodate the ramp, the lift, the handicap lift, which would be to the north
part of the property, which is detailed in the plans I've submitted. With that said, I would
open the panel up for questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That building prior to your purchase, I assume you have purchased
it at this point?
MR. CANALE-Yes, sir.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What was it used for prior to that? It was?
MR. CANALE-Residence.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Residence, yes. Because we've had them on both sides of the road
there, and we've dealt with this before where we've done the conversion to professional
office, and that seems to be the trend in the corridor there.
DON TEALlNG
MR. TEALlNG-ln looking at all of this with the elevation width, handicap accessibility, to
the threshold and to the grade it was 37 inches. So it's an inch of handicap ramp, you
know, a foot per inch. So that's 37 feet, and then you have a five square .foot approach
and a five square foot, you know, turn zone to come back up on a switch leg. So if you
were to drive by this building, it would take up the whole entire property line to property
line with handicap ramp, and I don't think it would look very appealing, and then with the
snow, and having it set back, the snow that would come off the roof of the building, onto
the handicap ramp, would be hazardous, too. So where we came up with the idea of the
deck was so we could put a handicap lift in to the deck. On this picture is like probably if
everybody has right there, as you see the front of the property, it's like this. Here's the
front of the property. Here's Bay Road. When you pull in, you can easily, this is like your
(lost words) you can turn in, park here, here, park here, here, and here, and you've got a
loading zone so a handicap person could get out, come around the side of the deck and
come up on the lift and come right to the main entrance, and have access. I propose that
this deck should be 12 feet wide because of the safety factor. If you're in a wheelchair,
you're coming up to a door, and you have like a stairs going down right there, I like to
have a person have a good five foot turning radius before they go in the door, which is
why we're proposing that that be 12 feet wide, and as it is now, our setback is 43 feet. If
you look at this picture here, look at the setback requirements now. You couldn't even
build this building. This house could not even be built on this area, but we've been abl~
to get the parking that's been required, and you can angle that to accommodate the
handicap and make it appealing. So when you're driving by, it's going to look much nioer
than a huge, gigantic ramp going back and forth, and it leaves us some ability to put
some landscaping in, you know, some plants and what have you, some shrubs on each
side, to make it look a little bit more appealing also. So the only actual difference from
43 to 31 is the difference, or about 12 foot for the deck end.
MRS. JENKIN-What about behind the building?
MR. TEALlNG-Behind the building you don't really have accessibility. Behind here, this
here is a very, very dramatic drop off right here on the south. So if you're trying to get
back in here, you'd really have to build this whole area right here, and this her~ is septic
tank, and all of this here is leach field, right here, and so we're quite stuck, and then we
have a problem, too, like, I don't know if you've driven by, last year when we first came
there was wasps, because the golf course let a lot of that stuff grow up, and it actually
started growing over on Greg and Harry's property, so at the beginning I said, we better
do something about that or those wasps are going to be (lost words), so we cut them
down, and we haven't been able to clean them up or put it through a wood chipper or
anything. So it's all sitting there. It's kind of hard to mow the lawn. So we'd like to
hopefully be able to take all this brush we cut down, it's all overgrowth, and put it through
a wood chipper and that, because there's no more burn permits in the Town of
Queensbury, and versus hauling it away. We can throw it through the wood chipper and
that, and we don't have the problems with the bees or anything anymore.
MRS. JENKIN-Will the lift bay be covered?
MR. TEALlNG-1 would like to put a cover over it, but at the same time, when it comes
down. to like ramps with treks, decking and the carriage underneath and that, with a
handicap ramp, it doesn't really show it too good on this location,but this is kind of like a
ranch. So if you're looking at the house, this part of the roof on that building actually
sticks out like this. Do you follow me? And then the front door is right. here. So we
actually have. a roof, so, yes, where the snow comes off, the snow's not going to land on
this (lost word) at all, but we were proposing to actually put like a boat cover, canvass,
over this, and then when somebody wants to come and, you know, a handicap individual
comes in and stuff like that, we can lift it off and then go right up a lift and right on the
deck. .
MRS. JENKIN-But the snow will come off onto the sidewalk.
MR. TEALlNG-Actually not that much snow would, the snow would come off and land on
the deck. Not so much snow would land on the sidewalk on the side, because the roof is
like this. The peak is like this. So you're going to get most of your snow coming off and
right on the deck. It wouldn't be landing on the lift, though, and the deck would have to
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
be shoveled, but over here on the side because of the peak, there wouldn't be that much
snow, but again, snow removal we'd be using, we'd have to maintain it anyway, because
he has clients.
MR. CLEMENTS-What were the dimensions of the deck? . You said twelve feet, but I
don't see any dimensions on either one of the maps. It would be 12 feet wide by.
MRS. JENKIN-There's 12 feet there.
MR. CLEMENTS-I'm sorry.
MR. TEALlNG-Yes, and then you know what we did propose, too, is if you look down on,
when you're looking here at this, here's the back of the house, here.'s the front. You see
this little area right here? . There's a door right here. So right now, what they did was
they put these cast steps there, and then cast steps that broke and somebody, the
previous owners or whatever, had repaired them, and you got one riser that goes up six
inches and one that goes up about ten inches, and it's just a disaster, and the thing
needs to be ripped out of there anyway, and it doesn't really make any sense to go up on
a deck and then go down off the deck and go three feet just to go up another set of
stairs. So my proposal was just to go right around the corner to that door that goes into
the side with the deck also. Just to wrap it just around. the corner, and also this, the
fence, as you see on here, the fence is right along this border right here. The property
stakes are actually about a foot and a half on the other side of this fence, too. They built
the fence, you know, into the property.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The parking plan, where are they at with the Planning Board, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Parking plan?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, has the Planning Board reviewed this at all,or have
they just tabled it?
MR. OBORNE-No. They've tabled it. Because they need to get the Area Variance
before they go to Site Plan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. GARRAND- The plans for stormwater runoff, I know that Bay Meadows has a lot of
problems with water throughout the year. I mean, is there any plan just not to push all
this water from all the pavement back towards the back of the property?
MR. CANALE-Yes. I've got a letter from Bay Meadows approving the project.
MR. TEALlNG-Yes. If I might, real quick, if you look at this map right here, can you see
this circle right here (lost word)? That right there is a catch basin, also, this here is a
catch basin right here. So, and I've been there during the wintertime, and when the
snow plows come down Bay Road and they bank all that snow on the site and get it
cleared out in front of the driveway, all that snow that melts goes right into these catch
basins.
MRS. JENKIN-Does it work?
MR. TEALlNG-Yes. They're already existing. They're already there. So in Greg's
driveway, when you shove the snow off to the side, it all heads right to those catch
basins.
MR. URRICO-Keith, parking requirements under the new Code, have they changed
much?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. There are some changes.. Specifically for this I don't know off the
top of my head. I don't have the old Code, the neW Code book with me, but this is
obviously under the old Code.
MR. URRICO-Yes, butl'm just wondering if it would be less obnoxious.
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are they measuring their Travel Corridor Overlay from that third
weird land they've got up the road there, or is it out to the actual driveway?
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. OBORNE-It's from the edge of pavement. That's where the travel lane is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I've never understood what the function of that third lane
is. It's like some wild.
MR. OBORNE-In the middle or?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well,. you know when you go up Bay Road on the east side, you
know, you've got that third lane all the way out to ACC. I thought at some point it was
supposed to have a sidewalk with a separation, the sewer line goes up there, too, right
on that same lane.
MR. TEALlNG-ln the future, if you wanted to put a sidewalk up there, there would
actually, have this print. Yes, there actually is enough room right there, easily, for a
sidewalk in there. I've seen like three joggers running side by side right up the side of
that road.
MRS. JENKIN-It's great There's lots of room.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Well, it seems like they just went crazy with the. paver one
day and added the third lane. .
MRS. JENKIN-So the apartment, in your plans here, the front part of the building will be
the professional office, and then the part that goes back this way will be, is your
apartment?
MR. TEALlNG-Correct.
MRS. JENKIN-What about the basement? You've got a front basement and a back
basement. I don't understand that.
MR. TEALlNG-It's actually all the same. What happened, ma'am, is originally this was
the dimensions of the building, when they originally built it, and then, I'm just making this
assumption, well, I got it from when Greg first went in there to buy it, they put an in-laws
quarters in the back. So when you look at this area right in here, this doorway right here
now goes back into this apartment, that he had his mom living in.
MRS. JENKIN-So they added that on?
MR. TEALlNG-Yes. That was added on like, I believe, in the 80's.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. TEALlNG-lt was added on. So what they did there, too, was they just continu~d the
basement, attached the basement on to the existing basement.
MRS. JENKIN~Okay. So it's all open.
MR. TEALlNG-It's all open. Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there's no more questions, I think I'll open up the public
hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. CANALE-I do have a letter from Bay Meadows attorney.
MR. URRICQ-Do you want me to read it in?
MR. CANALE-Okay. This is a letter that I wrote to Christopher Nenniger, the attorney for
Peter Shabat, the owner of Bay Meadows. It's, this is dated May 18th. "Dear Chris:
Your client, Peter Shabat, is the owner of Bay Meadows Golf Course located in
Queensbury, New York. Part of this property is a wooded area that runs along. Bay
Road, and abuts the northern property line of my property located at 456 Bay Road.. I
have applied for a variance from the Town of Queensbury seeking permission to have a
driveway run from my northern property line to my southern property line, width wise.
The length of the driveway will remain the same from my house to Bay Road. In order to
make the property level and stable, I need to slope soil on the north side of the driveway,
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
which would necessarily encroach upon the edge of your client's property by about 10
feet. The only material that would be encroached on your client's property would be soil.
No encroachment would consist of any permanent material, nor would this in any way
add to water runoff. The property line at this location isa wooded area. I would be
totally responsible for clearing the area from any debris and dead trees and shrubs and
would keep the area in good looking shape. Could you kindly have your client sign this
letter 9nd fax it back to me signifying his approval of this project. I am totallY aware that
any permission Peter grants to me is revocable upon notice. Thank you, and the letter
was signed by Peter Shabat.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. No other correspondence?
MR. URRICO-There's no other correspondence, but I'll need that for the record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure. All right. Let's go through what the relief is here before I
poll you guys and review what we're going. over here.. Let's keep in mind we've got the
75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay setback, all right, and that's the big issue always on our
main travel roads in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. OBORNE-Well, especially since it's a nonconforming structure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and a lot of these structures pre-exist the existence of that 75
foot setback, you know, so that's why they don't meet it. obviously, if you were going to
construct a brand new building here, we probably, you would either have to jockey it
further back to get out of there, the parking, etc., but keep in mind, too, with that extra
third lane that exists on Bay Road there, that sort of obviates that nearness to the road,
because that lane really is sort of a no-man's land that doesn't get used for any purpose
whatsoever. So, you know, in this instance here, I don't really see that asa big issue. I
don't know what you guys feel about it. Togo back through. them again, they're
requesting 19.67 feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback, and again, that's off the
property line. I imagine, .looking at the old plots here, that they had some of their land
confiscated when they increased the width of Bay Road there. So there was a taking as
far as that goes, so that doesn't seem legitimate either, as far as a concern for me. 4.5
feet of relief from the 20 foot north side setback. Who knows when they configured these
lots or why they configured them so small. Obviously they pre-date any zoning action. I
d?n't know what the date they would relate to, 50's maybe?
MR. OBORNE-Possibly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don't know when Bay Road was created, and I guess the
four feet of relief from the 24 foot access drive aisle requirement for parking lots, I mean,
parking lots, in the usual instance, I think we're looking at large parking lots like, you
know, like in a commercial plaza type setting, and in this instance here, we're looking at
a very small, you probably don't generate a few cars a day, I'm guessing, ten at the
most, spaced out.
MR. CANALE-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They're not all going to arrive at the same time trying to find a
parking place.
MR. CANALE-I've never generated 10 cars, but I would say maybe five, three or five.
MR. UNDERWOOD-People have appointments, too, I mean, they're not all going to be
coming at the same hour of the day.
MR. CANALE-Right, and it's not big enough to have a closing or anything, or a
conference here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as the, some of the concerns that Staff made on the Staff
Notes on the grading, the stormwater, the landscaping, lighting issues. I don't know how
much lighting you were proposing .out there. You're a daytime operation, I would think,
for the most part.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-That's downcast, low level stuff anyway. So that's not any big deal.
I'm sure the Planning Board's going to deal with that. The stormwater issue, you've got
the big steep bank going off the back, so, I mean, the parking lot, they're probably going
to have some kind of an infiltrator or something out there to capture anything that's going
to be generated by all that blacktop, would be my guess. So it's up to you guys. I mean,
we could send this to the Planning Board, but I kind of feel like the last project here, that
people want to legitimize and get their thing up and running here, we don't need to hold
them up, and whatever you guys feel. Do you want to go on with this? Do you want me
to poll you?
MR. DRELLOS-I think so. I mean, it's a pre-existing building. The Town's intent is to
have professional office building on this corridor. They're going to need some variance
no matter what they do. I mean, it's such a tight lot. So I think it's a nice set of plans, I
really do. I think they did a good job of it. I'd be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I'll take that as a yes from you.
MR. DRELLOS- That's right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We'll keep on going. Rich, why don't you go next. I'm polling you
now.
MR. GARRAND-Initially I would have said go right to the Planning Board with this, but
then, you know, thinking about it, most of this is going before Site Plan Review anyway.
Pre-existing conditions abound on this. We designated this area professional office for a
reason. It's an ideal spot for a professional office, all the way up and down the road, until
you get to ACC. My only concern is stormwater. I'm sure the Planning Boarq's going to
address that. For most of these setback variances, you know, I think these things are
measured from a passing lane, and not from any true parameters we should be
concerned about here. Most of them are pre-existing, given. where the building is
situated on the property. It is a pretty small lot. The building is pretty large as it sits.
We're not going to change the size of the building necessarily. I think the request is
pretty. moderate. So I'd be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. Most of the variance is for things that are pre-existing, and the
applicant is only requesting four feet of relief from the twenty-four foot access drive aisle
requirement for parking lots. That's the only new one, and I don't think that's very
significant. So I'd be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. Looking at the balancing test, I think that everything, I would agree
with my fellow Board members, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO.,Yes. At first glance this is kind of a startling application with the number of
variances, but when you start looking at them individually, and realize most of these are
pre-existing and pretty common in the area. So I would be in favor of it. I think what
they're requesting is really not substantial at all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Underwood. I think that the largest
thing here is the 75 foot Travel Corridor, but I think that that's a pre-existing problem, and
the rest of the variances, I think, are not that, are minimal. So I don't think there'd be an
undesirable change, and I'd be in favor of this.
MR UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think we have to keep in mind, it is what it is. You're stuck
with a lot, you're stuck with a house that's already there. If you're going. to create a
legitimate use for it in a professional office zone, this certainly qualifies by what you're
trying to do here, and almost all the setbacks and all the requests for variances that are
necessary here are as a result of the present Town Code book, which, you know,
obviously did not exist when this place was created. The parking that needs to be
created, the ramp, the handicap access, all those things, you know, are not of your
doing, they're not self-obviated. So in other words you're just dealing with the realities of
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
what they want everybody to achieve. So I would go along with it, too. So does
somebody want to do the motion?
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I will. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2009 GREG CANALE, Introduced
by Brian Clements who moved for .its adoption, seconded by George Drellos:
456 Bay Road. Applicant proposes conversion of a two family home in a professional
office with residence in the Bay Road PO zone. Relief required. The applicant requests
19.67 feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement; 4.5 feet of relief from the
20 foot north. side setback requirements, and 16.7 feet of relief from the 20 foot south
side setback requirements, as per 179-4-030. Further, the applicant requests 44.67 feet
of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirement per 179-4-060, and
finally the applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 24 foot access drive aisle
requirement for parking lots as per 179-4-040B. In making the determination, the Board
shall consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood.
Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated, but no major changes. Can the
benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some other method feasible for the
applicant to pursue other than an Area Varianc;e? Being that most of these problems
were pre-existing, the benefit really can't be achieved by any other method. Whether the
requested Area Variance is substantial? The request for the Overlay seems substantial,
however, with the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay, that seems to be mitigated by the third
lane that goes up Bay Road. The other ones are moderate to minor. Whether the
proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions? Minor impacts are anticipated, and the alleged difficulty is self-created. With
that, I would like to make a motion that we approve Area Variance No. 19-2009.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're all set.
MR. CANALE-Thank you.
MR. TEALlNG-Thank you all very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think before we read this in, what we're going to do is I'm
going to read the letter in that was sent to us from Jarrett Engineers, because it kind of
summarizes the project. Now, Tom, I didn't understand whether you were going to
present this in totality tonight, like all the aspects of what you're doing, or this is just a
plot at this point? This isn't like a permanent, like this isn't the final product, I'm sure,
with the Planning Board and us? I mean, I think what we'd like is a general idea. I
mean, there's basically two components to the project that I see.. You've got the Glen
Lake side, where you're going to convert from those cottages to year round homes, and
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
do a little re-configuring down there, and then the other side of the road is sort of different
because you've got the three acre zoning over there.
MR. JARRETT-They are vastly different projects, but for the sake of non-segmentation,
we wanted to present the whole thing to each Board, and then if you wish to focus on
one side or the other, this Board would only focus on the waterfront, essentially, but the
Planning Board may wish to focus on one side or the other first, but we want to present it
to both Boards in totality.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I'm going to read the letter in, and then, Roy, I'll have
you read in everything else. "Dear Chairman Hunsinger and Underwood plus Board
members: Attached is a Sketch Plan Application and an Area Variance Application for
the proposed subdivision of lands owned by the Sicard family on Glen Lake. The plan is
submitted to initiate Sketch Plan review by the Planning Board and for area variance
review by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The main goal of the subdivision is to provide
for the smooth transition of family owned properties from.. Mary Sicard, the family
matriarch, to her heirs. Drawing C-1 documents existing conditions, including the three
general areas along Glen Lake Road that are involved in the project. The proposed
development is illustrated as listed below. Section 1 entitled "Properties West of Glen
Lake Road", on drawing C-2, Section 2 entitled "Northern Properties East of Glen Lake
Road", on drawing C-3, and Section 3 entitled "Southern properties East of Glen Lake
Road", on drawing C-4 Section 1 is in an area zoned as RR-3A; 6 single family
residential lots are proposed on approximately 30 acres. The lots are situated around a
cul-de-sac on a proposed new Town road, and away from NYSDEC designated
wetlands. The land on which this development would occur is currently licensed as a
mobile home park, and that use would be curtailed in favor of the new development. No
variances would be needed for this portion of the development. Section 2 is an area
bordering Glen Lake, just east of Glen Lake Road between Nacy ROpdand (roughly)
George Street. This land contains 7 existing parcels on which there are situated 7 family
residences, a commercial garage, and 8 rental units. This project involves lot Ii(le
adjustments and a subdivision to further divide the family property into individually
owned family units plus at least 3 new lots for sale. A total of thirteen lots are involved
this area, 5 which remain wholly unchanged and an additional 2 lots contain existing
residences where lot line adjustments are proposed. That leaves 6 newly created lots.
The 8 existing cottages (6 waterfront + 2 additional) would be reduced by 4 when the
subdivision is approved, and up to an additional 3 could be removed at some point in the
future. One new lot in this section, lot #13 at the intersection of Nacy Road and Glen
Lake Road, would contain a strip of land along Nacy Road that also borders the
waterfront. Despite our best efforts to create conforming lots, the configuration of the
property and the existing development dictate that a number of area variances are
needed. The plan includes a table which includes specifics regarding each lot, along
with the variances sought. Lastly, the section entitled "Southern Properties East of Glen
Lake Road" contains approximately 3.4 acres that border both Glen Lake Road and Jay
Road. This area would be subdivided into 3 lots. Two of the lots are currently
undeveloped, whereas lot #20 currently contains two mobile homes. One of the mobile
homes would be removed upon subdivision approval. We have strived to make this
proposal attractive to family members, the neighborhood, and the Town in general. The
cottage colony currently owned by the family is situated on plots that are smaller than
current zoning allows, but the density of land use on Sicard parcels is already lower than
in many other areas around Glen Lake. This project would further reduce density. Our
goal has been to design this project within zoning compliance as much as possible.
Tables on each drawing show the proposed parcels along with lot sizes, dimensions,and
zoning variances that would be necessary to make this project successful. For expmple,
two of the lots along Glen Lake will require variances for lot size, but all other lots are
compliant for size. The most common area variance that will be required is for lot width,
and 6 lots require this variance. All lots on the west side of Glen Lake Road are believed
to be compliant as well as the lots near Jay Road. We are herewith requesting a waiver
of grading and stormwater requirements at Sketch Plan; we will provide these for the
preliminary submission. We look forward to discussing this project with both Boards, and
it is our hope that a concurrent review can be facilitated so that the review is. both
expeditious and clear. If there are any advance questions, do not hesitate to contact us
at 792-2907. Sincerely, Jarrett Engineers, PLLC H. Thomas Jarrett, P.E. Principal"
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2009, Mary Sicard, Meeting Date: May 20, 2009
"Project Location: Nacy and Jay Roads, Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to subdivide 6 parcels totaling 42.38 acres into 17 lots ranging in size
45
(Queensbury ZBAMeeting OS/20/09)
from 0.35 acres t011 acres in the Waterfront .Residential one acre zone adjacent to Glen
Lake and the Rural Residential zone to the east of Glen Lake Road.
Applicant requests relief from lot size, lot width, shoreline frontage, road frontage, and
side setback requirements. per 9 179-4-030. Further, the applicant requests relief from
9 179-5-020D for more than one accessory structure requirement per . lot. Finally, the
applicant requests relief from the density.requirements of gA183-22 of the Subdivision
regulations and the Zoning Ordinance.
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Moderate impacts to the neighborhood can be anticipated as the
proposal calls for the development of shoreline parcels and a reconfiguration to
existing private roadways.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
reduce the need. for multiple variances by decreasing the total number of lake front
lots and increasing the size of the lake front lots in order to avoid the lot size, lot
width, shoreline frontage, and road frontage areavariance requests. For example, lot
2 could be combined with lots 1 and 3 to increase shoreline frontage to 177 feet on
average for each lot and increase l.ot width to over 150. feet resulting in the
elimination of 6 variance requests. Further, the lots to the south could also be
reconfigured in a similar manner to avoid density issues.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The scope. of the requests and
their impacts are best quantified and qualified in table form (see below). The
cumulative requests may be considered severe to acute relative to the ordinances.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or. district. Moderate short-term
impacts on the physical and environmental conditions oftheneighborhood may be
anticipated as any shoreline development is potentially detrimental. However, the
long term impact may mitigate these concerns as stormwater and wastewater
upgrades are planned where little to none previously existed.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
A.V. 68-92 Density, lot size, road frontage, side, rear and shoreline setbacks Approved
9/16/92
Sub 14-1992 Sketch Approved 10/27/92 No further approvals
Note: Parcel history found for tax map 289.6-1-17. only. No. history associated with other
parcels involved in this proposal
Due to the complexity of the project and the cumulative variance requests, there appears
to be a need for further clarification on the following points:
1. All proposed docks must have plans submitted demonstrating compliance with
9 179-5-050 in order to ascertain any relief required.
2. Lot 10 south shore subdivision line adjacent to lot 6 must be clarified.
3. The southern parcel (tax map # 289.10-1-4) has a total size of 3.191 acres yet
the proposed three parcels to be subdivided out total 3.0 acres. Please clarify.
4. The amount of setback relief for all structures on all lots must be quantified by the
applicant. Note: This includes temporary and proposed structures.
5. The Zoning Board may wish to direct the applicant to pursue a deeded lake
access for lot 13 through lot 1 in order to avoid .an area variance for shoreline
frontage for lot 13. Please see g179-6-060C.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
6. Lots 4 and 12. have no proposed driveway when roads are upgraded.. Please
clarify.
7. The applicant may wish to re-order the lots to remove the 5 parcels not
associated with this subdivision.
The Zoning Board may wish to table this application pending clarification of the items
mention above priorto seeking a recommendation from the Planning Board.
Concerning SEQR, the Zoning Board may consider a coordinated review with the
Planning Board as this proposal is a Type One Realty subdivision. The Zoning Board
would act as an interested party with the Planning Board acting as lead agency for this
proposal.
The Zoning Board of Appeals shall seek a recommendation from the Planning Board
concerning this area variance per Town Law 9277-6 when it deems the application
complete.
Type II-No action necessary for this area variance."
MR. URRICO- There's a table attached to this. I'm going to go to the table and just refer
to that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don't we skip the tables, because, you know, you're probaBly
going to go through them anyway. I would assume you're going to quantify those for us.
MR. JARRETT-It depends on what level of detail you want to get into tonight. I want the
Board. to get their arms around what we're trying to do, and I don't want to confuse you,
and I'll get into any detail you wish.
MR. UNDERWOOD-More of a general, quick review of it would. Right. Okay. Would
you explain why it's a Type II? Because I'm confused on something as, you know,
requiring all these variances, and.
MR. OBORNE-It's because variances for property are not anything that is required under
SEQRA. They are listed as a Type II action.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, but not, the fact that we're reconfiguring everything
completely has no bearing at all?
MR. OBORNE-It states specifically in the Statutes that any variances associated with the
land.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But because we are associated with the CEA here, that we're not
concerned with that at all?
MR. OBORNE-That really, there's not an issue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right.
MR. URRICO-Yet we may be seeking a coordinated review.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and because you have that as an interested party. It is certainly a
Type I SEQRA under the Statutes because it's a Realty Subdivision, but I was offering
that as a recommendation to you to be party of the process as an interested party.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Before we begin, what I'd like. to have you concentrate on is, you
know, like everybody's probably had an opportunity to lOOk through, you know, like the
west side, you know, which seems to me pretty straightforward over there, what you're
doing, you know, that's not any need to spend a whole lot of time on that, but on the
lakeside, where all the cottages are down on the outlet end of Glen Lake there, I think
that's the part that we've really got to concentrate on, and, you know, when you're
looking at the total amount of land that you have down there, the total amount of homes
that you already have there, if you can, as you go through, kind of point out to us what
the differences, what the pluses and minuses are going to be here, because, you know,
we've got sort of like tiny little lots with cottages that are, you know, in a rental situation
now, and as you've proposed it, you're going to be proposing homes down there, and, I
don't know, are those homes going to be sold? Are they going to be in the family, or, you
know, a lot of times those things come into play with us.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. JARRETT-Why don't we do this.. Dan's going to give a quick overview of what the
family goals are, and why the family's even here. Then 1.'11 give you an overview of the
waterfront project, or what it's involved, what's going away, what's staying, what we're
proposing, and then We'd like to address the Staff comments because we think some
clarity is needed there, and then we'll open it up to your specific concerns or questions.
Does that sound all right?
MR. UNDERWOOD-That sounds great.
MR. MANNIX-Good evening. Dan Mannix on behalf of the Sicard family. This is Mary
Sicard sitting to my right, the family matriarch. This plan was put together, let me start
with this. This property's been in the Sicard family for .60 odd years, and what exists
there today pre-dates any of the zoning, as you probably are. all well aware, and it's
grown into quite a family compound, as you can see from the maps, and if you've visited
the site, you would see that as well. The efforts that have been put forth into this plan
you have in front of you today has been over many, many months, in many different
forms, many different proposals, and as it was stated yesterday, I thought it was pretty
accurate. We started with 40 gallons of sap and we boiled it down to one gallon of sweet
syrup. This is about as good as it can get, from our point of view and from the family
point of view. What they've tried to do is take what they have and, Mrs. Sicard, as it was
said in Tom's . letters, wants to do this for really a family planning issue, but take what
they have and, considering the Town's requirements, the neighborhood that they live in,
with respect for the lake and the lakefronUhat they've enjoyed for the 60 odd years
they've been there, has proposed a plan that makes the property better than it is today,
with everything possibly considered, including the economic feasibility of subdividing and
selling essentially three or four lots for the family income. It's a very extensive plan. You
can see with the color coding, the more you look at it, the clearer it becomes, I think, and
it's a good plan. The goal is to remove almost all of the rental cabins that are on the
lakefront, saving one or two that are in the blue, but removing up to seven or eight of the
others, and replacing them with modern structures that are, for the most part, conforming
with, especially with thestormwater and the septic requirements that are so important
with the lakefront issues we have today, and with that in mind, I think Tom and, we'd like
to address the Staff comments, if we might.
MR. JARRETT-I'll go through the project briefly, and then we'll get into Staff comments.
The map that you have on the board is C-1 in your package, and that shows the existing
condition. The west side of Glen Lake Road is totally undeveloped right now. It's
licensed as a mobile home park, but there are no permanent residences on that land
right now. It's the east side of Glen Lake Road where all the concentrated development
exists right now, and most of it is to the north of George Street, and that's what we call
the east side of Glen Lake Road, the north properties. If we go to Drawing C-3, Keith,
that's the west side of Glen Lake Road. Okay. There we are. Now, to simplify this
drawing, use the color coding. The blue, it's a light blue on this diagram, .and it's a darker
blue on your plans. The blue is essentially the family compound that will remain, okay.
This area here to the, we'll call it the southeast, are four family, you know, year round
residences that are to remain unchanged.. They're not really part of this project. We
showed them for clarity. Mary Sicard lives in this structure here, which is reconfigured as
Lot 10, and this is the commercial garage th.at's pre-existing. Moving to the. north, you'll
see two basic colors, green and red. The red are structures and driveways that would be
removed immediately upon subdivision approval. There's four cottages that would go
away immediately when the subdivision is approved. The driveways that support those
cottages would also go away. They'd be removed. The green denotes parcels, or
driveways, and homes or cottages that could remain after this project is after this project
is approved, but if the lots are sold, then presumably somebody's going to want to tear
dpwn those cottages. and build a compliant, single family structure, whether it be
seasonal or year round. So temporarily, at least,. we've shown the existing cottages to
remain, and they would likely be torn down in favor of structures that we show here in
gray, that would be the new homes. Now Mary has told me, I originally was under the
impression that these three lots, one, two and three, would all be sold. Mary has told me
that Number Three would stay within the family, at least for the. time being. So really only
two waterfront lots would be sold, at least the intention is two waterfront lots would be
sold initially, and then the one lot back here on the corner of Nacy and Glen Lake Road
would be sold.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is Louise Lane going to disappear at some point as a result of those
new accesses you're going to create?
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. JARRETT-The north end of Louise Lane would disappear, as soon as these lots
here, the cottages are torn down and new houses are built. We've provided a new
common driveway off Nacy Road for Lots Two and Three, and Lot One has direct access
off Nacy.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So Lot Three isn't going to have a new home on it, it's just going to
stay as a family piece?
MR. JARRETT-We've shown Lot Three as having a new home on it. Mary's telling me
that she wants to keep it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. JARRETT-So, I may have confused you a little bit, but we were trying to show the
intent of the family here, and that's why I color coded it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right now on Lot Three you've just got the one cottage there, right?
MR. JARRETT-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That's it.
MR.JARRETT-Where we have multiple cottages on a property, we've removed the
second cottage so thatit is compliant from a zoning perspective.
MRS. JENKIN-So these are all the log cottages, correct?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. That's correct.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JARRETT-Now, there is a large number of variances involved, and all the v(3riances
are associated with the six, there are six lots in this area. None of the lots to the south,
near Jay Road, and none of the lots on the west require variances. All the variancesare
concentrated right here. Two of the variances are side line setbacks to those two
existing cottages on Lots One and Two. So while those cottages are in existence, they
do not meet zoning requirements for side line setbacks. As soon as those cottages are
removed, in favor of new development, then the new structures would come into
compliance. All these lots on the waterfront.are lacking the proper width to meet zoning.
The first three meet size. They are an acre in size. The two existing lots, four and five,
do not meet size requirements, do not meet width requirements and do not meet
shoreline requirements. You can see we have a lot of variances associated with those
lots right there, but it's based on the pre-existing configuration that we're trying to
improve.
MR. UNDERWOOD-To meet width, lot width requirements, you'd probably be looking at
only three houses along there, maybe a fourth squeezed in, I mean, the reality?
MR.JARRETT-Maybe. It's a pretty tough configuration. It would be a drastic change.
Again, these houses down here are part of the family compound, are pre-existing, not
part of the project. Mary's house would not change. The lot configuration, she, right
now, is situated on the main lot, a 7.5 acre lot here. We've reconfigured her to be a little
over one acre in size, and she has the accessory structures on her lot. That's why the
variance is needed for her lot. She has the pool, the rec building, the pool building, and
a small shed; which requires a variance. Now one, I did make one mistake, hopefully
only one. I listed a variance for shorefront for her lot, thinking that the strip of land along
the shorefront was less than 150 feet, and it's actually more than 150 feet as we
measure it. So it technically doesn't need a variance. So we've eliminated one, in my
mind.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Staff asked the question about what you were going to do with the
docks. I mean, I assume, if the three lots at the north end get sold, then all those docks
have got to go except for compliant docks for the people who purchased those?
MR. JARRETT-Is everybody relatively comfortable with what our scheme is here? I can
answer questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Understanding it, yes.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. GAR RAND-It's pretty simple.
MR. JARRETT-Let's get into the Staff comrnents, then. The first one is docks. Hight
now, we've shown a configuration of these docks with connector platforms or connector
walkways that would bring the configuration into compliance. The setbacks are not all in
compliance. So what the family needs to decide to do is one of three things. Either
remove some of these legs of the dock, move them, or we apply for side line setbacks
from this Board. Frankly, we've not been able to sit down and discuss that with the
family and frankly that's, I considered that kind of an ancillary issue. I think we could,
well, it's up to the Board how you want to treat that.
MRS. JENKIN-All the blue docks are now existing, then?
MR. JARRETT-That is correct. The only one that's proposed is the one on the very north
end for Lot Number One, and that one is compliant, would be compliant.
MR. MANNIX-And the two that are red would be removed. Right.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, automatically removed right away because they don't meet
configuration requirements.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Now when are you guys scheduled to go before Planning Board?
MR. JARRETT-We're not scheduled.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're not even on yet.
MR. JARRETT-We're waiting foran agenda opening.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you're going to be sent for a recommendation tonight. So that's per
Town law.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So all our variances are in this area, and we're not really
worried about the west side.
MR. JARRETT-I don't believe you need to be, but, I mean, obviously if you had
questions about it, we'd be glad to answer them, but there are no variances sought there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think everybody, that was a good explanation. That
straightens it out pretty much.
MR. JARRETT-Now, going to comment number two, this is what I was referring to with
the variance not being required. In front of these homes, there's a strip of land that's
owned by Mary, and I think that was what your question was, right?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. It wasn't clear.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We didn't make it clear enough on the plan, but that's actually a
strip owned by Mary. . Item Number Three, this is a confusing issue. .Item Number Three
pertains to the area around Jay Road. First of all, I have to apologize for a typo in our
letter. It says 3.4 acres in the letter. It should read 3..1 acres. Okay. Our contention is
that that .land area, and you can go to C-4 if you would, the land area involved here, our
contention is 3.1 acres. Okay. We reduced, excuse me, for density purposes, in
calculating number of lots, we reduced it to 2.9 acres by taking out this road easement,
right of way, whatever we want to call it. . Technically it's still 3.1 acres, but when you
consider density, we had to do a lot line. adjustment at the north end to get enough
acreage for three lots, 3.0 acres. Did I confuse you?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Now are those lots going to have any lake access or lake rights?
MR. JARRETT-No, nothing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I know we had that one Lot 13 that had some weird flag lot or
something in there.
MR. JARRETT-That's going to come up in just a, I think it's coming up in number two
down here. Item Number Four, the amount of setback relief for all structures.and all lots
must be quantified. We actually did not give you a table to that effect, yet, with specific
dimensions. If you move to one of the other files on this stick, we've looked at setbacks
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
on all these properties, and we have an overlay that we can provide to the Town,
including a chart, if you wish. The only setbacks that we know of, where we don't meet,
are not compliant, are those two side line setbacks for the two existing cottages at the
north end. Go to, yes. A Iittl.e tough to see, but there are side lines, side line setbacks
and front setbacks shown in that configuration. We believe we meet all of them, ~xcept
for those two cottages.
MR. OBORNE-That's what I'm looking for is somehow to quantify it.
MR. JARRETT-We'll give you the diagram as well as whatever information you need.
MR. OBORNE-That's fine.
MR. JARRETT-Item Number Five, this is where Keith or Staff is suggesting that we not
include a separate strip along the side of Lot One, and instead provide an easement
through Lot One for Lot Thirteen. There's a strip right there, that right now is designated
as part of Lot Thirteen. We Will defer to that, that's a good idea. That's fine with us.
MRS. JENKIN-What is the reason for that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-So that they have lake access. The house is way overon.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, no, but they're getting the lake access through this little strip, right?
MR. JARRETT-The strip up here?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Staff is suggesting that goes away. They don't like that. They feel it
requires variances, I believe.
MRS. JENKIN-It'snot wide enough?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're talking about the little bowling alley lane up on the north,
right?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. MANNIX-Right. It's to avoid a variance.
MR. JARRETT-So we're fine with granting an easement through Lot One instead of the
strip, if that's a recommendation.
MRS. JENKIN-So, would that lot line change, then?
MR. JARRETT-Lot One would get slightly larger.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. DRELLOS-So where would their easement be?
MR. JARRETT-Just a general easement through the property, I believe. I'll defer to you,
Dan.
MR. MANNIX-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-It may be directed to that north end, but it would not bea separate fee
parcel, or part of Thirteen.
MRS. JENKIN-It would make sense to have it at the north end, because that's how they
would get to it.
MR.JARRETT-Right, and the marketability of Lot One would certainly degrade if they
were allowedto access anywhere through that property.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, in grand total here, you've got, you know, all the houses that are
going to remain, the blue ones, obviously, and then we've got the reconfigured ones on
Lot One, Two, Three and Thirteen up there. Are all those going to have, all those are
going to have their own deeded lake access, even though they don't abut on the
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
waterfront? I mean, obviously the family parcels that currently exist are always going to
have access to the lake with a dock and boat, I assume.
MR. JARRETT-Well, all the waterfront lots, there's five waterfront lots here, plus the
existing houses. They would all have waterfront access. This would have deeded
access via easement through Lot One, and that's all there ison this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-It's just really that one lot that was kind of hanging out there, and if you've
driven by it, that's a very nice piece right there. It's a very attractive building lot, actually.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The houses that you're proposing over by the firehouse, on that
side of the road there, are any of those going to have access to the lake?
MR. JARRETT-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-None of those either. Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Frankly, we thought, for a lot of reasons we didn't do it, but coming to the
Planning Board with that we thought was maybe going to be, tip the scales the wrong
direction. We just felt it was too much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I'm trying to think of anywhere else in Town where we have
anything similar. The only thing I can think of is Takundewide, which is even weirder,
because they only own like the ploUhat the house exists on, you know, and everything
else is communal land. So you don't need to go there.
MR. OBORNE-Jim, could I get some clarification from the applicant?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Certainly.
MR. OBORNE-As far as the docks go, you have the tie lines going, what's the moniker
you use here, proposed dock wharf connections. That would be included as far as the
overall square footage of the docks?
MR. JARRETT-It would have to be, yes.
MR. OBORNE- Yes. So we'd want that quantified, to make sure you don't need a relief
variance.
MR. JARRETT-Depending on how this Board, what action this Board takes, we'd be glad
to get into that process.
MR. OBORNE-Sure, and one other. If you could go back to the southern parcel, this one
down here.
MR. JARRETT-Which parcel are you?
MR. OBORNE-AII of these, because the way I read it, you need density relief. You're
stating that it's 3.1 or.3.2 acres.
MR. JARRETT..3.1 is the gross acreage right now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That's on C-4.
MR. JARRETT-That's on C-4. Yes. So the gross acreage right now is 3.1, of which we
removed this Town owned easement, Town owned easement on which the road sits, and
we removed this wetland. We're ending up with 2.9 acres of land available, which is not
enough for three lots, but we're doing a . lot line adjustment here, to gain the extra
acreage to get us three acres.
MR. OBORNE-If you could spell that out ina letter form or something,. that would be of
great benefit to me.
MR. JARRETT-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. GARRAND-There's no wetlands back in there?
MR. JARRETT-There's a tiny pocket of land that's got trapped drainage that became
wetlands, and if anybody's driven by it, you'll see that's exactly what it is. There's just
little pockets, trapped runoff. The last item that Keith brought up was Item Number Six,
Lot Four and Twelve on the, in this area. Four is this one and Twelve is this one, and
your question is regarding driveway, but this section of driveway is to remain. So that
driveway will serve both those parcels.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So that's the one that your family compound added, the last lower
green one, right? Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, and actually the driveway, if Mary keeps this Lot Number Three,
then the driveway would actually probably continue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-To the end of that lot.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, right up into that lot right now, rather than build a new driveway here
down into Three,and then if the kids ever decide to, I don't know who would get that lot,
but if they decide to sell it in the future, then it could be redeveloped and a driveway put
in off Nacy Road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Here's a question for you, because this is one that I was
thinking of. You're currently on a communal water supply system feeding everybody
from one well.
MR. JARRETT-Correct, two wells, actually.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What's going to happen with the Planning Board now that you're
going to this major change over? I mean, you're not going to be able to provide to
everybody on every lot.
MR. JARRETT-No, and you'll see that right now there's two wells, one right here and one
right here, that serve the family, all these parcels, okay, and the family compound would
be continued to be served by these two wells, but we'vealso shown a reserve.area right
here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I see that.
MR.JARRETT-To drill new wells in the case that we need to, but these three lots have
new wells shown for them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And you think everything will be compliant with wastewater,
because you're set back?
MR. JARRETT-That's one of the reasons, we wrestled with it for months trying to do that.
Now you'll notice we've also shown reserve areas for wastewater.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Way back, yes.
MR. JARRETT-Back here, because we know that these systems are all, they're
functioning fine at the moment, but they're old systems and at some point they may need
to be replaced. They can't be replaced in their current location so we've shown a
reserve area back here for those.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you think Planning Board will let you put individual systems on
everyone that you've got out there and the new ones up north?
MR. JARRETT-These should all be compliant, and the soils are good, so I would say
yes. I will have to answer that stay tuned. We'll know.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I don't know, I mean, with the Planning Board you never know
what they're going to say.
MR. JARRETT-No. I imagine there'll be questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I wondered if you'd get into a situation where they would
suggest doing a community, you know, leach field or way back far away from the lake as
you can get. Sometimes concentrating it into one mass isn't such a great idea.
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. JARRETT-Not always a panacea, that's right, but we have tried to think forward to
the day when we need to resolve those questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Wen, why don't we do this. Everybody pretty clear as to
what they're proposing? Everybody has got a pretty good idea what we're asked for
here. Are we going to open the public hearing tonight and allow the public to comment
because I see a lot of. public here and I assume . some of them were. here for that
purpose. So why don't we open up the public hearing. . AnybOdy from the public wishing
to speak on the matter? Why don't you come up, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARY ELIZABETH DELTRY
MS. DELTRY-Good evening. I'm Mary Elizabeth Deltry and I live at Two Jay Road East,
and my property is adjacent to the proposed southern parcels. So I do have several
concerns about the proposed subdivision. So there's actually six points that I wanted to
make. Firstly I'd like you to know that my family has owned the property since the
1920's. My uncle was one of the first to actually build property up there, and definitely
was there as a rural property, a place for the family to get away, partly from subdivisions.
Okay. With that said, my neighborhood is currently composed of a mixture of unique
seasonal and year round homes, with a heavily wooded area buffering the homes from
Glen Lake Road. So we are on the first street coming in from Glen Lake Road, and right
now, where the parcel is proposed to be developed, it is all wooded, at the present
moment. The proposed variance that would permit a subdivision of an additional 17
homes would decrease my own privacy, along with that of my neighbors, thus altering
the essential character of my neighborhood. Secondly, I'm concerned that the land
adjacent to my property where the proposed variance and subdivision is to be located
would be clear cut, thus destroying the wooded buffer and diminishing the value and
enjoyment of my property. Thirdly, currently Jay Road has no thru traffic. If the variance
is approved and the. subdiViSion developed my neighbors and I will experience a
significant increase in traffic. Fourthly, since 17 new homes are proposed as part of the
variance application, if the variance is approved 17 additional families will be moving into
my neighborhood, ensurihgthat there will be an increase in the noise level and possibly
contributing to noise pollution. Fifthly, there is no municipal water or sewer available
necessitating that the subdivision draw water from wells and use septic systems. This
will surely have a negative environmental effect on the shanow point well that I rely on for
my own drinking water, and being that I am downhill towards the water, water flows to its
lowest level. I'm concerned about the contamination of my drinking water. Sixthly,
additionally, I am concerned that an increased population in a relatively small area along
the lakeshore will have a negative environmental impact on the lake itself and that an
environmental impact study should be conducted prior to the approval of any variance or
permit approval for the proposed subdivision. I do also have one question. On the
parcel that is adjacent to my property, I don't know if they've added in, it's a very strange
configuration at the top of my property. .1 have an easement from the Sicard property
onto my property, and I don't know if that little corner piece of property is added into the
total acreage or not. So I have a question about that, whether that parcel, if it is on the
map as being an easement on my property or whether that was added into their total
acreage. So just something that needs to be clarified.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to come up and take a peek at the map?
MS. DEL TRY-Sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Show me where you are. That's Jay Road West and that's regular
Jay Road going in. So these are the ones they're proposing.
MS. DEL TRY-I'm right here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that's what I thought.
MS. DEL TRY-And this is the easement I have.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. To get to your house.
MS. DEL TRY-Right.
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD.Okay. Yes. It looks like they're just hooking that in to make that line
up with, okay. Thank. you.
MS. DEL TRY-Basically my concern is that the neighborhood is going to be changing
from what it was, and I'm feeling that it will definitely have a negative effect on my privacy
and on my property value as a seasonal home and on the environment at large. Thank
you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else, come on up?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can I just ask what lot she was talking about?
MR. UNDERWOOD~I don't know if it'll show up on the map that you've got, Keith, but it's
right at the corner of Jay Road where it's got the "Y" at the top there, at the bottom of,
you've got to look on C-4. Peltry, their name is Deltry. So the bottom of that lot is an
easement. Just that little part, where the right hand side of the "Y" forks off there, that
lower portion there, I guess, is access to hers, but that's across the road. Is that the
paved road you're going to.remove? That's staying, right?
MR. JARRETT-No, this does not get removed. That private road does not get removeq.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody else from the public wishing to comment tonight?
Come on up, please.
GARY HIGLEY
MR. HIGLEY-My name is Gary Higley. I'm representing my father and my mother. My
mother's deceased, but they live at 23 Jay Road. It would be at the southern end point
of the lake. It's actually known as Osprey Point on Glen Lake. I'd just like to say one
thing. I'm not against this project. I think that any time that we do development in an
area that has been stagnant for a long time, that this is not a bad thing. Anytime that
we're making improvements on filtration, any time we're making improvements on
density, which it sounds like we are, I mean, it sounds like there's a lot of rental
properties there, and they're eliminating them and putting less density into this area, I'm
not against that, and one thing that I am concerned about is that once we approve the lot
development and the lot sizes that they have, it says on the map that. they have
proposed homes. Are they required to build homes or can they continue to have, right
now I think it's zoned. .
MR. UNDERWOOD-One acre.
MR. HIGLEY-It's zoned one acre, but I think it's, I think it's not cabins, but it's.
MR. HIGLEY.Now everything down here that we've been talking about on Glen Lake is
one acre zoning down there.
MR. HIGLEY-Okay, but it's not a trailer park.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No.
MR. HIGLEY-Okay. So once it is approved.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's approved as it is.
MR. HIGLEY-As it is. They lose their trailer park approval.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Absolut~ly.
MR. HIGLEY-That's a concern, I'm sorry, because as you drive into Glen Lake, and drive
into Jay Road, there are trailers that are parked there, that are rented there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-There are two trailers there, and they're proposing to remove one of
them, and leaving the one nearest to them.
MR. HIGLEY-Okay. So, again, I say this is not a bad thing, because we have the
opportunity to lose the trailers.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. HIGLEY-Which is a terrible eyesore when you drive in to Glen Lake. So, one,
filtration, I think, is very important to me, which I. think it was to you, and I think density is
very important toyou. You brought it up, but you said that they were increasing density.
I think, I actuality, I think they're actually reducing density. So I don't think it's a negative
thing. I think it's a positive thing, but my biggest concern is, is that as we approve these
lots, and I quote lots, in the requirements, are they required to build homes to do this, or
do the lots just stay there. So these are concerns of mine. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Come
on up, please.
JOHN STROUGH
MR. STROUGH-I'm John Strough. I don't know if you've read what the Lake George
Water Keeper and the Fund for Lake George, just recently put out a stream assessment
r~portJ and it involves, you know, how Lake George is being impacted, and so they took
a look at chemical assessment, which include looking at dissolved oxygen levels, Ph
levels, specific conductents. They've looked at the physical assessment, which looked
at buffers, stream beds, and so forth, a biological. assessment. They took a look,
primarily, at macro invertebrates, because they're most impacted by pollution. They're
not tolerant to pollution. So, to make a long story short, the areas of Lake George that
have been negatively impacted, I mean, I'm talking water quality, are the areas most
affected by development. Now that's not surprising, and I suppose we're all aware of
that. Now Glen Lake is already, you know,1 would call a less than optimal state,
currently. I would even call it impaired, and I think we have to be very careful. There
was another study I just read recently in Poughkeepsie, and they did a study on idea lot
size, and, you know, the variables were, you know, is there a municipal supply of water.
Is there a municipal supply of sewer. What are the soil types and so forth, were some of
the variables. Well, just to give you an example, without going into any great detail, a
good soil type, meaning a granular soil, not a lot of loam,a lot size, now keeping in mind
that a lot that does not have municipal water and does not have municipal sewer, and
has to maintain the distances of100 feet minimum between your well and your septic
system, the lot size they supported should be at least 1.2 acres. Now, the study went on,
if you have municipal water or you have municipal sewer, of course that changes. Soil
type changes it, too. I guess all I'm saying is, you know, something that I think you're
going to do anyway. It's got to be very careful in your assessment of this particular
project because of its proximity to Glen Lake, and because of, you know, Glen Lake's
impaired state. Now I say impaired state because all the studies I've read, and I think
some of you have read them, come to the same conclusion. So, that's all I'm saying. I
think it deserves very careful study. Thankyou.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak this
evening? Come on up, please.
JOHN BERNHARDT
MR. BERNHARDT-Yes. Good evening. My name is John Bernhardt. My wife and 'live
at 8 Jay Road East, which is on the Jay Road section, the south side of the proposed
project. I also own the firehouse, which is adjacent to the parcel on the west side. It
would seem to me that the project that's being proposed is actually a good thing. The
density is actually being decreased along the shorefront. The lot size is within the, on
the south end adjacent to. us, is within the one. acre proposal. We can't object to that.
Obviously we like, prefer the wooded nature of it, but the Sicards I'm sure are being
taxed very heavily on vacant land, unfortunately, and for them to be able to subdivide
their property and pass iton to the next generation is something that they should be
allowed to do. The proposal that they're making seems very reasonable from my
perspective. So I'd encourage youto grant them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak this
evening? Any correspondence at all?
MR. URRICO-I don't see any.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don't you guys come back up. Anything else youwant
to add this evening?
MR.JARRETT-Well, I think, just reflecting generally on what the public commented on, I
think most of them realize that actually we're decreasing density, and we're trying to
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
make this a very good project for not only the Sicards but the neighborhood and the
Town.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I hold you up for just one second? He did. find one letter. We'll
let him read that in, in case there's anything you've got to comment on.
MR. URRICO-It says, "Dear Chairman: My name is Rob Slack. I own 3 properties in
close proximity to the property considered for this subdivision. 50 Nacy Rd., 46 Dineen
Rd., and 48 Dineen Road, Lake George, NY 12845. I have sat down and reviewed this
plan with George Sicard and feel very comfortable that this plan is a positive addition to
the north side of Glen Lake, from both a property value and tax base perspective. I also
believe the homes that will be built on these lots will be aesthetically positive." And
that's signed Rob Slack.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sorry to interrupt you.
MR. JARRETT-No problem. One misconception is that we're proposing 17 new homes
and that's not true. We have six lots on the west side of Glen Lake Road which are
brand new. We're actually decreasing density in the main family compound area. That's
going to be fewer structures than are there right now, and there's two new homes
proposed in the southern part, you know, east of Glen Lake Road, but the southern part
of it, so a total of eight new homes there, but a reduced density in the main family
compound area. One question was brought out regarding whether or not the lots have to
be built, and frankly, as .the lots are created, no new houses have to be built. The lots
are created and then they may sit there for years. We are proposing four cottages be
removed immediately upon subdivision approval. So that's an improvement right there,
but beyond that, there's no immediate changes proposed. The lots could sell and build.
They may sit there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else? I think what we're going to do here is this.
Because we're going to have a joint review going on with the Planning Board, in regards
to this project, there were quite a few questions that you answered to us this evening
here, but I think everybody sort of needs time to digest that. I kind of made of a little list
of stuff that I would like you to think about for the next time you meet with us, but I think
what I'd like to do tonight is make the Planning Board Lead Agency on this.
MR. OBORNE-Well,.the Planning Board will seek Lead Agency, certainly.
MR UNDERWOOD-Right. I mean, we don't have to designate them at this point?
MR. OBORNE-No, not at all. What you'd want to do is you would want to make it known
to them that you're an interested party.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And what I would like is for intercommunication between the two
Boards, because I would like their minutes when they meet, and I would like our minutes
to go to them when they meet, so that we're all on the same page, and we don't leave
anything out here.
MR. OBORNE-If that is humanly possible, sure. Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. JARRETT-I will address letters to the Board to both Boards, if you wish.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and it's more like, when our minutes are done, as Maria has a
chance to type them up, that it's nice to have a little bit of a stagger time between our
meetings, like I don't like those meetings where they meet like on Tuesday and we meet
the next evening, because then we're in a dark cloud. We don't know what they've said,
unless we attend the meeting or anything like that. One of the things I would like you to
quantify is this. Now you've already changed, with that Lot Three up there, remaining in
the family compound, and what I want to know is this. The family compound exists as it
is, everybody's familiar with that, what's on the books right now. I would like a
quantification as to how much land you've got in the total family compound, that's going
to remain family compound. I want to know what the acreage is, what the density issues
and things like that are there, because I still think. that's germane to the total project,
even though it is existing, because I think when we're looking at making sure that we do
things, and we give you the minimal amount of relief that you need, that we make sure
we give you the minimal amount, that we don't go way overboard and give you way over
the top, other than what's necessary.
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR. JARRETT-Let me flesh that out a little bit more. Lot Three, for example, would be a
standalone lot, and if the family's intention right now is to keep it in the family and not sell
it, they could change their mind in 10 years and say, wait a minute, we want to sell it
now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. JARRETT-So we'd be giving you the intent right now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-To do that at some point. Sure.
MR. JARRETT-Well, for example, Lots One, Two, and Three are all, they were originally
configured to be sold. Mary's tell me that she wants to keep Lot Three.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-But we can give you the intent right now as to what they want to do.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. JARRETT-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The Planning Board's going to look at the water issue. It's going to
look at wastewater issues. It's going to look at runoff issues.
MR. OBORNE-At Site Plan Review, absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-At Site Plan Review. .The dock issues have got to be. resolved at
some point, you know, and I don't think those are the kind of things, we don't want to
segment the review. In other words, if we're going to do the thing, let's do it all, get it
over and done with, so you don't have to come back here 55 times.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you can't segment it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I'm just saying, it would be nice to make sure that it's done in
totality, the first time, so we don't have to waste your time and our time going back over
this.
MR. JARRETT~We will initiate the dock project now, so that you know what we want to
do.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other concerns from Board members? Anything you
want them to make sure?
MRS. JENKIN-I have a small concern with, Lots Four and Five are the smallest lots,
correct? Lots Four and Five.
MR. JARRETT-Are the waterfront lots. Yes, they are the smallest lots, that's correct.
MRS. JENKIN-They're the smallest lots. They are going to remain with the family?
MR. JARRETT-Let me clarify this. Lot Four, right now, is part of the family compound
that's rented out. It's a cottage that's rented out, okay. Lot Five is not. It's actually
occupied by one of the children right now, and it's a standalone lot, but we are making
that bigger. We're including land toward the lakefront, to make that lot more compliant.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Are all these lots, then, now one acre? No, they're not, because
we've got the variances.
MR. JARRETT..No, Four and Five are. not.
MRS. JENKIN-Four and Five, because the one thing that I'm looking at here is all these
cabins now are just summer cabins. They're only used for a short period of the year, and
it's very, very likely that if these cabins come down and people buy the lots, that they're
g~ing to put in year round homes, and that will be a much larger impact.
MR. JARRETT-These cottages are actually rented year round, and occupied year round.
58
(QueensburyZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MRS. JENKIN-They are?
MR.JARRETT-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-So there really won't be any change in use. They'll just be. much, much
better houses and more, you know, better utilities later on when they're re-developed.
MRS. JENKIN-All right. So they are year round.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. If you drive through there now, you'll see cars at each of those
properties.
MRS. JENKIN-I did see, but it's Spring and Summer.
MARY SICARD
MRS. SICARD-They've always been yearround.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And it's nicely treed there now. So I anticipate you're not going to
do clear cuts as was mentioned by some of the people.
MR. JARRETT-We plan on bringing that up to the Planning Board that none of the trees
will be cut until Site Plan Review or specific review of those waterfront lots.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess what we'll do is table this until we hear back
from the Planning Board, and we'll put you on as soon as Planning Board gives us some
direction going forward. We'll leave the public hearing open in case there are any
changes thatoccur in the interim.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 MARY SICARD, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
Nacy and Jay Roads, Glen Lake. Tabled until we hear back from the Planning Board,
and we'll put you on. as soon as the Planning Board gives us some direction going
forward, and we'll leave the public hearing open, in case there are any changes that
occur in the interim.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, as far as, you are going to be required to execute on a
resolution seeking a recommendation. If you could do that, asking the Planning Boar.d,
per Town Law 277-6, the Zoning Board of Appeals is seeking a recommendation from,
just to tighten that up.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION THAT BASED UPON TOWN LAW 277-6. THE. ZONING BOARD IS
SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR SOME DIRECTION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD IN
REGARDS TO THE PROJECT. AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 MARY SICARD. IF
THERE ARE ANY MODIFICATIONS THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. OR
SUGGESTIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS. CONSIDERED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE
VARIANCES. THEN THEY'RE WELCOME TO MAKE THOSE TO US, . Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
MR UNDERWOOD-All right. We'll see you at some point.
MRJARRETT-Thank you very much.
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2009, NPA, LLC, Meeting Date: May 20, 2009
"Project Location: 820 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 14,820 square foot Walgreens Pharmacy, 4,642 square foot
Chili's Restaurant, reconfiguration of existing office spare to retail space, reconfiguration
of parking and associated site work.
Applicant requests 6 feet of relief from the 24foot minimum drive aisle requirement per
S 179-4-040B for portions of the proposed parking area located east of the 'Retail A'
building.
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby. properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to nearby properties are anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be . achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
build compliant drive aisle widths and reduce the amount of parking requested.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 6 feet or 25% of
drive aisle width reduction may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the
physical conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as parking lot
maneuverability may be impeded. However, the. maneuverability issue may be
mitigated by the one-way directional flow proposed for this portion of the parking lot.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
A V 54-2002
SV 59-2002
SV 83-2003
SV 61-2004
Home Depot Permeability 6/26/2002
Home Depot signs 7/24/2002
Empire Vision sign 10/22/03
Panera sign 8/25104
Parcel history continued
SP Mod Home Depot 2004 SV 95-2004
AV. 77-2008 Permeability variance Approved 3/18/09
S.P.47-2008 New construction / Retail reconfiguration Pending
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
This application is the result of the approval by this board of A.V, 77-2008, which dealt
with permeability and buffer issues (see attached resolution). It appears. that the
maximum proposed width for the drive aisles is 20 feet and in some cases the. width is as
narrow as 18 feet. The applicant proposes one-way traffic flow and angled parking
spaces.
With the reorganizing announced by Walgreens in March of 2009 and the subsequent
proposed. slow down of new store. openings, the Zoning Board may wish to ascertain if
the proposed Walgreens will be constructed. If the Walgreens is not to be built, the
applicant may wish to re-configure the parking in order to eliminate the need for this area
variance.
This application has been forwarded to the Fire Marshal's office for review and comment
(see attached).
Type II-No action necessary"
MR. UNDERWOOD-On the plot we ended up with an 18 foot travel lane, as opposed to
the 24.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And that was on the ingress side coming in off of Quaker Road,
MR. LAPPER-When we were here last time, in order to get th~ setback that you wanted
along the cemetery, we went to 18 feet and 18 feet, and Staff had pointed out that under
the, that the Fire Marshal required a minimum of 20 feet. So one of the lanes had to be
20. So we came back with just that change, as we had talked about. We're on the
agenda. in June for the Planning Board. We're hoping to wrap this up, and with us
tonight is Robert Montgomery who flew up from Dallas for Chili's, the Director of Property
Development. They would really like to be in the ground and in this economy, the Plaza
owner's really happy about that. So, we'd like to get it done. This is nothing we hadn't
talked about with the Board and we needed to go to the 20 feet, and because it's the
diagonal parking and the one way, we think it should be fine, and we have a Fire Marshal
letter.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Normally, if you had straight on parking, it would need to be wider:
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And my understanding is with diagonal you can go with narrower.
MR. LAPPER-Because you just don't have to pull out the same.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Now, one of the questions I had was, are all those 18 wheeler
trucks that are going to access that Retail A store, are they going to come in off of
Quaker, or are they going to come into the main entrance and loop back through the
Plaza?
MR. LAP PER-There's no requirement that the trucks use the back here. I mean, some
of them might. So this has to have the turning radius. It has to be sufficient for the truck
template, which it does, and Keith just gave us the letter from the Fire Marshal. You
probably have that in YOl,lrpacket.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. LAPPER-So. he's looked at it in terms of what he needs for fire trucks, and that's
really the same as what tractor trailers need.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I'm just saying for the tractor trailers, it looks to me like if
you came in the main Plaza, went down past the Post Office, loopdy loop all the way
61
(QueensburyZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
back through, you're going to have better. access backing in to those access bays on
Retail A back there. I don't know what you think.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. We'll probably discuss that with the Planning Board. I don't know
that it matters.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I just don't want you to get into a situation where you're like cui de
saced to the point of no return and nobody can make deliveries.
MR. LAPPER-We were assured, by the designer, Clough Harbor, that this has all the
truck turning radiuses that are required. So that tractor trailers can maneuver here fine
at 20 feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Questions, Board members?
MRS. JENKIN-You said that one side is 18, the other is 20 now?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Which side is the?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Twenty is coming out, and it's closer to the building.
MRS. JENKIN-Twenty is closest to the big, the wall.
MR. LAPPER-And the reason for that was for firefighting apparatus. It was determined
that they'd want to be closer to the building.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Whatever happened to Walgreens? Did they pull or are they still in
progress?
MR. LAPPER-The developer, the Plaza owner tells us that he's moving forward with
them. In this economy, every deal is a little shaky, except for Chili's, which is here.
Things seem to be stabilizing in the economy, and hopefully, I mean, a lot of effort's gone
into this with Walgreens. So hopefully they'll stay on track.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So if they don't come, you'll have some extra parking for Chili's,
right?
MR. LAPPER-No, if they don't come, they'll have to find another major tenant like that,
but they're talking and they're hoping that it's all going to work out. Basically everybody
just stopped all the deals in January, and now there's talk again.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If we're looking at any other plaza in Town, you got any of them that
are down to 18, I mean, in general?
MR. LAPPER-The difference is that thi$is one way traffic, and that's really totally
different. With one way and with the diagonal, you just don't need 24, and the 18 feet is
sufficient, according to the designers. We had to go to the 20 because of the fire code
issue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Anybody else have a question on it?
MR. CLEMENTS~Youjve got 24 feet with two way traffic on both ends?
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. So you're pretty close.
MRS. JENKIN-And snow removal isn't a problem?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I'll open up the public hearing. Is there anybody from the
public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
62
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
ROBERT MONTGOMERY
MR. MONTGOMERY-Thank you, Hoard. I'm Robert Montgomery with Brink
International, I'm here, we're the owners of Chili's, but this is a franchisee site for Pepper
Dining, Inc. is our franchisee here, and I've got notes in my file back there from 2003 on
this project. So we've been in this for the long haul, and as he said, we, this is one of the
sites that is going forward, as far as we know, as far as this thing gets approved, but we
had about 150 Chili's planned for this year, corporately, and we're doing zero. That's the
same for next year as well. So to have a project moving forward is a big thing for us, and
we have been waiting. for a long time for this. I really would appreciate you supporting
this variance application here, from the owner.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Great. Thank you. All right. We don't have any correspondence, I
assume, at this point. All right.
MR. URRICO-Just the Fire Marshal.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I'll read that in. We did receive this evening, from the Fire
Marshal, from. Gary Stillman, to Keith and it says, "The Fire Marshal's Office has no
issues regarding the change to parking and traffic pattern for the variance referenced
above. I met with the Queensbury Central Chief, Joe Duprey, at the site on Monday,
May 18, 2009, and we both concurred fire apparatus access is acceptable, even though
it appears in the drawing to be slightly less than 20 fe.et in a few places. The present
driving lane now is approximately 22 feet for two way traffic." So that sounds pretty
reasonable, liketheychecked off. Any concerns from Board members, or do YOll want to
just roll this through? Okay. Then I guess what we're looking at here is, I'll make a
motion that we approve.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I think we have an issue as far as, nothing that's going to
stop anything. This is an Unlisted SEQRA action. You neglected to do this, also, on
Canale, and we might have to do a little housekeeping after this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You want me to just go through?
MR. OBORNE-Doa Short Form.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Recognizing the Short Form.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, specifically for the drive aisle width.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MS. GAGLIARDI-And did you close the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll close the public hearing. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. NPA. LLC. SPECIFICALLY FOR THE
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH ON THIS PROJECT. IN REVIEWING THE SHORT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM. WE DO NOT NOTE ANY PROBLEMS
THAT WE FORESEE WITH THIS. AND IT'S BEEN SIGNED OFF ON BY THE FIRE
MARSHAL ALSO. SO I GUESS WE CAN GIVE A NEGATIVE DEC ON THAT.,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard
Garrand:
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2009 NPA. LLC, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
820 State Route 9. The applicant has proposed construction of both a Walgreens and
Chili's restaurant, as well as reconfiguration of the office parking space in the back of the
63
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/20/09)
Plaza on the east side. They've requested relief from the minimum drive aisle width
requirements for the proposed parking lot configuration on that east side there. The
ingress lane will be 18 feet, and the egress lane going out, which is closest to the
building, has been signed off by the Fire Marshal at 20 feet in width. We do not foresee
any difficulties with that due to the diagonal parking that will be created back there, and
so as the last golden spike we'll drive it in for progress at NPA.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER- Thank you. Good night everybody.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Have a good evening. Before we go, we're just going to do a quick
Short Form on that other project. Which one are we doing, are we doing Canale, right?
The applicant is Greg Canale and the owner is Harry Ruecker, and their agent was Van
Dusen and Steves. The project location was 456 Bay Road. This is Area Variance No.
19-2009. We neglected to do the environmental review of the project and it was an
Unlisted Action. The applicant was proposing construction of a 502 square foot entry
deck, and relief was also requested from front, side, and Travel Corridor setbacks.
Further relief was requested from the minimum drive aisle width for the parking lot.
MOTION IN REGARD TO AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2009 GREG CANALE UPON
REVIEW OF THE PROJECT. WE WILL BE MAKING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN
REGARD TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS WITH THE PROJECT. WE
ANTICIPATE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD. WHEN THEY REVIEW THE PROJECT.
WILL ENSURE THAT RUNOFF ISSUES ARE HANDLED AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
AND THAT SEEMED TO BE THE ONLY ISSUE THAT WE WERE DEALING WITH AS
A RESULT OF THIS RECONFIGURATION OF THAT PROPERTY. SO I'LL MAKE A
NEGATIVE DEC., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Joan Jenkin:
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you, guys. We're all done.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
64