2009.09.23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 23, 2009
INDEX
Sign Variance No. 48-2009 Robert E. Sharp, D.D.S., M.S.D. 1.
Tax Map No. 289.15-1-4
Area Variance No. 50-2009 Chris and Donna McKinney 8.
Tax Map No. 309.9-3-37
Area Variance No. 51-2009 Scott & Norma Sorger 14.
Tax Map No. 295.14-2-39
Area Variance No. 53-2009 Donald Kruger 23.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-59.311
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.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 23, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOAN JENKIN
RICHARD GARRAND
JOYCE HUNT
BRIAN CLEMENTS
GEORGE DRELLOS
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the Wednesday, September 23, 2009
meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to
quickly go through our procedures, once again, for anybody that perhaps is new here.
As we handle each application I’ll call the application by name and number. The
secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and Warren County
Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to
present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions
of the applicant, and then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing’s intended to
help us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand, and it functions to
help the Board members make a wise decision, but it does not make the decision for the
Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will allow
speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than
three minutes, and only if after listening to the other speakers, a speaker believes that
they have new information to present, and, Board members, I’d suggest that because we
have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re
speaking. Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period
and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any
correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react
and respond to the public comment. Board members will then discuss the variance
request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to
explain their positions on the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left
open depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or
disapprove will follow.
NEW BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 48-2009 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED ROBERT E. SHARP,
D.D.S., M.S.D. OWNER(S): HUNTER BROOK, LLC ZONING: O LOCATION 16
HUNTER BROOK LANE FACING BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT
OF A SECOND FREESTANDING SIGN ON THE BAY ROAD SIDE OF THE
PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE
FREESTANDING SIGNS AND MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR SIGNAGE.
CROSS REF.: BP 2003-585 OFFICE BLDG; BP 2003-1012 SIGN; BP 2005-747 ALT.;
BP 2005-761 DET. GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 9, 2009
LOT SIZE: 1.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-4 SECTION: CHAPTER 140
DR. ROBERT SHARP, PRESENT
MR. URRICO-I’m going to read in the narrative that he supplied as well.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. URRICO-“We are requesting to be allowed to place a second free standing sign on
our property along Bay Road. Since our building is positioned over 100 feet from Bay
Road, a wall-mounted sign would not be legible from the road. We are also requesting
14 feet of relief from the set-back requirement a our property line is 23 feet from the edge
of Bay Road and a 15 foot set-back would make the sign difficult to read for passing
cars. The 15 foot set-back at the desired location would put the sign behind the maple
trees present on the lot. The more southern portion of our lot drops below the Bay Road
elevation and is obscured by a guard rail. The sign will be constructed of PVC materials
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
with vinyl covering. The sign will be double-sided and supported by a 5 x 5” vinyl post at
either side. Tentative colors include burgundy, green, blue and yellow. The hanging
sign will likely be changed to “16 Hunter Brook Lane” to assist patients in finding our front
entrance. The sign would be positioned approximately midway between the northern
and southern property lines and 1 foot inside our property line at a point where the
property line is 23 feet from Bay Road curb. This would place the sign 24 feet from the
edge of the road. Our property line is farther from the road than usual as Bay Road had
been moved east in order to reduce the curve in the road. Respectfully submitted,
Robert E. Sharp, D.D.S., M.S.D.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 48-2009, Robert E. Sharp, D.D.S., M.S.D., Meeting
Date: September 23, 2009 “Project Location: 16 Hunterbrook Lane Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 20 square foot, 7.3 foot tall
second freestanding sign fronting on the Bay Road side of the property.
Relief Required:
Relief request from number of allowable freestanding signs and minimum setback
requirements for signage.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
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 the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result
of this request. However, this proposal may initiate additional sign variance requests
in the future.
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
consider moving the sign 15 feet from the property line in order to avoid the setback
variance for this proposal.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 14 feet or 93%
relief from the 15 foot setback requirement per §140-6 may be considered severe
relative to the ordinance. The request for 1 additional freestanding sign or 100%
relief may be considered severe 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 to moderate
impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a second freestanding sign may have a negative visual impact on the
district.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 09-356: 22 sq. ft. sign Pending
SP 58-05: Residence within professional office 10/18/05
BP 05-761: 1092 sq. ft. 3 car detached garage 1/4/06
BP 05-747: 2,212 sq. ft. commercial interior alterations 12/8/05
SP 34-03: Construction of dental office 7/15/03
SP 34-03M: Planting plan 12/ /03
BP 03-1012: 28 sq. ft. free standing sign 1/21/04
BP 03-585: 5,814 sq. ft. office building 6/11/04
SP 21-97: Construction of 8 unit apt. building 5/22/97
Staff comments:
According to §140-B(3)[4][a] only one freestanding sign per entrance accessing a
different public right-of-way is allowed under the criteria. The proposal is for a second
freestanding sign not at an entrance to a public right of way.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
SEQR Status:
SEQR Type Unlisted”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 9, 2009
Project Name: Robert E. Sharp, D.D.S, M.S.D. Owner(s): 16 Hunter Brook, LLC ID
Number: QBY-09-SV-48 County Project#: Sept09-26 Current Zoning: O
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes placement of a
second freestanding sign on the Bay Road side of the property. Relief requested from
number of allowable freestanding signs and minimum setback requirement for signage.
Site Location: 16 Hunterbrook Lane facing Bay Road Tax Map Number(s): 289.15-1-4
Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to add a second free standing sign
to be seen from Bay Road. Relief is requested for the number of freestanding signs
where only one is allowed and two are proposed and setback requirement. The sign is
to be located 1 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. The applicant
explains the sign setback request is due to the property line is 23 ft. from the road. The
new sign is to be 22 sq. ft. The plans show the location of the new sign and the existing
sign. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according
to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to
the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact”
Signed by Tim Lawson Warren County Planning Board 9/9/09.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Dr. Sharp, anything you want to tell us about your request.
DR. SHARP-You pretty much covered everything I was going to go over. The reason
we, well, you have all the information. Our property line is 23 feet off the road. I don’t
know if you can see where the proposed sign is, but there’s a, well, it’s down, I guess it is
up there. There’s two maple trees there, the farthest one right next to it, but the property
line there is 23 feet off the, from Bay Road, because Bay Road used to swing wide, and
they apparently straightened out the corner at some point and left the property line where
it is. So if we went another 15 feet, we would be to the right of those two maple trees,
and down grade more. If we went, brought the sign more northerly, the property line gets
farther from Bay Road. So it would be even farther off the road, plus you have these two
telephone poles there that are kind of an interference visually, and if we go to the
southern, to the far side of our lot, it drops down there more than it really appears there,
but it becomes, no one would see it coming north on Bay Road because there’s a guard
rail there that obstructs it, and also the lot next door is covered with under brush. So it’s
visibly not a good place either, although you could be closer to the road there, but it
would have to be up higher, which would be more of a visual hindrance I would think.
So, on the other factor, two factors. We tried to place it in the middle of the lot so it
wouldn’t interfere with the neighbors any more than necessary, although they’re fine with
the sign, and also we had to position it where our sprinklers wouldn’t hit it, we have
underground sprinklers. So that’s another reason we picked the spot that we did. So
those are pretty much all the considerations, I think, in the placement of the sign. I
realize it’s a second sign that isn’t permitted by Code, although I did notice in the Code
that a building, well, it said a corner lot, but a building that fronts on two public highways,
is allowed one freestanding and two wall signs. Wall signs, as I mentioned earlier, I think
are out of the question because we’re over, we’re about 110 feet from the road. So it’s
way back, unless you have a huge sign, and we don’t even have a, well, I wouldn’t do
that to my building anyway, but we don’t have a large enough place to put a sign that
someone could read from the road. So those are pretty much all the considerations, and
the sign itself that’s proposed is seven foot tall, and it’s, the sides on the sign post which
are five inch posts, it’s, the sign is only three and a half by five and a half. So it’s not a
large size sign, and from the road it’s about two feet farther back than the new
Queensbury sign out here, so, you know, just to put it in perspective. That’s a much
larger sign, of course, than ours will be. So those are all the reasons, I think, we
considered in picking the location for that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Board members have any questions?
MR. CLEMENTS-As I look at this, is this the same sign that you have as a freestanding
sign that’s going, that’s on the Hunter Brook?
DR. SHARP-Hunter Brook? No, it’s much smaller than that.
MR. CLEMENTS-It is?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
DR. SHARP-Yes. We have a sign out there with a brick base and it’s probably nine feet
tall.
MR. CLEMENTS-It looks like the same kind of configuration, though, as that sign.
DR. SHARP-No, well, it’s somewhat the same shape, yes. Somewhat the same, but it’s
going to be significantly smaller, though. That one’s actually, I think to the top, is
probably 10 or 11 feet.
MR. CLEMENTS-I had a question for Keith, too. I notice on the Staff comments, it says
one freestanding sign per entrance. The nitty gritty of the Code there, does the
freestanding sign have to be at the entrance?
MR. OBORNE-Well, it would have to be compliant in regards to the property line. A
freestanding sign doesn’t necessarily have to be at the entrance.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody
from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we did have a couple of letters. Right, Roy?
MR. URRICO-I know there’s one.
DR. SHARP-We submitted one letter from our neighbors. The only residents in the area,
actually.
MR. URRICO-I saw it in the package. “To Whom It May Concern: We have no problem
with placement of a freestanding sign along Bay Road for the Adirondack Dental Implant
Center and Robert E. Sharp, D.D.S., M.S.D. PLLC. The sign would be located on the lot
adjacent to ours. Yours truly, Mike and Gerry Lyons” Are they right next door?
DR. SHARP-They’re right next door, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Are they south or north?
DR. SHARP-They’re north. That picture that Keith had up before was pretty much sort of
standing.
MRS. JENKIN-So is that one of the businesses?
DR. SHARP-No, it’s a residence.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, that’s the house.
DR. SHARP-We’re the last business on the Bay Road corridor. As you probably know,
Bay Road corridor has to have an additional 75 feet setback, and that’s why our
building’s so far off the road. It’s actually directly across the street from where we’re
sitting right now.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So those are the people in the private home?
DR. SHARP-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. That was my concern, putting a sign close to a private home, too,
because it’s obviously a business area in there, but there’s also the private home close.
DR. SHARP-Yes. Well, they run a business there, too. They have a four wheel trailer in
their driveway all the time and a couple of trucks, so he said your sign is nothing. Just a
point of interest.
MR. URRICO-Will the sign have any lighting?
DR. SHARP-It will not be lit.
MR. URRICO-It will not be lit.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
DR. SHARP-No spotlight or anything?
MR. URRICO-No.
DR. SHARP-We talked about a couple of solar lights, just more for accent than anything
else, but my neighbor’s requested actually that it not be lighted. So we, I don’t think,
were going to light it anyway.
MRS. JENKIN-I measured the sign at the community church, and that sign is four by six,
four feet high by six feet, and it’s actually eighty inches in the air.
DR. SHARP-That’s down at Blind Rock and Bay?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. The church right on your corner, and I just wondered if, but your
sign is a little smaller than that, but it’s comparable.
DR. SHARP-Yes. It’ll be back. I think the church sign probably doesn’t meet current
Code, would be my guess, because that’s been there for so many years, but I don’t
know. It’s closer to the road, I think, than what we’re proposing, but I could be wrong.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, I was just t inking of the size of it. Because theirs is 80 inches.
Yours is 88 inches. Theirs is six feet wide and yours is five and a half feet.
DR. SHARP-Five and a half plus two five inch posts, almost six foot.
MRS. JENKIN-So it’s essentially the same size.
DR. SHARP-Pretty much the same.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else?
MR. URRICO-I’m just curious from Staff. Was there any response from the Town? They
were notified of the meeting.
MR. OBORNE-Any response from the Town?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I guess no.
MR. URRICO-They’re on the list. I just want to make sure.
MR. OBORNE-Right, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, Keith, I was wondering, you know, like with the one further
down Bay Road where all those professional offices are going in, how are they going to
do theirs? They’re just going to have their traffic circles inside?
MR. OBORNE-The Fairfield, the one on the right as you’re going down?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I believe each one’s going to have a wall sign and a freestanding sign. I
don’t know.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I mean will there be some like marquee sign out on the main
drag there so they know that they’re in there.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I believe there is, and I think each individual site, obviously, needs
Site Plan Review. So they’ll go through that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. URRICO-Aren’t monument signs suggested for Bay Road?
MR. OBORNE-Monument signs are certainly suggested and preferred, absolutely.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys have any other questions? All right. I’m going
to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And why don’t we just talk about it for a while. I mean, I don’t know
what you guys feel like. This is the last professional office. I don’t think there’s probably
going to be any expansion of professional office zone further out at any point in the
future. Do you? I mean, there’s a lot of infill.
MR. OBORNE-Maybe up at 149 and Bay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I’m just thinking between here and going back towards Glens
Falls, there’s a lot of infill that’s going to have to take place and it’s going to take a while
for that to happen, I would imagine. In general, you know, I’m thinking of like Denise
Buher’s house over there on Blind Rock, you know, and you’ve got the church. You’ve
got this place, but it’s sort of a smaller unit there, and because they don’t have the
entranceway onto Bay Road, with good reason for that, you know, it’s sort of a unique
circumstances. It’s not the same as it is down the rest of Bay Road. Certainly, we
wouldn’t want everybody else who has a business on Bay Road.
MR. URRICO-It reminds me of the Della situation where they’re almost blind to that
location unless you have a sign out in the middle of nowhere, out in the middle of the
right of way.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. I mean, I don’t even think of any other place that we could
put on Bay Road to identify the other businesses that are in Hunter Brook, you know,
within the compound there, but in this instance here, I mean, for me, at least, I don’t see
that this is a big huge, going to change the character of the community or anything like
that.
MR. DRELLOS-There’s numerous signs up, that’s comparable to this.
MR. CLEMENTS-I just had an idea about, or I wanted to ask if you’d consider putting a
wall sign on the Hunter Brook side and having the freestanding sign out where you’re
looking for it right now. Then you’d have a wall sign and a freestanding sign, and for that
part of the Code, you’re.
DR. SHARP-The only problem I could foresee, a couple of problems. We have a brick
foundation and a four feet, concrete footers under our sign out front. So it’s not, we have
a lot invested in that sign. I can tell you, when you asked for a monument sign five years
ago, we built a monument sign.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think the professional zone they all really prefer the
monument signs. All the doctors’ offices in Town pretty much have one, and they’ve
gone to the trouble of making something decent, not just something hokey. It’s not like
it’s a strip mall or something like that.
DR. SHARP-Yes. We try to keep our yard meticulously trimmed and mowed.
MR. CLEMENTS-It is very nicely kept.
DR. SHARP-Thank you.
MRS. JENKIN-It looks very nice. Had you considered maybe putting some plantings
around the sign?
DR. SHARP-Yes. We’re going to probably do something. This is our resident
horticulturist here.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
DR. SHARP-I’m sure she’ll have some flowers there.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. That would add, that would help.
DR. SHARP-At least shrubbery or something.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I think what I’m going to do is I’ll just poll you guys and
we’ll vote on this, and I’ll start with you, Rich.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you. Going by there, I’ve driven by there several times today. I
thought it was confusing. Going down Bay Road. I had no real idea which building it
was, then I went down Hunter Brook Lane and I saw the monument sign and I thought,
okay, here’s a monument sign. Which building is it again. I would have preferred it, but
if I was going to patronize this business, I think I would have preferred to see a little bit of
clarity as to what actual building it is, and, you know, a little more direction there. I think
that’s where people are going to be confused. I was when I went by, and I went by it like
three times today, back and forth. While I think the sign could be pushed farther back
into the property line, I don’t think it’s a real big issue because it is quite a distance off the
road to begin with. The sign’s not overbearing. It’s just going to be a plastic sign up in
the middle of the lawn. I don’t think it’s going to have too much of an effect on the
neighborhood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want to go next?
MR. DRELLOS-Sure. I have to agree with Rich. I went by a couple of times myself, and
I think the sign is needed. Just to kind of show where he is, basically. I did the same
thing. I agree with him, and I don’t have any problem with this variance at all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-I completely understand why you would want it. I would think that you
would want a little bit larger sign with your address on it, because that would be, you said
you were going to change the periodontics to the address.
DR. SHARP-Yes. We’ve since decided against that, only because I figured you people
probably wouldn’t like that because in case of an emergency or something, it’s not really,
you know, if you had 16 Hunter Brook Lane, it’s not Hunter Brook Lane on the street, of
course. Then we thought, well, we’ll just say entrance off Blind Rock or something, but
we’ve kind of decided we’d just stick with the services we offer.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. Well, your address is correct, but other than that, I agree with the
other Board members, and I don’t think that there’s a problem with it, and I’m sure that
you’ll do a nice job of landscaping.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I think this is a unique situation. I have been a, I guess in favor of
signs done differently than the Code is in other areas, not necessarily like this, but I don’t
think that it would be an undesirable change, and I don’t think it’s really a substantial,
and you are right. The road veers off further away from your property line there, so
setback is much further. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to say I go past there every day, and I never even knew you
were back there.
DR. SHARP-Some of our patients don’t, either.
MRS. HUNT-I don’t think, there’ll be minor impacts in the neighborhood as a result of this
sign, and as far as moving it, I think with the curve there and with the drop in the lot, I
think that’s probably the best place for it. I think the applicant has given reasons that this
is the only feasible alternative for him. I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with everybody else. I think this is a unique situation and
the topography and the location warrant having that second sign where it’s located. So
I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll agree with everybody else, too. It’s a unique situation,
and I think with the curve there, too, I don’t think you would want to have people looking
way off to the right to see a sign way off in the distance. You’ve got lots of traffic coming
and a lot of accidents occur further up, just up the road there. So, I think from a public
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
safety standpoint, it makes more sense to have it where you can actually see it. So, I’ll
go along with it. Does somebody want to do this one?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll do it.
MR. OBORNE-SEQRA.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got to do SEQRA on it.
MR. URRICO-SEQRA, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right.
MOTION THAT HAVING REVIEWED THE SEQRA SHORT FORM WE NOTE THAT
THERE ARE NO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS WITH THIS REQUEST FOR THIS
SIGN THAT’S GOING TO BE PLACED TOO CLOSE TO THE ROAD. IN FACT, WE
THINK THAT PLACING THE SIGN IN THIS AREA WILL MAKE THE MOST SENSE
BECAUSE OF SIGHT LINES AND WITH THE CURVE ON THE ROAD THERE. IT’S
PROBABLY FROM THE PUBLIC SAFETY POINT OF VIEW A GOOD THING TO DO,
AND SO, RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE NO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
WHATSOEVER WITH THIS, I WILL GIVE A NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard
Garrand:
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce, do you want to go ahead?
MRS. HUNT-Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 48-2009 ROBERT E. SHARP, D.D.S.,
M.S.D., Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
16 Hunterbrook Lane. The applicant proposes placement of a 20 square foot 7.3 foot
tall second freestanding sign fronting on the Bay Road side of the property, and relief is
requested from the number of allowable freestanding signs and minimum setback
requirements. The criteria for considering a Sign Variance: Whether the benefit could
be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, and I think the applicant has given
ample reasons why this is the only feasible alternative. There will not be an undesirable
change to the neighborhood character or nearby properties. The request is substantial
but it’s a very unique situation. It will not have any adverse physical or environmental
effects, and it would be considered self-created only because Dr. Sharp wants to make
sure that people know where he’s located. So I move that we approve Sign Variance
No. 48-2009.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. Good luck with it.
DR. SHARP-Thank you for your time. Is it possible to get some of the maps to those Site
Plans back?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MRS. HUNT-Sure.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II CHRIS AND DONNA MC KINNEY
OWNER(S): CHRIS AND DONNA MC KINNEY ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 60
CONNECTICUT AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 1,490 SQ. FT.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MOBILE HOME ON PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE LINE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2009-313 MOBILE HOME; BP 98-673 C/O
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.9-3-
37 SECTION: 179-3-040
LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-2009, Chris and Donna McKinney, Meeting
Date: September 23, 2009 “Project Location: 60 Connecticut Avenue Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the removal of a 978 square foot mobile home
and placement of a 1,568 sq. ft. mobile home in its stead on 8,000 square foot parcel.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the 25 foot side line setback requirements for
both side property lines.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
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 the character of the neighborhood may be
produced as many dwellings associated with parcels in the neighborhood are non-
compliant with regards to side setbacks.
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 limitations of
the lot appear to eliminate any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 12 feet or 48%
of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for both the north and south side
property lines in the Moderate Density Residential zone per §179-3-040 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 in the neighborhood may be anticipated as a
result of this request.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be attributed to lot
limitations.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 08-613: 1,456 sq. ft. mobile home Pending
Staff comments:
Clarification on the size of the proposed mobile home will need to be forth coming. The
Building Permit states 1,456 square feet proposed and the Area Variance application
states 1,568 square feet proposed.
The project, as proposed, appears to increase permeability on the parcel with the
removal of 395 square feet of impermeable material. Although the new mobile home is
590 sq. ft. larger than what currently exists, the removal of pavement and a small shed
increases permeability by close to 5% as proposed.
SEQR Status:
SEQR Type II – no further review needed”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. OBORNE-If I could make a clarification real quick. The project should read as
proposed appears to decrease impermeable. Increase permeability, it works. I just
wanted to make sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Do you want to tell us anything else?
MR. DOBIE-Good evening. For the record, Lucas Dobie. I work with one of the local
engineering firms during the day, which I can’t say the name for liability reasons,
because I’m kind of moonlighting, a little pro bono work here. The applicant is my aunt
Donna McKinney, uncle Chris McKinney’s in the back. The family living there is his
daughter and husband and two young children, and essentially, just to keep it brief, we’re
trying to take out the nominally 12 foot by 53 foot single wide mobile home with some
additions and kind of wipe the slate clean and put in a new 28 by 56 double wide, and I
believe they were applying for a building permit two or three months back, and
somewhat to their surprise the neighborhood’s been rezoned. Most people probably
don’t pay attention to the local zoning goings on and stuff, and here we are asking for 13
feet of relief on the north side and the south side, and we can meet our front and rear
setbacks. We can meet our permeability requirements, and with that, we’d be glad to
entertain any questions from the Board.
MR. URRICO-Can you clarify the size of the home, building, the discrepancy between
the building permit and the Area Variance?
MR. DOBIE-Yes. That 28 by 56, how I calculate it is the footprint is 1,568 square feet. I
don’t get into, it’s the square footage of the building area, which is probably a function of
the manufacturer. That’s how they, sometimes they don’t count closet space or
stairwells, which I’m not an architect. I don’t know how that all works. So I just look at
footprint, and we can clarify that on the building permit application, but it is 28 by 56.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. GARRAND-A lot of the homes in the area I’ve noticed have settled down. Many of
them are simply propped up on cinder block foundations. Is there going to be a concrete
pad poured prior to the placement?
MR. DOBIE-Yes. This will be slab on grade, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Will you be taking out the pavement at the back of the house?
DONNA MC KINNEY
MRS. MC KINNEY-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Right now you have pavement and patio and everything back there.
You’re taking it out?
MRS. MC KINNEY-The concrete’s going to end where the house starts.
MRS. JENKIN-So are you planning to put another patio in the back for your barbecue,
etc.?
MRS. MC KINNEY-Not at this time, no. It’s only going to be a stairwell there to get in
and out.
MR. DOBIE-That’s how we’re getting our little reduction in impervious areas, just to kind
of clean up the walkways and the driveway where it overhangs towards the back of the
parcel, and I believe they’re removing the shed, too.
MR. CLEMENTS-Do you have the dimensions of the home that’s there now?
MR. DOBIE-Yes, sir. It’s nominally, the single wide itself is nominally 12 foot by 53 foot.
MR. CLEMENTS-Twelve foot by fifty-three?
MR. DOBIE-Yes, sir. I think that’s how it scales. I checked it earlier, just to be sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to make a comment here that I think is germane to the
whole neighborhood, and that’s this, you know, you’ve got an awful lot of homes down
there that are probably going to get replaced with similar requests for double wides and
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
stuff like that, which I think is a bonus for the people that live down there, because they
need more living space like everybody else does in Town, and I just wanted to ask you,
like, how much does it cost you to get ready to do this, as far as applying for the
application and all that, on top of the purchase of the home, just as a round number?
MRS. MC KINNEY-Seven, eight hundred dollars.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, okay. Because I’m just saying, you know, if we’re looking at
the whole neighborhood down there at the same time, I think everybody recognizes that
these are tiny little lots down there. Every single house that comes before us is going to
have to request, you know, a survey, the whole nine yards, and I’m just thinking, a lot of
these people, that’s an awful lot of money, and I’m just saying to myself, why is it that
we’re going to make every single person who’s going to come in with essentially a similar
request within a few feet of each other, you know, to jump through all the hoops and, you
know, come before the Board and stuff like that, but I think it’s something that we, as a
Board, should troubleshoot for the neighborhood down there.
MRS. JENKIN-But what can we do?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, we still have to go through the process, but I think we
can be a little less onerous as far as what we require. In other words, you know, as
simple as it is knowing the size of what’s going to be coming on, as opposed to what’s
there now, I think that gives us enough, and I can’t really think of any circumstance
where we’re going to turn these down, unless somebody comes in and wants to put in
like an 8,000 square foot one and fill the total lot or something, but I’m thinking that most
all these are going to come in and be reasonably requested for the size of the lot that
they have.
MR. OBORNE-Like you say, I mean, it is an expensive endeavor, and the major expense
would most likely be the survey.
MR. GARRAND-Which we can waive.
MR. OBORNE-Which you can waive, exactly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I’m just saying, you know, I don’t see why we can’t, in the future,
waive the surveys for the whole neighborhood down there because I’m thinking, you
know, they got stuck with paying for it this time.
MR. OBORNE-I still think you still would want a survey because you need to quantify the
amount of relief. You don’t necessarily need to have a signed, stamped survey, which is
a requirement that this Board imposed on all variance applications.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I’m just saying, is this something that we could do with the GIS
system at the Town, you know, that we could go down there and get a reasonable
accurate number within a foot or two? So, I mean, I don’t think we’re going to be that nit
picky if somebody needs an extra foot or something and they go over, when you go back
and re-measure, after the thing is sited or something like that.
MR. OBORNE-Well, no, I think it’s worth exploring, Jim. I mean, that’s something you all
need to discuss.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, you know, I just can’t see us, you know, in the grand scheme
of things, doing like 100 of these, you know, what’s the point? We’ve done one, and to
me it’s, as long as the requests aren’t over the top, which could be done based upon like
your call, you know, Craig’s call, you know, whether they’re like way bigger than what
should be on the site or something like that, where it would trigger more.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I think it all starts with the survey, I mean, I certainly can suggest it.
I don’t usually suggest to applicants to ask for waivers, but being that surveys are
required, usually I don’t say you can ask for a waiver, but in the future, in this
neighborhood, sure, but I think everybody should be treated with the same stroke of the
brush, to be honest with you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That’s just my opinion.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Well, just food for thought for the Board. Maybe you
guys, while we’re going through this tonight, you can think about that. Anyway, getting
back on track here, do you guys have anymore questions?
MRS. JENKIN-Well, one thing that I noticed here, it’s, I don’t know whether you have just
one car, or you have two cars in your family. It’s going to be awkward parking if you just
have this 12 foot wide asphalt driveway that ends right at the house. You’re going to
have to park one behind the other and then you’re, somebody comes, no, we have to
move that car because I have to go.
MRS. MC KINNEY-They pretty much work opposite shifts. That way they don’t pay for
daycare.
MRS. JENKIN-I’m just wondering. You have said that you will remove the asphalt.
MRS. MC KINNEY-They park front and back right now. The driveway’s not wide
enough. They don’t park around the back of the house.
MRS. JENKIN-You don’t park?
MRS. MC KINNEY-No. They use that for basically a patio table, a cooker. They don’t
park back there.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. It’s not parking at all.
MRS. MC KINNEY-No.
MRS. JENKIN-So it would be essentially the same way that it’s been done forever.
Okay.
MRS. MC KINNEY-The same.
MRS. JENKIN-That’s my only concern. I think that it’s going to definitely improve the
property, and the neighborhood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I’ve got a question for Keith, I guess. Do you have the Site
Development Data Sheet?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-I’m looking at the setback requirements, and those numbers don’t
seem to add up to me.
MR. OBORNE-Twenty-five foot and twenty-five on the sides?
MR. CLEMENTS-No, the front and the rear. You’ve got 30 feet is required existing is
19.2 and 21, well, in the front 19.2, in the rear 21.4. Proposed is 31 and 36. How can
that be?
MR. OBORNE-Well, they’re centering it in the lot. I mean, currently what you have.
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, but that’s existing, the existing, is the existing on the homes there
now?
MR. OBORNE-If you see the shed in the rear.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Is that what it is, the shed? Okay. I’ve got it. That’s why those
numbers are the way they are. Okay. It looks like you’re centering it from side to side a
little bit more, too. That’s, okay. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? All right. I’m going to open the public hearing.
Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. URRICO-I don’t find any correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I guess I’ll go through the Board, and I’ll start with you, Joyce.
MRS. HUNT-I really don’t have any problems with it. I think that it’ll be an improvement
in the neighborhood, instead of being an undesirable change, and as far as the benefit
being achieved by some other means feasible to the applicant, I think you’re very limited
with the lot, and I think it’s a good plan where you’re using the same setbacks, front and
back, and you’re getting rid of some impermeable area, and as far as the side, I had the
figures, it’s only like a 1.2 foot on one side and nine-tenths of a foot on the other. So it’s
really not much different from the side setbacks you have now, and so I would be in
favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to go along with what Joyce says. I really don’t see much
of a problem with this application. It definitely will not change the character of the
neighborhood, or in terms of the environment create an adverse effect, and the only
feasible method is for them to go for something smaller which is not going to really
achieve what they’re trying to achieve. Also it’s not going to have an overwhelming
effect on the side setbacks anyway. So, all in all, I think this is a good application. I’d be
in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Good. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I think that this would be a desirable change. I think that, I don’t
think the variance is substantial, compared with what’s there now, and I think it would
actually have a positive effect or impact on the neighborhood. So I’d be in favor of the
proposal.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-I’ll agree with all those balancing tests. I don’t need to reiterate it. It’s
definitely a positive change to the neighborhood, and I would go along with the variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-George?
MR. DRELLOS-I’ll agree with everybody else. I think with the lot size is restrictive to the
size of your home, what you could have there, and I think the house is moderate. So I
would be in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich?
MR. GARRAND-Well, the Town Board has repeatedly brought up the need for affordable
housing in Queensbury, and I think any time we can improve the Mobile Home Overlay
District, that the neighborhoods aesthetically like this, I think we should go for it. So I’m
in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and I’m in favor of it, too. I don’t think it’s any big stretch to
do this, and it’s going to make the lot more livable, give you more space, and it’s a
reasonable request as far as I’m concerned. So does somebody want to do the
resolution. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-Sure.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2009 CHRIS AND DONNA MC
KINNEY, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce
Hunt:
60 Connecticut Avenue. The applicant proposes the removal of a 978 square foot
mobile home and the placement of a 1,568 square foot mobile home in its stead on an
8,000 square foot parcel. In the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by
other means feasible to the applicant. I don’t think the benefit to the applicant can be
achieved by any other practical means, given the constraints of this lot. Will this
variance produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? I do not believe it will
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
produce any kind of undesirable change. As a matter of fact, as I previously mentioned, I
think it’ll improve the neighborhood aesthetically. Could this request be deemed
substantial? I would, at best, deem this request as moderate. Will this request have
adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood? No, I don’t see how it
can have any possible adverse environmental impacts on the neighborhood. We’re
actually increasing the permeability by about five percent. Could this request be deemed
self-created? Given the re-zoning of this neighborhood, I don’t think this request is self-
created. Years ago this would have been a compliant mobile home in this area. So I
move we approve Area Variance No. 50-2009.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we want to make any kind of an administrative recommendation
to Craig about these future ones we’re going to see down here, of similar?
MRS. JENKIN-I don’t know how we can.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, we can think about it some more and do it next week,
but what I’d like you guys to do is think about whether we really need to have stamped
surveys, you know. I’m thinking, you know, how much was that for your survey?
MRS. MC KINNEY-Six hundred.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Six hundred bucks, you know, for what? I think even if we had a
line drawing we would have a pretty good idea, and because all these are going to be the
same down there.
MR. URRICO-Jim, do you review the applications any longer?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m not reviewing them ahead of time, but I think that in this instance
here, because we’re going to have a plethora of more similar requests because of the
rezoning, that I think that we can streamline it for people. I don’t see why someone
should have to pay $600 every time they come in.
MRS. JENKIN-We could make a resolution, if it was a resolution made by the Zoning
Board in the first place, we could certainly make a resolution for this area.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think for you guys, too, I mean, for Staff, I mean, you’re
going to have a reasonable idea of what’s being requested, you know. I don’t think it’s
going to be some huge difference between each one. They’re all going to be very similar
to each other, but I think, for all those people to have to pay $600 out of pocket to come
here before us, knowing that we’re probably going to approve the vast majority of them
without any changes or maybe with just a little bit of jockeying here and there, I think that
we can make the process easier for people, you know.
MR. URRICO-I’d suggest that we have a separate discussion on this, not attach it to this
application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We’ll hold off on that. We’ll go on to the next one.
MR. DOBIE-All right. Thank you for your time, Board.
MRS. MC KINNEY-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II SCOTT & NORMA SORGER
OWNER(S): SCOTT & NORMA SORGER ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 18 JOHN
CLENDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,440 SQ. FT.
FREESTANDING GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR GARAGES AND RELIEF FROM NUMBER OF
ALLOWABLE GARAGES TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PARCEL. CROSS REF.:
BP 2009-328; BP 027 SFD YR 1967 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE:
1.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.14-2-39 SECTION: 179-5-020D
SCOTT SORGER & NORM KING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2009, Scott & Norma Sorger, Meeting Date:
September 23, 2009 “Project Location: 18 John Clendon Road Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,440 sq. ft. freestanding
garage.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 340 square feet of relief from the maximum allowable size of 1,100
square feet for garages on parcels of less than 5 acres in size. Further, the applicant is
seeking relief from the requirement that only one garage is permitted per dwelling. Both
requests are in response to the requirements of §179-5-020D of the zoning code.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
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. The applicant could place the garage further to the west to avoid
the removal of trees. However, with the parcel to the east currently vacant, impacts
to the neighborhood would be minimal.
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
increase the size of the current garage to avoid the one garage per dwelling relief
request. However, there appears to be little flexibility afforded to the applicant in
relation to the size requested other than an area variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 340 square feet
or 27% above the allowable 1,100 square foot requirement per §179-5-020D may be
considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for an
additional garage or 100% relief from the one garage per dwelling requirement per
§179-5-020D may be considered severe relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
Minor changes to the
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
The difficulty may be interpreted as
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created.
self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 09-328: 1,440 sq. ft. detached garage Pending
Staff comments:
It appears the location of the proposed second garage will require the removal of trees.
The Zoning Board may wish to ascertain the total amount of trees to be removed prior to
rendering a decision.
SEQR Status:
SEQR Type II – no further review needed”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you want to add?
MR. SORGER-Well, the garage that’s there, it’s considered a two car garage. Very
small. Pull my Jeep in there, it hits the top of the garage door with the roof rack on it, and
once it’s in there, if you have two cars in there, you can’t really open the door very far. I
have three motorcycles, my lawn equipment, and I was hoping to have a hobby shop in
there doing woodworking and stuff, you know, a space for that. The trees, there was
only one stump, and it’s a dead tree that was an issue, no other trees will need to be
removed. Unfortunately my neighbor across the street couldn’t make it, but they assured
me they had no issue with it, and they’re the only one that can see the house, even, and
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
the garage, where it’s proposed, the property drops down in the back, too, so it sort of
tucks in behind the house, and unless you’re all the way at the dead end, you won’t even
know it’s there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re not going to run any kind of business on the side or
anything?
MR. SORGER-Absolutely not. I’m retiring.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody have any questions?
MRS. JENKIN-I have a question. Had you considered adding to your existing garage,
putting an addition on the back or the side of it?
MR. SORGER-Well, I had actually thought about that. The house is kind of raised up,
and the property drops down. I mean, it drops off pretty good, and there’s only, what,
about 10 feet on the side, maybe, before it drops off over there again.
MRS. JENKIN-And then the other question I had is there were some stakes out there,
because I did, the four stakes, is that where the garage is going?
MR. SORGER-That’s the approximate location.
MRS. JENKIN-I didn’t see any trees there at all.
MR. SORGER-No, there was a stump, a dead stump.
MR. KING-There was one stump, dead stump, we pulled it out.
MR. SORGER-We pulled it out.
MR. KING-There was a bunch of rubbish and stuff that he had on the property, and I
removed it.
MR. SORGER-The previous owner.
MRS. JENKIN-I see.
MR. KING-So, when I (lost word) in the back yard, I pulled the dead stump, and there
was one tree that had the top missing out of it that we cleared out of there. That was it.
Other than that, there’s no trees going to be touched.
MRS. JENKIN-Right, because the existing trees are quite a bit farther back than the
stakes were, and then you have a road to the side, passed the drop off. You have the
drop off and then you’ve cut a road around there.
MR. KING-Yes, that was existing. All we did was leveled it.
MR. SORGER-That was there, that was already there.
MRS. JENKIN-Will you be paving that?
MR. SORGER-Right now all I was planning to do was stone, the stone, crushed stone.
MRS. JENKIN-The crushed stone. Okay. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-You’re asking for two types of relief. One of them’s kind of severe, the
second garage is a severe request because you’re asking for 100% relief, and you’re
asking for, size wise, you’re asking for 300 square feet above what you would be
allowed. Is there any room for maneuverability on the size of the second garage?
MR. SORGER-Well, I could probably take eight feet off the back, make it a 30 by 40.
Would that be pretty close?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Two hundred and forty square feet less, 1240.
MR. KING-I mean, if that’s what it takes, then we’re willing to flex. There’s no doubt
about that.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me. Can I get your names for the record?
MR. SORGER-My name is Scott Sorger, and this is Norm King.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions at this time from Board members? I
guess I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak. Do you
want to come forward, please? One at a time.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LAURA TROELSTRA
MRS. TROELSTRA-My name is Laura Troelstra. I am speaking on behalf of my parents
who live right next door. Whether undesirable change would be produced in the
character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties? Yes. There are
several reasons why this proposal would cause or produce an undesirable change in the
character of our neighborhood and would be a detriment to nearby properties. This
neighborhood is zoned Moderate Density Residential. As such, it is, and I quote our
Town law, is intended to protect the character of Queensbury’s single family
neighborhoods. The character of this neighborhood, the John Clendon Road, Mountain
View Lane, Crownwood Lane neighborhood, is characterized by single family homes
with attached garages, a few small tool sheds. This proposal is substantially and clearly
out of character. The Town Code says that this zone be one residence per two acres.
This proposal is basically adding a structure so substantial it could be considered a
residence, and it certainly would have that appearance. Clearly, what is being requested
here is incongruent with this Town’s zoning intent. Whether benefit sought by applicant
can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance. Yes. A feasible and
acceptable alternative would be the addition of a tool shed. The Town permits a 200
square foot shed. That would be more in character with our neighborhood. Anything
larger would be out of character. Applicant could use their basement for their
woodworking hobby, if it is just a hobby. Whether the requested variance is substantial.
Yes. Clearly substantial. 1400 square foot building, regardless of proposed use, is
unacceptable and contrary to our Code, contrary to the intent of our Code. In addition,
this land owner already has a garage. Would the variance have an adverse impact on
the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? Yes. The impact on the
neighborhood’s environment would be adverse because it is not in character with other
homes in the neighborhood. All other residents in this neighborhood have abided by the
Code. We expect the same from this applicant. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-
created. This is without question a difficulty that was self-created. This home was
recently purchased by the applicant. The home did not include a 1400 square foot
garage and was not zoned to allow another garage, let alone another 1400 square foot
building on the same lot. Our Town’s Code did not and does not allow this applicant’s
request. An additional note. Please do not corrupt this neighborhood’s harmonious and
congruent character. Please do not approve this application. Please do not set this
precedent. Please maintain the integrity of our Town.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can you show us on the map where the property is, in relation to
the proposal?
MRS. TROELSTRA-Yes. It’s right to the left. Right here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Sure.
MIKE DIXON
MR. DIXON-Hello. My name’s Mike Dixon. I live at 32 Crownwood Lane, which is
actually almost kitty corner from where the Gonyea’s live. I can show you right now or I
can show you afterwards. It’s probably not that significant.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right there.
MR. DIXON-No, right across the street from there. Now down, right there. I live right
there, my wife and I and our two sons. Just a few things that I wanted to point out. One,
the way that it’s currently proposed, I would like to object to it also. Fourteen hundred
and forty square feet for a freestanding garage, in my opinion, is excessive. I’d just like
to point out that the size and scale of the proposed freestanding garage is out of
proportion to the current home at 18 John Clendon. This garage that’s being proposed is
going to be almost the same size as the house that exists there. The current proposal,
it’s just not in keeping with the current neighborhood. Just to put it in perspective, I was
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
sitting here twiddling my thumbs here for a while, counting out ceiling tiles, and ceiling
tiles are roughly two by twos in here. Now, 30 feet is going to take you from that wall
almost to this fan here, and 48, which is the current proposal, is going to take you from
that wall, almost to this second string of lights. I mean, that is, it’s just a monstrous
garage. It borders on a commercial building, and I believe if somebody was to drive by
and looking at all this, it’s going to be perceived as a commercial building in a residential
neighborhood. Me, I am being protective, you know, because home values, I don’t want
to see mine sag at all. It’s our nest egg that we want to leave to our kids some day. I’m
a lifelong resident of Queensbury, and, you know, I’d like my kids to stay here, no
guarantees, but I’d like to leave them with something, something of value. Now I know
part of the concern, too, is he’s at a dead end street. Now that may not always remain a
dead end street. Currently all that wooded area is up for sale. Now I don’t know if
there’s any sales pending. I don’t know if residentials would go in there. At one point,
Town of Queensbury was proposing, probably farther in, a bike path, and I don’t know if
Queensbury has any intentions on turning it into a recreation park at some point. I don’t
know that, but to classify it as a dead end and feel that it will always remain that way, I
don’t believe that to be the case. Really just to wrap it up, because I’m not going to nit
pick it. I’m objected to the current proposal, but, you know, I do believe Queensbury
needs to make reasonable accommodation for requests by property owners. In this
instance I think that is not a reasonable request, that size of a garage. I am not objected
to a freestanding garage at this location if the size was closer to the current zoning
requirements. We all have our things that we have to store. Winters are, they’re nasty
up here, but in my house, I’ve got a two car garage, and I’ve got a tool shed. I’ve got a
snow blower. I’ve got a lawn tractor. I make room for all of it. I think that’s it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Did you ever get a chance to see what it was going to look like?
MR. DIXON-I hadn’t looked at it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You can take it back so you can take a peek at it.
MR. DRELLOS-You said you would be in favor of a normal size garage, I believe you
said?
MR. DIXON-Yes. If we could decide on what really normal is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Nine hundred square feet.
MR. DRELLOS-Nine hundred square feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Nine hundred square feet is what.
MR. DRELLOS-A two car garage.
MR. OBORNE-One thousand one hundred.
MRS. HUNT-It’s 1100 now.
MR. DIXON-I think where he was positioning it, I would think I would be a little bit more in
favor of it if I had time to think about it. I wouldn’t want to say yes or no right now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Anybody else want to speak? Any correspondence,
Roy?
MR. URRICO-No correspondence that I can tell, no.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Maybe you can make some commentary as to, you know,
knowing that there’s some objection to what you’re doing here, I think maybe what you
want to do is make some commentary about maybe shrinking this down, justification for
the second garage. The suggestion I would make is this also. You currently have an
undersized two car garage, like a lot of older homes in Town have at this time, and I
don’t know if there would be a way of incorporating this, get rid of the old, take off the
garage that’s there, put on a bigger, you know, a 900 square foot one right attached to
the house. I don’t know if that’s what you want, you know, with a workshop proposed
also in the back there, but just, you know, if you guys want to talk it over or just take a
little bit of time on it, too. We don’t want to pressure you into that you have to do this
tonight. I mean, you could table this and take some time to think about what you might
want to do, what changes you could make, and, you know, maybe trying to allay the
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
fears of the people in the back of the room, you know, and if you’d like more time, that’s
available to you.
MR. SORGER-Well, I’d be willing to, you know, reduce the size, say, you know, to get as
close as I could, you know, to the allowable size for it there. Like I did say, it’s in the
back. It sits down low. The neighbor to my side, I can’t even see their house, you know,
from my house through the trees. There’s a big stand of trees there, and it’s going to be
a nice looking structure. It’s going to match the house. It’s going to be sided and roofed
to match the house, and any concerns they might have about me trying to run a business
or rent it out or anything, that’s absolutely not the case. I’m about to retire and move up
here permanent, and I just want to have a place for my hobbies. Keep my motorcycles,
and, you know, all my equipment and stuff.
MR. KING-I think adding the garage, making the garage to the house bigger, basically I
think you’re going to look like more of a, like an office building, because it’s going to look
way too long for the neighborhood. There’s no doubt about it. Actually that garage that’s
on there has already been added on at some point in time.
MR. URRICO-What’s the size of your current garage?
MR. SORGER-I really don’t know.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just dimension wise, what do you think it is? Okay. We’ve got it.
It’s 484 square feet, what’s on there now. That’s off the Town website.
MR. URRICO-And the allowable size of 1100 square feet, does that include that 484?
MR. OBORNE-No, it does not.
MR. URRICO-Then it’s more than 1100 square feet?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Well, they are asking for a second garage.
MR. URRICO-But in addition to that, the figure for the total amount of allowable garage
space is exceeded not just by 300 feet, but an addition of 484 feet on top of that.
MR. OBORNE-Right. The Zoning Administrator made a determination that if it’s an extra
garage, that’s the first thing, that’s 100% relief, and then after that, it’s exceeding the
1100 allowable for a detached garage.
MR. KING-And within the side of that garage, you have your doorway out, there’s
actually a four foot, to meet the Code you have to come down with a railing, so that
actually takes up a good portion of the garage, just to come out the door.
MR. SORGER-That’s why if there’s two cars in there, you can’t get the doors open.
MR. KING-And that’s with nothing in the garage at all, you know, no lawn mowers.
MR. SORGER-I mean, I could go down to a 30 by 30, I mean, it’s, you know, not what I
was looking for, but a 30 by 30, that would be 900 square feet.
MRS. HUNT-You only have one garage door in that.
MR. SORGER-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So 30 by 30, that’s 900 square feet. That’s within the Code, but it’s
a second garage.
MR. DRELLOS-Well, it used to be you combined the two totals at one time, right?
MR. OBORNE-I’m just, I mean, looking at the determination that it was not broken out,
and that’s what’s before you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, and do you guys
want to talk about this before I poll you?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any suggestions?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. DRELLOS-I think 900 square feet is reasonable. That’s a smaller than even a two
car garage, with the size of the garage they have now, I mean, that’s pretty small.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I’m thinking of it in the context, too. It’s a 1.72 acre lot. It’s at
the end of a dead end road. It’s way away from anybody else. The garage is about as
far away from anything else as you can make it, if you were going to allow a second
garage on the property.
MR. URRICO-I think one of the people from the public made a good point that we don’t
know this is always going to be a dead end. It could very well be developed and be just
another place along that road, and we’ve already set precedent.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And that’s the Finch Pruyn property there.
MR. KING-The land where his property line is, where the thick trees are, he actually
owns. So, I mean, he would have to clear all those trees out for anybody, even if
somebody did do something around it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As proposed, it was 72 feet from the property line. So that’s pretty
substantial.
MR. DRELLOS-That’s pretty big. Plus they’re going to be so much, if they develop it,
away.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you neighbors want to come back up and make any commentary
to put your two cents in on this? I mean, would you be any happier or less happy if it
were a smaller, more compliant sized garage?
MR. OBORNE-If you could come up and talk into the mic, to get it for the record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You can come up.
MR. OBORNE-Thank you.
MR. DIXON-I know from my perspective, since I don’t live right next door, I would
certainly entertain something much smaller, but again, before I really impose on any,
before you say yes or no on this, I would almost send it back to the drawing board,
because this, I don’t believe, is something that should be made in just a few short hours.
I think it’s really going to take some time to think it out. Even a 30 by 30, that’s still a
sizeable structure. Now the size lot that they’re on, I think can accommodate a fairly
decent sized structure, maybe something larger than what the zoning is, but I think we
just have to be extremely careful about this, and certainly I still would not dismiss what is
going to happen at the end of that road. It is currently for sale. I’m sure when the
economy improves, you may have somebody like Schermerhorn come in and build
homes. Who knows what will happen back there, but if you want that to be added into
the tax maps, you want that to be, you know, a nice gateway into there. So, you know, I
did look at the plans, you know, it looks like a garage. It’s just a long peaked roof and
you may not be able to see most of it as you’re going down, but I guess I would just leave
it as, please just give it extra consideration, and I would suggest that plans just be re-
submitted and brought to a further Zoning Board and give us an opportunity to look at it
review it. That’s all that I’m asking.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-I have a question. The back of your house, the existing house, do you
have a full basement in that house?
MR. SORGER-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-At the back of the house, is it an exposed basement?
MR. SORGER-It has a steel lift up door, a bilco door. It’s not a walk in, it’s not a walk
out.
MRS. JENKIN-So has the property been filled around the home, or was that the original?
Because it’s so close to that drop off that’s been cut out.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. SORGER-We just purchased the house in March, and preparing to retire up here,
and that’s the way it was.
MRS. JENKIN-Because, the garage doesn’t have a basement under it?
MR. SORGER-No.
MR. KING-No, it just has frost walls.
MRS. JENKIN-Because it seems to me that with the house as it is, and looking at the
neighborhood, putting a second larger garage, if it was a freestanding garage with no
other garage there, it might be in keeping with the neighborhood, but as it is it’s not in
keeping with the neighborhood because you have two garages there, and adding to the
existing garage seems to me that it would be a possibility, you could do that somehow,
you could add another foundation and you could push it back. It wouldn’t have to be
much longer, or it wouldn’t have to increase the width of the house so much if you
pushed it to the back and added a little bit to the side and then more to the back, and
made it a much larger, then it wouldn’t be so obtrusive to the neighborhood.
MR. SORGER-Well, in just looking at the house, like I said, we, you know, we just
bought the place. Maybe I look at it differently, but in my mind, you know, this is going to
be back and out of sight and out of mind, and it’s not going to impact the appeal of the
road. If I was going to add onto the other thing, that’s going to make the whole structure.
MR. KING-Because you’re kind of, right now, if you’re, what he has right now is
something that barely will hold two cars. You can’t open the doors. That’s why we’re not
putting anything else in the garage. So you would have to actually make it considerably
wider.
MRS. JENKIN-You could add 10 feet to the garage and make it wide enough for two
cars, and you could add to the back of it so that then you could put your motorcycles and
things in the back. Then it could be, it can be up to 900 square feet.
MR. SORGER-Well, when I had bought the place, I looked at that. Everything’s way, it is
up considerable from the level in the back. I don’t know if you have walked around.
MR. KING-Off the back side of the garage, it just drops right off.
MR. SORGER-It just drops right off.
MRS. JENKIN-You’d have to put in a retaining wall.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MRS. HUNT-I have a question. The side of the garage is 72 feet from the property line.
Is that mostly treed?
MR. SORGER-Yes. It’s basically all treed.
MR. KING-Like, if they were to, I know they’ve been surveying the area and stuff, even if
they were to do something with that area and put houses in there, you still have to have
setbacks for the houses. So there’ll be plenty of trees.
MR. SORGER-There’ll be 72 feet of mine, and then they’d have to have their own
setback.
MR. KING-So, I mean, you’re really going to have still where it’s not going to be visible.
They’re not going to even be able to see it’s there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to do this. Let’s cut this off. I’m going to go quickly
through, and just, you guys tell me yes, no, or you want it shrunk down, okay, and I think
we’ll gain a sense of whether we’re going to deal with this tonight or, you know, put it on
the back burner and let them come back with something smaller, okay. So think about
that. So let’s start with you, Brian.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Just kind of quickly, I would be in favor of it if he reduced it to
900 square feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MRS. JENKIN-I would not be in favor of it, of the second garage.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George?
MR. DRELLOS-Yes. Nine hundred feet I’d be in favor of. I mean, the size of the lot is
almost two acres, and it’s sitting so far back. I don’t think it would be very noticeable
back there. I’d be in favor of it, if he shrinks it to 900.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-At this point I’d have to say I’m undecided. Traditionally applications
that we have approved similar to this, many times these lots were 20 to 40 acres in size
that we’ve approved, basically second garages. So at this point I can’t really make any
determination on this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you have a sense as to whether you would like to see it
significantly shrunk?
MR. GARRAND-I would definitely not approve a 1440 square foot garage back there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m totally against the second garage at this point. I think this is not
a big enough lot to sustain a second garage and possibly start changing the character of
that neighborhood. Because it’ll become the de facto standard if we do that. There’s
600 and something square feet, maybe more, if he wants to go for a little bigger garage.
He’s allowed 1100 square feet. Everybody keeps mentioning 900. I think the new Code
is 1100.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s 1100 now.
MR. URRICO-So there’s more footage there to work with than before, and I think that
takes into account two cars, and space for other things. So I think that’s plenty. I’m
willing to work with him on that, as far as expansion of the current garage, but a second
garage is out of the question.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Well, we have granted variances for second garages, and this is almost two
acres, and I think the way it’s located, it’ll be 220 feet from the road, and 120 feet from
the back property line, 72 feet from the other line. So I would be in favor if it was shrunk
to 900 square feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-To finish up here, I think what I’m going to ask you to do is this, all
right. Second garages are something that we normally only allow on much larger lots. I
think your lot’s within the realm of that because you’re almost at two acres here. I do
think, however, your request for what’s now a 30 by 30 foot garage is way over the top
for what you need, all right, and I think what I’m going to ask you to do here is to table
this tonight, and I would like you to go back and come up with a more modest proposal,
all right. You might think you need 30 by 30. Originally you needed 30 by 40, all right,
and I think that you can see that by shrinking this down, it’s going to make it more
palatable. You’ve got a couple of Board members that are totally against this thing, for
any kind of a second garage on this property at all, but I’m willing to grant you a second
garage, if you can make it a more reasonable size, and I’m thinking more like 24 by 30 or
20 by 30 or something like that, make it as small as you need for your needs. I mean, it
doesn’t need to be some giant aircraft hangar down there in the back yard. It’s going to
be much more space than I think is necessary, you know, for any neighborhood. So, I’m
going to make a tabling motion, and I think what I want to have you do is come back
again and get together with your neighbors. One of your neighbors says he doesn’t have
a problem with it if you shrink it down, but think about what your needs truly are before
you go through here, and don’t expect that you’re going to get everything you want. I
mean, it’s going to have to be smaller if you want that second garage back there.
Otherwise you’re going to be stuck with what you’ve got.
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. OBORNE-If you could do the applicant a favor and re-open the public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Most certainly we will re-open the public hearing when you
come back with your new proposal. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I was hoping tonight. If you don’t, he’ll have to pay the advertising
costs.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So I will leave the public hearing open for next time. Okay.
I will re-open it and leave it open for next time.
MR. OBORNE-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So the neighbors can comment on it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But do you want to do this next month? That’s going to be more
than enough time? He’s got to have it in by when?
th
MR. OBORNE-He’s got to have it in by the 15 of October for a November meeting.
MR. SORGER-That’s the next hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. SORGER-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you would be on for the first meeting in November.
MR. SORGER-Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2009 SCOTT & NORMA SORGER,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
18 John Clendon Road. The applicant should come back again and get together with
their neighbors. The applicant should think about what their needs truly are before they
come back. It should be smaller if they want the second garage back there. This will be
tabled until the first meeting in November.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ll see you in November.
MR. SORGER-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II DONALD KRUGER OWNER(S):
DONALD KRUGER ZONING: WR LOCATION: 3 OSPREY VIEW APPLICANT
PROPOSES RECONSTRUCTION AND ENLARGEMENT OF A 210 SQ. FT. DOCK TO
A 280 SQ. FT. DOCK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2009-366; BP 2003-626 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-59.311 SECTION:
179-5-060
DON KRUGER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No.53-2009, Donald Kruger, Meeting Date: September
23, 2009 “Project Location: 3 Osprey View Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes reconstruction and enlargement of a 210 sq. ft. dock to a 280 sq. ft. dock.
Relief Required:
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
Applicant requests 2.7 feet of relief from the minimum 20 foot setback requirement for a
proposed dock per §179-5-060A(7).
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
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 may be anticipated as the
surrounding area has numerous non-compliant docks.
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 attitude of the
northern property line appears to preclude the applicant from any method other than
the request for an area variance. However, the applicant could reduce the size of the
proposed docks in order to be conforming relative to the ordinance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 2.7 feet or
13.5% of relief from the 20 foot minimum setback requirement per §179-5-060A(7)
may be considered minor 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 in the neighborhood may be anticipated as a
result of this request.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created. However, the attitude of the northern property line appears to contribute to
the need for this requested area variance.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 03-024 Septic Alteration 1/30/04
Staff comments:
According to §179-5-060A(7), ‘Every dock or wharf constructed shall have a minimum
setback if 20 feet from the adjacent property line extended into the lake on the same axis
as the property line runs onshore where it meets the lake or at a right angle to the mean
high water mark, which ever results in the greater setback’.
The applicant states that the dock is to be widened in order to accommodate
wheelchairs.
SEQR Status:
SEQR Type II – no further review needed.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Kruger, do you still own the camp next door, too, to the
north?
MR. KRUGER-Yes, I do.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s what I thought. So as far as this dock, it’s just mainly to
accommodate your decrepit old age, and knowing that you’re going to be wheelchair
bound very soon, or?
MR. KRUGER-That being said, my house is handicap accessed, and what we want to do
is take the whole first floor of my house and where my finished basement is, and we want
to make a walk down there, so someone with a wheelchair can physically go down and
go out on the dock. That doesn’t sound like much to a lot of people, but my wife just
spent three months in a wheelchair, with an operation, and although a wheelchair is not
very pleasant, it’s certainly more pleasant in my house than it is in the average house. I
just think it would be nice to be able to take somebody down and put them on the boat
and take them for a ride on the lake if they were wheelchair bound.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions about it?
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MRS. JENKIN-You have 50 feet on the lake. Correct? You have 50 feet frontage?
MR. KRUGER-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-So if these lines weren’t like this, because your property line goes like
this, then you could actually have a dock of 10 feet.
MR. KRUGER-Well, you’re applying logic, and for some reason that doesn’t seem to
work. You were talking before about the price of maps. I have two sets of maps, $385 a
piece. One shows the property line going straight down and straight out into the water,
which is the logical thing to do, fifty minus twenty, minus twenty leaves me ten, but that
doesn’t seem to fit there. So I guess I’m not asking you to apply logic. I’m asking you to
let me build an eight foot wide dock.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from you guys?
MR. GARRAND-Is the dock going to be longer in any way?
MR. KRUGER-No.
MR. GARRAND-Just wider.
MR. KRUGER-What’s there is 36 feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s pretty shallow down there. So you’ve got to get out to get a boat
in there.
MR. CLEMENTS-What’s the length of the dock right now?
MR. KRUGER-Thirty-six feet.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. So it’s going to be the same length.
MR. KRUGER-I checked with the neighbor on the south, Chuck Ogden. He said he had
no problem with it. I talked to the neighbor on the north. He says he has no problem
with it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do this, then. I’m going to open up the public
hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? We’ve got one.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BRIAN GRANGER
MR. GRANGER-Brian Granger, 63 Wincoma Lane, Queensbury. I looked at Mr.
Kruger’s property, and I looked at the property lines. His property lines go straight out.
Not one property line goes like this. I did a couple of docks years ago on Lake George
and I remember the permit process. You followed the natural line all the way out to the
water. He has enough room for a ten foot dock. So I don’t understand why he’s here.
That’s the only comment I wanted to make.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Any correspondence, Roy?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody have a problem with this one?
MR. URRICO-No.
MRS. HUNT-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. He needs relief from himself because he owns that
other property there, too. All right. Why don’t we do this, then. Does somebody want to
do this one, do the resolution on it?
MRS. JENKIN-Sure. I can do it. Anymore discussion at all?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I’ll close the public hearing.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2009 DONALD KRUGER,
Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos:
3 Osprey View. The applicant proposes reconstruction and enlargement of a 210 square
foot dock to a 280 sq. ft. dock. The relief required is that the applicant requests 2.7 feet
of relief from the minimum 20 foot setback requirement for a proposed dock per Section
179-5-060A(7). The criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267
of Town Law gives five criteria that we must follow: Whether the benefit can be achieved
by other means feasible to the applicant. He could actually not widen his dock, but in
order to make it wheelchair accessible, it sounds as if that’s a necessary thing. Whether
an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will be
produced? There would be no undesirable change. It would probably be a positive
change because of the new dock, and it will be in better condition than the old one.
Whether the request is substantial. The request for 2.7 feet of relief from the minimum
20 foot setback is not substantial. Whether the request will have adverse physical or
environmental effects. There should be a minimal adverse physical or environmental
effect, change. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. The addition to the width of
the dock is probably self-created, but it will actually make it much, it’s a safety
consideration for the width of the dock if a wheelchair is going to be used on that dock.
So I move to approve Area Variance No. 53-2009.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want these back?
MR. DRELLOS-They cost you $350.
MR. KRUGER-$385, and I guess I should thank you folks, but I really want to apologize
for taking up your time. It really wasn’t necessary to do, and it goes on and on and on.
Two sets of maps, like you talked about before, and I must apologize for my wife not
being here, but to be honest about it, she worked 12 years in the Building and Codes
Department, and this is exactly the reason she retired. It made her physically ill every
day to watch some people get anything they want and other people have to go through
and take up your time in these Board meetings. So I apologize for taking up your time,
gentlemen.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We have three sets of minutes to approve here, and I’ll
just go through them quickly.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 15, 2009
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 15, 2009, Introduced by George Drellos who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
July 22, 2009
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 22. 2009, Introduced by James Underwood who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos
August 19, 2009
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 19, 2009, Introduced by George Drellos who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of September, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let’s think about what I said about these. We kind of, I’m not
sure where we were at with requiring stamped, I think Chuck Abbate was the one that
originated that stamped, the need for the stamped surveys.
MR. URRICO-But at the time he was reviewing all the applications and he would waive
them at that point. So is that something you want to do?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, let me do it this way, all right. We rely upon, we pay the
Zoning Administrator and the Building and Codes Department to look at all these plans,
you know, they get a salary for doing that. We’re volunteers. I’m not Chuck Abbate, as
you know, I’m myself, and I don’t, frankly, think that I have to go in and pre-look through
all these plans. I think that we can rely upon the administrative judgment of employees
that do this for a career to look at these things and say, look, this guy does not need to
have a stamped plan, if he needs like two feet of relief. I mean, there’s got to be some
major trigger in my mind that’s going to make people have to spend all this extra money
for nothing, and, you know, it’s probably great if you’re a surveyor.
MRS. JENKIN-So you’re saying across the board then it’s a decision for the Zoning
Administrator?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I’m just saying that, you know, how often do we sit here in the
evening and go through these plans, and the first time you open them up and you look at
them, you’re going like, you know, you can make the decision almost in your mind just
reading through the first time. I mean, most of them are pretty obvious. The ones that
are controversial are going to be controversial, and obviously you always have the public
commentary period that’s going to trigger those switches firing in your brain at that point
in time.
RON KUHL, ALTERNATE
MR. KUHL-But where are they going to place the new dwellings?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just about, all I’m saying is this. In most instances, all right, let’s
take the mobile homes as an example. We know mobile homes are going to get
continuously upgraded to become double wides, which has been occurring since, you
know, forever, as far as I’m concerned, and we know that the lots are undersized to
begin with, but at the same time, no one’s going to allow something on the lot that’s like
way over the top, that totally fills the lot where you can’t even open the door without
hitting the mobile home next door or something like that. So obviously there’s going to
be some rhyme or reason built into what’s going on here, but I think that probably just
about everybody has an old survey showing, you know, when they purchased the
property, everybody’s got a survey from the bank that was done at that time on their
properties that would be adequate, and to superimpose, a lot of these people have hired
a contractor that’s going to put the home in for them or do the improvements, and they
can take a survey and draw a second survey map showing where that thing is going to
be pretty accurately. We don’t have to be looking like we’re from outer space and that
we’re going to.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. KUHL-Yes, but Clute can’t even put a new house on the right place on the property.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, exactly, but I mean, like you have mobile homes down there.
How many of them get requests, that you have?
MR. DRELLOS-Eighty-five, you mean for them?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-No, we draw them out ourselves. Because we own the whole lot, but I
guess what I was going to ask is, if we grant the variance, and it’s just a, he draws it
himself. If he has to go for a building permit, would he need a set of plans to put that
home on there?
MR. OBORNE-The question is if it’s a compliant home, does he need a survey?
MR. DRELLOS-Yes. Well, say he comes to us, he gets the variance. Would he then
have to go to the Planning Department. Would they want a set of plans to say this is
where our lot lines are, this is where we’re going to put the home?
MR. OBORNE-If he got a variance, absolutely.
MR. KUHL-Your term, George, is stamped plans, right?
MR. DRELLOS-Stamped.
MR. OBORNE-Not for the building permit, no.
MR. DRELLOS-Okay. So he wouldn’t need it.
MR. URRICO-I agree with you. I’m just afraid that, you know, given responsibility for
accepting or not accepting stamped surveys, they don’t ask for one for something that
we really need it for, and we end up granting a variance, and the lot lines are not where
they’re supposed to be, and I’m thinking off Assembly Point. Remember that guy that
constructed the house over the property line?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Sure.
MR. CLEMENTS-Jim, I’ve got to tell you. I’m all for streamlining things. The paper that
we get, I think, is outrageous, but one of the things that worries me is, and I’m not saying,
you know, anything derogatory about people in the building or the Zoning Department,
but that could lead to corruption. If you say somebody has to have a stamped one and
somebody doesn’t have to have a stamped one, unless you say nobody has to have one,
unless they come to us and it gets tabled, and we say we want a set, you know, I mean, I
think that’s the only way you can do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, what I’m just thinking of is, in a sense, is that just about
everybody who’s purchased a home has a set, has a survey map from the bank.
MR. CLEMENTS-I don’t have one.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You don’t?
MR. KUHL-You can hope so.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You can hope so, but I’m thinking, you know, in the mobile home
parks in Town, almost all of them are.
MR. URRICO-Well, that’s different. See, I think that’s a different situation there, because
now you’re talking about, you know, potentially 100 homes or so, just like when we had,
you know, all the stuff in West Glens Falls.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess, how would you feel about it this way, all right.
I will come in and look at the plans, then, like Chuck Abbate used to do, and I’ll make the
decision if I think they need to have a stamped plan.
MRS. JENKIN-At that point, they should have it.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-They already submitted stamped plans.
MRS. JENKIN-They already have it.
MR. OBORNE-You need to be at the pre-submission conference in order for that to
happen.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I mean, is there any sense that you could troubleshoot some
of these out of the picture?
MR. OBORNE-I can certainly, you’d need to direct me, though, I can certainly take into
consideration the demographics that I’m dealing with and maybe have them request a
waiver, but then I’d have to get your approval for that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. URRICO-Is it possible for you to look at, like this situation tonight, anticipating a
slew of applications down the road, where is this situation going to cut off? Can we look
at it by neighborhood or by zoning type, that we’re going to, if we’re going to get a lot of
these applications, maybe we need to adjust what we require.
MR. OBORNE-I cannot, again, look into a crystal ball and see what’s going to be coming
down the pike. Ninety percent of them do not require a variance.
MR. URRICO-Everybody else in Queensbury looks into crystal balls.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I don’t. I’m based in reality.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we do this, Keith, but, I mean, do you think we’re way out
here by what we’re talking about?
MR. OBORNE-I think what’s good for one should be good for all, and I think that’s a
difficult lift for you, as a Board.
MR. CLEMENTS-I agree.
MRS. JENKIN-I agree, too.
MR. GARRAND-I think the Chairman having the capability of waiving a survey is crucial
in streamlining this, okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But, I mean, maybe you could, as you look at them the first time
after your things, like when it’s time to set next month’s agenda, you can say to me, look,
this one, this one and this one look like they’re just going to be sort of not anything over
the top. We can waive the survey on these ones, or my suggestion might be to waive the
surveys on these ones.
MR. OBORNE-I loathe to do that. I would much rather have the applicant request it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Only because I don’t want to put myself in a position of harm or whatever,
in a compromising position.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you feel comfortable, then, when you’re talking to them that
first time, saying, well, I’ll make the suggestion to you, you could ask for a waiver on your
survey.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-I think you’re going to have to ask that to every applicant, though.
MR. OBORNE-That’s where I’m coming from is that what’s good for one is good for the
other. It has to be.
MR. KUHL-But, Jim, is it possible that the people bringing the new dwellings in want to
see a survey? Maybe, you’re trying to save people money. I understand what you’re
saying, but maybe the contractor that’s bringing the new units in will only do it if there’s a
survey map. I don’t know.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. GARRAND-Then it behooves them to get a survey. Then it’s up to them and not us.
MR. URRICO-I think it’s a great idea what you’re doing, but I really don’t see an easy
way around it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, it’s not going to be easy, but I’m just thinking, in the
old days, did we always require a stamped survey?
MR. CLEMENTS-I did my addition to my house and I drew it up and I brought it up here,
and I showed it to them and they said, yes, that looks fine and that was it. That was a
long time ago.
MR. OBORNE-Right, because you were not over, right.
MR. URRICO-Yes, that came with Chuck.
MRS. JENKIN-You didn’t need a variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we got to the stamped survey thing when Chuck Abbate
took over because he was Mr., you know, Scrutinize.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, remember, there was a case where the people were doing a
MR. URRICO-So the only reason you’re doing it is because of what we asked for.
MR. OBORNE-That is a requirement of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. URRICO-So we could un ask for that?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. URRICO-But then when the applicant comes before us without a survey and we
don’t have enough information to make a ruling.
MR. OBORNE-You won’t see them.
MR. URRICO-We can table it and say, well.
MR. OBORNE-I won’t let it get through the agenda if it’s not complete, but the Code
states that you need to have a plot plan that is quantified and qualified. It needs to be
quantified. It doesn’t say it has to be done by a licensed surveyor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess we could undo it and leave it up to the
judgment of these guys, then. I mean, they’re going to tell them if, this one you better be
careful, and you better get a survey done.
MR. GARRAND-Just make sure they asked to waive the survey.
MR. OBORNE-One other thing maybe to consider as a different process for you is in
other towns they have what is called a completion meeting and they determine if the
application is complete, and the applicant comes in and talks to you. It’s an extra
meeting, but then you could say, you know, you don’t need a survey. Then it would be
on you, you know, to do that. That’s just another process that you would have to go
through though.
MRS. JENKIN-Jim, you can be running into all kinds of problems, because, especially on
the small lots, because some people have built fences on the, over lot lines, and if you
have a survey that actually shows, a stamped survey what the lot lines are, you’re
actually helping the homeowner, because they’ve got that now, and they have evidence
that what they put in is legal, and if they don’t have that survey, there could be all kinds
of problems in the future.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do this, then, let’s do this. If we undid it for a
while, just to see if it was going to work or not, would that satisfy you guys, if we went
back to what we did before?
MR. OBORNE-Which was not requiring a signed, stamped survey from a licensed
professional surveyor.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. GARRAND-For all applicants?
MR. UNDERWOOD-That used to be the policy in the old days. Correct?
MR. URRICO-Well, we’re going to need enough information to make a decision.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. URRICO-That’s going to be up to the applicant to decide what that information is.
Right?
MR. CLEMENTS-We have the Staff.
MR. URRICO-Well, the applicant will have to decide whether they’ve provided us with
enough information.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I would decide that, yes, absolutely.
MR. URRICO-Or you would decide. So you may actually say to them that you need a
survey.
MR. OBORNE-If they don’t have a survey, or if their plot plan is not.
MR. URRICO-What if they do what Brian did and hand draw something?
MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s at the building permit stage. You can at the building permit,
and it was determined that you were not over the line. How many years ago was that,
though? Was that before?
MR. CLEMENTS-Well, it was a long time ago, and if I did that today, I would have had to
have had a variance, because I built up above my garage, and my garage was too close
to the line to begin with. So it was out of compliance to begin with.
MR. UNDERWOOD-When I re-did my house, all right, I needed variances for setback
from property lines, and I used the original survey of the house that was there, because I
was going to build on the old plot plan, the same thing, and I actually ended up gaining
out on the waterfront because I wasn’t as close to the water as I was before and things
like that. It was pretty obvious to me when the plans were made up. I didn’t have to
have a stamped signed survey to do it. All right.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, you had a survey, though.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I had an old survey map.
MRS. JENKIN-And it wasn’t stamped and signed?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It was, but it was an old survey map. I didn’t have to go out
and get a brand new survey map done, is what I’m saying, because I’m thinking in most
instances people are going to have a survey somewhere, recent property, people that
buy recent properties and things like that, they’re definitely going to have something from
the bank. Right? That’s going to be part of their deed. When you buy something, you’ve
got to have a survey.
MR. CLEMENTS-I didn’t have one when I bought my house.
MR. GARRAND-I think I got mine a year after I bought my house.
MR. URRICO-Why don’t we look at it the other way. Have we been helped by having
stamped surveys? In many cases we have.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you have, but I don’t think that it’s not onerous for people to
have to shell out that money when they’ve got some little tiny tweaky change they want
to do on their house, where you could just draw it in on the plans.
MR. DRELLOS-Could I have drawn mine in last week?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. DRELLOS-It would have saved me $3400.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Exactly.
MR. DRELLOS-That’s what it cost for that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s not cheap. You’ve got a big lot to survey. I mean, what if you
own like 80 acres and you’ve got to go out and survey the whole darn thing just to put a
shed next to the property line or something? That’s crazy. That would cost you a whole
half a year’s pay to do that. We won’t do anything tonight, but next meeting when we
come in, let’s come up with a solution, or let’s come up with some possibilities, to
whether we want to go back or whether we want to keep it the same.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, I’d like to know what the wording was before.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, can you find that out for us, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-If you want to hang on a second, I can certainly get that for you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got the old Code book, but I’ve got one of those really old ones
at home, and I’ll look up and see what it says.
MR. URRICO-While he’s looking that up, I have another issue, and I don’t know if you
guys discussed it last week, but I looked at the applications last week, and it really struck
me that, what, like four or five of them had Planning Board recommendations attached to
them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. URRICO-That, to me, go above and beyond what they should be doing. It’s almost
circumventing the process and eliminating the need for the Zoning Board.
MRS. JENKIN-Roy, Brian and I.
MR. CLEMENTS-Talked to Keith afterwards.
MRS. JENKIN-Afterwards, and it was explained to us, and maybe.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, let me explain what happened, too. Because the Planning
Board was looking at those items, and that’s all they were looking at was our request.
They opened up the Planning Board meeting for say Joe Schmoe who needed a garage,
and the zoning was going to have to give a variance for side setback or something like
that. So they didn’t even.
MRS. JENKIN-Would you explain it, please?
MR. CLEMENTS-They had to have a Site Plan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They did not even have anything else to discuss other than our.
MRS. JENKIN-No, I understand that, but Keith explained it to us last week why, and it’s
the change in Code.
MR. OBORNE-It is a municipal law, or Town law, that a Site Plan Review is required,
and it requires an Area Variance, you must get a recommendation from the Planning
Board. Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals must get a recommendation from the
Planning Board. It does not circumvent your powers or authority at all. You can ignore
every single thing that they say on that.
MR. GARRAND-Which we do.
MR. URRICO-I object to the wording recommend. To me recommending is like giving a
stamp of approval. Yet, they’re not going through the same set of criteria that we’re
required to do.
MR. OBORNE-Right, but what they’re doing is they’re using the variance that you have
before you, and they’re seeing, how is that going to impact the Site Plan, and then you
use that in your deliberations. That’s it.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. CLEMENTS-So, as you said last week, the only one’s they’re going to do that for
are the ones that require a Site Plan Review.
MR. OBORNE-That’s the only ones, and they’re always front loaded in the beginning of
the month.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So I don’t think we need to worry about it. I think that we can
continue on using our best judgment, and we can allow the Planning Board to put their
two cents and their spin on anything. It’s not going to spin us one way or the other.
MR. OBORNE-There’s different verbiage, too, coming down the pike, to, it’s a little bit
more respectful.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. To me it’s no different than the County ones that have no
impact on the County.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re saying well what do we care about the County?
MR. OBORNE-Or they would say that this is what we would like to see.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Right. So, in other words, let them throw all the stuff they
want at us, you know, take it with a grain of salt.
MR. URRICO-I’m not getting personal. I’m saying I just see it as circumventing the
process. If the application need a variance, and it goes to the Planning Board first, and
they recommend that we grant the variance, when we’re instructed by.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And, Keith, maybe in the Staff Notes that you don’t start out the
Staff Notes with the Planning Board gave a recommendation, you know, basically a
positive, for this project, and the variance as requested. Maybe it could be at the very
end and we could read it at the very end.
MRS. JENKIN-But the applicants have already been in front of the Planning Board, and
the applicants have heard it, and they know what the recommendation is, and they come
here expecting, wow, that’s good.
MRS. HUNT-That’s a rubber stamp.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, let’s look at it this way. Let’s not feel like our lives and
jobs are threatened yet, okay. I think that we can just, but, Roy, your point’s well taken,
and I think all of us were concerned when we first got them in, the verbiage I think is
what’s sort of in your face about it, and no one likes that. It can be done in a more subtle
manner.
MR. OBORNE-I worked on it last night.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think that will alleviate people’s concerns, and just remember,
you’re here to do your job. Whatever people say has nothing, you know, it adds to the
magic potion that’s going to wave the wand or, you know, crash the thing on the ground,
but.
MRS. JENKIN-Keith, you said you’re also working on re-wording, so that it’s going to be
much clearer. It’s not just a blanket recommendation.
MR. OBORNE-Right. That is complete. So when you see that coming down, next month
you have two coming to you, you’ll see a different resolution of recommendation from
them.
MR. CLEMENTS-Well, as an example, we had one of them there that they didn’t agree
with on a resolution to begin with and they did another resolution. So you knew that
there was some conflict there among the Planning Board.
MR. URRICO-Well, I think there’s also an advertising problem, because the people are
not going to the Planning Board meetings, you know, from the neighborhood if they know
there’s a variance coming up. They may be waiting for that, but now the Planning
Board’s already issued a recommendation without even discussing it with people from
the neighborhood.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/23/09)
MR. OBORNE-It’s not subject to a public hearing, though.
MR. URRICO-Exactly. It’s circumventing the process. That’s my concern.
MR. OBORNE-Well, one of the things that it does do is it does streamline the process. It
streamlines the process by one meeting.
MR. UNDERWOOD-In case we requested to send it to them, then we’d throw people off.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly. You would have to table them.
MR. URRICO-No, I understand that part. I understand that part, but when they come out
and out and they recommend what we do with the variances, to the extent that they do,
like Joan says, there are people out in the audience, they’re making the application,
they’re going to say, we have it.
MR. OBORNE-Perception’s everything. Absolutely.
MR. URRICO-We have it, and next day, or the next time we hear it, they’re going to have
all their neighbors coming in saying, no, we don’t want a second garage there. No
matter what the Planning Board says.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, that happened with Price Chopper. They were not happy, because
they came expecting that everything was copasetic and they could just do it because
they’d already got a recommendation from the Planning Board that the signs were okay,
and then I looked at his face, and he was very, very upset.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, he certainly was. He wanted his 10, 15 signs, but, yes, I can’t
disagree with you on that, Joan. He was not happy.
MRS. JENKIN-And he came away with the wrong impression.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are we still on the record for poor Maria here?
MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let’s do this, Maria. All this verbiage and blasting noise and
hot air, you don’t need to worry about that. All right.
MRS. JENKIN-Why don’t you not put it in at all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The meeting ended when we approved those minutes of the
previous months, and this is just simply thoughts being thrown out there, as far as I’m
concerned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
34