2010.12.22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 22, 2010
INDEX
Area Variance No. 20-2009 Mary Sicard 1.
Tax Map No. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17
289.10-1-4
Area Variance No. 9-2010 Steven L. and Christine M. Johnson 2.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23
Notice of Appeal No. 4-2010 Mary Monthie 2.
Tax Map No. 302.14-1-79.2
Sign Variance No. 65-2010 Glenn Kelsey 17.
Tax Map No. 303.15-1-19
Area Variance No. 66-2010 A2000/Adirondack Tire 23.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-24
Area Variance No. 67-2010 Andrew Spath 27.
Tax Map No. 240.5-1-9
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 12/22/2010)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 22, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOYCE HUNT
RICHARD GARRAND
BRIAN CLEMENTS
RONALD KUHL
MEMBERS ABSENT
JOAN JENKIN
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the December 22, 2010 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 that 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 is
intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issues at hand, and it
functions to help the Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for
the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers and 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 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. Before we get started with the agenda tonight, we have a few housekeeping things we
need to do here, and I’ll take care of those off the bat. First up on the agenda tonight was Area
Variance No. 20-2009, Mary Sicard.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 SEQRA TYPE: I MARY SICARD AGENT(S): JARRETT
ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S): MARY SICARD ZONING: RR-3A & WR LOCATION:
NACY AND JAY ROADS, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE 6 PARCELS
TOTALING 42.38 ACRES INTO 16 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.35 ACRES TO 11
ACRES IN THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE ZONE ADJACENT TO GLEN
LAKE AND THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL THREE ACRE ZONE TO THE EAST OF GLEN LAKE
ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, ROAD FRONTAGE, ROAD
ACCESS, SHORELINE FRONTAGE, SIDE SETBACKS AND MORE THAN 1 ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE PER LOT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2008
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 40.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-1, 2,
3, 5, 17 / 289.10-1-4 ; SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-4-050, 179-5-020D
MR. UNDERWOOD-And they’ve asked for, Jarrett Engineers is their agent. They’ve asked for a
tabling motion, and I think we’re going to table them until February, Keith?
th
MR. OBORNE-Yes, no, sorry, January 19 is Sicard.
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-Until January 19. Okay.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 MARY SICARD, Introduced by James
Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
Nacy and Jay Roads, Glen Lake. Tabled to January 19, 2011 due to scheduling conflicts and
family illness.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON
AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE
M. JOHNSON ZONING: WR LOCATION: 96 HALL ROAD – GLEN LAKE APPLICANT
PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING +/- 1,198 SQ. FT. SUMMER HOME AND REBUILD
TO A +/- 2,110 SQ. FT. YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT
REQUESTS RELIEF FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-
275 SEPTIC ALT.; SP 14-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.29 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-23 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-050; 179-13-010
MR. UNDERWOOD-Also we have a tabling motion that I’m going to make for Area Variance No.
9-2010, which will need to be tabled to February 23, 2011, due to project revisions, and that’s
the Johnson Area Variance over on Glen Lake, which we have been holding in abeyance for
some changes.
MR. OBORNE-Right. That is correct, and to the record, revision submittal date would be
th
January 17.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 STEVEN L. & CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
96 Hall Road – Glen Lake. Tabled to February 23, 2011, due to project revisions. Revision
submittal date would be January 17, 2011.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-2010 SEQRA TYPE: N/A MARY MONTHIE OWNER(S):
HAYES AND HAYES, LLC ZONING: NC LOCATION: DIXON ROAD APPELLANT IS
APPEALING A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
REGARDING LAND DISTURBANCE AND NEED FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW ON PROPERTY
AT DIXON ROAD OWNED BY HAYES AND HAYES. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A
LOT SIZE: 8.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79.2 SECTION: 179-6-010
JOHN STROUGH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-We had previously heard this and sent this to the Planning Board, and,
Roy, I don’t know if you want to read that in, the Planning Board decision from last evening.
MR. URRICO-Yes. On November 17, 2010, the Zoning Board made the following resolution, a
motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals sought recommendation from the Planning Board
regarding Notice of Appeal No. 4-2010 Mary Monthie, in regards to the aspects of the appeal
st
and to the site, and the Planning Board met on the 21 of December, and they made a motion
that “MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RESPONDS TO THE ZONING BOARD’S
REQUEST REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-2010 MARY MONTHIE BY
REPORTING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS EXAMINED THE MATERIALS THAT WERE
SENT TO US IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 179-14-040 PARAGRAPH D AND FIND THAT
IN THE ABSENCE OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT, WE HAVE NOTHING TO REVIEW AND
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
THEREFORE HAVE NOTHING TO RECOMMEND” And that was passed unanimously by
them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think what we’re going to do is this, just so everybody understands
the process. Last time that we met and we heard the Appeal here, we had quite a lengthy
meeting, and I did leave the public hearing open for any additional information that would be
available or anything new that people had said, but I would ask that, due to the fact that we gave
quite a bit of time to all the sides that were involved last time, I don’t want this to get into an hour
by hour play by play repeat of what we had the last time. So if people have any new information
to present, that would be appreciated, and I think it would be appropriate for us tonight to try and
render a decision for the process to continue, and that would be that if we pass this on to the
Planning Board, that that would be the next arena that you guys would all end up in, and I think
that’s probably the logical place for it to go at this point in time. I think the Board is pretty aware
of the situation and I think we discussed it in quite detail and depth the last time, and everybody
maintained a good semblance of reality. I don’t think there was a lot of argument going on and
things like that. It got a little heated at times. I know it was a little unnerving on the part of our
Board and on my own part. I had to go back to the Town Board and I haven’t publicly
apologized to Craig for calling him on the carpet for this, but I’d like to do that at this time, and I
did apologize to the Town Board also, I think that, you know, when we find ourselves in a
situation that is somehow way different than normal, I think everybody gets a little bit perturbed
about, you know, why the normal processes did not occur, and I think that in this instance here,
we’re still in a situation where we’re looking to resolve the differences that exist between the
people who are building the project, the people who are affected by the project in the immediate
neighborhood, and I think that, you know, we’re looking for some kind of an answer so that we
can work these things out to the best of our abilities here. So, hopefully this evening, based
upon the information we receive this evening, we will be able to render a decision as far as our
Board, and continue the process with the Planning Board, because I think the Planning Board
ultimately is going to make the decision going forward as to what further review is necessary in
the future. So I think opening it up initially, I don’t know, do you, you wanted to present us some
more information?
MR. STROUGH-I would like to quickly, without going over everything, I kind of bulleted my
items, to quickly go through, what I believe is the case.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do this, then.
JON LAPPER
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry. I just have a quick procedural question I’d like to just
start out with, just in terms of the scope of this discussion. It’ll take me two minutes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. Yes. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-In terms of the nature of this Appeal, I’m just not sure that there’s really any issue
that’s at debate, because what Councilman Strough is saying is that the project has to go to the
Planning Board for Site Plan Review, and the applicants, or the project applicants agree, and in
fact we’ve submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. They have
some questions about the scope of Site Plan Review and what the Town’s going to, or the
Planning Board’s going to be looking for, and John and I have had discussions about planting
and buffers and berms, and, you know, those are all Planning Board issues, and I’m sure they’ll
get their full day in court when we get to the Planning Board, but in terms of Craig’s letter from
September, which said that it had to go to the Planning Board and in response to that that Hayes
and Hayes submitted an application to the Planning Board, I just, in terms of what this Board has
to decide tonight, I don’t know that we need a whole lot of discussion because Craig has said it
has to go to the Planning Board. Hayes have said it has to go to the Planning Board, and
Councilman Strough is saying it has to go to the Planning Board. It’s not a typical appeal, and in
terms of the issue of what the scope of what that review is going to be, that was, the Planning
Board talked about that last night, that’s not part of his letter. So it’s not part of this Appeal, and
those issues about the prior project and SEQRA and what pertains to this project are really not
before this Board because that wasn’t in Craig’s letter either. So I just hope that, you know,
we’re certainly going to have to have a full discussion about site issues and buffering and such,
but that’s really for the Planning Board, and I hope that we don’t have to go on for a number of
hours tonight.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, and I think that’s what I’m asking on your part, too. I think we’re well
aware that there are deeper areas that are going to be investigated by the Planning Board and I
think that our task, as Roy said, is quite simple. I mean, we’ve been asked to render a decision
based upon the language in the clearing of the land in excess, and I think that our Board will be
ready to do that.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. LAPPER-Sounds good.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I will give you some time. How much time do you think you’re going to
need to go through this.
MR. STROUGH-I hope I can do it in 10 or 15 minutes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. That would be find, and then I’ll give you guys an opportunity to
rebut.
MR. LAPPER-That sounds good.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you.
MR. GARRAND-At this time I’ll recuse myself for a potential conflict of interest.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, yes.
MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Town of Queensbury, and I’m just, I’m here basically to clear
things up. We do know that from the get go Site Plan was approved and okayed and Craig
Brown said yes, they have to do a Site Plan Review. That’s not what Mary Monthie was asking,
just a Site Plan Review, because there’s Site Plan Reviews. There’s Site Plan Reviews, and
there’s Site Plan Reviews. Okay. What Mary Monthie was asking was basically what’s in our
Chapter 179 zoning, Article Six, Subsection Ten, when it talks about any person, possessing or
proposing to undertake extensive clearing of vegetation or grading over an area of land greater
than one quarter acre must follow the procedures for and obtain Site Plan approval in
accordance with Article Nine, Site Plan Review, Article Nine. So what we’ve asked for from the
get go, but it’s been twisted, it’s been turned, it’s, we would like an Article Nine Site Plan Review.
That’s all we’re asking, and I would like to briefly give you what I think is a clear and compelling
case for an Article Nine Site Plan Review. For example, some of the Site Plan Reviews that are
being proposed, and the attorneys for the Hayes mentioned that, you know, there is a scoping
issue. That’s exactly right. That’s what we’ve been saying from the get go. What we wanted
from you was your opinion. We don’t want a limited Site Plan Review. We want an Article Nine
Site Plan Review. Now, I just read you the Town Board that says anything over a quarter of an
acre requires, any disturbance over a quarter of an acre requires Site Plan Review, an Article
Nine Site Plan Review. Okay. But let me give you other reasons I think will further what I’m
trying to say in terms of an Article Nine Site Plan Review. For one thing, if this case came to you
previously, as it is, a cluster of apartments, would you say that an Article Nine Site Plan Review
was appropriate? I believe, probably, most of you, if not all of you, would say yes, it’s clear, it’s
compelling, that’s what the Code says. All right, the next thing I want to point out to you is that
clustering isn’t allowed in this zone, but that’s, in fact, what they’ve done is cluster. Now, if you
want to see the Code or the part of the Town Code that refers to what I’m telling you, I’ve given it
in the Appendix, rather than go through it, to make this as brief as I can, but if you want to verify
what I’m saying, I’ve referenced the parts of the Town Code in the handout that you have, but as
you see, that’s the second item that I’ve said, clustering is not allowed in this zone. Yet, what
we have here is clustering. All right. The next item, there are several references in our Town
Code that puts the duplex in a singular context, making it clear that the PU allowance wasn’t
intended for the way it’s being treated here. It was intended on a lot on a previously approved
subdivision. I have several references to that in the Town Code, you may refer to them. Item
Number Four, seven clustered duplexes, fourteen units, is a defacto apartment complex, okay.
Treating it as such better addresses the actual suitability and the impacts of what it is. It’s not a
duplex. A duplex is a building. This is a use. It’s an apartment. It’s going to have a
management. It’s going to have sales, it’s going to have rentals. It’s a set of apartments. Okay.
It’s as clear as toast, that’s what it is. So, what does the Code say about apartments? It says
that all the subdivision rules apply. Well, and guess what, that includes Article Nine,
Subdivision, Site Plan Review. All right, not only that, but I asked the Town Assessor, how are
you assessing this, and the Town Assessor said, well, I’m zoning it, I’m assessing it a Code 400.
I said, what’s that. She said, well that’s commercial. Specifically she’s zoning it Code 411,
that’s apartments, commercial. Anything of this nature, anytime, anywhere, any place would
require an Article Nine Site Plan Review. It’s clear. All right. This has a history. Now this is, I’m
repeating so I’m not going to go into any great depth, but to just mention that this project, parcel
has a history where it went before the Planning Board. It was Pos Dec’d. Several potential
negative impacts were identified, and they needed to be addressed. They never got addressed.
Only an Article Nine Site Plan Review would address those issues. Number Six, it has always
been this Town’s well established practice to require a Site Plan. Any and all projects of this
magnitude have always, always, always, I can’t think of one exception, and I’ve been in this
business 15 years, of not having an Article Nine Site Plan Review. All right. Then Item Number
Seven, this site’s inherent stormwater and hydrology history. Everyone agrees that needs to
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
have Site Plan Review. Okay. There’s no question about that. Craig, everybody, the attorneys,
the Hayes, everybody agrees to that, but we’re saying an Article Nine, and I’ll get to Article Nine
very last, but I’m moving as fast as I can. Now, Item Number Eight says that this Site Plan goes
contrary to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and I’ve
got sections of it quoted in the addendum. You can check it for yourself, says that the Town
should not allow residential housing within 1,000 feet of the Interstate, and they gave health
reasons as to why, but they’re stated there. I’m not going to go into them, for the sake of brevity,
but they’re there. Number Nine, Site Plan needs to be done to assure compliance with the
Town’s current design standards. There’s a list of design standards that are completely being
ignored, would be ignored, unless an Article Site Plan Review was done. Then they have to be
addressed. They’re being ignored right now. A limited Site Plan Review would ignore them.
We’re asking for a full Article Nine Site Plan Review, and, and the last one, Number Ten, if you
go, I have put Article Nine Site Plan Review attached to this addendum for you, okay, and it
says, in Article Nine, the purpose of Site Plan Review is to ensure that a site can properly
accommodate proposed new uses and/or structures or expansion of existing uses or structures
with minimal effect on neighboring properties, and the general area within the vicinity of the site,
and to assure that such development is appropriate integrated into the community in accordance
with the goals and objectives of this Chapter and Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Then it goes
on and it lists A through E, the objectives of the (lost word) and if you read that, you’ll see that
every one applies here, and if you go to what the Planning Board should look at, development
considerations, you know, I’m not going to go through the list, but the list is there. That list is
something that the Planning Board should be able to look at all of them. I don’t want to send a
message to the Planning Board, you’re supposed to just look at, you know, vegetation removal,
you’re supposed to look at just stormwater. I think the only fair thing to do, with the neighbors,
who are adjacent to this commercial apartment complex, and that’s basically what it is.
Nobody’s disputing that. Even the attorneys for the Hayes have called it apartments, deserve an
Article Nine Site Plan Review, no limitations, no limitations being sent to the Planning Board.
Planning Board, Article Nine, Site Plan Review. Thank you. Any questions?
MR. URRICO-I have a question, John. On the original Appeal, I don’t see anywhere where it
mentions Article Nine.
MR. STROUGH-On the original Appeal Mary Monthie said I want a Site Plan Review and done
in accordance with the land disturbance.
MR. URRICO-I’m just looking at, I see 179-6-010 Need for Site Plan Review, positive SEQRA
Declaration regarding project/property, and that’s all I see here.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just telling you what Mary Monthie has told me.
MR. URRICO-It’s not in the Appeal.
MR. STROUGH-But I don’t know how things got twisted, see, Roy, that’s the problem.
Somewhere in this whole story, something got twisted. Our Appeal has been, because if our
Appeal was for a Site Plan Review, we wouldn’t be here, because there’s going to be a Site Plan
Review. Our Appeal has always been that we’re talking about an Article Nine Site Plan Review.
That’s the only fair thing here, you know, and we’re asking for you to render judgment on behalf
of the people here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions? Okay. Do you guys want to come up?
MR. STROUGH-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-This was discussed at the Planning Board last night, and I know that you were
there, Jim, but the scope of Site Plan Review is not an issue that’s before this Board. The
Planning Board will decide what’s appropriate for this project. Your jurisdiction is appellate, and
the letter that was appealed to you was very simple, that said Site Plan Review applies. The
section that was quoted, as Roy just said, was that Section 6-10, which talks about grading,
clear cutting and land disturbance, and that’s what triggered Site Plan Review, and we all
acknowledge it’s Site Plan Review, but it wouldn’t be appropriate for you to sit here and say, to
look through the Code and say Article Nine, what applies and what doesn’t apply, because it
wasn’t part of Craig’s determination. It’s just go to Site Plan Review and the Planning Board will
determine what’s appropriate for this. I mean, I don’t think that it’s going to be a two minute
process at the Planning Board. We’re going to get into all sorts of issues, but they have to be
appropriate to this project. Just a couple of things to just address what John said. Cluster is a
concept that just has to do with subdivision where you take the total density and you have
smaller lots, but the density is the same. This isn’t a subdivision. I mean, I think people are
confused. The idea of grouping these units in the center of the project was a response on some
of the property to what the neighbors said last time. Because last time they would have
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
disturbed the whole site to put in a road and to have half acre lots, and there were 12 lots and
you would have cut down all the trees, which is what the neighbors objected to. So the Hayes
heard that, and that’s why when the Zoning Code changed and they could do duplexes, they
grouped them in the center of the project to make it less of an impact. They thought they were
doing a good thing, but it’s not, the word cluster doesn’t apply at all, because it’s not a
subdivision. Nobody’s looking to have separate lots so these can be sold separately to
individuals. So it’s just not a subdivision. It’s not a cluster. What John is ignoring is that in
2009, April 2009, the Zoning Code amendment said the duplex was a permitted use. That
doesn’t mean that site disturbance doesn’t have to go before the Planning Board, but nobody
was getting away with anything. They said, hey, if the Planning Board, if the Town Board says
that we can put duplexes in, then that’s what we’ll do. Why should we pick a fight here? So they
did what the Zoning Code said they could do, put in the duplex, that was a year and a half ago,
more than a year and a half ago. John Strough voted for it. It went through SEQRA, you know,
what have you. In terms of the issue of the history of the property and the prior project, that was
much different, and I brought the maps last time to show you the disturbance. That was a
different project under a different Code. It’s not relevant. We know that there are residential
neighbors that want to be screened, and they will be, but in terms of what happened last time,
we have to start fresh now because it’s a different, smaller project. The Comp Plan
recommends that residences should be 1,000 feet from I-87. That was not implemented as of
yet, as a Town law. So that was a recommendation, and because it’s not a Town law, there’s
plenty of houses within 1,000 feet of I-87 now, and that’s not applicable. That’s, the Comp Plan
is something that’s a set of proposals that the Town Board may or may not implement, and that’s
really it. I mean, we don’t have to talk about Site Plan Review standards because we’ll talk
about that with the Planning Board, but I want this Board to understand, because there’s been
some allegations back and forth, that all they tried to do was the path of least resistance. When
the Town Board said you can build duplexes on this site, they did the number of duplexes that
you could reasonably fit based upon the zoning, and how many acres you needed, you know,
and we’ll certainly get into the site details with the Planning Board, hopefully next month.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask you a question? I know you’ve been before us with multiple
duplex projects before, you know, based on Berrenger and also the ones on the end of Haviland
Road just out here, down at the end of the road there, both those projects were built to sell those
duplexes at the time?
MR. LAPPER-When you say duplexes, most of the apartment projects, a duplex is just a
building with two, a two unit building, which is different than an apartment building which may
have eight units or ten units or six units or four units. So duplex in the Code, the definition, it’s
really a different animal. It’s much more similar to a single family neighborhood because you
only have two attached, rather than bigger buildings.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think one of the questions in my mind was, when you put seven of
them there in that small area, I understand why you did it, you know, from your perspective, but
at the same time, I went in today and talked to the Assessor’s Office and talked to Ted Bigelow,
and I asked Ted, I said, you know, what did you classify the ones, like down at the end of
Haviland Road at, and he said, well, those are individually owned, and I don’t know if those were
rentals to begin with or what they were. I couldn’t remember the history of when we did that. It
was quite a, probably ten years ago now that we reviewed that project. What was that?
MICKIE HAYES
MR. HAYES-They’re rentals as well.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They were rentals as well. Okay. Because I went in today, and he told me
that those ones down there are listed on the Assessment rolls as individually owned apartments,
you know, individually owned houses. So maybe he was confused on that.
MR. HAYES-Because they’re each on their own separate lot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Each on their own separate lot.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and I remember when we reviewed that project down there we had a
lot of issues with wetland, and we preserved a lot of it. You’ve got an HOA, I think, down there,
or is that what you do, for all the land that’s undisturbed?
MR. HAYES-Well, it’s just like anything else. The wetlands had to be avoided of course with all
the setbacks and such like that, but we own all the properties, and so basically the density gets
used up so the property stays forever wild, similar to this here. I wish some of the residents
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
would actually look at the plan and see how much of the woods has been preserved. It’s really a
great use for the property because the woods will be left as is. So that has to be addressed. I’m
sure it will be with the Site Plan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I know some of the concern that’s been raised was, you know, like the
dispensation of the rest of the property, is that going to remain as green space or is it going to
get re-zoned for more apartments later on or something like that? I mean, I really can’t say what
the future holds. I assume, at this point in time, this is all that’s going to occur on the property,
but I think the Planning Board probably would want to dial in because if we’re going to do a
segmented build out, you know, into the future, I mean, we don’t know whether the Town
Board’s going to change their mind and say, well, this area looks like it could accommodate
twice as many in the future. I can’t say that either, but I think part of the reason that we go
through the Site Plan Review process is so we dial in. I know, and on the case of Haviland
Road down there, that was built out as it is. You can’t add anymore, and I wouldn’t anticipate
that they would allow you to fill in the wetlands to put anything else in, but in this instance, in this
neighborhood here, I think it’s ripe for, based upon future build out and increase in density and
housing within the community, that the possibility exists that this just might be the foot in the
door deal, and I don’t know whether you want to address that or whether it’s appropriate for us,
but I think part of the reason for doing Site Plan Review is that doing Site Plan Review dials that
in, and it doesn’t allow some end run or some, you know, end result that no one anticipates.
MR. LAPPER-I guess just simply we don’t anticipate that the Town Board is going to change the
zoning to allow somebody to put twice as many units there. I mean, it was designed based upon
the density now, and I just can’t imagine that that’s something that the Town Board’s going to
do. I mean, the Town Code gets more restrictive. It doesn’t generally get less restrictive.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. The only other question I would ask you is this. I know it’s not our
purview and the Planning Board needs to review it, but, you know, I alluded to the last time, you
know, with Surrey Fields and some of our other high density duplex type apartments, we’ve run
into difficulties with septics and things like that, and I know that, you know, you have had review
by the Planning Board on this project with previous proposals that didn’t follow through on, and I
know that in those instances they noted that there might be problems on site there. When I went
down there, the day I was there, it was a really wet day. I didn’t see any water problems. I didn’t
see anything in your sumps and your cellars or anything like that, but I’m just saying, none of the
infrastructure is in, and in a normal situation I think when we do Site Plan Review, in a
subdivision type situation, all the infrastructure’s in. It’s all planned at the same time, and it
seems like in this instance here, because we didn’t have the Site Plan Review initial occur, we’re
sort of doing this in an around the horn fashion. It’s all going to get done at some point in time,
but, it probably would be a good idea for somebody to look at the situation, because you
clustered, you know, and I’m just saying in a conservative manner, and I’ll let you come back to
me, but I think it’s important that we don’t piecemeal, just say, well, we cleared a little bit too
much land and I think everybody understands that that occurred. That’s there, but I think that in
most instances when we clear land, it sort of triggers Site Plan Review, and you have to think
about what the impacts are, because usually there’s secondary and tertiary impacts that occur
also.
MR. HAYES-Can I answer some of the questions?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. HAYES-Basically, is this site actually as you’ve probably known from your past experience
with the project and being able to read maps well is it’s had over 25 test pits completed on the
site, which is amazing, perc tests, soil analysis from a soil scientist, Town Engineer verification
and the New York State Department of Health witnessed perc tests. Every one of those things,
the hydrology and the soils, there’s probably not a site that’s had such scrutiny, and when you
file for a building permit, you have to meet the criteria of the Code for every septic system you
put in regardless. They inspect them, they inspect the process as well, and the engineer has to
sign off on that as well. So you have a soil scientist, New York State Department of Health, the
Building Department, and another licensed engineer that has to go through every one of these
steps to put a septic system in, according to the Codes. As you probably know in Queensbury
there’s, I don’t know if it’s 17 or 18 inspections of these duplexes. So nobody can build them
beyond what the rules and regulations are, whether it be the setbacks, the insulation that goes
in, the bedrooms relation to septics, how much, what the perc rate is. It’s a very sophisticated
system to be able to build something in Queensbury. The Codes are the most stringent in the
area.
MR. LAPPER-I also want to respond about the soils. The area of the site where they’re located,
you used the word clustering. It’s really just that they’re concentrated in the center, but that’s
primarily sand, and the one area of the site where residents were talking about stormwater
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
problems, I mentioned this last time, is on the southern area of the site where there’s a drainage
ditch that comes off the Northway, different soils, a lot lower, and by designing the project this
way, the Hayes stay completely away from the southern end of the site, completely undisturbed.
So there are no problems with stormwater here. There’s no problems with septic systems
because they’re good soils. It was the right place to do the development.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you assume that the, because of the clearing and the arrangement
of the houses, to me, it’s sort of like a little canyon that funnels everything towards the
established neighborhood that’s to the east of where it is there from the Northway, and I think
that, you know, one of the things I looked at when I was down there was I said to myself, I know
this is not germane to what we’re going to decide here, but in trying to dial in the Site Plan
Review, you know, you’ve got one household I think that abuts looking directly at all those
apartments that are being built, the duplexes that are going up there, and I think that probably
they’re going to have to address some kind of shielding of all those. I know the Planning
Board’s probably going to do that, but at this point in time, I don’t see that it would do any harm
for the Planning Board to thoroughly review the project to dial in all aspects of it, because it
would seem silly to me to dismiss any concerns that people might have because you could deal
with them all now and get them out on the table and deal with them. Most of them seem to me
that you could alleviate most of what the concerns are.
MR. LAPPER-Well, we plan to. It’s always the way to handle land use projects in Queensbury
to try and compromise, negotiate, and I have talked to John Strough about this, and it’s not
going to be a problem to buffer the one or two houses that are nearby. They can be very well
buffered, but when you say it’s not a bad idea. I mean, in terms of what the scope of the Site
Plan is, that’s really not an issue for the Zoning Board, because it wasn’t in Craig’s letter, but I’m
sure that the Planning Board will look at all appropriate issues.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean, I just think, from your viewpoint, you know, you want to
accomplish what you want to accomplish, but there’s also accommodation on the part of the
people who are already there, and I think it’s important that everybody wins on this one, and that
it’s not just one side.
MR. LAPPER-They’re going to spend money to buffer this, as well as the neighbors want, that’s
not going to be an issue.
MR. HAYES-On the record, if anybody in the neighborhood would like to come and express
interest in what they would like to see done with buffering or they have concerns, they certainly
can call us anytime. We’ll be glad to walk the site with them, show them any maps. They can
come right there, if there’s anything, input they want to provide, we’d be glad to, we have not
heard from anybody. We’d love to hear from them if they have a concern about a certain area,
too much exposure, whatever, we’re all ears.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you want to add at this point?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. What I’m going to do is this, I’m going to open the public hearing up.
I think what I’ll do is briefly open the public hearing, and what I would like is this, all right. The
last time we allowed you to express any opinions whatsoever in regards to the site here, and I
think we all recognize there are many issues that you can bring before the Planning Board. My
general feeling is that I think the Planning Board should review the project in totality. I mean, I
don’t think it makes any sense to just simply come in and say we’re only going to.
MR. LAPPER-But that’s not for you to decide.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s not for me to decide, but I’m just saying this. My suggestion is this, all
right, the public has expressed the fact that they’re disturbed with the way that this thing went
through, and I think everybody agrees it’s a little bit unorthodox from what we normally see. I
mean, I don’t see anything, when I talked to Ted Bigelow, I said to him, well what are you going
to do if they decide they want to sell these off, because you’ve got seven individual building
permits for seven buildings, all on the same lot. It would be impossible to do it. You’d have to
come in and get a variance.
MR. LAPPER-They can’t be sold. That’s not what this is about.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They can’t be sold. Right, and I think we realize that, but, you know, as I’ve
said before, I don’t think you guys run like a slipshod operation. I think all your projects have
come out and they’re appealing projects. They’re not totally, you know, something that people
can’t live with, and I think in this regard here, things can be worked out, but I think that we
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
should be open minded about the process enough to realize that if you want to work things out,
they should be worked out at this point in time, not after the fact, and that’s not to criticize what
you’re doing or anything like that. I mean, you’re still building, you’re still putting up your
houses. We’re not going to put up a roadblock to that process, but I think that the sooner you
deal with it, the better it is.
MR. LAPPER-There’s no dispute that we’re going to be at the Planning Board dealing with the
site issues, but I also don’t want you to lose sight of the fact that this, when they changed the
Code, this is a PU, a Permitted Use, without Site Plan Review for the buildings, and so nobody
did anything wrong here. The Town Board changed the Code and they submitted for building
permits. There was nothing sneaky. Craig did what the Code required.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. What I’m going to do is this. I’m going to open up the public
hearing, and I would ask the public, unless you have something to add that we have not heard
before, you could raise your hand and I’ll have you come up and please limit yourself to the
subject, and, you know, we’re limiting ourselves to the land clearing process and the fact of
whether or not we think it should go for what kind of review it should go for as far as the Site
Plan Review. Do you want to come up, sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
ED PETRUSH
MR. PETRUSH-Good evening. My name is Ed Petrush. I live on 36 Pershing Road. I’ll be brief
to this. I’ve addressed this subject. They keep saying, the attorney keeps saying that this was a
permissible use in the new Code, okay. Let’s get away from the fact that the table was not in the
Code as it was presented, all right. I presented three, which Mr. Strough elaborated on a little
bit, three questions to the Town Board Monday night. One was how did they define the word
duplex, as opposed to its plural duplexes, right. Now, all you have to do is open up a dictionary
to understand that duplex is one unit, not several. The next thing I said is the Code specifically
says you need zoning plan approval for, or Site Plan approval for commercial. According to
Webster’s Dictionary, commercial says for profit. If seven buildings owned by one corporation is
not commercial, right, and the third thing was the cluster issue, right. The Town Board didn’t, or
actually I should say the Town Board, the only one that spoke was Supervisor Stec, and he
refused, all right, to address my statement, all right. The Planning Board refused to allow us to
talk yesterday. So, at some point in time, where do all these people get a chance to bring up the
fact that we are more at fault with determination of the original reason that they gave the building
permits, right, than we are with anything, you know, it says one duplex. It doesn’t say duplexes,
and that is the bigger issue, and the Town Board and the Planning Board to date has not
accepted that fact, and that’s the only thing we’re looking for. Someone in the Town to say, hey,
this is what was meant ,you know, explain it so we understand it. Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Again, I want to remind people, we understand the issue at hand, but our
purview tonight is strictly based upon the excess clearing of the land and whether it needs to go
in for Site Plan Review with the Planning Board. So if you have any more comments, I’d like you
please to address that only. Anybody else wishing to speak? Come up, sir.
BILL PARKS
MR. PARKS-I’m Bill Parks. I live on Griffing Place. As I understand it, Mr. Brown’s letter of
determination cited Chapter 179-6-010 on this project, and Mary Monthie’s Appeal cites 179-6-
010, and Item C in that calls for an Article Nine Site Plan Review. So I don’t see where there’s a
problem with Mrs. Monthie’s Appeal in terms of what we’re trying to accomplish here. In terms
of the, I sensed a murmur of discontent at the idea that there was nothing, you know,
questionable about what was going on here in this whole thing early on. It seems pretty widely
agreed that this Table One or Table Four, depending on which version of it you got to see,
wasn’t included with the zoning regulations that got discussed by the general public, got voted
on by the Town Board. The Planning Board apparently didn’t see it. The Zoning Board of
Appeals didn’t see it. The packet that went to the State didn’t have it, and my question is, how is
it that apparently back in March, the Zoning Administrator and the company building the project
apparently had a copy of this. It seems mysterious that that would be the case. The question I
guess I have is where did it come from. Somebody authored this thing. Somebody sat down
and made out this table, and, you know, we ought to be able to determine who did that and
when, and how it got distributed or didn’t get distributed to various people, and that whole murky
business I think is one of the things that had us all very upset. Certainly in the past it certainly
was the impression I had that if a project like this was going to happen, there would be a review
process, the neighbors would be able to have some input on what was going on, and the idea
that, I mean, if it turns out that this all has been wonderfully legal and everything was done just
according to (lost word), it strikes me that we ought to change things in a hurry, because I don’t
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
think very many people in this community would like to be living next to some undeveloped land
and go around realizing well, gee, tomorrow something could appear there without warning and
without any input. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else? Do you want to come up, please.
ED LAPOINT
MR. LAPOINT-Good evening. I’m Ed Lapoint. I live at 15 Hughes Court. I have the map from
2004, before they had this zoning, and I don’t know Mr. Brown from anybody, and on the side it
says that, and the gentleman said he wanted to talk to us? Well, where were we in 2004?
Three fifteen, issued a preliminary site subdivision review. No zoning for that parcel yet.
There’s no zoning. 6/21/04, Town Engineer review. What did he review? 6/30/04, added test
pits 25 and 26. Final submission submitted on 7/2/04. This is submitted before they had the
zoning change, okay. We were still sitting back waiting for the Town to do something about the
SEQRA that was supposed to have been by the Planning Board in that timeframe. Okay.
That’s one piece. The second piece, I have a letter here from Mr. Brown to Hayes and Hayes.
th
It’s dated the 26 of October, and I’m writing you in response of my review your recently
submitted October 20, 2010 materials for a Site Plan Review to excessive disturbance on Dixon
Road project site. They’re not one, two, three. No completed Site Plan Review application was
submitted. The second one, the project plan needs to be updated to show all existing
conditions. I understand that there are more than three concrete foundations in the ground at
this time. It appears as though eight footprints are shown on the plan. There’s seven, right.
The project plans do not depict any details for stormwater control devices proposed, including
swales and drywells. I find no, they said they did test sites. I find no test pits, soil logs for
percolation, test results or proof that the test pits were inspected by the Town Engineer. They
said they were. Number Three, or Six, whatever it is, Notice of Intent form appears incomplete
in that Questions Five and Nineteen have not been answered. Please note, at this time, the
entire parcel is within the Town of Queensbury MS4, whatever that is, and there is a drainage
course that leaves the site and may potentially connect to Queensbury MS4 system. As no Site
Plan Review application was submitted, additional deficiencies may be identified upon review of
additional submitted information. Please note that as the project currently has no Town
approval or DEC coverage, no further work shall be done on this project site until all approval
and coverages have been obtained. The only exception to this will be the installation of erosion
control fencing as shown on your proposed plan, that’s the thing they put along the road. As the
site has already been disturbed, it is acceptable and imperative that this protection be placed
immediately. You must have a completed application submitted to the Town by no later than the
th
15 of November 2010 or an Appearance Ticket with the Town of Queensbury Justice Court will
be issued to you. Please note our requirement for a pre-submission meeting to ensure
application completeness. I didn’t go to the Town Zoning Administrator, but I understand from
somebody else in the audience, they went down there and they know, couldn’t get any
information on this letter. So was it done or wasn’t it? Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and I think that refers to the application that was made most recently,
all those things were submitted at some point.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that letter refers to the initial submission that was submitted to the Town.
There were references to items that were done, engineering, soil tests were done, they just
weren’t on the submittal that was given to us. So they’re someplace in a file, but my point was
we need that information on the submittal, and since then that information is part of the
application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody else? Do you want to come up please.
BARBARA PARKS
MRS. PARKS-I’m Barbara Parks, and I live on Griffing Place. I’m referring to this letter from Mr.
th
Brown to the Hayes. A week ago Monday, on December 13, I submitted an application for a
FOIL on the points that have been listed in this letter. I was told by Mr. Brown’s Secretary that
he had two to five days to submit this information to me and I would receive a call. I could come
and get the information after I’d received the call. I did not receive a call. Last Friday, I received
this in response to my FOIL. Dear Ms. Parks: In regard to your FOIL request received in this
office on December 13, 2010, please note the following, sign plan application may be picked up
at the Town Clerk’s office. Fees for copies, $22. I have no idea what that is. I did not ask for a
sign plan application. Mr. Brown, I have a question for you. I’d like to know if all of these items
were completed, do you have that, do you have copies of these in writing that they were, in fact,
completed? Is that on record?
MR. BROWN-Is that a question you’d like me to answer?
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t know what she’s referring to.
MRS. PARKS-I am referring to all of the items that you submitted to Mr., both the Hayes
brothers.
MR. BROWN-Right. What you submitted was a FOIL request.
MRS. PARKS-I did.
MR. BROWN-Which is a Freedom of Information request that anybody can do for anything that’s
been submitted to the Town.
MRS. PARKS-I did.
MR. BROWN-Those requests are fulfilled and completed by our Town Clerk’s office, which I’m
guessing that letter that you received was from Darleen Dougher, the Town Clerk?
MRS. PARKS-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Okay. What happens, when a FOIL request comes in, if it has any application that
comes from the Planning or Zoning Department, they forward it to us, we provide the information
to them, and they do whatever the FOIL process allows for them to do, which is typically they
have up to five business days to respond to you as to how they’re going to fill the response, and
then up to 30 days to actually fill the response for you. So we don’t have any control over that.
That’s the Town Clerk. She’s the keeper of the records. So if she’s, by the sounds of it, issued
you a letter with a typographical error in it and referred to the Site Plan as a Sign Plan, and it
sounds like she has completed a package of the information for you to come and review, and
see if you think that the application materials are complete, that’s certainly something you can
come and pick up any time you’d like.
MRS. PARKS-Well, there’s more to the letter.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MRS. PARKS-I’m just asking you.
MR. BROWN-Which I haven’t seen, by the way. It comes from the Clerk’s Office.
MRS. PARKS-Well, it isn’t really much of a letter.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MRS. PARKS-If these were completed, do you have it in writing, do you have an actual record
that each item that you have addressed is in writing?
MR. BROWN-No.
MRS. PARKS-You don’t?
MR. BROWN-No.
MRS. PARKS-Why? How can you prove, therefore, that these have been completed?
th
MR. BROWN-What happens is the letter that I sent them on October 26, I think was the date
that listed the missing items from their application, they respond with a revised submittal. That
comes in and, you know, our office, our planner reviews the application for completeness and if
it’s found to be acceptable, it gets put on an agenda.
MRS. PARKS-So you just take it at word that these things have been done?
MR. BROWN-In the beginning, yes, and then once we get into doing the Staff Notes and a
detailed review of the project, if there’s something missing and it’s a relatively easy thing, we’re
going to reach out to the applicant and say, you’re still missing this, we’re not going to put you
on an agenda until you get your application complete, and if we find any of those things, we’re
certainly going to, you know, reach out to the applicant and tell them they need to get it in, and
make sure the record is complete before they can go to the Planning Board.
MRS. PARKS-So the application has been completed?
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. BROWN-I haven’t looked at the entire application, yet. I’m assuming it’s complete, that’s
why we have it on our tentative agenda.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-We’re supposed to trust you?
MR. BROWN-I hope so.
MRS. PARKS-It’s very difficult. It says that the items were completed, but no dates listed. I find
it very hard to believe that there are documents that you would have received that have not been
stamped received and dated. That’s shoddy workmanship. That’s shoddy work.
MR. BROWN-Well, I don’t think that was the question. We certainly have application, any
materials that are submitted to the Town are stamped with a received date on it. I think your
question was do we have information that lists out all of these things are complete. We don’t
have that. We have any information that was submitted.
MRS. PARKS-All right, then my question is, why not? How do you prove that this has been
completed?
MR. BROWN-I guess I would have a question, is this relevant to what we’re talking about here
tonight?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we’ll have to cut you off, but in think in reviewing that, the
applications get reviewed and at that point they issue a determination, and I don’t think that’s
been submitted yet. So you’ll just have to wait until such time. Anybody else? Come on up,
please.
JANET DALTON
MS. DALTON-Hello, again. I’m Janet Dalton. I’m at 5 Hughes Court, again. This is me. This is
them. So apparently I’m an abutment, and I’m not a lawyer. I don’t have a lawyer here. I
appreciate that you guys went to school for a very long time to learn all the wherewithal’s. All I
know is that I’m a homeowner who has paid her taxes, tried to do the right thing. When the first
project came up, there was supposed to be a full blown site review, whatever that is. I counted
on the various Boards, the Codes, all the laws that are in place, to protect me and my rights.
Now I get up every morning and I look out on commercial property, which was never supposed
to be there. What I would like you to do, and I don’t, I don’t even understand how you all are
supposed to do this or who’s supposed to be doing this, but do the right thing. The land hasn’t
changed. So if you were saying there needs to be test done, then do it, and I appreciate that
you’re saying that you’re going to put up some screening. You’re going to have to get some big
ass trees in there, because I appreciate you going and looking. I really, really do, and, you, I’ll
vote for you for dog catcher. The point that I am trying to make is that you’re no longer his
constituent. You are now a business entity that’s putting up seven duplexes, and cluster, I
brought my little dictionary if you want to know what cluster is, it means things growing close
together. Well, this is what’s happening in my backyard, this is from my deck. Here is over to
the right. Here, again, from my deck, here again, to the right note the lovely blue tarps, and here
we have a nice little red trailer that’s been sitting there forever. Here you can see how far the
basements stick out of the house, out of the ground. These things are like three story,
mammoth, humungous buildings, and the rest of these pictures, and I apologize for it not being
as timely a fashion, are from last winter. Now I don’t usually take pictures of the vacant
property, all the different animals and trees and bushes and things like that, you can see how
st
much foliage that was there. This was a party picture from August 1, pardon the people and
the dog, but you can see all the foliage in back. So what I’m saying is wow did that land get
disturbed, and so did I. You can clearly see that there’s an enormous amount there, and again,
all I’m asking you folks to do is the right thing. If there’s no problems, there’s no problem, and
again, if you’re saying that you’re going to do, and I’ve seen some of your work. It looks fine, if
you’re so generously saying that you’re going to put up, you know, trees and buffers and all this
other stuff, it would have been nice if the people were approached to begin with. You’ve got to
understand why we feel like we got jumped, because my house wasn’t hidden. It’s not painted
camouflage. It’s big, well, it’s not big, but, I mean, you know, it’s there. You can’t hardly miss it.
So you knew I was there, suddenly, wholly crap, so if there’s no worry, then do the full site plan.
Do the right thing. I really counted on you folks to protect me, and one last thing, that keeps
coming up is, you know, this law was passed and I agree with you, whatever document was
missing, whatever, the spirit of the law is not what happened here, and just because it’s 55 miles
an hour, and you go to drive down that street, if there’s a thundering storm or blizzard, you still
have to slow down. If you run people over, it’s due diligence, you don’t get off the hook for that.
You should still do the right thing. So do the right thing.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. All right. Anybody else from the public? Mr. Strough,
do you want to follow up?
MR. STROUGH-I just want to point out that, you know, what I do give you is accurate, you know,
that clustering is not allowed in this zone. On Table One, it does not differentiate whether
something is subdivided or not, it clearly is absent. Clustering is not allowed in this zone. It
doesn’t make any difference if you’re subdividing or not. Mr. Lapper tried to make that a point.
(Lost words) a point, but again I’ve worked with Craig for about 10 years. He’s one of the finest
people I know. I don’t think the Town could do without him, and, in all fairness, what happened
here was, you know, not just Craig’s doing. A lot of this is the Code itself is all messed up.
Saratoga Associates never got a chance to complete it. Now, we’re amending it, we’re
correcting it. Just for an example, Table Two that’s in the Code is going to be, which is now
commercial is going to be residential. We’re trying to straighten these out. Table Three, which
is industrial, is going to be commercial. Table Four is going to be industrial. I mean, Table One
never was, you know, in the Code when it was sent down to Albany or the publishers, or it
wasn’t in the agenda. We all know that. It doesn’t make any difference, and I don’t want to put
the blame on Craig. He’s a fine man, but mistakes were made, and I’m saying part of it’s the
Town Code, has to take credit for some of these mistakes. Now, how can we, as a Town, best
rectify this? I mean, if we limit the scope of a Site Plan Review, the way it’s limited won’t be able
to address such things as emergency vehicle access, noise mitigations, visual mitigations, you
know, only in Article Nine, and again, Roy, I think Bill Parks pointed it out to you, Mary was
asking for an Article Nine.
MR. URRICO-I understand that. If you’re going to address me directly, I don’t see where the
Zoning Administrator limited that in his determination.
MR. STROUGH-I’ve asked several times to get the words Article Nine written in the Site Plan
Review, and I haven’t gotten it. I haven’t been denied it, now he hasn’t said no.
MR. URRICO-But it’s written in the Code, Article Nine.
MR. STROUGH-The Code says if you have a disturbance over a quarter of an acre, you’ve got
to do Article Nine, Site Plan Review. That by itself.
MR. URRICO-And also refers to 146 in there, too. So you’re referring to both of them already.
So if you’re referring to the section where we’ve been talking about 179-6-010, then that, to me,
is implicit, that Article Nine is part of that.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, thank you, and so I just wanted to clear the air here, you know, because
Craig’s a good man, and I like Craig. Mistakes were made, not all Craig’s mistakes, some of it
was the Code itself is a mess. We’re straightening it out. Craig’s doing a hard job straightening
it out. Some of the corrections we have, are proposing, are also in the addendums, so, and I
think the bottom line is, and I, you know, all we’re saying is to correct the situation the best we
can is Article Nine Site Plan Review. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody else, or is that it? One more in the back? Come on up.
JOHN WESTNY
MR. WESTNY-John Westny, 28 Broadacres Road. I remain of the opinion that the property
owners anywhere in the USA ought to be able to fully use their property, even the Hayes
brothers, including the Hayes brothers, but not without consideration of the effects on their
neighbors, their neighborhood, the adjacent landowners, the community, compliance with the
law, etc. I’m sorry, I’d just like to ask, one of my biggest concerns is the effects of the Northway,
and the neighborhood is buffered from the Northway by this parcel of land. It doesn’t mean it’s
suppose to remain forever wild at their expense while they pay taxes on it, certainly not, but my
question is, has, at any point, consideration been made as to buffering from the Northway, either
of the neighborhood or for the people that are going to live in these units? I mean, I presume
Mr. and Mr. Hayes want to create places that people will want to live in, and certainly would like
to make them attractive rental units, but has anyone objective made a review of that, those
effects? Is that, has that review been done? I’m not sure, if I may ask that and to whom to
address that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-That hopefully will be done by the Planning Board. That’s their purview.
MR. WESTNY-So we, at this point, do expect that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we hope so.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. WESTNY-Wonderful, because that’s one of my foremost concerns, and certainly with Site
Plan Review those things can be identified. People’s concerns can be brought up and reviewed
and objective findings reached by the Board. That’s my biggest concern, because not every,
even when the Code is written, there are not that many parcels that are abutting our super
highway, and certainly a review, a full review is certainly required, because of that, if not for all
the other reasons. So, that’s my concern. Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else? All right. Do you guys want to come up? All
right. One of the things I would like to address is this. I mean, I think that you guys realize, at
this point, that you greatly affected that one woman whose property looks directly at what you’ve
done there.
MR. LAPPER-Janet Dalton.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I don’t want to get into an argument, Jon. I think that we can do that as
a means of.
MR. LAPPER-No, I’d like her to give Mickie a call and let’s work it out.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that’s fine, and what I’m asking for is this, you know, if you look at
these pictures, it’s pretty disheartening, and I think you can well imagine living in your
neighborhood, if you were surrounded by trees and you were looking at a green space that you
could have left some kind of a small buffer there that would have mitigated greatly the impact of
what was done. It’s water over the dam at this point in time, but I think we have to remember,
it’s supposed to be a community, and that everybody in a community, a community only exists if
people remember that they have neighbors and remember that their impacts, if they’re done
improperly, have great impact on the people who are presently on site there. I mean, you guys,
my number one problem I had when I went down there was I said I never understood why you
had to clear so much, why you couldn’t have left a significant buffer between yourselves and the
neighbor with what you were proposing there. I mean, I think it could have been done a little
more condescendingly so you could have lessened the impact that you had and what the end
result is that we’re dealing with now. You’re going to have to do some retrofitting and retro
plantings and things like that, maybe a berm or something there to.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, there could be a berm.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I know you’re willing to go there, but at this point in time, the Planning
Board needs to be involved in making that decision.
MR. LAPPER-Of course.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think it’s pertinent to the whole process, and I think one of the
problems that has resulted here in this instance is that, you know, when we do a normal
subdivision, all those things get dialed in right off the bat, and everything gets ironed out. It’s not
always a happy process. Sometimes there’s some give and take on both sides, and I think you
realize where I’m headed with this. You guys are only looking at it from your perspective, and I
think that the neighborhood’s looking at it from their perspective. You need to reach middle
ground and that is you need to work things out to the benefit of both parties here, and that is not
to say you can’t build anything down there. I think everybody understands you’re already
underway and stuff like that. We’re not putting up road blocks in that effect, but you can’t just
dismiss this as something light or anything like that, and I think that’s been the attempt on the
part of everybody is a little bit taken aback by the fact.
MR. LAPPER-You’re losing sight of one thing, when you look at the picture, look at all the trees
that are south of this, and those were all left there. So there has to be construction in one
location, and all of the other neighbors were protected. Ms. Dalton will get a berm and trees and
she should give Mickie and Jaime a call and we can talk about it next week, but if you look at the
site, you act like it was clear cut, and when you look at that, there are substantial trees.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I understand what you’ve done on the southern site, and that was the
part that was concerned with the previous stormwater and things like that with the MS4 stuff
there. I understand.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not just the southern end. Most of the site is undisturbed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. All right. Why don’t you summarize and finish up and then I’m going
to go to my Board members.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. LAPPER-Only to say that the Hayes, I mean, I always try to work with Councilman Strough
in a lot of projects, we compromise and are able to work things out, and that should be the case
here, and they’re very flexible in terms of what the neighbors want. Certainly Ms. Dalton and
they should get together and talk about that, but again, what’s before you, Craig’s letter said go
to the Planning Board for Site Plan. It didn’t talk about what the Planning Board had to or didn’t
have to, and you all know that the Planning Board’s pretty thorough, but that’s not an issue that’s
before you. Is it subject to Site Plan Review? Yes. Send this on to Site Plan Review and we’ll
get into the nitty gritty with the Planning Board.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Anything you want to add?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you guys want to ask? Any other questions Board members
have?
MR. URRICO-No, but I think we should also point out to the appellate that we’re shorthanded
tonight.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. URRICO-Okay. So that could affect the outcome of the vote.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. As far as our vote tonight, we have five Board members sitting, and
in regards to that, we either all have to approve it or?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Four have to approve, whatever the amendment is that people, whatever
the resolution that we come up with here.
MR. URRICO-I have one more question.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, certainly.
MR. URRICO-Okay. If we vote on behalf of the Zoning Administrator.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Then Site Plan Review goes ahead.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. URRICO-And if we vote against the Zoning Administrator’s decision, is there no Site Plan
Review at that point?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I believe that it’s held up at that point, is it not?
MR. BROWN-No, and if I could just put just a couple of comments on the record. I just want to
be able to get some things on the record. First of all, I appreciate your comments earlier about
the last situation. I understand how those things go sometime, and I appreciate John’s
comments. It’s nice to hear. You don’t hear those kinds of comments all the time. So it’s nice
to hear, especially from your boss, I guess. So an important thing to focus on is the reason that
you guys are here tonight. It’s an Appeal that was filed, based on a decision that I made, and
the decision I made was that these guys have done something on their site that requires Site
Plan Review. Never in any of my letters or comments have I said that this is required to have a
limited Site Plan Review. The applicant thinks it needs Site Plan Review. I think it needs Site
Plan Review. The Hayes have submitted a Site Plan Review application. It’s on a Planning
Board agenda for a January review. So, what happens if you vote for me? It goes to Site Plan
Review. What happens if you vote for them, it goes to Site Plan Review. So I don’t really see a
need for an appeal. Certainly it’s only up to the appellants to continue to pursue it or withdraw it.
It’s not up to me or to the appellants or to the applicants or to you to direct the Planning Board
on how much Site Plan Review to do. That’s their purview. Once an application comes before
them, it’s their purview entirely, how much they review, what components they look at more than
others, and that’s only in their arena, so either way you vote, I guess to answer your question,
Roy, this application goes to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review.
MR. URRICO-Per 179-6-010?
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. BROWN-That’s the Section that was referenced. That’s correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’m going to ask you guys for your opinion. Roy, why don’t we
start with you.
MR. URRICO-I had some notes here. First of all, this was the first opportunity neighbors had to
speak out on this, chance to voice their opinion, and it’s too bad that it took this long to get to
this point, and it’s understandable, and people should always have the opportunity to express
themselves in an open government, and that’s what we’re here for. That being said, we’re only
dealing with a very small piece of the pie here. We’re only dealing with an Appeal. That’s the
only thing we can get involved with at this point. There are no variances before us. There are
no interpretations in front of us. We just have an Appeal. So we can’t change the Zoning Code
right now. That’s not our purview. We can’t touch that. So we’re dealing with an Appeal and a
decision made by the Zoning Administrator, nothing more than that. We’re not dealing with the
full scope of the project. As much as we’d all like to be involved with that at this point, we can’t.
So the Appeal itself only refers to 179-6-010 and everything that’s involved with that, including
Article Nine, including 147, I believe. The purview of the Board needs to focus on the appeal of
the decision, and at this point I would support the Zoning Administrator’s decision.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with Mr. Urrico, that this is a limited issue that we’re faced
with, and I would uphold your decision.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with what has been said, and it’s the right way to go, and the public will
get their chance to speak when it goes for the Site Plan Review. So I agree with the
Administrator.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I also totally agree with Roy, and further, we have a situation here where the
Zoning Code was changed and it was approved by the Queensbury Board. Craig made a
decision based on the new Code. If the Code is all messed up, as Mr. Strough has suggested
tonight, then it’s the Town Board that needs to change it. Therefore I have to agree with Craig’s
determination, and as far as the other issues here, and I certainly feel for the people that live in
the area there, this project, I expect, will be taken up by the Planning Board. So I also agree
with Craig.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. And I’ll go along with you, Roy, also. Do you want to draft a
resolution for us? Or do you want to, this one’s got section nine in there and everything else,
whatever you want to include, you’re welcome to.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION
REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-2010 MARY MONTHIE, Introduced by Roy Urrico
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Dixon Road. As part of that, I’d like to just say that any person proposing to undertake
extensive clearing of vegetation or grading over an area of land greater than one acre must
follow the procedures for and obtain Site Plan approval in accordance with Article 9 Site Plan
Review of this Ordinance, and that would be 179-6-010.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. STROUGH-I just want to thank the Board for the clarification. Because everybody wins,
okay. Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 65-2010 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED GLENN KELSEY OWNER(S):
GLENN KELSEY ZONING: CI LOCATION: 38 EAST QUAKER SERVICE ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 96 SQ. FT. POLE SIGN TO ACCOMMODATE THE SEVEN
REPRESENTED MANUFACTURERS BRANDS. THE NEW POLE SIGN WOULD REPLACE
THE EXISTING 64 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT
SETBACK AND SIZE REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FOR
TWO 48 SQ. FT. WALL SIGNS PROPOSED FOR PLACEMENT ON FRONT FAÇADE IN
ADDITION TO THE ONE 56 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN CURRENTLY EXISTING. CROSS REF.: SP
17-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: DECEMBER 8, 2010 LOT SIZE: 4.09 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 303.15-1-19 SECTION: CHAPTER 140
GLENN KELSEY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 65-2010, Glenn Kelsey, Meeting Date: December 22, 2010
“Project Location: 38 East Quaker Service Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes a new 96 sq. ft. pole sign to accommodate additional branding logos. The new pole
sign would replace the existing 64 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Relief requested from front setback
and maximum sign size requirements. Further, the applicant request relief for 2 proposed 48
square foot wall signs located on the front façade in addition to an existing 56 square foot wall
sign.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief:
1.Front setback-Request for 16.9 feet or 68% of front setback relief for a sign greater than
64 square feet as per Chapter 140.
2.Sign size-Request for 32 square feet or 50% relief of sign size relief for the proposed 96
square foot sign as per Chapter 140.
3.Additional wall sign-Request for an additional two (2) 48 square foot wall signs or 200%
relief as per Chapter 140.
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.
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. Concerning the setback relief request,
the applicant could place the sign in a compliant location. Concerning the sign size relief
request, a compliant sized sign appears feasible. Concerning the additional wall signs, a
compliant number of signs appear feasible.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 16.9 feet or 68% of
front setback relief for a sign greater than 64 square feet as per Chapter 140 may be
considered moderater to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 32 square
feet or 50% relief from the maximum sign size of 64 square feet as per Chapter 140 may be
considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for two (2) additional wall
signs or 200% 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 impacts on the physical and
environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created, however the applicant has stated that certain manufacturers have strict signage
policies that conflict with the Town’s sign ordinance.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
S. P. 17-2008 Retail Expansion Approved 5/29/08
Staff comments:
The existing pole sign has spot lights attached at the top of the sign. Although it appears the
applicant will not employ these lights on this proposal the Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to
ascertain if the spot lights are intended to be used again.
SEQR Status:
Type – Unlisted/Short form submitted”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-For clarification, this is a Sign Variance only. No Area Variance. The language
in the points here probably should be updated, and, yes, this is an Unlisted SEQRA.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think one of the things we get into here with this one is because
you’re on that service road, you don’t have anything out on the main drag out there on Quaker
Road, and you’re set back quite a distance off of Quaker Road, and I think that’s probably the
major issue at hand here. Anything you want to tell us?
MR. KELSEY-No. I mean, we approached the project with the total square footage, in the spirit
of total square footage, and we, the wall sign that we have currently on the building is 56 square
feet, and I think we’re allowed 100 square feet, notwithstanding the setback issues. We do need
a bigger sign, pole sign, and we wanted to use existing infrastructure, but we needed a bigger
pole sign in order to, A, accommodate the number of brands that we have, and, B, to give is a
size that at least is somewhat visible from Quaker Road, and that’s really all we’re trying to
accomplish. Frankly speaking to the Board, or to this group, the request from the manufacturers
with respect to their four by twelve signs is strictly that. I am compelled by manufactures to
make that request to this Board.
MR. URRICO-You said you’re compelled to make the request, but they don’t hold you to
actually, if a town’s code does not permit it, do they accommodate you for that?
MR. KELSEY-I can’t necessarily speak for them, but I’m going to say that that will probably
suffice in their arguments to me, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think when we did Della, when we, were dealing with all the ones on there
with Cadillac and all the different branding names, GM, we’re kind of in the same situation. The
only one that, the one that’s most similar in this respect to this one that I see is sort of like
Lowe’s plaza, where you’ve got the sign out there on the corner. It’s not really on their property.
I don’t know if their property exists all the way out to Quaker Road there. I have no idea, but you
know when you’re on the corner of Quaker and Bay, and you’ve got the neon sign down there,
it’s sort of the same situation where you’re set way back, you know, you’re obviously not as big a
building as Lowe’s is with their complex.
MR. KELSEY-Correct. Nor is my wall sign as big as their wall sign.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but we did something to accommodate them, in putting it out closer to
the road where you would actually see it, you know, the parking lot’s such a huge expanse of
tarmac there in front, plus you’ve got the wetland and Halfway Brook running down through
there, too.
MR. KUHL-But you could, if you had to live up to it, you could live up to 64 square feet.
MR. KELSEY-I don’t believe so, sir.
MR. KUHL-Well, you know, it’s the same way as Wal-Mart always has a blue front of a building.
You go down to Clifton Park, it’s green, because that’s what the Town wanted was green.
MR. KELSEY-Okay, but I have more brands than I have sign at this point.
MR. KUHL-Well, on your sign now you have seven brands, and here you have less, right?
MR. KELSEY-No, sir.
MR. KUHL-You have the same seven?
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. KELSEY-No. I have more brands now. I don’t have seven brands on that current sign, I
don’t believe.
MR. KUHL-This one? I mean, I’m not trying to nickel and dime you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m trying to think, too, you know, when Yamaha was up on Route 9 there,
with that building where they were, they were set way back off the road, like probably four times
the distance you guys are.
MR. KELSEY-But their sign was on the road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But their sign was on the road.
MR. KELSEY-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-How did we do Lowes?
MR. OBORNE-Lowes, they own that part, they own a sliver.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They own a little piece of pie out there, and is that County right of way out
there on Quaker?
MR. OBORNE-No, they own that land.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The own the land all the way out to Quaker Road?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, based on GIS.
MR. KELSEY-Sir, right now there’s only five brands on that sign.
MR. KUHL-You have an “H” on top of the Honda. Okay.
MR. KELSEY-And a “K” on top of Kowi.
MR. KUHL-I’ll give you that, but you have seven slots. How come 22 inches for Yamaha and
only 14 inches for the KIA?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there a compelling reason, Keith, why we couldn’t put a smaller like
monument sign out closer to Quaker Road, would that make more sense?
MR. OBORNE-Well, it wouldn’t be on his property.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But it wouldn’t be on his property. Who owns that property out there? Is
that a buildable lot?
MR. OBORNE-No, that would be the County right of way.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s County right of way.
MR. URRICO-So there’s no chance of somebody actually building in front of him and blocking?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Blocking his view, right?
MR. OBORNE-Well, I think there’s always a chance for something. Let me see what we’ve got
going on out here.
MR. KELSEY-Well, Quaker Road, I believe, extends all the way through East Quaker Service
Road. So I’d be kind of surprised that anybody could build on that median because that’s part of
Quaker Road.
MR. OBORNE-Right. That is correct, and you can see where the right of way is through there.
That’s County land.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Probably waiting for the day when we’ve got six lanes running
through there, right? It won’t be long.
MR. KELSEY-I would suggest, honestly, that a turn off lane is going to be very appropriate. This
is a very, I don’t know if you folks have ever accessed my East Quaker Service Road.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a pain if you’ve got to turn left on a busy day.
MR. KELSEY-It’s very dangerous.
MR. GARRAND-Wait ‘til Wal-Mart’s in there.
MR. KELSEY-And at night it’s even more dangerous.
MR. GARRAND-It’s going to be ten times worse in a few months.
MR. KELSEY-This gentleman here asked a question about why are the sign differences. I hate
to say it this way, but it’s major and minor brands, and again, I’m trying to accommodate the 96
square feet. I mean, I’d love to have a bigger sign, but I’m also realistic about what will be
approved and what won’t be approved.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. GARRAND-Are the signs going to be in the exact same spot at the other, the current signs?
MR. KELSEY-The existing infrastructure, yes, sir. Yes. There was also a question I heard there
about the lights on top. They are in use, and they would intend to continue to be in use. It’s the
only way we have to light the parking lot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think they were thinking maybe they would be internally lit or something
like that.
MR. KELSEY-Well, the sign will be, but those actually light the parking lot, so that people have
visibility for ingress/egress and also just safety.
MR. OBORNE-That, to be honest with you, is not a compliant light, and you would have to go,
most likely, to the Planning Board to get approval for that.
MR. KELSEY-Okay . What’s non-compliant about it?
MR. OBORNE-Spots are not allowed. All lighting in the Town must be downcast.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Downcast.
MR. OBORNE-And cut off.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s domed over the top so it only comes down, it doesn’t light up the sky
and light up the neighborhood.
MR. KELSEY-Okay. I mean, we can address, we can put the right lights in for sure.
MR. OBORNE-I’m sure you’ll figure something out.
MR. KELSEY-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I know you guys have had problem with thievery over there in the past, too.
MR. KELSEY-They were out a couple of weeks ago, and it’s a bad situation. Yes. I expect, with
Wal-Mart, that may help the situation some, actually.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys have any questions or any suggestions, or, you know,
it’s pretty straightforward what he’s asking for. Maybe we should open up the public hearing,
then. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No, I don’t see any.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Not too many neighbors out there.
MR. KELSEY-No neighbors.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. URRICO-I do have a Warren County Planning Board review. They looked at the project
and due to a lack of quorum, no action was taken.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess we don’t need to worry about them. All right. Then I
guess I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And head it back to you guys. I’ll just make the comment that they’re pretty
far off the road. It’s hard to see. The sign you have now, it’s tough to see it, you know, and, I
don’t know as far as the generation of business. I mean, you must probably get a lot of repeat
people that have bought from you before and come back. I don’t know how it operates in this
day and age or, you know, what you’re looking at.
MR. KELSEY-I mean, I draw a significant distance, and we draw from Albany area, and we draw
a lot of people from the North Country because they have no options. There’s nobody like me
in, you know, for 50, 75, almost 100 miles north, and so, yes, people do need to find us.
Between that and the confusion of our address, because people look for 38 Quaker Road rather
than 38 East Quaker Service Road, the GPS doesn’t always get them where they need to be.
Now, the advantage we have today is that, when they do drive down Quaker Road, they have
the ability to see our facility in isolation. Can they see the brands, probably not, but, you know,
that’s.
MR. KUHL-It almost seems like, because the buffer’s going to be there forever, if you could get
an address change to Quaker Road, it might help that East, that Service Road thing.
MR. KELSEY-It would certainly be fine with me.
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Was there ever any intention of carrying that road on through? I mean,
they’ve got the pipeline that goes over towards the airport there, and they were talking about a
highway road going across over to Queensbury Ave., I believe, at one point.
MR. OBORNE-Actually if the development of the parcel to the north of the current Wal-Mart
parcel actually comes to fruition, the plan is to have an access road to Queensbury Ave.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, from Quaker Road?
MR. OBORNE-From Quaker Ridge Road. They would access it off of Quaker Ridge and keep
on going north.
MR. KELSEY-I mean, frankly speaking, I would welcome anything behind my property right now,
other than what’s there, which is vandals.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll poll you guys, then. I’ll start with you, Brian. What do
you think?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I don’t have a problem with any of it. I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I think because of the buffer he needs more of the visibility, and I can see it’s a
good request. I’d be in favor.
MR. GARRAND-I drive by this every day, and those signs that he currently has are not even
noticeable. I have to strain my neck to look over there and actually see them. I think while their
request may seem high, you know, given the nature of this facility, it’s location, I don’t think it’s
excessive.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. Because of the location and
the distance from Quaker Road, I think you really need the bigger sign.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. URRICO-I think he has one of the strongest cases for visibility than anybody that’s come
before us in a long time because of where he’s situated. So I think that’s a good idea. Good
plan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I don’t see any feasible alternatives, other than, you know, requesting
the County to allow them to put a sign further out by the road there, you know, and I don’t think
they would buy it, even though it makes more sense to me to do it that way.
MR. URRICO-Even a directional sign they could put out there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I mean, I think that’s the difficult thing is how do you get in there.
MR. KELSEY-I mean, if I had to make any requests, I would love to see, not a stoplight but a
lighting area and a turn off lane, that would be the two biggest requests I would make.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It seems to me they’re going to have to do something when Wal-Mart goes
in, aren’t they?
MR. OBORNE-There is a light proposed for that corner there, right at Wal-Mart.
MR. KELSEY-There’s a stoplight, I think, proposed at Quaker Ridge and.
MR. OBORNE-And Quaker.
MR. KELSEY-Yes, but that’s, that doesn’t change the, whatever direction that is, the west side
of Quaker Road.
MR. OBORNE-It’s west, right.
MR. KELSEY-And the visibility’s really quite bad there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we anticipate some other businesses going in between Wal-Mart and
there or is it just, they own that whole big chunk there?
MR. OBORNE-I think you can anticipate businesses infill happening in the future, honestly. I
mean, there are quite a bit of wetland issues on these parcels, but they’ll be before us for Site
Plan Review and most likely for some variances.
MR. KELSEY-And certainly that triangle piece could be instant development. I believe it was
already started, as you go east. So I’ve developed this second parcel next to my existing
building. Once you get beyond that, the wetland issues get pretty severe, and so there probably
will be some buffer there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does somebody want to take this one, one of you guys want to take
it?
MR. GARRAND-I’ll take it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 65-2010 GLENN KELSEY d/b/a SPORTLINE
PRODUCTS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce
Hunt:
38 East Quaker Service Road. The applicant proposes a new 96 square foot pole sign to
accommodate additional branding logos. The new pole sign would replace the existing 64 foot
freestanding sign. Relief requested from front setback and maximum size requirements.
Further the applicant requests relief for two proposed 48 foot square wall signs located on the
front façade, in addition to an existing 56 square foot wall sign. Relief requested is front setback
relief for 16.9 feet or 68% of front setback relief for a sign greater than 64 square feet as per
Chapter 140. Sign size request for 32 square feet or 50% relief of sign size relief for the
proposed 96 square foot sign as per Chapter 140. Additional wall sign request for an additional
two 48 square foot wall signs or 200% relief as per Chapter 140. On the balancing test,
whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Given the location
of this business, other feasible means are not practical. Will this produce an undesirable
change in the neighborhood or character to nearby properties? None whatsoever. This request
may be deemed substantial from a numerical perspective. Whether the request will have
adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood. I don’t believe it’ll have any
adverse effects on the environment of this neighborhood at all. Is this difficulty self-created? I
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
don’t believe it’s self-created. A lot of this application is due to a manufacturer’s request. So I
move that we approve Sign Variance No. 65-2010.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thanks.
MR. KELSEY-I appreciate it.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II A2000/ADIRONDACK TIRE AGENT(S):
JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): CRIST REVOCABLE TRUST ZONING: CI
LOCATION: 1025 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DIVIDE THE PARCEL
WHICH CURRENTLY MAINTAINS ADIRONDACK TIRE (PROPOSED LOT 1) AND THE
STORAGE UNITS (PROPOSED LOT 2). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENT FOR PROPOSED LOT 2 AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM ROAD FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SUBD. 15-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
DECEMBER 8, 2010 LOT SIZE: 2.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-24 SECTION: 179-3-
040
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 66-2010, A2000/Adirondack Tire, Meeting Date: December
22, 2010 “Project Location: 1025 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes subdivision of a 2.82 +/- acres into two lots of 1.0 &1.82 +/- acres. Relief requested
from road frontage and access requirements as well as side setback relief for proposed Lot 2.
Relief Required:
Lot 2
?
Side setback relief-Request for 8 feet or 40% relief from the 20 foot side setback
requirement for the CI zone as per §179-3
?
Road frontage relief-Request for 50 feet or 100% relief from the 50 foot road frontage
requirement for the CI zone as per §179-3.
?
Access Drive Aisle relief-Request for 8 feet or 67% relief from the 12 foot access
driveway requirement for one way traffic as per §179-4-090E. Note: The proposed east
boundary line for lot 2 is the impetus and focus for this request.
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 district may be anticipated as very little change to existing conditions is
proposed.
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. Feasible alternatives appear limited
due to the nature of the proposal, existing conditions and lot limitations.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 8 feet or 40% relief
from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the CI zone as per §179-3 may be considered
moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 50 feet or 100% relief from the
50 foot road frontage requirement for the CI zone as per §179-3 may be considered severe
relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 8 feet or 67% relief from the 12 foot access
driveway requirement for one way traffic as per §179-4-090E may be considered moderate
to severe relative to the ordinance.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and
environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SUB 15-2010 2 Lot Subdivision Pending
S.P. 50-2002M Additional storage building Approved 12/28/04
A.V. 92-2004 Permeability relief Approved 12/15/04
S.P. 50-2002 Construction of 4 storage units Approved 12/2004
Staff comments:
The variances associated with this proposal are relegated to proposed Lot 2. The applicant has
submitted a sign variance for a second freestanding sign for Lot 2 to be located on proposed Lot
1; Sign Variance will not be heard prior to Final Subdivision approval.
Planning Board recommendation in handout form.
SEQR Status:
Type II-no further review needed”
MR. URRICO-The Planning Board made a recommendation, and I have it here, “MOTION THAT
THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2010 AND SUBDIVISION 15-2010 FOR
A2000/ADIRONDACK TIRE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. We select Option One. The Planning Board,
based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be
mitigated with the current project proposal.” And that was voted on, unanimously approved,
December 16, 2010.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The last one we did not do our Type II. We can amend that and add that.
We’ll do that later in the evening. I forgot all about it. Sorry. Fill us in. Everybody’s pretty
aware. It was A-2000 for many years, then it changed to Adirondack Tire, and the buildings
went up in the back. So I guess you’re just looking to split everything off. Is it going to be owned
by the same people?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. No, for the record, Jon Lapper, and with me is Larry O’Shea, who owns
Adirondack Tire, and Keith Crist, who used to own A-2000 and sold the business to Larry and
Keith operates the self-storage. So, their plan is to let Larry purchase the property so that he
owns the Adirondack Tire facility. We asked the surveyor to draw the map in a way that would
minimize any Area Variances, and the only variance that Staff identified that could be significant
is the lack of frontage, but that was the way, we understand on Route 9, DOT just re-did Route
9. Nobody wants another curb cut. So it’s really a better situation to have an easement rather
than to have ownership, to have another driveway, and truthfully the self-storage buildings are
incredibly low traffic generator. So there’s nothing that’s any big deal, in terms of, nothing’s
going to change, and if, you know, some day somebody’s going to build something in the back
like a restaurant, which isn’t really practical because of visibility, but just to use an example, that
would have to go before the Planning Board anyway. So we don’t anticipate anything’s going to
change. It’s a self-storage. It’s all there. It’s just so that Larry can own his business and we just
tried to make this simple. The rear setback line was drawn so that it’s the full setback that’s
required behind Adirondack Tire, and the issue about whether or not the driveway pavement in
that area between the two is sufficient for this self-storage, there’s an eight feet drive aisle and it
needs to be twelve, but we’ll provide for that with an easement, with a shared easement,
because the pavement’s there. It’s just a question of who gets to use it. So it’s not any problem
that, it’s just not on the same property, but there’s no practical issue. They’ve been operating,
both of these businesses have been there for eight years, and the only thing that we’re changing
is just up front to eliminate the old area where it used to drive, the crushed stone will be
removed. I think at one point there was, someone had used cars for sale up there if I recall, and
the driveway will just be put in a better location to get to the back and just farther away from the
road, and that’s the only change, and the guys are here to answer any questions as well.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would imagine this is what you guys worked out between you that would
work best for both of you involved? You guys can both come up if you want, if you want to make
any comments, grab a chair.
MR. CLEMENTS-You’re going to have slightly less permeability on that lot.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The storage center is all self-serve. There’s no checkpoint Charlie or
guards out there with machine guns.
KEITH CRIST
MR. CRIST-Not yet, no. Hopefully we’d never end up with that, but, no, it’s all, again, the
storage people have their own keys. Our average car count, we’re four to eight cars a day. On
a weekend you might have a few more. It’s very, very low traffic flow.
MR. URRICO-At one point you expanded that, right? You started out with a certain number of
units and then you expanded that?
MR. CRIST-Correct.
MR. URRICO-Is there any, are there any plans to further expand?
MR. CRIST-Well, the fifth building in the back, but that’s all built into what’s already existing for
permits and everything for that back building. It has not been built yet, due to the economy.
MR. LAPPER-But it’s approved.
MR. CRIST-But it’s approved, yes, and the permit’s valid. It’s active, but we’ve just been holding
tight, like everybody. It’s crazy out there, but we did build the two buildings first, and then we
built the second two the following year. So we did stage the whole project, yes.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you anticipate Planning Board’s going to flip out because of the
narrowness of these aisles? I mean, you don’t have any fire problems or anything like that to
deal with?
MR. LAPPER-Well, we went to the Planning Board last week, and they didn’t have any issues,
and this meets the fire access, the minimum 20 feet.
MR. CRIST-Well, the drive corridors between the two buildings, I made those 25 feet, in
recommendation by (lost word) the company I dealt with, that’s what they do. So I said, well,
you guys tell me, they say, well, some guys do 20 foot. We recommend 25 feet, two cars can
pass, it’s a little less tight. You don’t have people bang into your units and stuff like that. So I
went with their recommendation. I’ve been glad I did. I mean, it’s worked out very, very well for
us. So access has not been a problem. People bring Ryder trucks in and stuff like that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And it’s strictly storage in the buildings. It’s not like people park cars and
boats and some of the places I know are a little chaotic.
MR. CRIST-Right. No, everything’s indoor, and we try to keep things as well kept as possible.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. GARRAND-How many other businesses in this area have been subdivided like this?
MR. CRIST-That I don’t know. Has anything else been subdivided? On Route 9.
MR. GARRAND-I was looking up and down Route 9 today, and I didn’t, I couldn’t find any that
had been subdivided.
MR. URRICO-Well, there’s the miniature golf course.
MR. GARRAND-The mini golf course is still part of the same business, though.
MR. LAPPER-No, I think those are subdivided.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. GARRAND-The Pirates Cove or the?
MR. URRICO-No, the other one.
MR. LAPPER-Pirates Cove and the Adventure Racing are separate ownership.
MR. UNDERWOOD-There was never any intent to put any kind of a, you know, you’ve got such
great depth there going towards the Northway, as you go west, you know, I just wondered if they
were ever going to think about subdividing them and putting an access road back there, for the
industrial park or something.
MR. LAPPER-I see. Some time Frank Parillo bought the Jeckel building, and hopefully that
won’t sit vacant for too long, but that really doesn’t have access anywhere else, just that big
parcel.
MR. CRIST-And unless somebody had bought the campground and Jeckel’s old property, which
Frank Parillo has, and combined those two, that would have been a 51 acre.
MR. LAPPER-But that didn’t happen.
MR. CRIST-Never, wished it had. I waited forever and ever, but, no. It’s, and there’s nothing
active as far as I know, on either parcel.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions? All right, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from
the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-I do not see any correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing, then.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And do you guys have any commentary you want to make or it’s pretty
straightforward?
MR. KUHL-Well, there was one question that was raised about outside storage. Could you put
RV’s around your property?
MR. CRIST-I choose not to. It would make it a little bit too hard to navigate, with having
anything extra like that around.
MR. KUHL-That’s just a personal choice on your part.
MR. CRIST-Yes, for the most part. I mean, it’s just, I try to be a good. I mean, obviously we had
Steve Sutton on our street for many years, and it’s a huge loss that we lost him, but if you look at
Suttons projects, they were all, you know, right out of a magazine, beautifully done, nicely
landscaped, and I always valued Steve Sutton’s opinion, and when I told Steve I was doing a
storage project, he was a little concerned at first, and then as we progressed with the project he
said you did it right, you know, so I had his blessing, which always made me feel pretty good,
because he was quite a, you know, he was an awesome guy, and, you know, but we used earth
tone colors. I mean, so many people drive by our storage facility, don’t even know we’re there,
out of sight, out of mind, and I built them that way, and truth be told, I think they’re, the U-haul at
Exit 18 is horrible. That’s a horrible project, you know, and now we’ve made it so you can see it
even better, but that’s not my, that’s not the way, I live in this community. I value tourists to
come to our Town, so I don’t want to muddy up the waters. That’s not, I’ve been here 32 years.
I want to be here another 32. So our intentions are to stay.
MR. GARRAND-Question for Staff. What type of process would they have to go through if they
wanted to put another type of business in here?
MR. OBORNE-Certainly Site Plan Review.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, because what’s going to happen here is you’re going to have an easement
leading back to this area. I don’t think that this is going to remain storage buildings forever and
ever.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. LAPPER-Not a lot of uses would be too appropriate behind the Adirondack Tire. You’re not
going to get retail, but certainly it would have to go to the Planning Board if anybody ever
proposed to change it.
MR. CRIST-We built all those buildings ourselves, our family did. We did a barn raising thing
there. My brother came up from North Carolina. My dad came up, and we worked, we built
these buildings. It was a lot of work, I don’t plan on taking them down anytime too soon.
MR. OBORNE-Also, I mean, it is their prerogative, obviously, to do what they wish with their
property, but they would, if it’s a change in the approved Site Plan, then they have to come back
for Site Plan Review.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Nobody has a problem with this one, then, I guess. Does somebody
want to take it? Brian, do you want to do this one?
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2010 A2000/ADIRONDACK TIRE,
Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
1025 State Route 9. The applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.82 +/- acres into lots of 1.0 and
1.82 +/- acres. Relief requested from the road frontage and access requirements as well as side
setback relief for proposed Lot Number Two. The relief required is on Lot Number Two. Side
setback relief for eight feet or 40% of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the CI
zone as per Section 179-3. Number Two, the road frontage relief requested for 50 feet or 100%
relief from the 50 foot road frontage requirement for the CI zone as per Section 179-3, and
Number Three, the access drive aisle relief requested for 8 feet or 67% relief from the 12 foot
access driveway requirement for one way traffic as per 179-4-090E. Note here, the proposed
east boundary line for lot 2 is the impetus and focus for this request. Criteria for considering an
Area Variance. In making the determination, we should consider, Number One, whether an
undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to
nearby properties will be created by granting of this area variance. Minor impacts are
anticipated. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear
limited and probably it would be better having only one curb cut. Number Three, whether the
requested area variance is substantial. The request for 8 feet or 40% relief from the 20 foot side
setback requirement for the CI zone as per Section179-3 may be considered moderate relative
to the Ordinance. The request for 50 feet or 100% relief from the 50 foot road frontage
requirement for the CI zone as per §179-3 may be considered severe. However, again, it would
leave out a second curb cut. Finally, the request for 8 feet or 67% relief from the 12 foot access
driveway requirement for one way traffic as per §179-4-090E may be considered moderate to
severe relative to the ordinance. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or
impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor
impacts are anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. It may be considered
self-created, and I move to approve Area Variance No. 66-2010.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Just on the prior one. I want to assure you that the Hayes are going
to work with the neighbors and really try to make everybody happy. So I think the process will
be successful.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II ANDREW SPATH OWNER(S): ANDREW
SPATH ZONING: WR LOCATION: 56 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
RENOVATIONS TO EXISTING HOUSE; INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF A 167 SQ. FT.
DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE, SIDELINE SETBACKS, AND RELIEF FOR
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: BP 2009-076 DECK;
BP 2004-734 ALTERATIONS; SP 81-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: DECEMBER 8,
2010 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-
9 SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-13-010
ANDREW SPATH, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-2010, Andrew Spath, Meeting Date: December 22,
2010 “Project Location: 56 Russell Harris Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes expansion of existing dwelling by raising the foundation by 18 inches. Further, the
applicant proposes to construct a 167 square foot deck adjacent to the shoreline. Relief
requested from shoreline and sideline setbacks for proposed 167 square foot deck as well as
that portion of proposed expansion within setbacks. Further, relief required for expansion of
non-conforming structure in a CEA.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
?
Shoreline setback-Request for 28 feet or 56% relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline
setback for proposed 167 square foot deck as per §179-3.
?
Shoreline setback-Request for 20 feet or 40% of shoreline setback relief for that portion
of the single family dwelling within the shoreline setback to be raised as per 179-3.
?
Sideline setback-Request for 9.6 feet or 80% relief from the 12 foot minimum south
sideline setback requirement for the proposed deck as per §179-3.
?
Sideline setback-Request for 11 feet or 92% relief from the 12 foot minimum south
sideline setback for that portion of the single family dwelling to be raised within the side
setback as per §179-3.
?
Relief requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure as per §179-13.
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.
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. Feasible alternatives appear limited
due to the nature of the proposal, existing conditions and lot limitations.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 28 feet or 56% relief
from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback for proposed 167 square foot deck as per §179-
3 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 20 feet or
40% of shoreline setback relief for that portion of the single family dwelling within the
shoreline setback to be raised as per 179-3 may be considered moderate relative to the
ordinance. Further the request for 9.6 feet or 80% relief from the 12 foot minimum south
sideline setback requirement for the proposed deck as per §179-3 may be considered
severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 11 feet or 92% relief from the
12 foot minimum south sideline setback for that portion of the single family dwelling to be
raised within the side setback as per §179-3 may be considered severe relative to the
ordinance. Finally, the request for the expansion of a non-conforming structure must be
approved by this board.
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 any
disturbance adjacent to the shoreline could be potentially detrimental.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
S.P. 81-2010 Expansion of a N/C structure in a CEA Pending.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
Staff comments:
According to the applicant’s narrative, approximately 17 feet of roof structure will be raised 18
inches in order to increase interior ceiling height to 8 feet. This appears to encompass a total of
340 square feet of roof or a 20 foot by 17 foot area located to the South West.
Planning Board recommendation in handout form.
SEQR Status:
Type II-no further review needed”
MR. URRICO-And then there was a Planning Board recommendation. I’m sorry, this is a
Warren County Planning Board, not a Planning Board, but the Warren County Planning Board
took no action, due to lack of a quorum.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We did have a, I can read it if you want. Give you a break.
“MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2010 AND SITE PLAN 81-2010 FOR
ANDREW SPATH, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Paul Schonewolf:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has
identified the following areas of concern: 1. Whether the current septic system is
environmentally sound. 2. We’re concerned that existing vegetation should remain on site.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2010, by all yeses. All right. Do you want to fill us in as
to what you’re doing here? I had a question, because looking at the way, it looks like the lot got
split off of it originally.
MR. SPATH-Yes, that’s what I was going to inform you. I’m not sure exactly the whole base
story of it. Curt Harris owned the original two 50 foot lots. He built these places. Mine was built
in ’47. My brother’s which is adjacent south to it, was built a little bit before then. It might have
been pre-war. When my grandmother, he was always a family friend of ours, and when my
grandmother moved here, she bought the parcel that I’m in now, and they divided the lot, and in
order to make concessions for the house, that’s why the lot is designed the way it is, and that’s
where that excessive setback, that nine feet is coming from. I’ve only got two foot on the side,
but that’s, it’s not self-created. It’s basically the lot, the way it was set up is basically putting me
in this situation for that setback, and then later on when Curt passed away, he left the other
parcel to my parents, who in turn, when they turned them over to me and my brother, we now
own them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So traditionally used as summer camps, in the old days.
MR. SPATH-These were actually four season. They were converted in the late 50’s, early 60’s.
They both have foundations. They have furnaces. My parents actually honeymooned. They
actually lived in the camp I’m in now in the wintertime, and then they would switch with Curt
Harris in the summer and they would live in his house until they built their home on Ridge Road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So as far as the age, pretty ancient septic system, then? You would
assume it’s got to be?
MR. SPATH-Mid 60’s I think they finalized that one.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Did you guys ever consider doing something further back, you know, with
upgrade or anything like that? I mean, we can’t compel you to do it, but I just wondered, you
know, in a sense of if you’re going to live there year round, I don’t know what your intentions are.
MR. SPATH-I’ve been there for 10 years, and, I mean, when we were kids, we always lived up
there in the summer, and there was seven or eight of us in the house, but we’ve never had an
issue with the septic system. Basically we’re lucky where we are. That whole back corner of the
house sits on a sandbar, and that septic system sits on it, which is why we really, we have good
percolation there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because everything’s rock in front.
MR. SPATH-Everything else is rock in front, and you get further down, it’s all clay, but for some,
God bless it for some reason we ended up on a strip in that back corner of sand, and my
brother’s in the same situation. He’s never had any problems with his. As far as the structure
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
itself goes, I originally went to the Building Inspector and I told him I’ve got to do some
foundation work on the house. The foundation’s always been the worst part of the house, and
the back side, the east side, it basically sits on the side of a hill, and it’s old cinderblock, and I
wanted to lift the house and backfill and rebar the cinderblock because it was never done
originally, and I decided while I was going to do that, the ceiling heights in there are only six foot
eight in the basement. Curt Harris, God bless him, he was a good man, but he was only five foot
five. So six foot was good for him. So all the ceiling heights in the house were seven foot and
under. So when I told him, if I’m going to go through the trouble of lifting the house, can I just,
you know, bump the foundation up, and he said, well, you’re going to have to get a variance to
do that, and I was like, all right, if I’m going to go through the variance process, I might as well fix
the rest of the house, and that roof structure bump up is basically going to raise my ceiling
heights in the house. That’s all that it’s going to be doing. It’s also going to aid in the structure,
too, because when I do that, I’m going to have to restructure that part of the house, two by six
walls, extra insulation. It’ll make the house more comfortable, more usable. This is my
residence. So I’m basically trying to make it more economical and more feasible for me to stay
there, because I want to be here until I either can’t afford the taxes or I die, and that’s my plan,
and then the front of the house with the deck, there’s an entrance to the front of the house. Back
in the mid 90’s, there was a stone, a grand stone staircase that went up to the front of the house,
and then it was terraced to a planter, and then it had a patio off of where that door is now, and
that all came down when we had a severe frost and it basically picked the whole thing up and
tore it off the house. So we had to tear it down, and it’s been without a front entrance since then,
and I’ve always been planning on putting a deck on, but it’s, the whole process that you have to
do in order to do it, and now that I’m involved in it, I added it to this process as well, and it’s a
modest deck. I mean, if I wanted to, I’d be arguing to go out 20 feet and terrace it down and just
do nothing but that, but all I want is something I can get out in the front, because it’s all just
sloped in the front. There’s really no usable space on the front of the house. So I just want
something I can get out onto and then walk down, you know, maybe put a couple of chairs on,
that’s all I’m looking for. I’m not looking for anything excessive.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Questions from you guys?
MR. KUHL-So the first thing you’re going to do is you’re going to jack the whole house up?
MR. SPATH-Yes.
MR. KUHL-And you’re going to reinforce the foundation.
MR. SPATH-The foundation, and raise the foundation that 18 inches because right now there’s
six foot eight, and with my duct work and lights and stuff, I walk around like this in the basement.
So that’s going to put me close to an eight foot ceiling in the basement.
MR. KUHL-And then after you’re finished with that.
MR. SPATH-I’ll probably put the deck on first, just as far as the timeframe. That would probably
be the best thing.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. SPATH-And then hopefully, depending on my timescale, I’d like to get that whole back
corner, hopefully in the warmer weather I’m going to tear that corner down and raise that roof
up.
MR. KUHL-You’re going to tear that whole ceiling off?
MR. SPATH-Yes. It’s all got to be restructured.
MR. KUHL-And where is the two by six walls? You’re going to tear it down to?
MR. SPATH-Just the corner, just the back corner of the house.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. SPATH-Just anywhere, where I’m raising the roof, I just, those exterior walls I want to put
two by sixes, because everything in the house is two by four. It’s 1940’s construction. So that’s
my plan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If the Planning Board throws the septic upgrade at you, are you going to be
able to handle that, or, I mean, that’s going to be a pricy deal?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. SPATH-No, they technically can’t force me to upgrade it unless I were to be adding
bathrooms or living, I’m not adding living space. The only thing I’m adding is the deck, because
everything else is staying the same. The basement’s staying the same, the floor plan’s staying
the same.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re pretty much below grade on your basement. You don’t have any
walkout because you’ve got to climb up to get in there. Right?
MR. SPATH-No, actually it’s at grade. The basement comes out to grade.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I don’t know if they’ll consider it to be living space if it’s at grade.
MR. OBORNE-They certainly could.
MR. SPATH-Anything over five feet they, I was told was living space. So I actually wrote that in
as my living space.
MR. OBORNE-They certainly could condition approval on an upgrade of the septic. Keep that in
mind. That’s part of the Site Plan Review.
MR. SPATH-Okay.
MR. GARRAND-Is the septic going to be inspected at all?
MR. SPATH-If I have to I will. I don’t foresee it failing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I’m just thinking that probably because you’re only 75 feet from the lake
with your holding tank that that’s probably something that they’re going to, I mean, I don’t where
your, if they would make you put a field up there past the driveway up in the back 40 or not.
MR. OBORNE-What they asked for is is it environmentally sound.
MR. SPATH-They wanted to make sure that it wasn’t overflowing and bubbling into the lake,
basically.
MR. OBORNE-You’re going to have to somehow get in there and look at it.
MR. SPATH-Yes. So my plan was I’m just going to call one of the septic companies locally and
when the thaw goes out I’ll dig up the cover and he’s going to stick his head in and go, okay it’s
not bubbling up. So, I mean.
MR. KUHL-They actually have a camera that takes pictures.
MR. SPATH-Yes, well, because this is a leaching tank. It’s not a septic field. So it’s not a
holding tank. You don’t have to really pump it. So, which is pretty much how most of them were
designed up through there. About the only option I would have on this property would be put an
aerobic system in, one of those above ground, which is $50, $60,000.
MR. GARRAND-Didn’t one of your neighbors do that with one of those McMansions over there?
MR. SPATH-Yes, Lambrechts. He’s an executive for McDonalds, but that’s my only option, and
he’s an executive for McDonalds so he can afford it.
MR. GARRAND-Is there still flooding down on the end of the road here? Or did the drainage
that what’s his name did, what was that guy’s name?
MR. SPATH-Demboski?
MR. GARRAND-No, the guy that used to work for the Town there. He was a friend of the, what
was it, your father down there? Naylor.
MR. SPATH-Naylor. Yes.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, Naylor did some drainage work down there.
MR. SPATH-Yes, basically you’ve got 30, 40 acres that drains down that road, and we, my
father, through much argument with Naylor, went through and put in 10 inch tiles and catch
basins, and then he came in and ended it with four inch tile. So, everything comes to the end of
our property, bubbles up, and then goes wherever. It goes down into the neighbor’s property,
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
but they’ve agreed that, with the Warren County Water and Soil, that they want to alleviate that
and re-establish where Naylor had put in that four inch tile and put it back to 10, and it should
take care of all those problems. They’re just, it’s just one of those processes that still has to get
taken care of.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys, now? Okay. I’ll open the public
hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? Chris, do you want to come up?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We do not oppose
the requested variance, but we see this as the opportunity to bring the site into compliance and
reduce potential negative impacts. The water quality, we request the Zoning Board of Appeals
to apply Town regulations, specifically the imposition of conditions as well as recommendations
from the Planning Board during your deliberations. Appreciate the discussions on the onsite
wastewater treatment system. We feel that that should be upgraded. It’s an existing system.
Plans show that as a 375 gallon septic tank, with a leach pit, within 100 feet of Lake George. We
feel that that’s undersized and non-compliant and should be upgraded. We see this as an
opportunity to improve these systems along the lake. Regarding the stormwater management
system, there’s information that that basically has an eave infiltration trench. If they’re doing
work along the foundation, if that infiltration trench will be left there or stormwater management
can be addressed somehow. Shoreline buffer, we support the protection of any existing
vegetation, in addition incorporating any increased buffer width to reduce potential impacts that
may occur due to reduction of the shoreline setback, and also I do not anticipate that there’s any
application of fertilizer or pesticides, but if that could be restricted on the property, again, to
protect water quality. That’s all. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else?
JAIME LUNDMOND
Good evening, my name is Jaime Lundmond. I am not a property owner, but I spend a lot of
time at the adjacent property to the north end of Mr. Spath. It’s owned by my grandmother-in-
law. I just want to speak on behalf of Andrew that I’m very supportive of this project. We’re very
close, in proximity to his property. I think this project will aesthetically improve his property and
the neighborhood. As you see the one picture, he’s just got the facing up there for the deck,
there’s no real useable, the land there is not very useable. With the deck it’ll provide a nice area
for him and the neighborhood, and in addition, you can’t see it from the lake. So we’re very
supportive of the project, and any variances necessary to move this project along. Okay. Thank
you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else from the public? Any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-Yes. There’s one letter. It’s to Mr. Urrico and the ZBA members. Regretfully, I
nd
cannot attend the December 22 ZBA. If I could have attended, I would have provided my
unwavering support for the variances necessary for Mr. Spath’s proposal, Area Variance No. 67-
2010. I have had the pleasure of many discussions with Mr. Spath regarding his proposed
house renovation project. We have discussed all aspects of the project. It is with great pleasure
that I fully endorse his endeavor to improve his dwelling, including the addition of the modest
deck. The changes will be virtually unseen from the lake, as there is substantial tree coverage
between the structure and the waterfront. He and his wife are upstanding hardworking citizens,
fine neighbors and stewards of the lake. It is my hope that the Board will recognize the project
for what it is, improvement, and it’s signed Jason H. Brown, 44 Russell Harris Road,
Queensbury.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ma’am?
BARBARA TANIS
MS. TANIS-My name is Barbara Tanis and I live at 54 Russell Harris Road, which is right next
door, and I’ve been there for over 35 years, and I would just like to see Mr. Spath get the
approval that he needs to continue his work because he’s always working and improving the
area, and I’m just here to say that he’s got my support completely, and I hope he gets your
support.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Board members, I guess I’ll start with you, Brian. What are your thoughts?
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I just had one quick question first. As I look at the deck here, you have
no roof over the deck. It’s just an open deck.
MR. SPATH-Yes, just an open deck, correct.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. I don’t see this as a, I know that there’s a lot of relief required, but I
think that’s basically because of the way the property was broken up before. You have really no
additions on this except for the deck. The other part of the house is not.
MR. SPATH-Not changing at all.
MR. CLEMENTS-Not changing anything.
MR. SPATH-It’s just, I’m bumping up to increase the ceiling height is all.
MR. CLEMENTS-Right. So I see this as a modest change in the house. I don’t think it would be
a detriment to the neighborhood. It looks like you have some neighbors that are agreeing with
what you’re going to do here. So, I’d be in favor of the project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree. It’s a modest deck that you’re putting on and certainly
raising the height of the basement makes sense, and then going up with the first floor. So I
would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-I make the wild assumption that if you put this deck on, you’re also going to be
catching the water coming off of it?
MR. SPATH-Yes, I put in designs for a filtration system underneath crushed stone and a weed
barrier. It’s basically to conform to what the Town Code wants me to do.
MR. KUHL-And you’re not going to be taking any trees down in front?
MR. SPATH-No, I’m a big, actually I’m sorry, here, this is a picture of the front of my property. I
am, that’s my house right there and the deck is going to be, basically you won’t be able to see it,
and they were concerned, for some reason they thought I was going to be cutting trees down,
but I am adamantly against that, and I am planning to plant more trees. It’s not a problem. I’m
actually all for it.
MR. KUHL-I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rick?
MR. GARRAND-As long as this septic system gets inspected, I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think it’s a nice plan. It looks like it’s well thought out. I would be in favor
of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It sort of follows the plan of adjusting the older camps and bringing
st
them into the 21 Century, I guess you’d call it.
MR. SPATH-We’re trying, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And it’s nice to have that extra head room and a little extra mobility without
banging your head every time you go to grab something down cellar especially, and the
upstairs, too. All the setbacks are going to remain the same, except for the addition of the deck,
and the deck’s a minimalist deck as you’ve said. It’s not like you’re asking to put on an aircraft
carrier launch pad or something out there.
MR. SPATH-No, correct, it’s just enough for me to use, basically.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does somebody want to do this one?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll do it.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2010 ANDREW SPATH, Introduced by
Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
56 Russell Harris Road. The applicant proposes expansion of existing dwelling by raising the
foundation by 18 inches. Further, the applicant proposes to construct a 167 square foot deck
adjacent to the shoreline. Relief requested from shoreline and sideline setbacks for proposed
167 square foot deck as well as that portion of the proposed expansion within setbacks.
Further, relief required for expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. The relief
required. The parcel will require area variances as follows: Shoreline setback request for 28
feet or 56% relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback for proposed 167 square foot
deck as per Section 179-3. Shoreline setback request for 20 feet or 40% of shoreline setback
relief for that portion of the single family dwelling within the shoreline setback to be raised as per
179-3. Sideline setback request for 9.6 feet or 80% relief from the 12 foot minimum south
sideline setback requirement for the proposed deck as per Section 179-3. Sideline setback
request for 11 feet or 92% relief from the 12 foot minimum south sideline setback for that portion
of the single family dwelling to be raised within the side setback as per Section 179-3. Relief
requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure as per Section 179-13. Criteria for
considering an area variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: Whether the benefit
could be achieved by some other means feasible to the applicant, and because of the lot
limitations and the nature of the proposal, there doesn’t seem to be a feasible alternative. Will
there be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to
nearby properties? I don’t think so. In fact, I think it’ll be an improvement to the area. Whether
the request is substantial. The request may seem to be a substantial request, but a lot of the
variances needed are due to the existing structure. The request will not have adverse physical
or environmental effects, and it can be said to be self-created, in the fact that Mr. Spath wants to
improve his property. I move to approve Area Variance No. 67-2010.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve got one more thing that we’ve got to go back and do on the Glen
Kelsey.
MR. SPATH-Thank you, everybody.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, back to the Unlisted Action that was Glen Kelsey, 38 East Quaker
Service Road, that was Sign Variance No. 65-2010.
HAVING REVIEWED THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL FORM, WE’VE MADE THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT THERE WOULD BE NO NET CHANGE IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS BASED UPON THE NEW SIGN AS WE APPROVED IT,
AND SO I MOVE THAT WE GIVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING SIGN
VARIANCE NO. 65-2010 GLENN KELSEY, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
38 East Quaker Service Road.
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I had one more thing. I got a letter here today addressed to me from
th
Mark Schachner. It says at the November 17 meeting of the ZBA, you made a point accurately
reflected in the meeting minutes that Town Counsel, Cathi Radner was present, not at the
request of this Board, however, in fact, Ms. Radner contacted you for this very purpose on
th
November 16 to confirm whether you wished for Town Counsel to attend the meeting and you
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/22/2010)
informed us that you did wish for us to do so. Please correct the record at the upcoming ZBA
meeting so that it is clear that you asked us to attend this meeting of the ZBA, as we did not, and
do not attend meetings of the ZBA or any other Board unless requested to do so. Thank you for
th
setting the record straight in this regard. I spoke with her on the 16. She called me. I didn’t
ask her to come to the meeting. She told me she was coming to the meeting, and so, I mean, I
think she was there more at Craig’s request. So, I mean, at this point in time, I think that the
Town’s still going to pick up the tab for that, but, I mean, I think that what I said on the record
was what was reflected to me. I think I would have checked with you guys if we needed counsel
and any counsel going forward in think in that situation, you can’t wear two hats on in that
situation. I think we would have to have independent counsel, you know, as I think we’ve
discussed previously. So I would not basically agree with what they were asking me to do here.
MR. KUHL-By independent counsel, you mean other than Schachner, Hafner?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Other than Town Counsel, because you can’t represent one aspect of one
viewpoint and another. You’ve got to have two separate viewpoints. I mean, she’s welcome to
be there, but that’s the way it is.
MR. CLEMENTS-Are you doing minutes?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Did we have any to approve?
thth
MS. HEMINGWAY-October 20 and October 27, if you’re ready.
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’ll do October 20.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 20, 2010
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
October 27, 2010
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
nd
Duly adopted this 22 day of December, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’re done.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
35