03-22-2017 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 22, 2017
INDEX
Area Variance Z-AV-4-2017 Frank Perrotta, Jr. 2.
Tax Map No. 239.7-1-38
Area Variance Z-AV-12-2017 Bernard K. Gansle 16.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-28
Area Variance Z-AV-19-2017 Michael & Erin Gustke 19.
Tax Map No. 315.8-1-8
Use Variance Z-UV-2017 Carol Perkins d/b/a Ray's Salvage 23.
Tax Map No. 301.19-1-10
Area Variance Z-AV-15-2017 Hilliard, Tyrer, Lyon & Cerny 32.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-5
Area Variance Z-AV-17-2017 Fastrac (Quaker Road) 46.
Tax Map No. 303.15-1-27
Sign Variance Z-SV-2-2017 Fastrac (Quaker Road) 53.
Tax Map No. 303.15-1-27
Area Variance Z-AV-18-2017 Fastrac (Corinth Road) 57.
Tax Map No. 309.13-1-35
Sign Variance Z-SV-3-2017 Fastrac (Corinth Road) 61.
Tax Map No. 309.13-1-35
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED 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.
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MARCH 22, 2017
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN
HARRISON FREER
JAMES UNDERWOOD
MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
JOHN HENKEL
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN ATTORNEY-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE
MR. JACKOSKI- Hello, everyone. I'd like to begin this evening's meeting. Welcome. I'll call
to order the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for today, Wednesday, March 22nd
here in the Queensbury Activities Center. For those of you who haven't been here before, it's
actually quite an easy process. For those of you who would like an information sheet, out on
the back table they are available, but basically I'll call each applicant to the table. I'll have Roy
read the application into the record. We'll listen to comments from the applicants. When
there's a public hearing scheduled I'll open the public hearing, take comments from the public,
written or otherwise. We'll leave the public hearing open and then take a polling on the
application and see where the Board is leaning, and depending on where I think they're leaning,
I may close the public hearing and seek a motion for either approval, denial, or sometimes we
have the applications postponed. So I'll start right away with some housekeeping. It's a very
simple matter. We have a need to approve our meeting minutes from February 15tH
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 15, 2017
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Henkel
MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is Old Business. It is Assembly Point,
Sunset Hill Farms, Subdivision.
MR. MC CABE-Excuse me, Steve. Do we have to table this PZ 240-2016?
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't have that on my agenda.
MR. MC CABE-It showed up on one agenda but not the other. Jack Schultz.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll do it at the end of the meeting, Mike.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-No, you do not. It's been withdrawn.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Area Variance No. Z-AV-4-2017, a Type 11 SEAR, 5.52 acres.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-4-2017 SEQRA TYPE II FRANK PERROTTA, JR. AGENT(S)
DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) FRANK PERROTTA, JR. ZONING WR LOCATION
ASSEMBLY POINT — SUNSET HILL FARM SUBDIVISION/KNOX ROAD ACCESS
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,467 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 8,625 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA)
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND ASSOCIATED SITEWORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
MAJOR STORMWATER AND PROJECT WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. CROSS REF
P-SP-4-2017; BP 2005-556 BOATHOUSE; SB 11-1996 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
JANUARY 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 5.52 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 239.7-1-38 SECTION 179-3-040
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to read anything new into the record.
MR. URRICO-I'm just going to read the description of the project.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-4-2017, Frank Perrotta, Jr., Meeting Date: March 22,
2017, "Project Location: Assembly Point — Sunset Hill Farm Subdivision Description of
Proposed Project:
Project Revised: Applicant proposes a 3,467 sq. ft. (footprint), 8,625 sq. ft. (floor area) single-
family home and associated sitework. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the
maximum height restrictions of the Waterfront zone." I'll leave it at that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Welcome, Mike.
MR. BORGOS-Thank you. For the record Michael Borgos for the applicant. I'm here with
Dennis MacElroy as the project engineer and Steve Adler as the architect designer of the home.
You'll remember that we were here recently. I'm not going to re-hash things. I'm going to try
to do something a little bit different than we sometimes do, or at least I sometimes do, because
I've had some negative experiences on other Boards recently, and I saw this done by others,
and that was to seek the Chairman's cooperation with policing the comments that come in. For
example tonight we're here for the variance, and I know that the Town has received comments
that are for the Planning Board. They're site plan issues. So to the extent possible, if I'm
looking ahead to this agenda, I'm lucky enough to be the Alpha and the Omega. I'm also on for
the last project tonight. I would very much like to see it go as fast as you all would like, and to
that end I think my observation is that many of the expected comments that we've been hearing
from the public relate to Site Plan issues, and I would greatly appreciate anything the Chair
could do to police those comments for tonight's meeting to relate specifically to the variance and
not Site Plan issues.
MR. JACKOSKI-So noted, as long as I don't jeopardize our due diligence.
MR. BORGOS-Understood, but it's difficult for me to be sitting in the audience. I can't object
every time something comes up. So I thought I'd start out with that. We did hear a lot of
comments last time and we took that into careful consideration. We did an awful lot of due
diligence since then and Dennis is going to walk through some of that with you in a moment.
So please bear with us. We're trying to respond to all those questions that were raised, and
we'll demonstrate the lengths that have been gone through by the applicant to modify this,
because we truly believe that what we're requesting tonight is the minimal amount of relief
necessary to achieve this stated goal. We're not asking for pie in the sky. This is not a grand
house on the hill. This is anything but. We're moving away from that. We're trying to follow
the best design standards possible, and like I said seek the minimal amount of relief. So I want
to introduce you to some of the photographs so that we can try to give you a visual
representation what a viewer would see. Because we're talking about an aesthetic rule here.
That 28 foot height restriction is largely for aesthetic purposes, and there's nothing better than
the photos to try to convey that. I don't know how many of you were able to visit the site and
actually walk it. Were all of you able to get up there and follow the driveway to the top so you
could see what the view was from the surface? I'm not sure if you were able to go out on the
water or on the other side of the bay. So we tried to take pictures from different vantage points
to represent to you and talk about them. I think we have them loaded up on the screen. Can
we go in order of that thumb drive, Laura? Now while Laura's loading those, I'll tell you that
Dennis and Steve cooperated, and I'll let Dennis walk you through these, but he was actually
out there with the flag. He put that up at the correct elevation. He can describe these different
vantage points where I took these photos.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you, Mike. First of all the design occupies this same footprint
basically as it did before. I think that the applicant, Frank Perrotta, has worked together with
Steve to try to squash that building so that the variance request is not as much as it was. We
still are here, obviously. So there is still a variance request as part of this application. What
we did in the field is on your Site Plan V-2 you'll see a survey point within the footprint of the
house. It's a little triangle, it's labeled as VL-4, and that gives us a precise location in the field,
at the precise elevation, 402.27. So I took a 25 foot survey rod and attached a flagman's flag,
four inch fluorescent flag, to the top of that. So the top of that flag is actually a little bit higher
than the ridgeline of the house. We did, as well as Steve squashing it, we adjusted the finished
floor elevation, lowered it, only a foot, but something. So we're at 403. The ridgeline of the
house is at 425.5, and I'm going to throw some numbers which'II be confusing probably. When
we put the 25 foot rod up at 402 we're up at 427. So when you see this orange flag that we're
represent in a couple of photos coming up, you'll know that that is representative of what the
ridgeline of the house is, and once doing that, we took photos. We went to different vantage
points and took photos to see what we could see, and I think the most important thing that came
out of it is the representation of a very solid backdrop to the house. The trees behind it are
significantly taller than the proposed structure.
MR. FREER-So can you point out where the flag is in that picture?
MR. MAC ELROY-No, because it's not there on that photo in that orientation, and I'll explain
that. I don't mean to be cute. If we actually go back to the first photo, that's a photo from the
main dock at Takundewide, looking westerly.
MR. JACKOSKI-They look a lot smaller in the photo. Because as you know I look at that view
every day. So it looks much more prominent in reality. Because that looks really visible.
MR. MAC ELROY-That's on zoom. It's a 50 mm lens. Whatever, that's the camera.
MR. JACKOSKI-But for example, I can't see the whiteness of the land covered by snow in that
photograph, and I can see that whiteness from my dock, at Takundewide.
MR. MAC ELROY-But if we zoom in we'd be able to represent this property so that it can be
seen. Now from that angle, and if we go forward, Laura, the house location kind of lines up
between the smaller of those two houses looking back and you see some prominent evergreens
there that really block, filter that location. That's why you can't see that singular point. Okay.
So now if we go to the next.
MR. JACKOSKI-Town of Queensbury's best computers.
MR. MAC ELROY-Not cooperating?
MRS. MOORE-Not really.
MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. That's from the northern dock at Takundewide. Okay. Now here
because of the benefit of the angle and the tree break, let's scroll forward, okay. So now you
see the house in the center of the frame, and directly above that you can see the orange flag
and there's a prominent birch. That's always a point of reference for me, but that's, I don't
know if you can see that. See the orange?
MR. JACKOSKI-I can't see it, Dennis. Can you point to where the flags are? I don't see it.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, Laura, can you zoom the individual photo?
MR. MAC ELROY-Here's the flag. Here's the prominent birch. So that's the elevation or
slightly higher than the natural proposed ridgeline at 425.5. Okay. So, again, I think the
important thing that comes out of that is that that backdrop is solid. It's not a structure that's
going to sit up on the ridgeline that can be seen because there's no backdrop. There's not that
silhouetting effect that I think was spoken about at the last meeting that I think we see some
places on West Mountain, as an example of this.
STEVE ADLER
MR. ADLER-It's also lower than the line of deciduous trees in front of it. That's important to
note.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, you didn't hold the flag like this.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. MAC ELROY-No. We strapped that flag, and that rod and I was pleased with, for that
effort.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is that birch coming down?
MR. MAC ELROY-No, it's actually behind the, it's in the tree line behind the structure. Now that
is a representation of the house. Steve, through his graphics and software, was able to drop
that in. Now that's earth tones, it's, you know, shows the center section of the house. It goes
to their left. In fact you might see another chimney that sticks out by the next birch over.
That's the end. So there's, you know, a section of that in this condition at this time of year,
without leaf on, that there would be some view of that from that perspective. Move whatever it
is, 300 feet south or whatever, and you've got those evergreens blocking. So from different
perspectives. Now we went even one step further north, and there's another, that's, again, the
standard view from the camera. If we zoomed from there, that's actually where it's taken from.
So I don't know why that's out, but that's the shoreline.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's a very nice dock, by the way.
MR. MAC ELROY-No comment. That's the view across to Takundewide where the first photos
were taken from. So that's the shoreline along there with the white structures and what not.
Can you click again here, Laura? Okay. Keep going. That's from, okay, now that's a view
from Assembly Point Road. That's, I think, the Thomas house, and looking up behind that, that,
if you can scroll.
MR. BORGOS-Here's the prominent, we'll zoom in on this here, if you scroll ahead, the next two
sequence photos will show you closer views, and you see the flaggings?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, that's really zoomed in, and that's the flag up through the trees, and
that's the perspective from Assembly Point Road. That's what it is.
MR. BORGOS-So as you get closer to it, the land form itself is obscuring the lower elevations of
the proposed house, and if you looked at the earlier photos, you saw that the view from across
the bay, at Takundewide or at the northern docks, same effect happened. You saw the first
floor and up. You didn't see the exposed walkout basement at all, in any of those photos.
MR. MAC ELROY-And I guess I would go back to something I said at the previous meeting. I
think in the summer months there'll be certainly filtering of that structure there, and again, the
backdrop is solid.
MR. JACKOSKI-Would you need the variance if you didn't have the walkout basement?
MR. MAC ELROY-It depends on the topography of the lots.
MR. JACKOSKI-If the topography came straight across the whole part of that structure, would
you need the variance?
MR. BORGOS-It's the lot that creates that issue, but also allows for the utilization. If you look
at the design standards recommended for slopes, the walkouts are encouraged. It's desirable
for all those positive reasons. The alternative, when I started having these conversations,
saying, well, what could you do if you wanted to have a similar square footage, you'd end up
with a single story long structure that would take up a much greater surface area of the lot, and
that's undesirable for a lot of various reasons. So this is the compromise. Significant
modifications have been made in the design itself to reach this, and we have another
representation to show you that will help visualize the amount of area of this structure that
actually exceeds the 28 foot height. It's a very, very small house, but we'll get to that in just a
moment.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I think you could scroll through here, and I just, maybe there's one thing
I want to point out, or maybe not.
MR. BORGOS-This is one of the views from the property site looking to the east.
MR. JACKOSKI-And this is the area that was damaged by the storm that we had several years
ago. Correct?
MR. BORGOS-Correct. This is the as is condition of the lot. That's looking a little bit more to
the north and east.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-So a note to Craig and Staff, we can't possibly utilize a machine like this. So
either we don't do this in the future or we get a faster machine.
MRS. MOORE-Sounds good to me. I will pass that along.
MR. MAC ELROY-If you go to those two documents that were, the two plans that were, yes, the
first two, yes, the one behind it has come up already. I want to start with this one. Okay. This
is in your package. It was actually also attached to the cover letter that came in, and it attempts
to identify that area through that visual representation that is non-compliant. If you can scroll
that drawing up, Laura, so that we see the left elevation as it's referred to in your package, and
you all have those in, yes, you all have those in your package. So I would refer to that if you
want to do that. You see at the bottom half of that drawing. The point is, you see the green
line that cuts across the roof edge, and that represents the 28 foot.
MR. JACKOSKI-Current topography.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That cloud that Craig always refers to as the 28 foot following the
topography below it. Okay. So now the problem is we get out to the edge of the building, and if
you look down at the bottom where the walkout is, you see the red line, and that red line
represents the cut grade, because by definition we have to go to cut grade for the measurement
of the building height. This kind of goes to the question you asked, Steve, about would it be
required if it didn't have the walkout. You see now at the upper level, the upper green line
where we jog down, jog down the red line, and so that's added to the equation as far as non-
compliance.
MR. JACKOSKI-And the jog down only relates to the peak that is no the front of the house.
MR. MAC ELROY-The lowest adjacent grade by definition. If we go to the prominent ridgeline
of this house is north/south. At the center of the structure, Mike, right there, that's the
prominent ridgeline. So both gable ends we're more than compliant. It's under 28 feet. It's
that projection out, and that cut grade below that creates, by the math of it, 32 feet, four feet
over. That's a scary number, and I will tell you it was represented by some that that's with a
four foot building height variance for a span of 90 feet, and that information was put out there.
That's not accurate. That's the area of non-compliance. Now we have a second plan.
MR. FREER-Before you leave that one, Dennis. How come the chimney. So the chimney is.
MR. MAC ELROY-The chimney doesn't count. The chimney isn't measured as far as, and
that's.
MR. FREER-Standard practice. Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-For everyone but APA. APA's building height typically, or it does include it,
but APA's building height is 40 feet also.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. So now, back to our plan view, that plan view, and Laura has copies
of it if you need a paper copy, but that area in red on the main, I'll call it the main walkout gable,
in one of the dormers to the north side, that's the area that's non-compliant. That's the area
that's not 28 feet in terms of that structure. That's what it is. By the math of it, by the definition
used by Queensbury, that's more than 28 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-So do you want to continue with more of your end of the things, or should I
open up the public hearing?
MR. BORGOS-Well, before we get to the public hearing, I just want to address one of the e-
mails that we received a copy of that was sent around from two of the commenters. I know
Carol Collins had spoken to the Board the last appearance. It's also authored by Lisa
Adamson and Dennis just referenced it. The e-mail included some misinformation, and I just
want to reiterate, it is not four feet along the overall 90 foot span. The e-mail was putting forth
this misinformation. So I'm trying to inoculate us all from hearing that over and over again from
commenters because that's just not factually correct, and I want to focus on facts, and I think
we've put these facts together with the engineered drawings. I'm addressing it in advance, and
the septic to be built on fill is not an accurate statement either, nor is it appropriate for this
Board, that is the Site Plan discussion that just has no relevancy here. So I'd just ask for that
consideration. Thank you.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll do my best. Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this evening on
this project. Can I see a show of hands on how many people would like to address the Board
concerning this application this evening? All right. Six individuals. So we have a time limit of
three minutes each and a maximum of 15 minutes per application. So I guess we'll be a little
bit over, but I'm going to start, if you don't mind, with the Water Keeper, if you'd like to address
the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We
recognize the applicant has reduced the height of the structure, but it has not reduced the
concerns regarding the type and extent of development on the sensitive slopes within the
Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. This type of development will change
the character of the neighborhood and is not compliant with the Comprehensive Plan of the
Town, and we request that the Zoning Board apply the Town's regulations regarding the criteria
for issuing an Area Variance and with all due respect, we feel that you need to take a look at the
sewer issue because the building plays into the part of where the sewer is located. Again, we
feel that the application should have a compliant wastewater system, and again, that building
plays a significant role to that by pushing that down the hill onto the slopes. The Town Code
clearly defines it as "Any sewage disposal system involving earth fill above existing grade".
That's what a fill system is. That is different than what the New York State Department of
Health calls a mound system, which says that any fill that pushes the absorption trench above
the existing grade. That's not the case here. The Town has clearly defined it to be more
restrictive and protective of the water quality and protective of the site constraints. So clearly
that is an impact, and why that is important is because there is a 10% maximum slope for fill
slopes or systems on slopes. So this is a 20% grade. So clearly that building location and the
size plays into where that wastewater system is. When we're talking about an undesirable
change in the character of the neighborhood, this will have that. The granting of the variance
for the building height on the pronounced and highly visible ridgeline will change the character
of the neighborhood, especially from the lake and surrounding bays. We appreciate the
visuals that were brought, but when you saw the views from the ridgeline, you clearly were able
to see the lake, even though it's at a dark point and with the black ice out there it's difficult, but
you could still see the lake. So I think that those shots actually show that this will have a visual
impact. As we said this is not compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance will be
even more pronounced due to the lack of vegetation on the site, and again, I think it's also, you
have to think about this during, you talk about the summertime when things are lit up. What will
that look like up on the ridge when you're considering the nighttime? When we're thinking
about the substantiality of the variance, the Town's definition of building height differs from the
APA's, and this is in the APA. This will get sent to the Adirondack Park Agency for their review.
There may be a difference in the height, quantity number that they look at it, but not the way
they measure it. The APA measures from the lowest grade to the entire, the highest point of
the entire ridgeline. They do include the chimneys, but this will be, I feel, a four foot variance
along that whole ridge, and that's 90 feet. You will see that. That will be prominent. So,
again, I mean, there is a handout that the APA has. So why there's a discrepancy between the
Town's interpretation of the measurement and the APA's, I'm not sure of that. That should be
clarified.
MR. JACKOSKI-Chris, can you tell us, do you think the APA's calculations will put this project in
a variance situation under their guidelines?
MR. NAVITSKY-In a variance, I do not think it will exceed 40 feet. They would take the chimney
in. I don't know what the height of the chimney is, but I don't think it's eight feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-So you believe the APA would grant this?
MR. NAVITSKY-1 think that they would question the way the Town interprets their
measurement, interpretation. So I think it varies from that and based on that and the local land
use approved plan, I think there could be questions, and again we feel that it is substantial and
even more substantial with the extent of the structure on the ridgeline and with the lack of the
existing vegetation. So with that, those are my comments. Thank you for your time.
MR. JACKOSKI-Would the Collins family like to go next? Again, just to remind you, you don't
have to repeat anything that's already been said by the Water Keeper or anything that was said
at the previous meeting.
JOHN COLLINS
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. COLLINS-John Collins, 35 Knox Road, Assembly Point. So I believe that there are many
factors that should be taken into account in coming to a decision on this variance. To quote
from Borgos, this isn't a grand house on a hill. It's 8625 square feet. In any measure, that's a
grand house, Number One. Number Two, probably to me the most telling picture was the one,
the first picture where you could see the flag. If you were to go back and refer to that, you can
see through the trees and see the absolute ridgeline, forget the trees that Carol owns behind it.
You can see fully that ridgeline. So to have a drawing of a house that's just dark colors and isn't
shining windows and isn't, God knows what materials are going to be used besides logs on the
roofs and the like, it's going to have a visual impact. So all that should be taken into account,
and you have to take into account the topography. This is very unique. There are many runoff
problems with the homes below, and that has to be, the impact on the neighbors has to be
taken into account. 8625 square feet is a very large house, and just because it's 5.5 acres, that
isn't the most relevant factor. Thank you.
MRS. COLLINS-Hi, Carol Collins. This picture should be done without the trees in the back.
They don't own those trees. They have no trees on this property. The only trees that are re-
growing is the place that they're going to be building on. So there is nothing on this property. I
would like to say, when this was represented to me, since this issue came up, the applicant
called me. I had a very cordial conversation, told me he was building a one story house of
reasonable size, and I was willing to not even get involved. This is such a beacon on the hill.
This is going to be such a deviation from something that I think the Town has been proud of and
being consistent with its height variance, and keeping it at 28. Once you deviate from that, it
causes this kind of grand structure. That's what really happens, you get a two story great room
that really is not a hardship. So I don't know why we would even consider it, but I will say this is
fate, but it doesn't represent what is really happening. You can't count somebody else's trees
as protecting the view. The iconic view of Lake George is the view that is taken onto Assembly
Point. That's the view we all see in all of the material. Now it's going to be this oversized
structure, which the scale of it is going to be, if allowed, would be so disruptive of what we all
picture of that. We're arguing with scale here and I think that it's the Town's obligation to keep
within its guidelines and not grant the variance for height.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, Mrs. Collins, could you help me out a little. You guys both mentioned the
grand scale of housing. My recollection from that area, including on your side of the peninsula,
homes are fairly large.
MRS. COLLINS-1 don't think anything's 85%.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I mean, Phil's house certainly is. The McCall house certainly is. Your
home is quite large.
MRS. COLLINS-He was kept to. Our house was built on the original footprint.
MR. JACKOSKI-Regardless of what it was built on, it's quite large.
MRS. COLLINS-And you can't see the house at all.
MR. JACKOSKI-From the lake?
MR. COLLINS-From the lake. It's hard to see with the trees. The largest houses in that area,
Phil Morse's, Cantanucci's, and it's the McCalls, and that's it, and I don't know what the square
footage is for those three homes, but I know they're large.
MRS. COLLINS-1 know Phil was kept to the height limit.
MR. JACKOSKI-But I struggle with, and you saw with the red representation there, if they
drooped, if they drooped that ridge point and drooped it this way towards the lake, they could
build this structure.
MRS. COLLINS-You know, one thing everybody keeps thinking of is, you know, you keep
saying you've got a five acre site. Right?
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think anybody's even addressed that at this point.
MRS. COLLINS-If you have a five acre site, this is probably the most unbuildable site there is.
It's 15 to 20% grade throughout. It's a weird lot to build. So do you put the most grand
structure on it that you could possibly do? It's just bad building practice. It goes against
everything that the Town represents in terms of the ridgeline development which we are trying
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
to get away. We've seen what happens, if somebody builds, takes down those trees in the
back, whether personally done or through a storm or whatever, that's going to be a clear site
right through to the Village. You know that. Is that where we want to go with this?
MR. JACKOSKI-The dilemma we have is that we have a simple little encroachment represented
by those red triangles. They scooper droop that, they can build it, and I can't do anything about
it.
MRS. COLLINS-Well, let them do that. Let them do that. I would say droop it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Then you feel it's an allowed use? It won't affect the neighborhood. It won't
be the beacon on the hill anymore.
MRS. COLLINS-It's going to be a beacon on the hill. It will be a beacon on the hill, but you still
have an obligation to keep within your guidelines.
MR. JACKOSKI-But that's why we have a Zoning Board because a Zoning Board has the
opportunity to not take that rubber stamp and look at every individual case. Okay. I've given
you plenty of time. So thank you.
MRS. COLLINS-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone else like to speak?
MRS. COLLINS-1 have a letter from Bob Tully.
MR. JACKOSKI-Can you just hand it to our Secretary.
LISA ADAMSON
MRS. ADAMSON-Lisa Adamson, Assembly Point. I'm going to read my statement. The
houses on Assembly Point are getting really big. We have a lot of construction and a lot of big
trucks all the time that present their own problems. As a resident of Assembly Point I ask you
to pay close attention
to the Waterkeeper, Chris Navitsky's assessment of the negative impacts of the proposed
project and variance for the Perrotta Sunset Hill Farm Subdivision property. To me this seems
like a large project on a piece of delicate sensitive property. I have concerns about the ability of
this property to absorb and handle the runoff. I walk the length of Assembly Point Road almost
every day throughout all seasons, and for years I've been sending PowerPoints and pictures to
Craig Brown and John Strough and Tony Metivier have been out and seen just how visible the
impact of the runoff is. In winter it's dangerous. In spring and in rain events, it's.
MR. FREER-That's not our job, Lisa. That's the Planning Board, right?
MRS. ADAMSON-Okay. Well, that's I guess maybe you all know what the road looks like, but
I'm saying that the road is effected by properties on the west side that can't handle their runoff.
What you see is the inability of the properties to handle their runoff on the property, which is the,
I think it's the Park Commission rule that all properties have to handle their own runoff. You put
a large, a very large structure behind these properties on a slope that is denuded because of
Irene and because of the construction that's going to happen, and you're going to get more
impact to the back of these houses where there's a wetland or a stream, and I think eventually
it's going to get down to the road and then that road goes right into the water. So it's going to
affect water quality. Standards and Codes that have been established need to be adhered to, I
believe. Development is responsible for much of the stress on our lake. I certainly recognize
Mr. Perrotta's right to build on his property and I have known him to be a good Assembly Point
neighbor but I question whether any of us has the environmental right anymore to build
excessively when water quality is at stake. Also, septic installations have to be carefully
evaluated for their efficacy and whether they're going to impact runoff on the property.
MR. FREER-And that's the Town Board's and the Health Department's job. Not ours.
MRS. ADAMSON-Well, I apologize that I'm not clear on what the separations.
MR. FREER-Well, just so you know.
MRS. ADAMSON-Okay.
MR. FREER-This is the Zoning Board of Appeals.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MRS. ADAMSON-All right. Stormwater plans have to be strong in this case and not by just a
rain garden that gives a nod to the literal letter of the law, but we need really deep rooted plants
in there and trees. The Perrotta property has been seriously impacted as we all know, and
then just my final statement is this small fragile spit of land, which Assembly Point is was
originally developed on the principle of the golden mean for modest and stewardship, and I
believe that we're all part of this. We're losing a sense of Adirondack values. The old rustic
smaller camps are giving way to basically a great camp mentality, and as Carol said, do we
want to continue to be part of this? We're all working towards trying to, I would say why can't
we hold to our Codes and our Ordinances? Why do we have to go with these variances unless
it's life threatening? So I'm not sure why we would continue to grant variances when it's getting
to be a matter of the health of the lake. So, thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
BOB GLANDON
MR. GLANDON-I'm Bob Glandon and I'm at 63 Knox Road. So this is directly behind me. I
wanted to talk about first the main ridge elevation that was talked about as I guess it was an
earlier main that said it's four feet too high. So it's actually, as they show on the drawings, it's
like 26 feet. So it is under the 28 foot height. However, it fails to look at the extreme north
end. There's a basement window and window well and so the measurement actually has to be
taken from the bottom of the window well and that was clarified on 67 Knox Road eight years
ago. So that probably gets it above the 28 feet by maybe a foot the whole ridge line. So it gets
it right up to it and over if you think about the depth of the window. The side view, if you look at
that side view, you'll see just a pinch of the top window, and so the estimate needs to be taken
to the drain at the bottom of the window well, you know, the floor spot if you came out that
window, and I'm just estimating that that's probably three feet down, two and a half, something
like that. So that gets us right up to 28 or over 28 across the whole ridge line. Now the front
peak is the point that's still four feet too high. The flag that was put up there, which was a good
idea, I would have thought possibly multiple flags showing the extent of the building left to right,
rather than a single flag, but those were put at the main ridge line and that front peak is 28 feet
closer, 28 to 30 feet closer to the lake. So if you're looking like the view from down at the street
where we looked up that guy's driveway and saw that flag, imagine just carrying that flag 30 feet
out closer to the lake, then it's going to be up higher. There's more view. That front piece, the
drawing where they etched it in, is from way across the lake, essentially giving you a flat
elevation like you were almost a bird at that level. There's very little tilt at that point, but the
closer you get to that, that front peak essentially in your eye rises above the back ridge. So
that is the main point here. So it's a small red area in this view, but it is the prominent feature.
I would add that if you look at that peak at the front view, the top six to eight feet of it is wood.
The windows are below it. So if it's a grand room to get a grand view of a grand lake, there's
no glass up there. So it's, the height is strictly an architect liking a 12/12, 12/10, whatever the
pitch is now, but then a lower pitch could be used there, and not lose any view inside the house
because the people on the second floor in their loft area looking out, they're looking into the
back of a wall. They're looking down to the glass, I believe, or straight out to the very tip of the
glass. So it wouldn't hurt them at all. So there's nothing to be gained by this extra other than a
dream house that we heard about the last time. So I think the four feet is just too high to go
with at that point. I think we should hold to the Code. I'm next door to 67 Knox Road. It has
been nine years that that property has sat there. They had to drop their roof to get into the
proper size. They, by the way, are a 4500 square foot house. This is 8600, and if you
calculate fees based on interior square footage, then you should be, double check this because
the basement has a large area called cold storage which is underneath an outside porch and so
that cold storage area is not included, as I can see it, in the square footage calculation. So that
would take the 8600 up over 9,000 and at least get some more building fees out of that one if
nothing else. I'd also point out that 67 Knox Road originally had swales for runoff and they
actually installed them. They were required to put in a large underground tank and a leach field
and all gutters piped directly into it. The driveway drains are piped directly into that. So that
the runoff would be controlled into a large tank and then dissipated out through this leach field,
and I think that's probably the type of thing you should be looking at here if that's.
MR. JACKOSKI-All we're focused on is height.
MR. GLANDON-Okay. All right. My final comment, and I don't know if it fits in here or not. I'm
concerned on Knox Road, a small barely one lane road. It's sitting on a passage that the
development of these large timbers is going to be a problem. So I'd like to see some sort of
performance bond.
MR. FREER-That's a Planning Board issue as well.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. GLANDON-Okay. All right, and would that go also with a project that just gets stalled
because they're looking to sell and they don't get it sold in time.
MR. JACKOSKI-We don't have any way to answer that question.
MR. GLANDON-So, in terms of making sure the site is buttoned up.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's through the Building Department, Dave Hatin and the attorneys for the
Town.
MR. GLANDON-Okay, and is that on another Board that we would talk about a performance
bond?
MR. JACKOSKI-The Planning Board is next and then of course you can always speak with the
Building Department if you wish.
MR. GLANDON-Well then I'd go back to the final, just my original point is why would we do a
variance for something this large that's not necessary. Certainly the lot doesn't require it.
Let's stick to our Codes because the next guy is going to come in and point to this one. Every
time we make a mistake and let something through, we pay for it with the next site that comes
up and we want to control this and not end up with those other three large ones that we've
already seen. Let's stop at three and keep this one without needing a variance. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else? So just for everyone's edification, I just pulled up the
Queensbury website and Mrs. Collins, you can see your house from the lake. You can look at
the pictures on the Queensbury website and you can see your house through the trees, and
your house is 82 feet long. This is 90 feet. So, I mean, I'm just trying to understand.
Certainly if the measurements are wrong on the Queensbury website with the tax assessor you
certainly should address that, but I just added up all the dimensions, it's 83 feet. This is 90, not
on the lake. I'm just trying to understand your comments. I'm not understanding, but I'm
working on it. I'll let you speak.
BEVERLY POZZI
MRS. POZZI-Good evening. My name is Beverly Pozzi and I live on Bay Parkway on
Assembly Point, and I've been there for 60 years. I think a very good point was made that I see
increasingly and not only can this project be kept to the Code so that no one in the future uses it
as precedent, but also the lighting that will reflect on that ridge, but it will filter down on the
neighborhood below it. So it changes the nature of the neighborhood, and it will have an
impact. I see it more and more. People insist on leaving spot lights and all kinds of lights on
all night long, and it reflects off neighborhoods, the other neighbors' windows. Sometimes it's
even a disturbance where sleep is concerned. So the lighting is a major thing. We talk about
it being a beacon on the hill. I think it's going to be much more than that. It's really a too large
project to fit in with the neighborhood, and where the structure was superimposed on the folks
down at the bottom of the hill along Assembly Point Road, they're the ones who are going to be
impacted in many ways, many ways that don't apply to your work here, but again, it will
definitely change the nature of the neighborhood, and the road is also of grave concern.
Because there will be heavy trucks along those roads so, thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Anyone else before I have the applicants join us back at the table
please? Okay, applicants, come on back. So sticking with just the things in front of us and not
septic siting and not stormwater management, but certainly the light pollution, certainly elevation
of the windows, certainly topography as it relates to where the structure is sited.
STEVEN ADLER
MR. ADLER-For the record I'm Steven Adler of Eastern Adirondack Home and Design. I hear
a lot about the square footage and the size of this house, and the numbers can get confusing
and kind of be a little bit persuasive in the wrong direction. This home has a 2391 square foot
footprint, modest by most standards. We do a lot of homes, a lot of designs. The footprint and
the first floor I would consider fairly modest, you know, not as small as my house. I live over on
Glen Lake. It's quite a postage stamp.
MR. JACKOSKI-But, Steve, can you help us? You said 2300, but the application clearly says
3467 square footprint.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. ADLER-This is the main house footprint. You have, again, you have your garage which is
added to that main house. I'm going over the house size, the grandeur of the size of the house
that I've heard come up in this conversation. It's by no means a large house. We've been in it,
we've toured it. I listened to the suggestions, we all listened to the suggestions at the last
meeting on the pitch. The pitch was reduced to the lowest pitch to allow bedrooms to be
constructed on that half story, because this is a one and a half story house with a walkout
basement. We lowered the pitch to the lowest allowable pitch to get a Code compliant
bedroom on the upper half story. Again, I heard the Chairman's talk about we could droop the
roof. We talked about that with Frank. It really disrupts the whole nature and architecture of
that building. The interior is a timber framed room in a great nice Adirondack tradition with the
curved arch truss. It totally kills that aspect of the building, and again, if this was a flat, level lot,
this house would be completely Code compliant. We also looked at the square footage
required for the Perrotta's, and he's not building this dream home for himself. It's not a dream
home. He's building it for himself and his family, and I think the walkout basement was the best
solution to accommodate that square footage without making major impact to the land. I mean,
and Dennis has done a great job, I won't go into the stormwater, but he's done a great job. We
tried to look at a building design that would respect the land, with the least amount of impact.
We've done a lot of homes like this. We have one up in Ticonderoga and with the Lake George
Park Commission right now. I know the means, thought to be able to design a home that would
be compliant and they would like. They have approved this lot. We have a home going up
there. By no means does Frank's even come close to the impact on the lot that Lake George
Park Commission approved up in Ticonderoga. It has nothing to do with that, but I wanted to
bring that up. So I don't know if there's any other questions on design you have with me, but I
just wanted to make sure everybody understands. This is a smaller, compact footprint. It's not
a grand house. That window can be at any height. We don't necessarily have to have a
window well there. That window could be a third story window. It's not an egress window. It
doesn't really even have to be there. That grade can come straight across. I mean, in the
original designs we put it in there. Dennis missed it. I missed it. That window really doesn't
have to be there. That's all.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Anything further before I poll the Board?
MR. MC CABE-So that's your answer to the gentleman, that's not 28, 6 feet.
MR. ADLER-Yes, we can pull that, yes, we can pull that right out. It's not really required. It's
just to bring more light in.
MR. FREER-So you didn't address Ms. Pozzi's question about light pollution and the whole
beacon on a hill and that's something, when I was listening to this I made a note to myself that if
we do, so do you want to talk about any issues that can be mitigated, or are you willing to
accept some kind of constraint with regard to light pollution and/or discussion of that, or can you
just discuss it for us?
MR. BORGOS-Well, I think we can assure you that we won't be putting spotlights in this area
above the 28 feet that we're looking for the variance. That's an absolute. With regards to the
other light issues.
MR. FREER-So no lighting above that?
MR. BORGOS-In that upper peak that we're talking about, that little red spot on the drawing.
There's not going to be any light up there. As noted by the other commenter, there's no glass
up that high either. So with regards to the lighting design, that's all site plan review stuff for the
Planning Board.
MR. FREER-Okay, but we have a requirement regarding this height variance, too, and we have
an obligation and we, in my view, you said no spotlight, but I'm going to recommend no lighting
in any of the areas where the variance of height occurs.
MR. ADLER-That's quite acceptable and we're used to, we specify the lights we use will be dark
sky compliant fixtures to meet all Planning Board approvals. I mean, we think about this.
We've even looked at reflectivity of the glass. We worked with Frank on that and know these
issues will come up at the Planning Board and we have answers and details that we can
provide. The amount of relief requested in the variance application is to maintain the integrity
of the architecture of this timber frame home. It really disrupts the entire roof line plan and
trusses to try to go to a further re-design. We even lowered the basement height. We've
squashed every little inch we could get out of the building and still make it a viable architecture
plan.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. URRICO-The removal of that window, is that affecting the variance?
MR. ADLER-No. Well, it was brought up that they thought it made it too high.
MR. URRICO-But it doesn't affect the bottom line? You still need four feet?
MR. ADLER-Correct. Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-And Craig didn't bring that up as an issue in his review. So I'm going to poll
the Board at this time. If you guys don't mind, and see at least somewhere where this Board is
going with this and then we'll try to act accordingly.
MR. URRICO-Hey, Steve, there's a couple of more letters. Lisa Adamson read hers. So I
have two others. "I'm against the approval of variance Z-AV-4-2017 for the building of a single
family home above the height restriction. Although, the lot is quite large, I do not see a reason
to allow the height to be above the requirements. Since this property is already above all the
other residents, it will still have a view of the lake if built within the current requirements. I also
would like planning to include minimum run off on the east side of Assembly. Thank you,
Timothy Bechard" And then, "I was made aware of the meetings on the variances of
development of large homes on Assembly Point. (Frank Perrotta Application). What is
happening to our wonderful Adirondack Lifestyle? My family has lived on Assembly Point for
over 65 years and our little home is most treasured because it is authentic and original
Adirondack camp. We take care of the land and cherish the water of our lake...in fact we use the
water to supply our camp of drinking water. Building to fill up unused space to make suburbia
out of our small and quiet community is happening more and more on Assembly Point. I am
part of a grassroots project on Assembly Point. It is ASSEMBLY POINT WATER QUALITY
COALITION. Our goal is to keep the lake clean and preserve the environment by monitoring
runoff, making people aware to their septic system updates and cleanout to not use fertilizers
and herbicides that will run into the lake and pollute. We also educate the homeowners how to
look for milfoil and Asian clams and other invasive species in our lake water and where to report
their findings. We have noticed that the new fancy homes with the most beautiful lawns are not
interested in stopping their use of fertilizers and most are not here but 2 to 3 weeks a summer
and have gardeners maintain their lawns. We urge you to please consider the future of our
precious lake and community. Lake George is so beautiful and needs protection from pollution
of displaced ground water and run off as well as septic pollution and over building. Sincerely,
Mary Helen O'Keeffe, APWQC board member"
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Thank you for correcting me on that. So I will poll the Board.
The public hearing is still open, just so everyone understands that. It is still open. We have
not closed the public hearing. Harrison, did you want to go first?
MR. FREER-So I guess first of all, for all those people who are here for education, the point of
the Zoning Board of Appeals is an area variance for height which is in our Code. There's two
other organizations in the Town that deal with most of the comments. The site planning review
will be done by the Planning Board which met last night and meets every third and fourth
Tuesday and all of the septic considerations done by the Town Health Board which is made up
of the elected Town Board members, and they have their meetings on Monday nights. The
same place and our whole issue is just this variance for height and the zoning regulations. I do,
as I mentioned in my question, the comment of lighting needs to be carefully addressed. It
sounds like you guys are nodding north and south on that, and certainly I intend to, if this gets
down the road to make that a constraint, in terms of no lighting on any of the height variance
areas. Lots of other things that you guys have to go through I assume for the Planning Board
and the runoff and septic at the health board. Given all that, I would support granting the
variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think if we look at the issue and keep it germane to the height, you're
asking for four foot of relief. Last time you were in you were asking for eight feet of relief at that
point in time. So there's been a modification, re-design, to accommodate the timber frame
construction which is understandable. At the same time I think we need to be realistic and look
at the drawings. When we're dealing with large buildings being built, and this is sort of second
tier housing because it's not right down on the waterfront precipitously. It's up on a higher point
of land. I think those things are more prominent when they're built and I think that you've
addressed the issue of the fact that the storm was responsible for removing the bulk of the
vegetation on the site. That's beyond your control. Anybody can build up on that site with
something, you're never going to see it anyway. I think that you've tried realistically to modify
the design down and I'm sure if we wanted to nitpick we could say take two more feet off of it or
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
take a foot and a half off or something like that, but to what end is that. Viewed from the lake
one or two feet is not significant. Four feet is significant, and I think the removal of four feet has
accomplished what you were asked to do at the last meeting. I think if we look at the 28 foot
height variance, I mean the 28 foot requirement by the Town, I think this is keeping in mind that
the bulk of that house, if you looked at it along the 90 feet of structure, is at about 25 and a half
feet, a little bit over that, and I think that that's reasonable. You're well below height on that
part. It's going to be one point at the walkout where you're extremely above height by the four
feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. Those that have known me on the Board, I've been pretty consistent about
height over the years, and I'm very reluctant to make an exception with this, even though I
consider the variance process a very strong process, it's there for two things. Basically not to
make the Town Code over restrictive and make sure that people get a fair chance to develop
their property, but at the same time we have a requirement to minimize the variance, and even
though it says only for a portion of the house, I worry about what this might mean down the
road, even stretching it out a little further than that current neighborhood, because now we've
okayed a height variance above 28 feet, which is something we've pretty much held strong to
for a long time. So I'm going to come down on the negative side on this one. I'm going to be
against it, and I just think four feet is four feet, no matter how far it is.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I took a hard look at this. First of all, I'm really impressed by the applicant and
the changes that he's made in his attempt to meet the standards, and normally I too would not
give in to four feet, but I think that the picture over there tells the whole story, you know, the
actual area that's involved here is very small compared to the overall area of the house. So in
this particular case I would approve the variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I really appreciate the work that's gone into finding a compromise. My
concern is that, although looking at the picture that's displayed, it seems like it's a very small
area, but from my perspective looking at the placement of the building on the hill and from the
water side it's going to look that much taller because it is elevated above the water line. I would
have to say I'm not in favor. I think because of the size of the living space which is 6900 square
feet, that you could find a way to modify the house and still enjoy the property and the lake and
your family and find a way to make it fit within the Code.
MR. JACKOSKI-It's very rare that I'm the deciding vote. I'll look at this house every day
because I'm across the bay. I can see it every day. I understand the light pollution concern
because I have it, too. We had it with the boathouse just around the corner on Knox Road and
the neighbors spoke clearly that they were concerned about that, and that never went forward.
What I'm struggling with is the light pollution from this house is not going to change if they
simply droop that peak and build the house without a variance. So knowing that, and really
trying to understand that because of the topography that ridge line isn't the variance as it runs
north/south. So the ridge line is going to get built. It really is the bump forward or the bump
east that creates that peak and that peak doesn't have any lighting in it, and I like Roy am very
stringent as it comes to 28 feet at the shoreline. This is a little bit different for me because the
shoreline is, I'm assuming two to three feet away on both sides or more.
MR. MAC ELROY-Six hundred.
MR. JACKOSKI-However, I think I'm the one who initially made the comment that this is going
to look like a castle on the hill, and that's what I'm struggling with because the castle will have
lights on at night throughout the summer, security lighting. I get all that other stuff, but I was
able to talk to some of the folks on Assembly Point Road or at least through my wife and they
seem to not have an issue with the house, which is interesting to me because it's the folks on
the Assembly Point, I'm sorry the Bay Parkway side that's the most impacted by light pollution,
not so much so on the Knox Road side. So it's a struggle, and I don't know what my decision is
unfortunately. If I have to make one this evening, there's no way you can droop that line and
not need the variance? Because that's part of our task here is to grant you the size of the
house and the shape of the house that you want, unless there's an alternative, a reasonable
alternative, and that is, and Mrs. Collins' said it herself. If you droop that pitch you could build
the house. I get the architecture. Believe me. I'm a design guy. I love architects. I get it.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. BORGOS-I can tell you understand the issue very well. Perhaps this comment may give
you some perspective, and we heard a lot of this in the comments from the neighbors and in the
letters that Mr. Urrico just read. Most of those comments seem to relate to building on the lot,
period, and that's a 20 year old decision that the Planning Board made when they permitted that
as a building lot. The comments about light pollution are very appropriate because that's
something that we all strive to see a reduction in that, and I think this applicant is going to
pledge, in their pursuit of site plan, a design and implementation that minimizes as much as
possible of that because he was a former resident of Assembly Point, yearns for all these quality
of life value issues that have been expressed, and that is something he can control. The
amount of the variance that we've been talking about is going to be timbers and shingles. It
has nothing to do with lighting or reflectivity. So that extent that that is the focus, I think that is
easier to say yes to because it is not relevant to a desired view. An average human is only of a
certain height. The elevated variance amount that we're looking for has nothing to do with
putting a human up at that level. It is an aesthetic design. So from the vantage point of those
on the lake or across the bay or down at the road, what they see of the roof line will be what is a
subjective aesthetic view of an Adirondack style home. That I think is the value of a personal
opinion. I hope that others find that aesthetic to be more appropriate for the site. If you take
that away with the droop, it's going to be something that you might wince at from an
architectural standpoint, and I'd hate to see that, too, because that would leave a legacy that
may be undesirable.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I mean, I don't know if I agree with you, Mike, because I look at the cross
timbers that you have in place there in the east and that cross timber actually gives you a fairly
good visual what that droop point would be.
MR. BORGOS-Minus the little tree.
MR. JACKOSKI-But this house can be built in its footprint, and in its height by simply clipping
that roof back.
MR. URRICO-Steve, there's only six Board members tonight. Your vote would only make it
tied.
MR. JACKOSKI-No, actually it would be four. Jim, Harrison and Mike have said yes.
MR. URRICO-There are six Board members tonight.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right.
MR. ADLER-Mr. Chairman, the arched window that isn't shown because you don't have interior
elevations on it, that actually is an arched truss that carries through the entire great room.
MR. JACKOSKI-So the truss is exposed on the outside?
MR. ADLER-No, that's actually part, that's a window trim, but that same truss supports, there's
three of them that go through the center of that great room. If that roof comes down, that truss
will now impede the balcony level because that's a great room, and it was squashed. We
lowered the pitch like we discussed at last meeting. It brings that truss down into the balcony
line which really makes it kind of unbuildable and makes the house really unstructurally
buildable. We'll have the arch truss right to the eye line of that upper balcony when you walk
through the upper bedrooms. Now that's why I'm just trying to make sure you fully understand
how that house goes together.
MR. JACKOSKI-How wide is the variance, I guess I'll call it? So we have the peak. At what
point are we at the 28 feet and how wide is that peak at that point before we get to the next four
feet? What's the pitch of that roof?
MR. ADLER-10/12.
MR. JACKOSKI-So it's 10/12. So you go up four feet. You would come out, 4.8, 4.8. So
that's just under 10 feet wide at that point.
MR. ADLER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's all we're talking about, 10 feet in width.
MR. ADLER-Yes.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Four feet in height, triangular shape forward. I'll approve this variance. I'll
close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-That's a tie vote to me.
MR. JACKOSKI-No, it's not, sir.
MR. MC CABE-You'll find out.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. You voted yes. Were there other votes that weren't here
tonight? That's what I didn't hear. Other people?
MR. JACKOSKI-There's one member missing this evening, John Henkel. We have a quorum.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 didn't know if they voted ahead of time.
MR. JACKOSKI-No, we can't.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Okay. I'm sorry.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Frank Perrotta, Jr. Project Revised: Applicant proposes a 3,467 sq. ft. (footprint), 8,625 sq. ft.
(floor area) single-family home and associated sitework.
The applicant requests relief from the maximum height restrictions of the Waterfront zone.
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement WR zone
The applicant proposes construction of 3,467 sq. ft. home with three levels where the height
proposed is 32 ft. and 28 ft. is the maximum allowed.
SEQR Type 11 — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 18, 2017 and left open;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to
nearby properties because the actual square footage of the variance is minimal compared
to the overall size of the building.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not reasonable because of
the architectural design.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because the overall area involved is very small.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district. The raised area is not really going to affect anything
environmentally.
5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare
of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) No lighting fixture be allowed above the 28 foot illumination, and no lighting shown
above that point as well.
b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE
NO. Z-AV-4-2017, FRANK PERROTTA, JR., Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March 2017 by the following vote:
MR. FREER-I'd like to second and condition. Mike, would you accept a condition? I'd like to
impose the following condition. That no lighting be allowed above the 28 foot level, nor
anything to be shined on the surface that's encompassed by the lot.
MR. MC CABE-Is that all right with everybody else?
MRS. MOORE-So no lighting be allowed above the 28 foot variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-No lighting fixture above the 28 foot variance, and no lighting shine or shone,
however we want to say it, above that point as well.
MR. MC CABE-Well, it's not the 28 foot variance. It's the 28 foot illumination.
MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. Okay.
MR. MC CABE-So I'll amend my resolution to include Harrison's comments.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I have a second. Any further discussion? Call the vote.
AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico
ABSENT: Mr. Henkel
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I apologize to everyone that it took so long. It's been a very
difficult application for all of us, but welcome to Assembly Point.
MR. PERROTTA-Thank you so much.
MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda, moving forward, is all under New
Business. The application 5 Glen Hall Drive. Area Variance No. AV Z-AV-12-2017.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-12-2017 SEQRA TYPE II BERNARD K. GANSLE OWNER(S)
BERNARD K. GANSLE ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 5 GLEN HALL DRIVE
APPLICANT PROPOSES 120 SQ. FT. ADDITION — UPPER/MAIN FLOOR SCREENED-IN
PORCH. PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF 104 SQ. FT. PATIO. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. PLANNING BOARD: PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PROJECTS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15%
SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
CROSS REF AV 86-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.23 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-28 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010
BERNARD GANSLE, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-It's a Type 11 SEAR. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-12-2017, Bernard K. Gansle, Meeting Date: March 22
2017 "Project Location: 5 Glen Hall Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes 120 sq. ft. addition- upper/main floor screened-in porch. Project includes removal of
104 sq. ft. patio.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the setback restrictions of the Waterfront zone and for
expansion of nonconforming structure in a CEA.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement WR zone
The applicant proposes 120 sq. ft. screened in porch addition on the main floor facing the shore.
The addition is to be 17 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required.
179-13-010 Expansion of non conforming
The existing home is pre-existing non-compliant and the addition furthers the non-compliance
towards the shoreline.
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 to no 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
may be limited due to the configuration of the lot and orientation of the home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
substantial relevant to the code for setbacks. The relief requested is 33 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed
will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. The applicant has applied for a septic
variance and has been tabled at the Town Board for reducing the number of holding tanks.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
Applicant proposes 120 sq. ft. addition- upper/main floor screened-in porch. Project includes
removal of 104 sq. ft. patio. The new construction does not meet shoreline setback and is an
expansion of nonconforming structure in a CEA. The project is also subject to site plan review
for construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. The applicant has also proposed holding tanks for
the septic system —currently being reviewed by the Town."
MRS. MOORE-I'll just let you know that the Town did approve two holding tanks. So the
application can move forward through the process. So they did that on Monday night.
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board also passed a resolution that based on its limited review
did identify the following areas of concern. Note the recommendation of the engineer that there
will be a reduction in the number of holding tanks from three to two and the engineering
drawings will be updated. And that motion was adopted on March 21St by a unanimous vote.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. My apologies. We're trying to do some stuff to be
prepared for your application. So if you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. GANSLE-My name's Bernie Gansle.
MR. JACKOSKI-Bernie, it's a pretty straightforward application. Would you like us to just ask
you questions?
MR. GANSLE-Yes, that's fine. Let me just add that it's a very small cottage and there's no
place to eat on the main floor, and the only view of the lake is where the bedroom is.
MR. JACKOSKI-My relatives used to own the cottage. So I know what you're talking about.
So any questions from Board members at this time?
MRS. HAYWARD-One question about the porch. It's a three season porch? The porch is a
three season screened in porch?
MR. GANSLE-Yes.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. Not to be used year round?
MR. GANSLE-No.
MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll open the public hearing if everyone doesn't mind this evening. It's a lot
faster than the last application. Does anyone here wish to address this application? Seeing
no one, is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's no written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. Thank you. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I live on the lake. I paddle by your house about 100 times each
summer. I can remember when Sipowicz's prior, in previous improvements that they made to
the property. My biggest question would be why we're doing the holding tanks because it looks
like you do have adequate land up behind where the old foundation where you could put a
conventional septic system in, and I would think it would be an advantage to the Town if we
pursue that rather than the holding tanks, but I guess the Town Board of Health has already
approved those holding tanks. There's some question in my mind about whether holding tanks
are acceptable for permanent dwellings, but this is clearly a summertime property. I don't think
you're living in here year round.
MR. GANSLE-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Nor are you intending to. So I think the impact on the lake is minimal and
at this point, you know, a 120 square foot building is minimal. It doesn't amount to much. So
I'd be all for it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do you by any change know how they got away with putting in those great big
concrete walls?
MR. UNDERWOOD-They just appeared.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, interesting. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-I don't like violating the 50 foot. So I understand that this is a pretty big
encroachment on the setbacks from the lake. So I don't support it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-The building's already there. Not much he can do about that. So it's no worse
than what exists now. So I certainly would support it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-I am, too. So I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Bernard K. Gansle. Applicant proposes 120 sq. ft. addition- upper/main floor screened-in porch.
Project includes removal of 104 sq. ft. patio.
The applicant requests relief from the setback restrictions of the Waterfront zone and for
expansion of nonconforming structure in a CEA.
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement WR zone
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
The applicant proposes 120 sq. ft. screened in porch addition on the main floor facing the shore.
The addition is to be 17 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required.
179-13-010 Expansion of non conforming
The existing home is pre-existing non-compliant and the addition furthers the non-compliance
towards the shoreline.
SEQR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 22, 2017;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties. We're merely reconfiguring the structure.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable because of the size
of the lot and the structure.
3. The requested variance although it seems substantial is really not because it's not a lot
different than what exists now.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is of course self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE
NO. Z-AV-12-2017, BERNARD K. GANSLE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Freer
ABSENT: Mr. Henkel
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I apologize for taking so long. Next Area Variance this evening is
Z-AV-19-2017. A Type II SEAR. It is 129 Eagan Road. Ethan Hall is the agent for the
applicants.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-19-2017 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL & ERIN GUSTKE AGENT(S)
ETHAN HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) MICHAEL & ERIN GUSTKE
ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 129 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
DEMOLISH A 970 SQ. FT. SEASONAL CAMP AND CONSTRUCT A 2,008 SQ. FT. YEAR-
ROUND RESIDENCE. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND WELL, AND SITE
GRADING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACKS AND LOT FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT
RESTRICTIONS. PLANNING BOARD: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, PROJECTS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES SHALL BE SUBJECT
TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REF P-SP-16-2017 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.8-1-8 SECTION
179-3-040, 179-4-050
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. There is a public hearing
scheduled for this evening.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-19-2017, Michael & Erin Gustke, Meeting Date: March
22, 2017 "Project Location: 129 Eagan Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to demolish a 970 sq. ft. seasonal camp and construct a 2,008 sq. ft. year-round
residence. Project includes new septic system and well, and site grading.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the setbacks, lot frontage and height restrictions of the
Waterfront zone.
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement WR zone
The applicant proposes demolition of an existing dwelling to construct a new 2008 sq. ft.
dwelling where the east setback is to be 13 ft. 5 in where a 20 ft. setback is required. The
height is proposed to be 36 ft. where the maximum allowed is 28 ft.
179-4-050 Frontage
The access to the site is an easement from Eagan Rd. The project includes demolition and the
access to the site is to remain.
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. The location of
the new home is similar to the existing.
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
may be limited due to the existing site conditions with steep slopes. The area of the existing
home is shown to be less steep area of the property.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The setback relief requested is 6 ft. 7 in, and the height relief
requested is 8 ft. in excess.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed
will have minimal impact to the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to demolish a 970 sq. ft. seasonal camp to construct a 2,008 sq. ft. year
round residence. The project includes installation of a new septic, well and site grading. Site
plan review is required as the project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes."
MR. JACKOSKI-Hi, Ethan.
MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record my name is Ethan Hall with Rucinski Hall
Architecture. With me tonight is Mike Gutske, the owner of the property. It is at the very tail
end of Eagan Road, right where that drops down around the corner there. There is an existing
seasonal camp there, uninsulated, unheated. They do intend to tear that building down and
basically re-build on the footprint there. We are going to square it up a little bit to the lot line
which is an increase in the side yard setback over what's there now. We are going to put a
spur that comes off and kind of follows back along the bank for the guest accommodation. It's
an attached guest room, but in trying to keep the footprint to a reasonable size and the height to
a reasonable size. All the main living quarters take place in the main portion of the house.
The guest portion is attached to the enclosed breezeway type thing and then the master
bedroom is on the upstairs with a storage loft above the master bedroom. The reason for the
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
height variance is because of the way the existing grade is. We had to pick the building up a
little bit to get it back into the bank to allow us to build where we need to build, but obviously our
height variance is taken from the lowest point of existing grade at the building to the highest
point that's proposed, and so we're stuck to that. The actual overall height when it's done is
going to be just over what's allowed but because we've got to raise the building up, that's where
our 36 feet is.
MR. JACKOSKI-So how far off of the river is the height variance?
MR. HALL-272 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-272 feet off the shoreline before we even get to the height issue.
MR. HALL-Correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-I assume that's forward after that.
MR. HALL-Yes, and the bank behind it is 70 plus feet up to the top. I mean, if you stood on the
top of the bank, you can't really see where the house is.
MIKE GUTSKE
MR. GUTSKE-And we own where the top is as well.
MR. HALL-And that's where the new septic system is going. Currently the separation distance
between the septic system, which is basically a steel drum that's in the ground, and the point,
the push point, is about 55 feet. So getting the septic system compliant and up on top of the hill
where it belongs is really the big driving force there.
MR. JACKOSKI-Before I open the public hearing, any other questions from Board members at
this time? Seeing none I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who'd
like to address this Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's two, and I forgot to read in the Planning Board resolution. That based on
its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with
the current project proposal, and that was passed on March 21, 2017 by a unanimous vote, and
the comment is, "I am the neighbor of property and don't have any problem with the building."
And that's from Alicia Constantino, 135 Eagan Road.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I'll poll the Board. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-The height issue, we should be consistent. Any way to remediate the
height? I know because of the topography.
MR. HALL-Right, and we did look at that, Michelle, and the one thing we looked at when we did
that, an again, we're taking from highest point of our grade to lowest point of existing, which is
what's hurting us. Because if we drop the roof pitch down, but then they lose all the storage,
and because we're on a crawl space with no ability to go any deeper, the only storage that we're
going to have is up in that loft. The crawl space is about four and a half feet in total depth. So
if we had basement space and we could do that, I would, but we've got a groundwater issue.
So we can't really go any deeper.
MRS. HAYWARD-So given the unique circumstances of the property, I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Yes. It's kind of a difficult location. Not going to be seen by a whole lot of
people. Unless you're going by on boat, so I guess I would excuse the variances. I
understand that they're because of the topography.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-This makes sense to me. Even though it's a substantial height variance
compared to the one we just discussed, I think that the neighborhood is quite a bit different, and
so I would support it.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think that because we don't have a cellar on this house, we don't
have the storage capacity and I'm quite familiar with the territory down there with the land
conservancy because we're to the west of your property, all the groundwater comes out right at
the base of that slope, like a stream most of the year. So it's quite understandable that you
need some kind of storage space, and although it's over height, it's at the base of the hill. It's
not at the top of the hill where it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. It's well set back from
the river. I don't think there's going to be any real impact. So I'm going to be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-1 have to stay consistent on the height issue. I know there are unique
circumstances, but all variances have circumstances that are unique. So I think eight feet is
still eight feet, and I would be against the application.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I like to be consistent, too, and I think on the last application before this, I
struggled with height differentials at the shoreline. 270 feet off, topography issues, buried into
the side of the hill, so to speak, I agree with Mr. Underwood and his interpretation of things as
well. So it's not like me to grant height variances of eight feet when you're allowed twenty-
eight, I'm in favor as well. So I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Michael & Erin Gustke.
Applicant proposes to demolish a 970 sq. ft. seasonal camp and construct a 2,008 sq. ft. year-
round residence. Project includes new septic system and well, and site grading.
The applicant requests relief from the setbacks, lot frontage and height restrictions of the
Waterfront zone.
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement WR zone
The applicant proposes demolition of an existing dwelling to construct a new 2008 sq. ft.
dwelling where the east setback is to be 13 ft. 5 in where a 20 ft. setback is required. The
height is proposed to be 36 ft. where the maximum allowed is 28 ft.
179-4-050 Frontage
The access to the site is an easement from Eagan Rd. The project includes demolition and the
access to the site is to remain.
SEQR Type 11 — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 22, 2017;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties. We do not anticipate any.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. They could lower the height of the house
but because it doesn't have a cellar because of groundwater issues it would seem to be
most feasible to put a four foot crawl space up at the height of the house.
3. The requested variance is substantial six feet seven inches and the height relief that's
eight feet in excess is deemed to be excessive but there are extenuating circumstances.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district? Because the topography, the setbacks from the river and
being placed at the base of the hill, we do not anticipate that this will create any adverse
physical or environmental conditions.
5. The alleged difficulty self-created. It's partially self-created, but it's also created by the
topography and the water issues on site.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE
NO. Z-AV-19-2017, MICHAEL AND ERIN GUSTKE, Introduced by James Underwood, who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March 22 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Urrico
ABSENT: Mr. Henkel
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck.
MR. HALL-Thank you for your time.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm just going to take one minute to do some housekeeping, but I'm also going
to change up the agenda a little bit here because it's actually my error. I should have realized
this before we put the agenda together for this month. I'm going to move the last application
forward because there are a lot of people here in the audience that have come for this
application, and there's no reason to make them sit through four applications that are relatively
the same. So I apologize to the agents who are sitting there anxiously waiting to get to the little
table, but I'm going to call the Hilliard, Tyrer, Lyon & Cerny application, application number Z-
AV-15-2017 to the floor for 94 Ash Drive.
MR. URRICO-There's one before.
MR. FREER-It's Ray's Salvage.
MR. JACKOSKI-How did I do that? My apologies, Mike. There's going to be one more, the
Perkins application. I'm sorry. Ray's Salvage and it's 15 Pasco Avenue, but then I promise,
Mike, we'll do you next.
USE VARIANCE Z-UV-2-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED CAROL PERKINS d/b/a RAY'S
SALVAGE AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR/TOM HUTCHINS, PE
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) CAROL PERKINS ZONING MDR LOCATION
15 PASCO AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF OFFICE/SALVAGE
GARAGE BUILDING RECENTLY DESTROYED BY FIRE (MAY 2016). A NEW 3,200 SQ. FT.
METAL BUILDING IS PROPOSED OF WHICH 1,200 SQ. FT. WILL BE USED AS OFFICE
SPACE WITH REMAINING 2,000 SQ. FT. USED FOR AUTO SALVAGE. NUMEROUS OUT-
BUILDINGS, SHEDS, AND TRAILERS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ALLOWABLE USES IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT.
PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR NEW COMMERCIAL
BUILDING AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE. CROSS REF P-SP-19-
2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 7.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.19-
1-10 SECTION 179-3-040
JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. Again, Jonathan, it's my fault.
We are going to do the Perkins/Ray Salvage application next.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Use Variance Z-UV-2-2017, Carol Perkins d/b/a Ray's Salvage, Meeting Date:
March 22, 2017 "Project Location: 15 Pasco Avenue Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes replacement of office/salvage garage building recently destroyed by fire
(May 2016). A new 3,200 sq. ft. metal building is proposed of which 1,200 sq. ft. will be used as
office space with remaining 2,000 sq. ft. used for auto salvage. Numerous out-buildings, sheds,
and trailers will be removed from the property.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the MDR allowable uses
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—MDR zone
The applicant proposes an expansion of a salvage yard operation to include a new 3,200 sq. ft.
building. The building will use 2000 sq. ft. for interior auto salvage and the remaining 1200 sq.
ft. for office area. This is to replace a 1400 sq. ft. building that was destroyed by fire. The site
use of salvage yard is not a listed use in the MDR zone.
Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that return is
substantial as
demonstrated by competent financial evidence. The applicant has indicated the property
has been a
salvage yard since for a long time—online history indicates 1981. The applicant has provided
information from a real estate person and an engineer that explains to convert the site from a
salvage
yard would cost about $460,000 to develop a four lot subdivision and to sell the lots for
$115,000
to break even for the sale with no reasonable return. Also, the letter provided indicates the
marketing
the site for residential use and non-residential use allowed in the zone would not be successful
due
to the prior use.
2. Whether the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does
not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. The applicant has
supplied information from a Real Estate Sales Associate that indicates the property is
unique as it has no access to Sherman Avenue unless the adjoining parcel is also part of
the marketing. In addition due to the prior use the market value would not be reached as
buyers would associate the salvage yard with difficulty to establish an allowed use or
residential use.
3. That the requested Use Variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. The applicant has indicated the surrounding neighborhood contains other
salvage yards and limited residential.
4. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a new 40 x 80 metal building for office and salvage operations as the
building is larger than the previous building than it is an expansion of the salvage operations.
Site plan review is also required for the project. The building office area is to be 1,200 sq. ft.
and 3,000 sq. ft. for auto salvage. The previous 1,411 sq. ft. building burned in May 2016."
MR. URRICO-I just want to point out when I originally read this, this is Criteria for Considering a
Use Variance under Town Law and the criteria is different for a Use Variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-Again, my apologies for trying to skip over you folks.
MR. LAPPER-For the record Jon Lapper with Tom Hutchins and Carol Perkins. So as the
application indicated, there was a fire last spring and Carol used this as an opportunity to help
clean up her site. Of course cleaning up her site required a Use Variance because it's a prior
nonconforming use. So I want to make some general comments explaining our variance. I'll
have Tom walk you through the site and the proposal. The goal here is to improve the
neighborhood, to clean up the whole front of this facility on Pasco. It's not an expansion of the
operation or the use. It's taking parts of the operation that happen outdoors, including storage
and dismantling, and moving them inside the metal building. So it'll be more attractive to the
neighborhood. We're doing some stormwater controls, landscaping, some real designated
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
parking, and most importantly taking off about a dozen storage trailers and sheds in the back
that are currently used for storage. So the whole goal here is to clean this up. We had a
bunch of neighbors who were going to speak on behalf but who got bored with the first
application. So before they left they signed a little petition which I'll submit, saying that they
support this, but as Carol has explained, this whole area has been a junkyard, salvage yard
since long before there was zoning in Queensbury. We went back, in terms of, her family's
ownership isn't until the late 70's, but her dad bought the site in the late 70's. It had been a junk
yard since the 40's. So the reason why we believe this isn't a self-created hardship is because
it's about converting a pre-existing use that's been in this part of Town for some 70 years, and
so to look at this, to justify the Use Variance criteria, just to expand the building, to build a bigger
building, and just to replace in kind what was burnt down, Tom did an analysis of what it would
cost, legitimately, to re-develop this site, to make it where somebody would want to build houses
here, and because you've got, not that there's contaminants in the ground, but you've got, you
know, all sorts of pieces of whatever from compacted, things that fall off of cars over 70 years,
you have to really fill this site to make it something that somebody would want to live in, and
Laura characterized Dan Davies as a sales associate. He's, of course, the broker/owner of
Davies & Davies and very well respected realtor in Town, and he took a look at this and said, for
the cost it's going to take you to fill that and to build the road to Town standards, there's no way
somebody's going to pay that to make it into residential. So the hardship here is that we can't
re-develop it into a conforming use because of the 70 some odd years of this non-conforming
use. With that said, we think that, in terms of the impact on the neighborhood, the
environmental impact, everything that Carol's willing to do here is to clean this up and make it
look a lot better from the front. That's our argument. We were at the Planning Board last
night. They'd all been out to the site, as I'm sure you were, and they were very supportive in
terms of what the goal was here, that it's going to be approved. So with that said, let me ask
Tom to walk you through the site.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Tom Hutchins. The plan that Laura has up is kind of a split
plan. This version represents the way the site was in a pre-fire condition. This is the building
that was destroyed about a year ago, and this side over here is what we propose. So we're
proposing to replace this 1350 square foot building with a 3200 square foot building, which
would essentially be office in the front portion and interior processing area, dismantling and
some parts storage. So it would allow us to take some of these trailers and storage units and
get them under cover as well as move some important parts of the operation indoors that are
currently done exposed. We have shown some revised parking area. This right here is the
existing scale. Right now today there is a temporary trailer right there that's serving as her
office. Her office was destroyed in the fire. So that temporary trailer would go, of course, with
the construction of the new building, and these storage trailers back in this area would also be
removed. We've got a new septic system here, some landscaping, and that's shown on
another plan what we have. We have cleaned up the front and added some landscaping, some
sidewalk and stormwater for the buildings in the form of infiltration trenching. The site itself is
covered under permit, under what DEC terms a multi-sector permit which is another general
stormwater permit for industrial activities and this is a regulated industrial activity, and this is a
regulated industrial activity and she does operate under that permit for the site in its entirety.
So we look at it as a way to get a much greater portion of the operation indoors as well as clean
the area up and become more compliant. The building is laid out compliant as far as setbacks,
both side, front, height. The other, prior building was not. So we're actually an improvement
there, and with that, I guess I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. LAPPER-And Carol's here to answer any questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you dismantling and crushing them on site?
CAROL PERKINS
MS. PERKINS-Yes, we dismantle and crush on site.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So my big question for you would be this. When Jerry Brown's came in
and did all their improvements and added all their buildings and everything else, are you siting
your building in the proper place if you want to add on later or somebody else wants to add on?
Because I think, you know, it seems to me like a lot of the dismantlers are going to indoor
storage of all their parts and inventory. So it makes more sense to site it, you know, exactly
where you can easily add on and not have the hodgepodge, you know, make it mish mash like
you have down there now. It's sort of a mess.
MS. PERKINS-This is big enough, much, much bigger than what we had, and what I would do,
if I did expand later, it would just be a warehouse for dry storage for parts. My main concern is
environmentals where I really want to prep things inside. Not outside. Right now I have a prep
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
station that's like a lean to type thing with three walls, but for the men it's brutally cruel. It really
is, this time of year and also in the summer.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I assume like all your automotive fluids and stuff like that that you're
recycling at this point.
MS. PERKINS-Yes, I am.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're not like the old days.
MS. PERKINS-No.
MR. LAPPER-Can't afford to do that.
MS. PERKINS-No, I follow all DEC's regulations.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? There is
a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to
address the Board on this application? I do see a couple of hands, Jonathan. So if you could
give up the table. And, Roy, while the commenter is coming to the table, do you have any
written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Just the resolution by the Queensbury Planning Board, and based on its limited
review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current
project proposal. And they approved that March 21, 2017 unanimously.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. If you could state your name for the record.
TREVOR SCHMETTERER
MR. SCHMETTERER-My name is Trevor Schmetterer. I live in Queensbury. I own the
property just at the base of Ms. Perkins. It's a little usual, I guess, to think that this was a
junkyard for 70 years and will allow a junkyard to continue in an area that's all residential. I've
stood on a property on Sherman Avenue and seen the trucks, all times of day, in and out of that
place recycling materials, where I know that they coveted sort of that water off of upper Aviation
Road, were mandated to have a truck two times per day, only between a specific hour, carrying
water. We have trucks at all times of day, industrial trucks bringing metal with all sorts of fluids
and whatever's been dripping onto the ground for the past 70 years. All times of the day, but
that would be acceptable in an all residential area. A question, a few other questions that come
to mind is what would be the appropriate amount of time for notification for the hearing tonight
from March 13th? I didn't really have adequate time to prepare to really inspect anything. I just
got the notification about a little over a week ago. What's the appropriate amount of time when
they send out something for the Planning Board like this for notification?
MR. JACKOSKI-The notification you received was within the appropriate amount of time.
MR. SCHMETTERER-Okay. Just a question. Do we know what the cause of the fire was that
destroyed the existing building?
MR. JACKOSKI-That's not germane to this.
MR. SCHMETTERER-Okay. I'll just move forward. If the owner wanted to do something with
the site, why did we wait for a fire to destroy that building? I know that's not something you can
answer, but I just think that Sherman Avenue's an east/west artery with all residential properties.
The only other commercial property is the Dome, and that's about two and a half miles to the
east, and that's only regular vehicular traffic. Occasionally ballgames and things. So it doesn't
really impact that area, just more residential traffic. Not industrial commercial traffic with big
dump trucks running through there with used vehicles with crushing and the noise factor and
oils and everything else. The current use is already nonconforming. Why would we allow its
current use to build a new building where the owner's already said that there's possibly a
likelihood that she would build additional buildings later? In already a nonconforming area,
which is all residential. I think that what would be probably wise would be some sort of soil
testing area from the past years, regardless of its re-development, possibility of residential. I
know it doesn't make economic sense for the owner, but what about the other people in the
area and the noise factor? Bringing, even with bringing the building inside, you're not going to
stop the traffic on Sherman Avenue, all the waste trucks going back and forth. I think that was
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
it, other than I just don't think it's an appropriate application in an area, or safety factor, in an all
residential neighborhood.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I understand and I appreciate your comments. So could you tell me,
you'd be okay with them remaining in their current location?
MR. SCHMETTERER-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-But I can't change that.
MR. SCHMETTERER-I know. I'm just saying I don't think the application should be approved to
build anything on that site.
MR. JACKOSKI-But you realize they can continue to operate their business even without the
building?
MR. SCHMETTERER-Yes. I just don't think, building the new building alone will attract
additional traffic to that area. We all have all sorts of people, not just industrial or commercial
players, coming in. There's all sorts of people showing up in pickup trucks with junk and
salvage running through there all times of the day. They made a water company only run
through two times a day with a water truck.
MR. JACKOSKI-The water company was new.
MR. SCHMETTERER-I understand.
MR. JACKOSKI-Not 70 years old.
MR. SCHMETTERER-Seventy years old, new, doesn't matter to me. I just think it's an
appropriate use for that area.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but I assume you bought your property within the last 70 years.
So you knew it was there when you bought the property. Unfortunately.
MR. SCHMETTERER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board?
STEVEN THETFORD
MR. THETFORD-Hi, I live at 26 Pasco Ave.
MR. JACKOSKI-Which way?
MR. THETFORD-I live up the way. I have no problem with them building the building, providing
that they're going to keep it clean. Clean the place up. That would be a better situation for that
street. Plus it's mostly the Town's fault why that will never improve. You can shake your head
right now, but I fought with Code Enforcement to tend to the junkyard that's at the end of the
road, which is cars are hundreds of feet down the road on the side of the road, blocking the
road, causing situations to where, if an emergency vehicle needed to get up to the hydrant and
that was up there, they probably couldn't. So as far as this junkyard goes, it's not causing a
problem. If they've got to build a building to do some landscaping out front and make it more
presentable and keep everything behind the fence like they're supposed to be, and they do do a
better job of running it than the other one, and as far as this man's complaining about traffic.
Regardless of whether they build this building or not, we're still going to have the same traffic.
So this building is not going to change that traffic flow.
MR. JACKOSKI-The concern might have been that it would allow them to streamline their
operations and maybe do more volume. That would bring in more traffic. I think that's what he
was trying to get at.
MR. THETFORD-Yes. The building's not going to be that big to go main stream with this. Like
I said, the biggest problem is, if she's trying to improve, God bless her. The main problem is up
the road to where Code Enforcement does not enforce Code at all.
MR. JACKOSKI-I made a notation of that. I will talk to the Building Department.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. THETFORD-Because the same person is now Director that never enforced Code, I don't
know how many years ago.
MR. JACKOSKI-But that's not this application.
MR. THETFORD-That's not this application, but like I'm saying, the messiness of the street is
not the cause of this woman. If they're trying to clean up, God bless them. You should allow
the building to be built.
DODY THETFORD
MRS. THETFORD-But I want to let you know that that junkyard, Mr. Harrington owned it first.
It's been there for over 70 years. My father was the first one on that road. So I know how old
that junkyard is, and it's always been there. So I don't know what this guy's talking about, but
it's over 70 years old. So I think you guys should let her build her building. Like I say, we live
up there, so we know. That will improve our area a whole lot.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board? Is
there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-We already did that.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think you addressed most things already, Jon.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Regarding what was brought up in public comment regarding improvement of
the project, landscaping, cleaning up all the out buildings, trailers, etc., is there anything else
you want to add?
MR. LAPPER-Can we just submit the petition from the four neighbors who left?
MR. JACKOSKI-Could you give it to Roy, please. Roy, could you just read it and tell us how
many names are on it?
MR. URRICO-"I approve of Ray's Automotive Parts plan to expand and improve their facility at
15 Pasco Avenue Queensbury, NY 12804. And there are four names on here.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you, and they're all.
MR. URRICO-Three of them, they're all on Pasco.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So I want to remind Board members that we are tasked
with the following, and I'm only reading this because it's not often that we do Use Variances, but
they must demonstrate, including all of the following for each and every use. Number One, you
cannot realize a reasonable return, substantial as shown by competent financial evidence. I'm
not sure that Mr. Davies' generalized statement has satisfied that, but you can address that in a
minute. Number Two, alleged hardship is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of
the district or neighborhood. Number Three, the requested variance will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood. And Number Four, the alleged hardship has not been self-
created. Obviously the existence of that, I hate to call it a junkyard, but that facility over the last
70 years, those kind of last three items are self-explanatory. So I'll poll the Board.
MR. LAPPER-Would you like me to address the competent financial, since you mentioned it?
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Sure.
MR. LAPPER-The cost analysis of what it would take to re-develop that site as a conforming
use was all done by Tom who's very familiar with the cost of land development. Dan just came
in to say, knowing that neighborhood, that you can't sell lots for $115,000, residential lots in that
neighborhood. So the number is from the licensed engineer who understands the cost of
development. Dan is just familiar with the market.
MR. JACKOSKI-So how much was it going to cost?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. LAPPER-Four sixty minimum to, clearing, grading, stormwater, fill.
MR. JACKOSKI-And that's five lots?
MR. LAPPER-Four.
MR. MC CABE-And that wouldn't include doing an environmental assessment.
MR. LAPPER-Well, Carol has had soil tests done in the last few years. So in terms of the
environmental, she's certain that that's not a factor that Tom considered because, you know, we
don't think that there's environmental contaminants, but just non-environmental pieces of cars
and things that have fallen off. It would be more if there was a cleanup.
MR. JACKOSKI-And you think, Tom, the minimum that she would have to spend on cleaning up
this property is $460,000? There's no way to just sell the whole parcel for $120,000? Is that
reasonable?
MR. HUTCHINS-No, I'm saying to, yes, to develop it as a residential property. To put it
together as residential lots, you could get four residential lots, in accordance with current
zoning, and in order to do that, I'm saying, yes, we'd get about four sixty-five and to your point,
there's not an extensive environmental cleanup in there. There's some extra stuff for cleanup of
debris and the like, but there's not environmental work included within that.
MR. LAPPER-It would be worse.
MR. HUTCHINS-It would be worse if there was environmental work in there, in any condition.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, we're tasked with addressing all of these items, whether we want to or
not. We've got to face the music. We need to understand the financials behind it as Item
Number One.
MR. LAPPER-Tom's affidavit did list the specific costs individually.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll poll the Board. The public hearing is still open, just so everybody
knows that. Would anyone like to go first on this one?
MR. MC CABE-I'll go first. We don't normally see Use Variances. So it's a little different for
us. When I take a look at this, my basic feeling is that this would be a huge improvement to the
neighborhood. So just based on that, I would approve it, but if I take a look at the criteria, I don't
believe it would be practical to develop this as a residential property. So I believe that there is
a hardship, financial hardship there. It's not going to change the nature of the neighborhood for
sure because it's been there for a long time. Is it, you know, self-created? Not really, it was
created years ago when somebody first had a salvage yard there, and the property is kind of
unique in that respect because it's the only salvage operation that's going on there. So I
believe that we meet the four criteria of a Use Variance and so I would approve it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Next volunteer?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'll go next.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thanks, Michelle.
MRS. HAYWARD-It's interesting, when I read this application and I visit the site and I prepare
for the meeting and I listen, I've spun around a little bit. I've always been a stickler for Use
Variances for competent financial evidence. This is a very unique situation, but in this
circumstance, I can't see where this has been marketed, actually marketed, as a property, or,
you know, those properties, but given that Mr. Davies attested that there wouldn't be a
reasonable return because of the nature of that property and the history of it being a junkyard
for so long, I could see where there wouldn't be a reasonable return, and it is a very unique
situation. So for that reason, I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think if we look at it for what it is, it's not the best example of a
recycled junkyard type operation, it's not the worst one either by any means, but I think what
you're doing here is you're continuing on a use that's no longer permitted, and although a lot of
people look down their noses at that use, it provides useful services within the community for
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
recycling, and I don't think that's a bad idea in its own accord. I think at the same time, you
know, your hand was forced on this issue by the loss of the building to fire and you're going to
be improving the situation. I think that the Planning Board will probably dial in whatever
cleanup is necessary as far as removal of storage buildings and containers and stuff like that on
site down on site down there, and I think that you'll be improving your act. So I think that's the
general goal that we should be in tune with. So I'd be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm going to agree with Jim for the most part. I just think that I'm a little
disappointed that the Town didn't take the opportunity, a few years ago, to re-define the uses in
this area that are in play. They're being used for something, and they had the opportunity to
look at this particular situation and define what should be here, what was there, and then give
us some criteria to work around, because this is an unfortunate situation. They had a business
in an area, legally, and by Code, and now they're being forced to come back to us because of a
set of circumstances. So I'm really disappointed that we don't have a better process in place for
that particular area, but I would be in favor of this application.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-So I have to comment on our changing vocabulary from junkyard to salvage yard.
It reminds me of a comment I made about swamps that are now wetlands. So our vocabulary
evolves. But I do support this variance for similar reasons that my colleagues have stated.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I, too, feel that my colleagues have nailed this on the head. I don't think
the hardship has been self-created. You had a fire which you couldn't control. The facility has
been there forever. So that's been out of your control, and it can continue to be a zoning
concern. Number Two, the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Number One, there's a similar facility just down the road. Number Two, this neighborhood is
somewhat defined by your facility. So how's it going to change it? The next item is the
hardship being unique in a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. It's a good sized
facility for that road. I get that. Again, it's already there. So it's a little bit different. We're not
putting in a new use, so to speak, other than it's being expanded. Finally we come down to the
financial data, and what is considered a reasonable return for the property in that area. I don't
think anyone should expect that that area would command $460,000 for seven acres. I think in
that area people would expect the seven acres might bring two to three hundred thousand
dollars. So as Michelle suggested, has it been marketed for two hundred to three hundred
thousand dollars, and is that reasonable? However, somebody who pays the two hundred to
three hundred thousand, I don't know that they would, would expect a development into
housing, four parcels, how much can you get a parcel? Well, probably $75,000 each so you do
the math, can you market this property for $300,000? And I don't know that it's been
demonstrated that you've really proven that is that a reasonable return on this property? I
suspect when your family bought it and invested in it, they didn't expect to be limited by the
residential value of it. They expected to be limited by the commercial value of it. So in that
regard, I think we've met the reasonable return on investment criteria. So I'm in favor of the
project. Accordingly I think, legal, we've addressed all four areas. Do you have anything that
we should be aware of as we move forward with a possible resolution to approve the Use
Variance?
MR. CROWE-No, I would just say to re-state all of your reasons into the motion and the fact
that, you know, what you're referring to has been presented in the record, and if you make
reference to that, then to, you know, vote accordingly.
MR. JACKOSKI-So maybe when Mike or Jim or someone makes the resolution.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we need to do SEQR on this?
MR. JACKOSKI-We will need to do SEAR. So maybe you guys can just simply reference to
Maria to quote what the Chairman said previously in the record, if you wish, or you could try to
summarize as well. It's up to you, but I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm going to seek a motion for SEAR.
MOTION REGARDING USE VARIANCE Z-UV-2-2017 CAROL PERKINS D/B/A RAY'S
SALVAGE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Michael McCabe who
moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted 22nd day of March 22, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Henkel
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Now a motion for approval, please.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Carol Perkins d/b/a Ray's Salvage for a variance of Section(s) 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code
of The Town of Queensbury.
Applicant proposes replacement of office / salvage garage building recently destroyed by fire
(May 2016). A new 3,200 sq. ft. metal building is proposed of which 1,200 sq. ft. will be used as
office space with remaining 2,000 sq. ft. used for auto salvage. Numerous out-buildings, sheds,
and trailers will be removed from the property.
The applicant requests relief from the MDR allowable uses
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—MDR zone
The applicant proposes an expansion of a salvage yard operation to include a new 3,200 sq. ft.
building. The building will use 2000 sq. ft. for interior auto salvage and the remaining 1200 sq.
ft. for office area. This is to replace a 1400 sq. ft. building that was destroyed by fire. The site
use of salvage yard is not a listed use in the MDR zone.
Motion regarding Use Variance Z-UV-2-2017 Carol Perkins d/b/a Ray's Salvage based
upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided
by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse
environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Michael
McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted 22"d day of March 22, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Henkel
The four (4) criteria usually associated with a Use Variance are:
1.) Whether the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that return is
substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. It is our finding that:
We believe that they can't based on the idea that there would have to be development
work done and the property divided into four lots and we believe that at best the four lots
might generate somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000 return, and that's pretty
optimal. So we believe that the financial information presented backs up the idea that
they can't generate a reasonable rate of return without this variance.
2.) Whether the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not
apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. It is our finding that: We
can't ignore the fact that this salvage yard has been here for a long period of time and
there's no reason why it shouldn't continue.
3.) That the requested Use Variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. It is our finding that: Again, the neighborhood kind of evolved around
this salvage yard. There's another salvage yard not too far away so it is our finding that
it's not going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
4.) Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. It is our finding that: It was not self-
created. It was the result of several circumstances, one of which was a fire, and
therefore we believe that it was not self-created.
Based upon our findings above, we hereby determine that the applicant [ HAS ] demonstrated
that the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
[ (Note: use the following only when approving a use variance.) The Board finds that the
variance under consideration is the minimum necessary and adequate to address the
unnecessary hardship proven by the applicant and at the same time preserve and protect the
character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.]
As per the discussions that we had as a Board in the public record as well as the Chairman's
summarization of the four points necessary to grant a Use Variance criteria, we move forward
with this resolution.
BASED UPON ALL OF THE ABOVE, I MOVE THAT THIS BOARD f APPROVE 1 USE
VARIANCE Z-UV-2-2017, CAROL PERKINS D/B/A RAY'S SALVAGE, Introduced by Michael
McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: With the following
conditions:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March 2017, by the following vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-And I just want to add for clarity that as per the discussions that we had as a
Board in the public record, as well as the Chairman's summarization of the four points
necessary to grant a Use Variance criteria, and we move forward with this resolution. Is that
fair, legal?
MR. CROWE-Yes, that's fair.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Call the vote.
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Henkel
MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you, everybody.
MS. PERKINS-Thank you, sir, I appreciate it.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Now I'm going out of order for the Glen Lake folks. The application
is Hilliard, Tyrer, Lyon & Cerny. It is the Lisa Doster property at 94 Ash Drive, northwest side of
Glen Lake. Also referred to as the old Casino. It's Area Variance Z-AV-15-2017. A Type II
SEAR.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-15-2017 SEQRA TYPE II HILLIARD, TYRER, LYON & CERNY
AGENT(S) TRACY CLOTHIER OWNER(S) DAVID & LISA DOSTER ZONING WR-1A
LOCATION 94 ASH DRIVE, NORTHWEST SIDE OF GLEN LAKE APPLICANTS PROPOSE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 4 FT. WIDE, 40 FT. LENGTH DOCK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR DOCKS. EASEMENT AREA IS DEEDED
TO THE FOUR APPLICANTS AS THEIR NON-WATERFRONT PROPERTIES ARE
LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE LAKEFRONT PROPERTY THAT PROVIDED A 4
FT. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PATH TO A BEACH AND SEASONAL USE OF A REMOVABLE
DOCK. DOCK INSTALLATION IS PER A COURT ORDER. PLANNING BOARD: SITE
PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CLASS A MARINA. P-SP-17-2017; P-SUP-3-2017 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE .95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-5 SECTION
179-5-060
MICHAEL BORGOS & TRACY CLOTHIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening and I'll turn it over to Roy
to be read into the record.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-15-2017, Hilliard, Tyrer, Lyon & Cerny, Meeting Date:
March 22, 2017 "Project Location: 94 Ash Drive Description of Proposed Project:
Applicants propose construction of a 4 ft. wide, 40 ft. length dock.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the dock setback restrictions of the Waterfront zone.
179-5-060 Docks—setback requirement WR zone
The applicant proposes to install a dock in a court designated location where it will be 3 ft. from
the property line where a 20 ft. setback is required.
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
may be considered limited due to the court requirement and the existing area that was
utilized for the tenants dock.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested is 17 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project will have
minimal impact on the physical or environmental impacts.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Staff comments:
Applicant proposes to install a 40' x 4' dock and a pathway from Ash Drive to dock location.
Project is considered a Class A marina, as dock is for more than one owner — a total of four.
Project is part of a court order for property owner to install. The project is subject to site plan
review and special use permit for a proposed Class A marina."
MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board based on its limited review did not
identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project
proposal. And that motion was passed on March 21, 2017 by a unanimous vote.
MR. BORGOS-For the record, on behalf of the applicant, I'm Michael Borgos. I'm here with
Tracy Clothier who's been on the project developing the drawings and actually prepared the
submissions. I'm not going to repeat everything Mr. Urrico said. I think the application itself
well documents everything that's gone on here, but I will comment and say this is probably
unusual for the Board to see. It's not often that you get a court ordered stipulation that sets forth
a need for a variance before the Board. I think the observation that I would share with you is
that this is unusual in that it was not something that was intentionally lapsed for more than 18
months. It wasn't a fire like the last case that you just heard that created this period of non-use
of the dock. It was actually a dispute, a legal dispute that went to the courts for four years. It's
been resolved. The intent in the stipulation that you have a copy of was to go through the
Town process for the Special Use Permit which is for a Class A Marina according to Craig
Brown's appropriate determination because you have more than just the property owner. You
have those four other property owners who are off the lake who have these deeded property
rights. So it's an unusual situation but not unheard of, and certainly there are other examples
of that on the lake. What was unusual was that the dock was removed at a period of time
which necessitates the review by this Board. My clients are the four applicants that are off the
water, and it is their view that they would have liked to have had use of the dock all those years,
but for the dispute in the courts. So we think that is the justification to allow for the variance.
The intent here is to put the dock back in the exact same spot that it was before. We think that
if you look at the submission here in front of you and you see that it is a restoration of what was.
We have historical photos of the Casino. If you look at the Google map, you'll see that the
piers from the old Casino dock extend out 100, 120 feet. This is certainly inside of those.
Historically this property is much more intensely used. We're not trying to do anything more
than what was before the dock was removed from the water at the beginning of the dispute
between the property owners. We're just trying to re-set and go back to what was. That's why
we're here tonight. So I'm sure you have some questions about it.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Historically speaking, how long was that dock there at the Casino prior to?
MR. BORGOS-My understanding, it is not 100%, but I believe it was decades. It was
generations that had used the dock there.
MR. JACKOSKI-I keep looking over at Jim because he's currently our resident expert on Glen
Lake.
MR. BORGOS-You're a former expert, though.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, well. I've lost my touch.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean, I saw the new dock and I kind of wondered, too. I said,
because you don't notice when things disappear. You only notice when things appear.
MR. BORGOS-And in discussion last night at the Planning Board, because it's always
concerning to the neighbors who receive notice of a Class A Marina, those who do not
understand the nature of the regulations and what that means. It does not mean it's a
commercial operation in this context. It's purely residential. There are an incredible amount of
limitations within the stipulated settlement that was court ordered. So there's a lot of oversight
already in place to make sure this is not something that is a rental situation or gasoline sales or
maintenance or launching, none of that. This is simply a place for those people who are
nearby. They have the pathway that comes down to the water to utilize the lake. That's what
they received in their deed from the, they trace it back through the deed chain, it goes back to
the original owner of the Casino. They had a much larger property holding and they subdivided.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So we don't have any statutory requirements for fire suppression or
anything like that. It's just considered to be a normal dock on the lake.
MR. BORGOS-The application to the Planning Board seeks waivers on all those things because
there's no on-site parking for this. This is all pedestrian access limited to that western edge,
that four foot pathway. There's not going to be any disturbance of the ground there. There'd
be minimal trimming with hand tools to make sure the overgrowth and the brush is cut back so
they can pass through there, but it's really, it's essentially what is, what you see is what you get.
The dock's just going back in the water.
MR. FREER-In terms of lavatory facilities as a Class A Marina under, this is going to be used
from the house.
MR. BORGOS-Correct. You read that correctly. They're going to just hoof it back to their
house.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike, let me re-cap what I think I heard you say through all of this. There's a
stipulation from the court that's not finalized yet?
MR. BORGOS-No, it is finalized.
MR. JACKOSKI-It is finalized. Okay. I didn't know if it was subject to this approval.
MR. BORGOS-It was not. I think it's nine pages long with all the details.
MR. JACKOSKI-There was a dock in the exact same location at the same exact same point of
shore contact at least five years ago and many decades before that.
MR. BORGOS-Correct. There's a seawall, a concrete seawall there where this is going to be
attached to now.
MR. JACKOSKI-The reason that the dock is currently not there is because there was a legal
dispute and it's taken four plus years to get through those legal proceedings, thus the timing
issue of the 18 months concern on the dock.
MR. BORGOS-Correct, but for that delay, you wouldn't even be seeing this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. I know, and you may not be aware, but across the bay, on my old lot,
we had issues with building a four foot wide, 40 foot long dock on a parcel that had 40 feet of
frontage. This one technically has four. Right?
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. BORGOS-No, no. This is not ownership. This is an easement. So it is the entire length
of the Doster's property line, which can capably support the dock structures that we're asking
for.
MR. JACKOSKI-Which is why you're only asking for one variance on one side.
MR. BORGOS-Correct. It's just a side setback relief, and not asking for any more than ever
was, and I'll add that, as a result of this litigation, there's actually been an addition to the
shoreline. Tracy, would you point out to them that triangle of land down by the water? To the
western edge of the dock, there was a question of ownership, and as part of the resolution of
the litigation, the neighboring parcel to the left deeded additional lands to the Dosters, and it's,
Tracy, how many feet to the shore?
MS. CLOTHIER-Fourteen feet to the shoreline is what's in there, and it's in your set of deeds,
14 feet from the westerly neighbor to this edge of the, the easterly edge of the dock. So actually
you gain more space.
MR. BORGOS-It's an improved situation. I've been grappling with this question because I'm
aware of the parcel you just referenced around where you used to live, around the bay. This is
something that I believe is very much minimal relief that's requested possible because of the
dispute between the property owners. You have the Dosters who have the lakefront parcel and
then the children parcels, if you will, that were conveyed out by that predecessor in title. All of
those legal issues and easement rights have been resolved with this stipulate settlement. I
would love to have had a role in that. I didn't. I don't think that there's any way to go back and
re-do this. I think it was the expectation at the time this was done that they would be going
through Queensbury procedures, including the Site Plan Review for the Special Use Permit. I
don't know the answer as to whether anybody anticipated needing the variance at that point in
time. Had that been done perhaps there could have been some other accommodation, but I
don't know if that would have been possible. It may not have resolved the dispute. It may have
been continuing on into the future, perhaps resulting in a jury trial. So those are unknowns.
I'm just dealing with the facts as we have them. These applicants are dealt these facts that
come before these Boards saying this is all they could do. This was a result of a lot of
wrangling back and forth to reach this resolution.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing?
I'll open the public hearing. As you can imagine there are people here to speak to the Board,
and I'll get to those folks in just one minute. Roy, is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-So before you read it, are there any folks in the audience who want to speak,
but you also submitted a written comment? Would you prefer that we read the written comment
or would you prefer to speak?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Speak.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. How many people are looking to address the Board this evening on
this matter? Eight. We try to limit these things. Please do us a favor and stick to what's
relevant to just this particular dock issue. I understand it's complicated. I personally have a
lot of experience with docks on Glen Lake and problems with the neighbors, problems with lot
lines. So I'm going to work from my right to my left, if that's okay, and you can be first.
DAVID DOSTER
MR. DOSTER-Good evening. David Doster. I'm the owner of the property. So there's just a
quick comment. The dock was there for quite some time. We've owned the property for about
five years, and I actually rented on that property from the late 90's. So I'm very familiar with it
and the dock in question was always in that location. When we removed it, we removed it to
get the neighbors off the dock. It was the only way we could get them from using the dock until
we resolved this through the courts, and that was a short period of time. The dock was actually
back in that place for the past couple of years. There was a dock there last year, the year
before that and the year before that. So the removal of the dock was, and it's one of those
docks that would come in out of the water anyway. All of my docks come in out of the water
seasonally because of the ice that destroys them. So I just wanted to clarify that the dock was
there historically, going back to the late 90's from when I first started living on the property, and
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
so we just removed it for a short period of time to get the boats off of it and make sure it wasn't
used until we got it resolved.
MARK PRENDEVILLE
MR. PRENDEVILLE-HeIIo, my name is Mark Prendeville from Ash Drive. I'm just a couple of
houses down from the dock. I'd like to just bring up a couple of things that you did on your last
Pasco road variance. You said, and I quote, it has been a junkyard for 70 years, let's keep it
that way. This has been a Class A Marina for 70 years or whatever. It used to have a tour
boat at one time. It had rental boats there for years and years. So you're really not changing
anything at all by allowing this variance. I would like to say, I don't have a copy of the court
order so I can't read it, but I would like you to put in your wording of the variance if you can that
it should be just the four property owners allowed to use the dock and no additional rentals or
substantive dock space owners allowed for the term of the Class A Marina if that's possible.
Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Thank you.
CAROLSYNDER
MS. SYNDER-Hello. My name is Carol Synder. This is Michele Mayer, and we are members
of the Board of Directors of the Glen Lake Protective Association, and Michelle has passed out
a letter that I would like to read and submit as a letter of record, and it is dated March 23d, 2017,
to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Queensbury. "The Board of Directors of the
Glen Lake Protective Association on March 8, 2017 voted by a majority to request that the Town
deny the Special Use Permit for a Class A marina for the Hilliard, Tyrer, Lyons & Cerny
application. In addition and specific to this variance, members of our Board expressed that if a
dock were to be allowed, the applicants and owners should be made to meet the 20' setback to
the adjacent property for the dock. The Association's position is that when these setbacks can
be reasonably achieved, they should be. It is certainly possible and reasonable to achieve a 20'
property line setback for a dock on a shoreline of 169 feet. Our Board also agreed that if a
dock were to be allowed, it should be consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
Allowing a dock of 40 feet would visually be out of character with the neighborhood and create
navigational problems. Therefore, we ask the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny this variance
and compel the applicants to meet the 20' minimum property line setback. We ask further to
consider reducing the dock length and perhaps limit the number and the size of the boats
allowed in order to minimize interference with normal navigation and reasonable access to
adjacent neighbor's dock and to mitigate the negative impacts to the water quality of Glen Lake.
Thank you for considering our requests on his matter. Respectfully, the Board of Directors of
the Glen Lake Protective Association.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question? How many Class A marinas do we have on Glen
Lake currently?
MS. SYNDER-1 am not aware of any.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I assume when you've traveled around the lake in the summertime
you've seen that some of the waterfront properties on the lake have numerous docks and
numerous boat spaces rented out. I think there's probably in excess of probably 15 to 20 of
those sites around the lake, if you really collated the numbers and looked at them. I can
remember back in the early 90's when we were counting just the number of boats on the lake at
certain properties, the numbers started getting out of hand at that point, but I think in this issue
here, tonight we're germane to the issue of a single entity on the lake, and I think it's something
that the Lake Association themselves should look into and get handle on because I think it's
something that we should be concerned with.
MS. SYNDER-Traffic on the lake has greatly increased over the years, the motor boat traffic.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm thinking we're on the outlet end of the lake, down there, and it's kind of
gone way around the bend as far as the number of people that are renting out spaces. It's
prolific.
MS. SYNDER-But I think what we're trying to stress is that we want you not to give variance to
the setback of the 20 feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I think historically speaking what the Association needs to do,
too, is look at the issue of was this thing here prior to, you know, the advent. I don't know what
triggered this whole thing, whether the Town is the one, who went to the Town, you know, what
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
triggered the request this evening for this application. Because if the issue is this has been on
the site for many, many years, we have to consider that.
MICHELE MAYER
MRS. MAYER-This is a new dock. It's not, our understanding is it's not exactly the same dock
that was there before.
MR. JACKOSKI-We should understand. If it's not exactly the same as it was before, though
I've seen aerial photographs of it in 2004 and 2008, and I certainly, as a resident myself in those
years, remember there being a dock there, next door on the lot that we referenced before, there
are seven or eight people who have access to that dock, and that was in front of this Board just
four months ago and you weren't here. So I don't understand the consistency.
MS. SYNDER-So I wasn't aware that there was a setback variance on the other docks on the
lake.
MR. JACKOSKI-It's at zero.
MS. SYNDER-It's right at the line?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
MS. SYNDER-1 didn't catch that.
MR. JACKOSKI-But thank you. You can be next.
LISA DOSTER
MRS. DOSTER-Good evening. I'm Lisa Doster. I'm the owner of 94 Ash Drive. Before I get
into my details, I would just like to respond to Mike Borgos' comments about a Class A marina.
There's documentation based upon the Lake George Park Commission that states that a Class
A and Class B marina deem a property a commercial property. So I find that that's false. I'd
like to speak to follow up to my letter of approval sent to the Town of Queensbury 2/15/17, and
I'd also like to add some additional documentation. My initial response, 2/15/17, to the denial
from the Town and approval of application may contain error. My family was experiencing a
very stressful, almost terminal situation at the time the initial letter was sent, and it was under
time constraints of the applicants and their agents wanted to get onto the March Planning and
Zoning Board calendars. I was listed as the initial applicants when it actually was to be Hilliard,
Tyrer, Lyons, & Cerny. Their agent, Ms. Tracy Clothier, had sent e-mails to me from the LA
Group creating confusion as well, when in fact Ms. Clothier was and is serving as agent for her
own business, Clothier Planning and Consulting. The additional information that I have is
December 19, 2012 1 was advised by my surveyor, David Bolster, of his discussion with Craig
Brown at the Town of Queensbury, the property being quit claimed to me from Taylor Hill
Properties would require three variances before any mylar map can be filed at the County.
Taylor Hill Properties owner Gary Hicks started the application with Craig, unsure of all that
would be needed, February 10, 2017. Myself, my husband, Gary Hicks, the owner of Taylor
Hill Properties, and his wife met with Craig Brown to discuss why the portion of the Taylor Hill
Properties. (Some wording lost due to recording problems) Craig stated this would require a
variance, but after showing Craig the previous survey depictions from 1974, 1999, 2011 of the
dock and the property line, the segment of the property and our current agreement with Gary
Hicks, Craig Brown stated this would not require a variance after all. Craig stated my shoreline
allowed for two 40 foot docks and to have my survey updated to reflect all that we discussed
and he would sign off and give the Town's approval with the survey before I filed it with the
County. He also stated we did not need a permit to put in a seasonal dock in, in place of a
permanent dock that has been damaged by ice year after year. Only that the new seasonal
dock had to go in at the same exact location of the permanent dock. The updated 2013 survey
of my property showing the Town of Queensbury's stamp of approval and signature, and it also
shows both docks in the same location, and has Craig Brown's signature, was included in this
application. So I'm not sure why, after jumping through all the hoops in 2013, why we're here
today for a variance, as the dock is and will remain in its current location, and did you want the
documentation?
MR. JACKOSKI-You can submit it to the Secretary. Was there anything else you'd like to add?
MRS. DOSTER-My time is up, though.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anything pertinent you think we should hear?
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MRS. DOSTER-Is there, that's the only original reason why we're here tonight, correct, for the
variance of the placement of the dock?
MR. JACKOSKI-Craig Brown has made the determination, as the Zoning Administrator, that you
do not meet the current Code with your project, and therefore we are here to rule on it. We are
an appeals board.
MRS. DOSTER-1 don't meet the Code for the Class A marina?
MR. JACKOSKI-For the setback. This is a setback.
MRS. DOSTER-Just for the dock placement, for setback.
MR. JACKOSKI-We have an Area Variance in front of us for area variance, not for use.
MRS. DOSTER-Okay. So that's why I didn't want to get into any other terms if I needed to.
MR. JACKOSKI-This is Area Variance Z-AV-15-2017.
MRS. DOSTER-There are a couple of other things I'd like to add. As for the applicants hoofing
back to the house for a bathroom, only one applicant lives across the street. The other
property is vacant, and the other person lives on Birch. And based upon the surveys that I'm
going to submit tonight, you'll see with the quit claim that the addition of the land really wasn't an
addition of land. It was just a discrepancy between surveyors in the points. You'll see I have
Taylor Hill, their previous survey maps literally show the same line that my survey today shows,
and as for the use of the dock, the dock can also be used by us, our residents to the property,
and the whole area will be used by, if not in use by the applicants.
MR. JACKOSKI-Could you help me out a little bit because I'm a little confused at this point. At
you in favor of the variance being granted as it's requested or are you against it as it's being
requested?
MRS. DOSTER-1 don't have a choice. I have to approve of what's before us.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MRS. DOSTER-So I am for certain aspects, and against other aspects, and I submitted a letter
to the denial that I don't know if you guys have or don't have. It wasn't a letter directed to you.
MR. URRICO-I see four letters here.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any from Mrs. Doster?
MRS. MOORE-1 don't know if it's in the application, because I think it was directed to the Zoning
Administrator.
MR. JACKOSKI-To Craig. All right. So you had correspondence with Craig. That wouldn't
necessarily come to us if it was in with the application.
MRS. DOSTER-It was put in with the application. I saw it on line
MR. URRICO-Yes, there is a letter.
MRS. DOSTER-It was a response to my denial letter?
MR. URRICO-Yes, February 15th?
MRS. DOSTER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MRS. DOSTER-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Now we go along. Anybody? You can be next, sir, please.
GARY HICKS
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. HICKS-Good evening. I'm Gary Hicks. I'm the owner of Taylor Hill Properties. I'm the
owner of 88 Ash Drive. It is the property right adjacent to the Doster's property, right adjacent
to the right of way that was established by court action. The proposed dock is 40 feet long, all
though I don't know the exact measurement of the old dock. I believe it was less than that. It
could have been 20 feet. So the new one is much longer than the old dock, the one removed
about four, five years ago. I'm also asking you to deny the three foot setback because I think
that's unreasonable and poses a hardship and an issue for me because the boats essentially
moored on the west side of that dock now will sit directly in front of my property. Three foot
from the property line extended out into the water is where my dock would be, a pontoon boat,
for example, two thirds of it are going to be sitting directly in front of my property, and now
instead of a 20 foot dock with one boat it's a 40 foot dock with potentially two boats moored on
that same side of the dock. So I think three foot setback is unreasonable in this case. I think,
as was mentioned earlier the Dosters, shoreline (lost part of conversation, two conversations
going on at once). So requesting a setback for the three feet is not unreasonable given the
shoreline they have to work with. I do acknowledge as litigated in court there are certain plots
of land identified in these court documents for right of way for each access. So I certainly
acknowledge that, but I'm asking for consideration on a larger setback than three feet, w which I
think can be accommodated. The Dosters have certainly been good neighbors in the past, as
have the Hilliards and the other parties in this. I've tried to be a good neighbor as well, and
trying to be pragmatic in this case. I would suggest to you that I'm not demanding a 20 foot
setback, because I think the circumstances here, given the prior dock that was in there, given
the litigation for a settlement, I think three feet from my perspective is not reasonable. I think
three feet is unreasonable. So I'm suggesting, purely from my perspective as the owner being
most affected here with boats placed in front of my property, that a 10 foot setback would be
sufficient, in my mind, because it would then get the boats still along the property line, but not in
front of my property. So I'm certainly reasonable and willing to meet halfway, if you will, but
that's what I would ask of this Board.
MR. JACKOSKI-May I ask, when did you purchase your property?
MR. HICKS-In 2005.
MR. JACKOSKI-Was the dock there when you purchased it?
MR. HICKS-It was. The old dock was there, albeit a shorter dock, and we have had a fender
bender that resulted from the crowded condition because of this dock we're talking about being
on the boundary line and then my dock in the center of my property which is roughly 92 feet of
shoreline. We had a fender bender years ago when the old dock was there. So it is a
crowded condition.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Who's next?
PAUL DERBY
MR. DERBY-My name is Paul Derby. I live at 86 Ash Drive. That's two houses south, I'm
sorry, west of Gary Hicks on the other side, and for disclosure, I'm also President of The Glen
Lake Protective Association, and if I could take just one second just to clarify two things. One
is that, Mr. Chairman, back at that meeting that you were talking about, we did have a
representative from the Association here, Paul McPhillips, who made a statement at that
meeting. I believe that was withdrawn.
MR. JACKOSKI-The attorney?
MR. DERBY-Not the attorney. He's an insurance agent. He's on the Board of Directors of the
Association, and just to Jim's comment about Class A marinas, we are taking a strong stand.
We're not here for that. We're going to take, actually, a strong stand on Tuesday about our
position exactly on these Class A marinas and the secondary development that could result
from those things. We are going to deal with that issue as well, but I'm here this evening as an
effected neighbor. I've been at my property since 1993, about 24 years. I do have quite a bit
of experience there, and I want to set the record straight on something, that's about the dock.
The dock that, there has never been since I've lived there a 40 foot dock at that location. There
was a 10 foot dock last year. Before that there was a 20 foot dock. There was a 15 foot dock
that actually was not in that exact spot but in your mid 90's was over more towards where the
setback was. So the dock that they're proposing, which is a four foot by forty foot dock, has not
existed at that. This is a new dock, and the replacement dock that is to come down, but if you
did a site plan, there is an aluminum roll in dock that's been put there. That dock did not exist
in that spot until last fall. (static, problems with tape, unable to transcribe part of recording).
So I think it needs a permit and a variance as well for that. So what I wanted to do tonight is
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
just show you some (problems with recording) a longer dock is going to have a negative effect
on the character of the neighborhood and it's also going to have a negative effect on me as a
nearby property owner. So, can we go to the next slide, Laura? This is last year, 2016, an
overhead view. This was taken October 6th, at the end of the season. This property over here
is the Doster property. Right in this area is where the proposed dock is going to go. That is a
10 foot dock in that area last year. It has a small paddle boat and a jet ski on it. This is the
Taylor Hill property here. It has seven apartments. It has a large dock that comes out that
does meet the setbacks, and there are several boats, somewhere between three and five, in
that area, and then this is my property on this side over here.
MR. FREER-How long is your dock?
MR. DERBY-My dock is 38 feet, and my dock, I'm going to show you the character of it in a
second.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-How long is Taylor Hill's dock?
MR. DERBY-1 don't know.
AUDIENCE MEMBER 2-It's roughly 30 by 35.
MR. DERBY-So I'm going to show you the character in another one. So potentially, Laura, can
you go to the next slide? This is another look at the same property, again, with that 10 foot
dock there, and Taylor Hill next door. Potentially, if you put four boats on a dock going out 40
feet, and then the Dosters have a boat and they have three other tenants with three, that's eight.
Taylor Hill could have as many as seven. You have many boats there. So as Gary rightly
said, it's very crowded in that region. Next slide, please. If you go out 40 feet from that 10 foot
dock, you can see that it does have significant impact, and I believe that does change the
character of the neighborhood and it's very difficult. It is very difficult to park in there. So
there's going to be trouble, and how that affects me, next slide, sorry, Laura. This is from the
lake, again, this is last year that I took. That's the 10 foot dock there. This is the view from the
Taylor Hill property here. This is my property over here. Next slide, please. And I moved my
raft over here, not because I wanted to have my raft there, but five years ago, when the
applicants had two large pontoon boats there, what happened was it was so crowded that
several of Gary's tenants moved to my side of the dock, and one time in the summer my nine
and ten year old nieces were swimming right where that raft was and they were nearly rundown
by a boat. In 2011, 1 wanted to show this dock here has two of the applicants large boats on it.
This is an approximately 20 foot dock there, and I also wanted to show this image because if
you look at the character of the neighborhood, even though Gary and my docks are somewhat
longer, the landscape juts back quite a ways there, and the character of the neighborhood
shows that these docks are all pretty much in line with each other as they extend out into Glen
Lake. Next slide, please. And again, if you come out from that and double that dock, it does
change the character. It's going to cause more navigational problems and it looks wrong and it
just is not going to work. Next slide. This is another view from that area, and what I wanted to
just show here was Gary was saying how when those boats are parked on this side it does go
over to his property line which runs along here. Next slide, please, and again if you extend that
out to double, you put it there and add the amount of boats in this area, it just becomes a very,
very crowded situation and changes the character of the neighborhood. It's detrimental to the
property next door. It pushes boats onto my side which is detrimental to me, and I think that we
could fix this, last slide, please, Laura, if we move that dock over, and this would essentially be
where the 20 foot setback would be. It moves the boats away from Gary's property. It opens
up navigation in this area so people can get in here, and it solves, it doesn't fix it, but it mitigates
some of the real problems that we have as those three properties that are there, and personally
I'm going to be opposed to Class A marinas, but I can take that up next week, but I also want to
say that the applicants actually could have avoided this if they had made an agreement to go to
less than 18 foot boats. They wouldn't need a Class A marina, because it has to be 18 feet or
over. So if they had agreed to go with smaller boats and perhaps limit their numbers, if they
had had two or three there at a time, they're asking for four, and there's also a fifth owner. I
read the comments today that came in. There's a fifth property owner that's now claiming that
they also have property rights there and deeded rights and feel they need seasonal access. So
my feeling is that less boats, smaller boats are better for the lake. If they really cared about the
lake quality, they would open up navigation and limit their use. Thanks for listening to me.
MR. JACKOSKI-One last chance for anybody. Just very briefly, please.
MR. PRENDEVILLE-I'm Mark Prendeville again, and I just want to clarify one thing. You said
there's never been a 40 foot dock there, but if you look at those pictures, and can you back that
up, two, you'll see the cribs that are still there from the docks that Mr. Ledford built. You see
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
them there? There's two, and there's one, there's three in the front. They used to have a
rectangular dock that went out like this, maybe 50 feet across. So to say there was never a 40
foot dock there is just incorrect, and I just wanted to make sure you knew.
MR. JACKOSKI-Just real quick.
MICHAEL MASHUTA
My name's Michael Mashuta, 41 Birch Road. Lived on the lake since 1965, experienced the
grandeur and beauty of the lake. It's a difficult decision for the Board. I think you have three
options, all of them include a dock with four spaces that are deeded by law for the people have
the rights to the lake, and you have the one owner on one side is willing to compromise to 10
feet. You have an owner two houses over who wants it over 20 feet, and then you have the
other original people that are requesting your initial variance of replacing the dock as it had
been, and they enjoyed their use of that dock with their deeded rights. So I don't envy your
position, but in any event, I believe that the deeded, legal rights of the people should be granted
and they should have a dock, whether it be three feet, ten feet or twenty feet. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The last person, sir, you in the back row.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 wanted to make a correction about the 20 foot dock. It was 30 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, and just so folks can know, I was given pictures, I'm not
sure by whom, a 2004 and 2008 aerial, and I scaled it as best as I could scale it here with my
little pieces of paper, and it appears to me, assuming that the property to the west has a 35 foot
long dock, that the dock as it looked in 2008 was somewhere at about 25 feet, but again, I'm
scaling it very roughly. They're very tiny images, but I haven't seen any imagery yet showing
me a 40 foot dock. So I'm going to ask the applicants to come back to the table and help us
understand that. It seems like we haven't seen you in a while.
MR. BORGOS-Where do I begin? I think a lot of what you heard explains the difficulty of the
litigation. There are a lot of complex issues here. Your last comments address something that
honestly we did not prepare for, as far as bringing forth evidence of the length of the dock. We
have heard anecdotally different lengths. You've scaled it at one length. I'm told that it was 30
feet with frog hooks extending with a boat parked on the end, which would have put it past 50
feet as far as the obstruction of the traffic on the lake. It sounds that, if that is significant to this
Board, that we should bring you some more evidence, historical photographs, that sort of thing,
if you deem that to be relevant. I would wait for direction from you on that because I keep
coming back to the issue at hand which is, you know, the applicants that I represent are seeking
to have their rights restored to use the lake that everybody enjoys. I think everybody agrees
that they should have their right. The Dosters have only agreed to do what is set before you.
We would happily agree to put it somewhere else on the property, but we don't have that say
so. I'm afraid of the can of worms that would be opened if this Board says, well we've got to
move it to a different location. So I'd be interested to hear what the Board thinks about those
questions.
MR. JACKOSKI-What is the exact language that the deed suggests gives them the right to have
this dock there? I'm not suggesting the court stipulation. I'm just asking what is their deeded
language that says they can erect a dock there?
MR. BORGOS-Well, happily I'm aware of that specific language, and I didn't review that
because I didn't think it was proper because it had been reviewed by the court. I didn't think it
was something before this Board.
MR. JACKOSKI-But with the stipulation that suggests that the courts were relieved that the
parties came to some kind of an agreement.
MR. BORGOS-You're correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-Not necessarily that a judge came down and said this is what the record shows
and this is what I'm going to tell you you have to do based on law.
MR. BORGOS-If we go down that path, is it that this Board would then be making an
interpretation?
MR. JACKOSKI-No. I think what I'm going to do is, if you can address any other little things
that you have to do with public comment, but then I'm going to poll the Board so we can see
where we are because there's no sense in going down that path.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. BORGOS-1 agree. I think that's what we'd like to see.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to leave the public hearing open. For all of you here for that
reason, just bear with us. I'm going to seek a polling of the Board. Jim, do you want to go first
because you're our resident Glen Lake person?
MR. UNDERWOOD-This is a difficult one because we're in a situation here that's, it is self-
created, but it's not self-created. I'm still at loggerheads over why we even got to this point with
the Town because you're saying to yourself you have a long history of a dock that apparently
was there for decades. It should be on the record that that's the case. It was always placed in
the vicinity of where this dock is proposed to be placed. I think the only issue that we have
really is the fact that, you know, like Craig identified that it's too close to the property line and
needs relief. I think that we can grant relief for a dock that's proposed where it is, but I'm
unsure as to how long that dock should be, and it's the same thing we ran into on the other side
of the lake. I suggested making it the average length of the docks surrounding it, you know,
which I think was a reasonable conclusion to what we've tried to do over on the other side of the
lake.
MR. JACKOSKI-But in this case the Doster dock is at such an angle and creating length that if
you look at just the length, it would stick it out further, whereas if you look at the overall
projection from the shoreline.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It increases the likelihood of difficulties with the near neighbors, you know,
and that's understandable, too. It's one of those things where you say to yourself, just move
the damn thing over 15 feet from the property line, you know, but we can't say that. We're not
part of that quotient because this is in a new situation, an order by the court, but I think that is
there any sense from the property owners of the Casino that they would want the thing further
projecting off the property line or they want it, I'm sure they want it as far on the edge of the
property line as where it's been proposed.
MR. BORGOS-And I think that's the idea was that the non-owners would be shunted off to the
western edge. That's why the pathway is there. That was the historical utilization was to put
that off to the side, so the primary owner could enjoy the main waterfront.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think the issue at that time, point becomes one of safety, because the
four applicants with a possible fifth applicant are probably definitely going to need a 40 foot
dock.
MR. BORGOS-There's no possible fifth applicant that I'm aware of. That's not part of the initial.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The court order was for four applicants.
MR. BORGOS-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As we have before us this evening, and I think that, you know, if you're
looking at boats, the party boats are 20 feet long, right, so you're going to have to have at least
40 feet of dock to realistically dock the boats and tie them off onto the sides, but I don't think we
can do anything more than what we've been asked to do here tonight. We've taken into
account the fact that the thing is too close to the property line, but it doesn't appear to me that
it's ever been any further from the property line than what it is. Maybe it was at five feet.
Maybe it was at six feet. I don't know. Based on the pictures it looks to me like its right where
it's always been, but when you send that 40 foot projection out, I don't think it was a 40 foot
dock. I don't recall it being that long, and I've been on the lake since the early 90's.
MR. BORGOS-Again, I came into this late, just a week or two ago. So I don't have all the deep
background to answer your questions fully, but the Chairman's question I think maybe should be
answered and provided a copy of that deed. The Hilliard deed has the following language that
helps, I think, show you why there was such consternation with the court and the desire to come
out with this outcome that we have. This right of way is granted in common with others to the
waters of Glen Lake for the purposes of utilizing the existing or future beach located upon said
premises, for swimming purposes and to dock one boat at existing or future docks extending
into the waters of Glen Lake from said premises. This right of way is intended for use by the
grantees, their heirs, successors and assigns, for personal enjoyment and not for commercial
purposes, and is appurtenant to the premises conveyed hereunder. So I think that reinforces
what we've been saying. It's a residential use and it's not commercial. These four parties that
are entitled to these dock rights are going to be personal to themselves and they're not going to
be looking to rent them to me or any other third parties, that that's going to be prohibited by this
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
order. So it is not commercial in any way, shape, or form. It is solely for residential purposes,
and any denying of that right is really exclusionary act. So to say that these deed rights are
invalidated in some fashion because of some updated Code, and the Class A marina is an
updated Code. This was a pre-existing situation. I heard new information about the
neighboring property to the west. It sounds like it has more than the property owner's boats on
it. So that may be something that should be permitted as a Class A marina. Maybe they
haven't obtained it. I don't know that, but that's part of that analysis that the Association talked
about performing. Very laudatory to do. This is not part of that. This is not designed to be a
commercial. It's not designed to intensify any use. It's designed to restore the rights that
once were just a few years ago.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I will say this about Glen Lake and the use of Glen Lake. It's a quiet
lake over there for 90% of the time. We only have a few weeks a year where it's chaos up
there and there's too many boats on the water, and I will say the fact that most of the time most
boats are tied up to the docks. It's a different situation. It's not like everybody's trying to leave
and come and go at the same time, but at the same time, everybody has to respect all the
people that surround you because we are in close confinement with each other, you know, we
have to respect each other's rights and rules and regulations of how you operate boats,
especially big boats on the lake.
MR. JACKOSKI-Three minute time limit on you. Yes or no?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are we polling at this point? Okay. Then I'm going to say that I think we
have to permit them to put the dock where it is because it's the only practical solution at this
point. You can move it over 10 feet, it's not going to make that much difference, but that's not
what the court ordered.
MR. JACKOSKI-So yes as presented?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Is there any room for compromise? Is there any room to shorten the length of
the dock?
MR. BORGOS-From the applicant's standpoint, they would need this length in order to provide
for the four slips. The exact details have been hashed out back and forth. So any type of
response to it would necessitate a return visit. I don't expect that there is any room for
movement because you have so many parties that arrived at this. So I would say that the
chance of any ability to bury this is close to nil. I'm saddened to say that, but I just think that's
the logistics of what we're dealing with, again, which is why I said I think this is minimal relief
because it's the only thing we could arrive at to get here at this point, and if we go back it's
opening a can of worms again.
MR. URRICO-Then I would agree with Jim on this, that's the only reason we have available.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-My concern is safety, and I'm not comfortable with a three foot setback with
the boats encroaching onto the next door neighbor's property. I think a compromise would be
ideal. There is a lot of waterfront property. If you think it would be reasonable to have that
compromise with the next door neighbor maybe move it to 10 feet. So I'm not in favor as it is.
But the complicating factor is the court order, and I don't know if we're bound to that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, legal counsel correct me if I'm wrong. We do not have to approve this
simply because there's a stipulation by the courts. Correct?
MR. CROWE-You aren't mandated to approve it because of the court order.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So I mean the court order doesn't supersede all these proceedings.
Correct?
MR. CROWE-No.
MRS. HAYWARD-I've never had an experience on a Zoning Board like this.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. BORGOS-Just to that point, if I may mention also. I think it was correct when I stated
earlier that the court didn't anticipate Craig's determination that a variance would need to be
done because a pre-existing nonconforming use had ceased for more than 18 months. I'd like
to suggest that an interpretation would be that because they filed before the expiration of the 18
months that stayed the hold that period of time, but that's not something that I get to determine.
I don't know if this Board determines it. That may be a novel question.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think the big issue really is, okay, you're dealing with an 18 month, but was
that for the 15 foot, the 10 foot or the 20 foot? It certainly wasn't for the 40 foot.
MR. BORGOS-Well, we don't know that. Correct? That's an open question.
MR. JACKOSKI-So you're a no, Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-If this, strictly interpreted I'm no at this point.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes. I'm befuddled by the length issue. So, Mike, what you read was for each of
the four, they get one boat each?
MR. BORGOS-1 was reading from the Hilliard deed, but my understanding is that they were all
similar language when they were conveyed out by the prior.
MR. JACKOSKI-And it wasn't suggested they all shared one dock?
MR. BORGOS-Correct, it did not. It was unique. That was the value that they were getting.
MR. FREER-And this was a settlement that the parties agreed to or was it a judge?
MR. BORGOS-What I read from was a deed from Ledford.
MR. FREER-Yes, I understand, but the, we keep hearing court order. That was agreed to or
was it a judge mandated?
MR. BORGOS-It was a stipulation of settlement amongst the parties that was then court
ordered. So the judge ordered it based upon what was agreed between the parties.
MR. FREER-So there was a settlement that the judge then formalized in a court order.
MR. JACKOSKI-He never ruled on all the legalities. They all came to a resolution and they
approved that resolution as satisfactory disposition of the case.
MR. FREER-Right. So I guess my sense is that, given our situation and the requirement in the
deed for each of them to have a legitimate berth, I would support the variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 believe there was a dock there before. The length of it is in question, but I
believe that we can put the dock back, and I'll support the four by forty feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm not in favor of it as presented because I don't think there's proof of the 40
feet. I'm not comfortable with granting the extra relief because it does impact the neighbor to
the west. So I'm going to say no to this. So I'm going to close the public hearing. We have a
resolution to move forward to approve the dock as presented. So may I have a motion for
approval, please?
MRS. MOORE-Prior to you doing that, there were letters left that were not read into the record.
Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. I thought we were done.
MR. URRICO-"As long time property owners and lake residents we are very concerned about
the request for a variance for setback to the property line for the Class A marina dock on the
Ash Drive lake access property. Lake access should not give the owner (and/or access
properties) rights that supersede those of lakefront property owners. Such a variance would
infringe upon the deeded rights of lakefront neighbors. Our opinion is that replacing the dock
with the same 20 feet should be the extent of construction. Thank you for considering our point
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
of view. Sincerely, Wally and Kate Hirsch" "As owners of the property in the immediate vicinity
that may be affected, we would like the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Queensbury Planning
Board to know that we have no objections to the proposal of Hilliard, Tyrer, Lyons and Cerny to
install a dock and pathway from Ash Drive to the dock location. Jacqueline and Riza Touba"
"Regarding the above applications please be advised that our deed to 48 Birch Road,
Queensbury, NY 12804 also provides easement access to 94 Ash Drive to a beach and
seasonal access to a removable dock. The statement that easement access is deeded to the
four applicants should also note our access — so it's at least five properties. Any proposed
solution to the court order must not impinge upon our deeded access and deeded rights to use
of seasonal dock. Sincerely, David & Marianne McGowan" And one more. "As property
owners of 82 Ash Drive we are writing to let it be known that we don't have any objection with
Hilliards application for installing a 40' x 4' dock at 94 Ash Drive. If you have any questions
you may contact us. Thank you!! Barbara and Charles Frenyea"
MR. JACKOSKI-Does it show their address?
MR. URRICO-They said as property owners of 82 Ash Drive.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So after listening to the letters that we received, do any of
the Board members want to change their position as we were polled?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just a technical point. What would it do if you swung the dock 20 degrees
to the east, as opposed to coming off, your present projection, it kind of comes off sweeping
away from the property line as you go out 40 feet, but if you swung it 20 degrees more out at an
angle from the shoreline, is that going to meet the stipulation of the judge, or is the present
landowner of the property going to flip out because of that?
MR. BORGOS-Well, there is a logistical concern that Tracy will describe.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I know because you're attached with poles to the concrete wall.
MR. BORGOS-There's a wall. The wall is two feet elevated above the grass.
MS. CLOTHIER-This makes access very difficult, not impossible.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm just saying you could make a short section like a diamond, a triangle
piece.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think the shape would be allowed under the Code.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don't think it's got to come out at a 90 degree angle. We've got plenty of
docks that come out at all angles.
MR. BORGOS-I think as a practical matter that's a great suggestion. To the extent that they
can install it that way without posing a safety hazard, that would be logical to give everybody the
most clearance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, you could build it with wood. You could bolt it into the cement
with, you know, you could create that angle just to give you a little bit of way so you're sweeping
away from the property owners to the west. That would create a better docking situation
coming in because you do narrow down as you come to a point right at the shoreline where the
dock attaches on the west side.
MR. BORGOS-I think we can represent to the extent that's feasible we'll endeavor to do that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-But right now the motion in front of us is as presented with the dock in the
location on the survey map as presented to us. Okay. Now I'm closing the public hearing
officially and forever.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-I need a motion for approval.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Hilliard, Tyrer, Lyon & Cerny. Applicants propose construction of a 4 ft. wide, 40 ft. length dock.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
The applicant requests relief from the dock setback restrictions of the Waterfront zone.
179-5-060 Docks—setback requirement WR zone
The applicant proposes to install a dock in a court designated location where it will be 3 ft. from
the property line where a 20 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 22, 2017;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because the new dock is going in in the same location as the old
dock.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable because the new
dock is going to be affixed to an existing base.
3. The requested variance is not substantial.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district. Again, we're just replacing a dock that existed.
5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because again there was a dock here before.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE
NO. Z-AV-15-2017, HILLIARD, TYRER, LYON, & CERNY, Introduced by Michael McCabe,
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Duly adopted this 22nd of March 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico
NOES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski
ABSENT: Mr. Henkel
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. BORGOS-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Does the Board need to take a break? All right, everyone, I'd like to begin
again. So if we could have the applicants for the next application before us, that would be
great, and it's Fastrac. It is, I'll make sure I do the first one first. Area Variance Z-AV-17-2017,
a Type II SEAR. It is the old Binley Florist property at 773 Quaker Road. We will first do the
Area Variance and then we will do a Sign Variance, and then we will do the next two Fastrac
items on the agenda.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-17-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 FASTRAC (QUAKER ROAD)
AGENT(S) NAPIERALA CONSULTING OWNER(S) BINLEY FLORIST, INC. ZONING
CI LOCATION 773 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 5,800 SQ. FT.
CONVENIENCE STORE WITH 6,000 SQ. FT. FUEL CANOPY (8 GASOLINE FUELING
DISPENSERS) AND 1,750 SQ. FT. DIESEL STATION CANOPY (3 DIESEL FUELING
DISPENSERS). PROJECT OCCURS ON THE EXISTING BINLEY PROPERTY. THE
GREENHOUSE UNITS TO BE REMOVED AND AREA TO BE RE-GRADED. BINLEY
RETAIL BUILDING TO BE REMOVED; MADE PAD READY. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
CANOPY SETBACK. PLANNING BOARD: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW COMMERCIAL USE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REF P-SP 21-2017; Z-SV-2-2017; SP 14-2005;
SP 44-2014; DISC 3-2017; P-SP WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2017 LOT SIZE
7.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-27 SECTION 179-3-040
MATT NAPIERALA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-2-2017, Fastrac (Quaker Road), Meeting Date: March
22, 2017 "Project Location: 773 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes 5,800 sq. ft. convenience store with 6,000 sq. ft. fuel canopy (8
gasoline fueling dispensers) and 1,750 sq. ft. diesel station canopy (3 diesel fueling
dispensers). Project occurs on the existing Binley property. The greenhouse units to be
removed and area to be re-graded. Binley retail building to be removed; made pad
ready.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from setbacks in the Cl zone (Commercial Intensive).
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone
Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay —Quaker Rd and Dix Avenue
The applicant proposes construction of a new 5, 800 sq. ft. convenience store with a
6000 sq. ft. fuel canopy. The canopy to Quaker Rd side is to be 68 ft. where a 75 ft.
setback is required.
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 to no 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 may be considered as the canopy could be located at a 75 ft. setback
due to the size of the parcel.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may
be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 7 ft. for the
front setback/ travel corridor overlay.
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
no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be
anticipated. The project is subject to site plan review and a stormwater pollution
prevention plan has been prepared.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered
self-created.
Staff comments:
Applicant proposes 5,800 sq. ft. convenience store with a 6,000 sq. ft. fuel canopy and a
1,750 sq. ft. diesel canopy. The project occurs on the existing Binley property —
applicant to utilize two existing curb cuts. The applicant has indicated the greenhouse
units to be removed and the area to be regraded. The Binley retail building is to be
removed, made pad ready —any new use would be subject to review. Project is subject
to site plan review for a new commercial use in the Cl zone."
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome.
MR. NAPIERALA-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry about all this. It's only 10:30.
MR. NAPIERALA-Before I start, I do have some real life photos. This is a new prototype for
Fastrac that they initiated three years ago. So I'm just going to circulate those while I talk a
little bit. I won't take too much of your time, so we can get through these variance requests, but
if we could just, you can kind of flip through some real life photos. In this package, these
photos are from two stores that opened up in the Fall, and actually in the winter of 2016. One
is Oriskany Boulevard in the City of Utica, and the other one is in the Village of Elbridge, which
is a suburb between Syracuse and Auburn. So in that part of the reason for those real life
photos to get an appreciation when we talk about some of the design stuff. So certainly
circulate those. I only brought two copies, but for this first application.
MR. FREER-Could you tell us your name, first.
MR. NAPIERALA-I apologize. Matt Napierala, Napierala Consulting. I'm the site engineer
representing Fastrac and I've represented Fastrac for about six years on various project sites. I
have to apologize that my colleague in crime, Mr. Brett Hughes who is the real estate agent
director with Fastrac. He is on his second year anniversary with his wife and he's on vacation.
So he's unable to join us today. Normally he would be here.
MR. JACKOSKI-So the meat of this is simply the canopy location.
MR. NAPIERALA-This first one, and I will, the setback line is a 75 foot front yard setback, and
that's this dashed line that's running right through here. The canopy itself, we're encroaching
on that setback by just over or just around seven feet. There were some discussions of why,
why can't we just simply push this back, and when we look at the overall circulation, the overall
layout, and the geometry of the scenario, essentially when we look at this what we call a two by
four dispenser pad, there's some symmetry that we like to have and there is an egress door or
our side door that enters the spine of the floor plan layout of the Fastrac Market, and that spine
essentially splits the restrooms before you get into the convenience store market. So the CEO
of Fastrac has been in the convenience store business upwards of 40 years. He has essentially
said Matt, when we lay these stores out, I want the canopy centered on this door so that my
fueling customers have an equidistance distance to that door. Essentially in so doing we
encroach upon that setback, and so we are asking for that relief for circulation and for a
geometric alignment scenario.
MR. JACKOSKI-Can you move the whole project back seven feet? It'll give us symmetry. I
won't have to walk an extra seven feet if I'm on those farthest back pumps. Why can't they do
the whole two buildings, so to speak, seven feet back?
MR. NAPIERALA-Well, certainly, Mr. Chairman, you potentially can do that. We have seven
acres to deal with. The one thing is this property kind of throats down and they're trying to
leave as much future pad space over on the west side of the site and frankly there are some
ongoing discussions of potentially leaving the florist shop, albeit not in full operation. So we get
kind of tight as we push even that five feet back. So that's the reason.
MR. JACKOSKI-So if you moved it back seven feet, you'd encroach and maybe need a
variance for the right side of this building?
MR. NAPIERALA-No, sir.
MR. JACKOSKI-You would not?
MR. NAPIERALA-We'd be okay.
MR. FREER-So what were you just alluding to?
MR. JACKOSKI-They might have a future pad site. It says future pad site.
MR. NAPIERALA-Future pad site just becomes throated and it becomes congested. So it's a
request.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-What other businesses have you guys kind of co-located on parcels before?
Banks?
MR. NAPIERALA-Banks. Fastrac is their own food service. They do not bring anyone else in.
They do their own food prep and it's a fresh scenario. They model their stores and they're in a
part of a co-op ground with stores like from the south. WaWa and Sheets and QuickTrip.
That's the model that they're bringing to New York State. So it's all internally prepared foods
that they're putting in this new prototype, all fresh baked internal food. So typically it wouldn't
be a restaurant pad site. Typically it's a really banks that they've co-existed with. There've
been some drycleaner type facilities, small trip use type stuff.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right. Are there any other questions from Board members? Having none, I
would open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to address this Board on
this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JON LAPPER
MR. LAPPER-Good evening again everyone. For the record Jon Lapper. I represent two
neighbors, Dunkin Donuts, which is Tom and Jerry Burke, and Speedway and Amanda Conner
the District Manager is behind me and she'll speak as well. We believe that you have to talk
about in the context tonight with you variances, but this project, the Quaker Road project only,
can't be approved because of really serious traffic issues. So in terms of your prong of the
impact of granting this variance and you look at that and say seven feet, move it back and that
goes away. That doesn't seem like a lot, but what it does, the granting of the variance and the
balancing test and facilitating this, this is a failing intersection. Our traffic consultant believes
that there's no way that DOT would ever approve a full movement intersection onto Quaker
Road to make left turns out, and that's where this is all going to get bogged down, but in terms
of, I'm asking you tonight to table this because there needs to be a revised traffic study which
would then allow you to make a determination to balance the impact on the neighborhood. I've
got a four page letter that I'll hand out from Wendy Holtzberger who is a renowned traffic
consultant. She's been at Creighton Manning for years and just moved over to VHP, but she's
been before this Board on many important projects over the last decade, but the main issue, the
traffic report is misleading. It only talks about the 16 gas pumps. It doesn't talk about the six
diesel pumps in the back, and this configuration is done in a way so that it allows the trucks in
the back. It's really like a truck stop in the back, with six diesel positions, and I think that's why
they really have the canopy there to allow the trucks in the back to get around the gas canopy,
but the traffic study, which looks like a real big thorough attachments the whole thing, it's very
misleading because they didn't consider the drive thru, the drive thru component. They didn't
consider the six diesel stations. They're talking about the capacity of Quaker Road to allow left
turns and they didn't talk about the fact that the A/GFTC did a study talking about this failing
intersection and because of the irregular geometry, not a perpendicular intersection, there've
been all sorts of accidents and their gap study doesn't take into account the history of this and
also the configuration. So we think that the methodology is wrong, but the A/GFTC study that I
was talking about talked about the improvement would be two left turn lanes going from Quaker.
You're familiar with that, you know, it really backs up after you get past Wal-Mart to make a left
onto Dix, and so what the A/GFTC study said is that the fix is to put in a double left turn lane like
we have on Quaker at Route 9, which would change the whole configuration of this. So their
study should have contemplated that and talked about, if that gets done, whether you can
properly make a left turn onto Quaker. Both of my clients are experiencing traffic issues, both
the Speedway and Dunkin Donuts, because it's very congested there between McDonalds and
Dunkin Donuts with people coming around the curb, when they're coming from Hudson Falls
and people, if you're coming from K-Mart and making a left onto Quaker Road to head west.
It's the weird configuration coming around the curb and the traffic engineer also points out that
there's an issue with the queue study because you can't see people coming in front of
Livingston's Furniture when you're trying to make the left across the turn lane. So we just feel
that this is a problem intersection to begin with. This use is really going to exacerbate it.
Certainly with respect to the Sign Variances that are next because you've got to do SEQR on
that, and you really need a revised traffic study to address this. It's a State highway so DOT
has to weigh in. They haven't gone to DOT. My traffic engineer says it's never going to pass
muster with DOT. So that really ought to happen first, but this is just too much for this sit
because it's at a dangerous intersection. So they mention that there've been an inordinate
amount of accidents but they don't analyze them, which you have to do, and they don't talk
about mitigation to address the accidents. I think the queuing, the study we think is wrong in
terms of the movements and the timing and then most importantly, as the Chairman mentioned,
we are talking about the future pad site. It's a very large site in terms of the back, but even the
pad on the side, and the traffic study doesn't contemplate what the maximum traffic capacity
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
could be, traffic demand for those future sites. If you're doing a traffic study you've got to look
at the worst case. You can't just say we're going to build this now and build that later. That's
classic segmentation, and whether or not, I mean, I think that still enters into the balancing test
for the setback variance, but certainly on the Sign Variance you have to do SEQR and all that.
You can't do SEQR segmentation unless you've addressed what the traffic impacts could be on
the whole build out of the site. So I've got two clients that are just very concerned that a bad
traffic situation is going to be worse at a difficult intersection. So I'm going to submit to the
Board the letter from VHP Engineering and I'd just like Amanda to come up and talk briefly
about Speedway's concerns about traffic.
AMANDA CONNER
MS. CONNER-Good evening, everybody. I'm Amanda Conner, the District Manager for the
Queensbury site at Quaker and Dix. The biggest part of this that we find is an issue is that
entrances and the driveways to this site. I mean you think about this four way stop and it's
already clustered and I see accidents all the time. At my location we actually always have to
make sure that we have our arrows in and out, just because of the traffic itself there is so
dangerous and they really have made us very aware of, I'm in touch with the Code Enforcement
Officer almost monthly just to make sure that we have that. So to add two extra driveways is
going to cause, you know, can cause accidents, can cause disruptions in traffic and can slow
down that four way stop. So I just wanted to quick say my peace on that because it's more
about safety here. This light is dangerous in itself and to add this, these entrances so close to
the four way can be tough.
MR. JACKOSKI-So do you think the seven feet that they're requesting is going to increase the
traffic and cause a problem? I mean, because if they just move the building back seven feet,
you still have this building here.
MS. CONNER-Yes, I mean, I have no problem with the variance at all. My main concern is
these entrances being where they sit now.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think in the Site Plan, the Planning Board will address those issues.
MR. LAPPER-I guess my only answer to that, Steve, as I already mentioned, is that if you allow
the variance, you allow the diesel fuel in the back, just this whole configuration, it creates this
traffic problem.
MR. JACKOSKI-So you think the seven feet will cause them, if we don't grant them the seven
feet they won't be able to do the diesel in the back.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I don't know if it would still work because there may be a conflict between
the trucks and the cars, but the letter that I presented also talks about that because of the
difficulty with Quaker Road driveway, people are going to go in front of the store to get back out
to Dix. So that seven feet does make an issue.
MR. URRICO-Don't they do that now? I mean, they're maintaining the same two driveways.
MR. LAPPER-But the volume here of cars is way beyond what, Binley's is quiet.
MR. URRICO-But are you sure it's not a competitive issue that we're talking about rather than a
traffic issue?
MR. LAPPER-Tom Burke called me to start with from Dunkin Donuts and said we've got so
many problems with traffic we've got to get a traffic engineer to look at this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, when Dunkin Donuts was put in, wasn't there an interconnect?
MR. LAPPER-Not to this. There was an interconnect at the other side where LIA, KIA went.
MR. JACKOSKI-There was no interconnect to Binley's?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-But it wasn't contemplated?
MR. LAPPER-It would make sense to have it come all the way through and keep going through
down to the Honda place, past Wal-Mart, all the way down that whole.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. FREER-All we need is a circle there.
MR. LAPPER-Something needs to happen.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, anyway, we get it. We understand what you've said. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone else like to address the Board? Are there any written
comments?
MR. URRICO-There's the Planning Board based on its limited review has identified the following
areas of concern. The sign, the size of the monument sign variance and the variance
requesting the number of signs, that three rather than two signs for the project, and the Planning
Board feels that the number of signs is excessive.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's on the next application.
MR. URRICO-That's the next. It's in with this, and they passed it March 21, 2017 unanimously.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anything else you want to address?
MR. NAPIERALA-Yes, I mean, without belaboring those points, I wanted to add a couple of
things. First, this is not New York State DOT jurisdiction. Both Dix and Quaker are considered
touring routes, even though they have a route number. A touring route is under Warren County
DOT jurisdiction, of which the traffic report has been submitted to Warren County DOT, of which
we are awaiting responses and comments. I will say the traffic consultant that we did use here
was the same traffic consultant who was involved with the Wal-Mart design so he is very familiar
with the corridor. I won't get into contemplating what Wendy says. Frankly when I was
searching for a traffic consultant I used Gordon Stansbury and I compared that with Wendy. So
I'm familiar with Wendy and I haven't seen her letter. I haven't seen her comments. So I don't
want to refute anything other than the fact that up to this point in time we stand by what was
stated, and as was mentioned, there is an existing traffic flow today. Frankly we are improving
the intersection's configuration by reducing the curb cuts, and again, I think that, all that issue is
a Planning Board issue and we'll get into it, but I just want to kind of counter those kind of
conversations with regards to those pieces. So other than that, you know, I'm an open book
here and willing to answer any questions the Board has.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think as a kid I remember that being a Sunoco station.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Then it was a restaurant after that I think, and then a business. Okay. Well,
anyway. So the public hearing is open. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Well, there is a traffic issue there. Everybody that lives in this area knows that,
and I think we have to be concerned about the overlay, especially. If there is going to be an
expansion of that corner, and we think there might be, then we have to think about what that
process might be. So I favor tabling this until we get more information. I don't think I have
enough information to go on.
MR. JACKOSKI-So no right now for the variance as presented, and request possibly a tabling.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 guess if I take a look at this, basically what we're passing judgment on is the
difference between 75 feet and 68 feet, and to me it's not a big difference. So I would have to
support the variance as presented.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-So this is not an easy one, but I think I side with Roy in that I ride my bike there,
and it is dangerous, and as we get through SEAR, well, we're not there yet, but it's going to
change the complexion of the neighborhood, in my view. So I guess I would like more
information about traffic, but right now I wouldn't support it.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-1 agree. I was really looking forward to looking at the results of the traffic
study that wasn't available.
MR. NAPIERALA-It was submitted. It was submitted a day later than that package.
MRS. MOORE-Everyone should have gotten one.
MRS. HAYWARD-1 didn't see it. So I might have missed it in my mountain of papers.
MR. NAPIERALA-I understand.
MRS. HAYWARD-But for the same reason I'm looking for more information. I am concerned
about safety, as are other members of the Board. So I agree with Mr. Urrico and at this point I
would say no. I'm looking for more information.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think that we, if things were going to remain as they are, we would,
we could probably approve this and look the other way, but at the same time I think if we're
forward looking there's a possibility that we're going to put a roundabout on that corner at some
point, then there's going to be a lot of taking of property on that corner and land there, too, you
know, which may include Speedway. Everybody's going to get a chunk taken away to do it. If
we're going to improve the traffic situation and look at a long term solution down there, there's
no need for us to fast track, you know, this project here, even though it may make sense to do
that, but I think we can send this back to the Planning Board and ask the Planning Board to take
a real keen view, a long term view, not just at this single project that's before us but at the basic
needs of that corner and whether we can improve the situation. Because if we build a gas
station first, that's going to truncate everything. It's going to mean a complete re-do of all the
infrastructure with the roadways inside there, too, you know, so I don't know what the
possibilities are. So I think we should be cautious.
MR. JACKOSKI-So my viewpoint of this is it's our task to grant the minimum relief necessary to
do what you want to do. You don't need that seven feet to do what you want to do. You've got
plenty of land there. It's very nice that the head of your organization would like to minimize even
feet and centering things, but to me that just doesn't work. So I'm not in favor of the application
as presented. I think you can build your project without a variance. So, hearing where the
Board is at this point, there are some things you can do. One, you can request a tabling. Two,
you can ask for a vote, help me out, Roy, I always forget. Three, is you can withdraw your
application. Four is you could, then, request a tabling and wait for a seventh member to join
the Board.
MR. NAPIERALA-At this time, for this Area Variance, we'll withdraw the application.
MR. JACKOSKI-Withdraw?
MR. NAPIERALA-Meaning that we will come back with a conforming.
MR. JACKOSKI-Tabling.
MR. NAPIERALA-Okay, then we'll table.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think that's.
MR. NAPIERALA-We'll come back with a conforming plan to the Planning Board.
MR. FREER-Well then you can withdraw.
MR. NAPIERALA-Which is what I'm saying.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. If you wish to withdraw, that's perfectly okay. I don't have a problem
with that, but just know that if you need a variance, you've got to start the process all over again.
MR. NAPIERALA-I understand.
MR. JACKOSKI-Whereas if you table, you can always withdraw later.
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. NAPIERALA-I appreciate the advice. I'll re-enter and I would like to table the application.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's probably wise.
MR. NAPIERALA-Thank you.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Fastract Cafe.
Applicant proposes 5,800 sq. ft. convenience store with 6,000 sq. ft. fuel canopy (8 gasoline
fueling dispensers) and 1,750 sq. ft. diesel station canopy (3 diesel fueling dispensers). Project
occurs on the existing Binley property. The greenhouse units to be removed and area to be re-
graded. Binley retail building to be removed; made pad ready.
The applicant requests relief from setbacks in the Cl zone (Commercial Intensive).
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone
Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay—Quaker Rd and Dix Avenue
The applicant proposes construction of a new 5, 800 sq. ft. convenience store with a 6000 sq. ft.
fuel canopy. The canopy to Quaker Rd side is to be 68 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-17-2017 FASTRAC CAFE (QUAKER ROAD),
Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Until our first May meeting with material to be submitted by the April deadline.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2017, by the following vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-Do we want to say table until the May meeting with an April submission
deadline? Or would you like to go to the June meeting with a May submission deadline?
MR. NAPIERALA-No, a May meeting, sir.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Henkel
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, counsel, if you don't mind, for the next application, because we
didn't approve the siting of the project as presented, do we to table the Sign Variance because
of the impact of the positioning of the canopy?
MR. UNDERWOOD-We don't know where it's going to be. So I would table the second part.
MR. JACKOSKI-Does that make sense to counsel?
MR. CROWE-It makes sense. I don't think that it's, again, mandated that you can't move
forward on this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Because we're dealing with numbers and not necessarily positions or locations
as it would relate to the setbacks.
MR. CROWE-Right. So it's a numbers thing for the wall signs.
MR. JACKOSKI-So we have the item advertised anyway for the meeting. So I'm going to go
ahead and call to order the next application in front of us, which is Fastrac again. It is their Sign
Variance application Number Z-SV-2-2017, an Unlisted SEQR at 773 Quaker Road.
SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-2-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED FASTRAC (QUAKER ROAD)
AGENT(S) NAPIERALA OWNER(S) BINLEY FLORIST, INC. ZONING CI LOCATION
773 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 76.5 SQ. FT.
FREESTANDING SIGN ON QUAKER ROAD. ALSO PROPOSED IS THE INSTALLATION
OF A 78.7 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN ON THE FRONT FACING SIDE OF THE NEW
CONVENIENCE STORE/BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM SIZE
RESTRICTIONS FOR THE FREESTANDING SIGN. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS; 2 ALLOWED; 3 ARE PROPOSED — 32 SQ. FT.
WALL SIGN TO BE INSTALLED ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING; 78.7 SQ. FT. WALL
SIGN TO BE INSTALLED ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING; AND A 22.2 SQ. FT.
CANOPY SIGN TO BE INSTALLED ON THE NEW GASOLINE CANOPY STRUCTURE.
CROSS REF. P-SP 21-2017; P-SUP-5-2017; Z-AV-17-2017; SP 14-2005; SP 44-2014; DISC
3-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2017 LOT SIZE 7.23 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 303.15-1-27 SECTION CHAPTER 140
MATT NAPIERALA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. There is a public hearing. I
assume this will be a short description.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-2-2017, Fastrac (Quaker Road), Meeting Date: March
22, 2017 "Project Location: 773 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes installation of a 76.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign on Quaker Road. Also,
proposed is the installation of a 78.7 sq. ft. wall sign on the front facing side of the new
convenience store/ building.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the maximum size restrictions for a freestanding sign and
from the number of allowable wall signs
Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required
The applicant proposes 3 wall signs where only 2 are allowed, — 32 sq. ft. wall sign to be
installed on the side of the building; 78.7 sq. ft. wall sign to be installed on the front of the
building; and a 22.2 sq. ft. canopy sign to be installed on the new gasoline canopy structure.
Also the size for a wall sign is proposed greater than 30 sq. ft. The applicant also proposes a
free standing sign of 76.5 sq. ft. where 45 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.
Criteria for considering a Sign 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 sign variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as signs along
the corridor are required to be compliant.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives
may be considered to adjust the number of signs and the size of signs.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested for the number
of wall signs is 3 and only 2 are allowed and to total no more than 30 sq. ft., relief requested
for size of the free standing sign is 31.5 sq. ft. in excess.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed
may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes the sign package that is associated with the construction of the Fastrac
convenience store and fuel service. The applicant has indicated the signage is similar to the
existing businesses in the area."
MR. JACKOSKI-Could you state your name again for the record?
MR. NAPIERALA-Matt Napierala, Napierala Consulting, representing Fastrac, and I'll quickly
just kind of identify the first, I'll go in reverse order. The number of signs, two are allowed.
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
We're asking for three. The first one would be on the front door of the proposed Fastrac. The
second one would be over the side door or there's that entry I was explaining earlier, and the
third one would be on the canopy itself. Essentially this is a standard sign package. The
photos that I sent around, you can see that's the same massing and size of those signs. When
you look at those real life photos and you look at the massing of the 140 linear foot and you take
a look at this particular front sign, it's not overly sized or obtrusive. The sign over the door is
really an identification sign, and it helps finish the building if anything else, but as well, the
customers that are fueling, it gives them a point of entry into that spine of the store and it kind of
identifies that point of entry, and then the smaller sign sitting on the canopy and on the banding
of the canopy itself. So those are the three signs, three wall signs that we're requesting. With
regards to the monument sign and the area variance we're seeking for the monument sign, that
monument sign includes a pricing tag. It includes a marquee that says the drive thru because
this facility includes a drive thru service for the modern convenience store and that food service
that we're talking about, and then a logo monitor on top of that. That in total is 76 and changes
square feet where 45 square foot is allowed by Code.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? I'll open
the public hearing. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone
who'd like to address the Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JON LAPPER
MR. LAPPER-For the record Jon Lapper on behalf of two of the neighbors, Dunkin Donuts and
Speedway. On the monument sign, I can just say at the Planning Board meeting last night they
were very put off by the size because that's always an issue. They just felt there was good
visibility there, but my SEQR argument here is that in order for you, I don't mean to lecture you
about SEAR. You guys all know this, but when you pass on SEAR, you're saying there's no
environmental impacts on the action, and the action is siting of this facility. So even though,
you know, you're really only tonight talking about the number of signs and the size of the sign, to
get to that you have to make a Neg. Dec and you can't make a Neg. Dec because based upon
what I submitted at the last variance, that the traffic analysis, they need to update and
supplement the traffic, and traffic is a big SEQR issue. So I'm suggesting that the right thing to
do would be to table this until there's answers to the traffic because it wouldn't be appropriate to
make a Neg. Dec with that traffic issue out there. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone else like to address the Board? Seeing no one, is there any
written comment?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Got it right this time.
MR. URRICO-Me or you?
MR. JACKOSKI-No, I did, finally. Okay. I'll poll the Board as it relates to the Sign Variances,
that is the square footage of the monument and the number allowed wall signs. I'll start with
Michelle.
MRS. HAYWARD-Well, I have a couple of concerns. Whether the variance is substantial, I
believe it is, and also taking into account the Planning Board input. I'm also concerned about
light pollution and the location of the, this proposal with all the other stores and signs in that
area. It's a very busy, visually, very busy area. So at this point also I was interested in more
information about the traffic and for the same reason as the other variance, and at this point I'd
say no, I'm in favor of tabling it for more information.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-So I guess I think the area request is excessive, not the minimum, I mean, we're
charged with executing the minimum variances. I have a hard time finding what you're asking
for is minimum. I didn't used to be a sign gestapo but in this case you're not even close to
minimum. So I don't support it as presented.
MR. JACKOSKI-How about the number?
MR. FREER-I could live with the number. I understand the side door kind of thing and that
front, side and canopy I'm okay with.
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry, Michelle, were you okay with the number?
MRS. HAYWARD-1 was more about the size.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 support the three signs, but I, too, am concerned with the size of the
freestanding sign. Eighty feet is a little bit too big for me.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-1 would not be in favor of three signs. I think we're going to have to cut those
down for me. I've been pretty consistent about that over the years, and size wise I think we
need to reduce that as well.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I've been involved with the Board on the upgrade of the Mobil
stations in Town, Sunoco stations, just about all of them, and I think that we've pretty much
dialed in, we got the monument signs down to a size where they were conforming, and we also
got the number of signs on the buildings and associated places on site down to the required
number. So I'd be in agreement with Roy. I think the excessive number of signs is not
necessary. Most of these standalone convenience stores have their own unique designs, in the
pictures that you've distributed there, too, you know, and I think that the excess signage, to me,
is way over the top. So I would not be ready to approve it at this point.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I'm not in favor of either part of the application, the size of the monument
sign or the third sign. I don't think we need the one on the side of the building. That's not to
say we don't want Fastrac here, because quite frankly I can't wait, because I've bene in the
south and I've been to these facilities and I've love the freshness and the food and stuff.
Unfortunately we're just coming on a little bit hard, and this has never been in front of us before,
and I'm not just in favor of the signage. It's a lot of signage. I think the colors of the building, I
think nobody could possible not know what this thing is when you're driving by, whether there's
a sign on it or not. So I'm not in favor of the quantity and I'm not in favor of the overall size of
this, but I would be against it as presented.
MR. UNDERWOOD-In regards to the project in totality, too, I think that we could ask the
Planning Board for some direction as to traffic, you know, circulation on that corner in regards to
the store, whether this is the trip hammer that really makes it more prominent or is it something
that they're comfortable with as is, you know, because I think they're more germane to the
discussion as far as an analysis of what is reasonable at this point. I mean, if they said it was
okay on that corner, that they're not going to put a traffic circle in it at any point going forward,
that we have no plans to change it at this point, we're just going to have to live with the excess
traffic that's going to be created here, then you can come back to us with the same plans as far
as I'm concerned.
MR. NAPIERALA-And I will say, in our conversations with County, at least in everything we've
heard through our traffic report, regardless of what scuttlebutt is out there, there are no current
plans for a traffic circle at the corner of Quaker and Dix.
MR. FREER-Yes, but the 18 wheelers coming through there, but that is one of the worst traffic
problems in this County. The other is 149 getting on the Interstate. They've studied
alternatives for both of those and something needs to be done. Not your problem I know.
MR. NAPIERALA-And I will say, I mean, we're going to pursue, based on the information that
we've gotten, that'll be a call that happens tomorrow morning is let's start with my traffic
consultant and then I'm going to pursue the County myself and say okay, what's going on here,
and let's get it right. Because we don't want to be put in a situation where it's unsafe and our
commercial entity wants to make it be neighborhood friendly and make it safe for our customers
as well as everyone else's customers.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think out of a sense of fairness to the applicant, too, you know, I
mean this issue could be raised with any project in Town, on any of our roads anywhere, and I
think it becomes almost ridiculous as an argument because, you know, I mean, you can throw a
wrench in the works on anything if you want to, and I think that, you know, we need to be careful
here because these people that raised the issue are direct competitors across the road, you
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
know, so, I mean, we've got to be fair also and say to ourselves, if there were no convenience
stores on this corner, would we allow this one. We probably would say sure, go for it.
MR. NAPIERALA-And to the defense of my client, he's looking for busy intersections, and that's
where we're going all across the State, and we want it safe and we want to do the right thing
and we work with all of the traffic and DOT agencies across the State. So we'll continue to do
that.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think this Board is your stumbling block. You an build it without the
variance and you can build it with less signs. Welcome to Queensbury. I mean, you can be
here. So, unfortunately, just to stay consistent with how we've been trying to work, we're in a
no situation at this point. So I'm guessing you want to table this one as well?
MR. NAPIERALA-Well since we're tabling the other one, let's table this, and I will say we do
have some flexibility, but again, ownership asked me to come and get a temperature of the
Board.
MR. JACKOSKI-We've been through it before.
MR. NAPIERALA-Yes, sir.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Fastrac Cafe for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury.
Applicant proposes installation of a 76.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign on Quaker Road. Also,
proposed is the installation of a 78.7 sq. ft. wall sign on the front facing side of the new
convenience store/ building.
The applicant requests relief from the maximum size restrictions for a freestanding sign and
from the number of allowable wall signs
Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required
The applicant proposes 3 wall signs where only 2 are allowed, — 32 sq. ft. wall sign to be
installed on the side of the building; 78.7 sq. ft. wall sign to be installed on the front of the
building; and a 22.2 sq. ft. canopy sign to be installed on the new gasoline canopy structure.
Also the size for a wall sign is proposed greater than 30 sq. ft. The applicant also proposes a
free standing sign of 76.5 sq. ft. where 45 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-2-2017 FASTRAC CAFE (QUAKER ROAD),
Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Until our first May meeting with the material to be submitted by the April deadline.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2017, by the following vote:
MR. LAPPER-I just have a quick question. You guys talked about maybe referring this to the
Planning Board because, you know, this is, to make sure this can be addressed or it can't be.
So maybe that's not a bad idea.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If we bounce it right back to the Planning Board and they say, you guys are
welcome to deal with it as is, that's fine, too. It doesn't hold things up for months.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't want to delay things, but to me, if we grant the variance, and then the
Planning Board doesn't approve the site plan because they know there's going to be a traffic
circle, then that's what they're going to do. So I don't need to bounce it back and forth and stall
for time.
AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Henkel
MR. JACKOSKI-I suspect we're not going to be approving the Sign Variance on the next one,
too. Next item on this evening's agenda is Fastrac again, Area Variance Z-AV-18-2017. It is
220 Corinth Road. There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. It is a Type II SEAR.
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-18-2017 SEQRA TYPE II FASTRAC (CORINTH ROAD)
AGENT(S) NAPIERALA CONSULTING OWNER(S) JERRY NUDI, SWITCHO, LLC
ZONING CI-18 LOCATION 220 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,800 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH 7,752 SQ. FT. FUEL
CANOPY (10 GASOLINE FUELING DISPENSERS) AND 2,008 SQ. FT. DIESEL CANOPY (3
DIESEL FUELING DISPENSERS). PROJECT INCLUDES CLEARING 2.15 ACRE PARCEL,
INSTALLATION OF NEW CURB CUT ON CORINTH ROAD, 2 NEW CURB CUTS ON
PRIVATE DRIVE AND OTHER SITE WORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM
PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE
PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT. CROSS REF P-SP 22-2017; P-SUP-5-2017;
Z-SV-3-2017; SP PZ 51-2016 & AV PZ 69-2016 HOTEL, DISC 2-2017 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING MARCH 2017 LOT SIZE 2.155 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-1-35
SECTION 179-3-040
MATT NAPIERALA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-18-2017, Fastrac (Corinth Road), Meeting Date: March
22, 2017 "Project Location: 220 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 5,800 sq. ft. convenience store with 7,752 sq. ft. fuel canopy (10
gasoline fueling dispensers) and 2,008 sq. ft. diesel canopy (3 diesel fueling dispensers).
Project includes clearing 2.15 acre parcel, installation of new curb cut on Corinth Road, 2 new
curb cuts on private drive and other site work.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from permeability in the Cl 18 zone (Commercial Intensive-Exit 18
zone).
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes construction of a new 5, 800 sq. ft. convenience store with a 7,752 sq.
ft. fuel canopy and a 2008 sq. ft. diesel canopy. The project proposes 21% permeability where
30% is required.
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 to no 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
may be considered limited due to the size of the parcel and project proposal.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 9%.
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 no impact to the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The project is
located in an existing developing commercial area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a 5,800 sq. ft. convenience store with 752 sq. ft. fuel canopy and 2,008
sq. ft. diesel canopy. The project includes clearing 2.15 acre parcel, installation of new curb cut
on Corinth Road and 2 new curb cuts on private drive."
MR. NAPIERALA-Matt Napierala, Napierala Consulting, representing Fastrac. For this
particular property Fastrac is under contract with Jerry Nudi and Switcho. So the outparcel, the
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
frontage parcel in front of and right off of Corinth Road. The lot that we are purchasing is
essentially a square, it's almost a perfectly square lot that sits in the front. When you look at
the circulation and development of this piece, which will also include a diesel island in back, and
a drive thru, we do not meet the 30% permeable area requirement. We have permeable area
along the back here. We have a thin strip along both the west and along the frontage piece.
In a practical sense the private road that is already constructed with the new signal, there's a
significant additional green space along the road's east and our west and to the north side of
that, albeit it's not within our property, as well, this thin strip over here, and I don't know what's
going to be built there other than keeping it green. So, in a development sense, we have
permeable landscape area surrounding this store, albeit it within the southern sector which
we're purchasing.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board member questions regarding this project at this time before I open
the public hearing? Not hearing any I'd like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone who'd
like to address the Board concerning this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PETE SMITH
MR. SMITH-My name's Pete Smith and I live the next road over, Rhode Island Avenue, the next
road next to it. My parents own the house, we inherited it. I live two streets over. Okay. The
problem I've got with this is the traffic. As you guys know, they already built, have Hudson
Headwaters down there. They've got the new climbing wall place there. They've got a new
hotel there, then across the road you've got Stewarts. We've got enough convenience stores.
You've got Stewarts. You've got Cumberland Farms. You've got Speedway. You've got
Sunoco. How many more of these stores do we need in that area? That's going to be 10
pumps, 3 diesels I believe, I read it somewhere. But the tractor trailers coming out of there,
right now you're going to have trouble, I bet you. That road is not that wide, and I've lived there
all my life. I've lived there 61 years, and there's a lot of accidents there now. Since Stewarts
has been put in, even with that red light, there's a lot of accidents. I'll bet you at least one
accident a month there, easy. I used to belong to the fire company. I know, I used to respond
to them all the time. I don't think it's feasible. I just don't think we need that right there, not
when we've got the other four. We've got Stewarts, like I say. We've got the other three just
beyond the Northway. You've got three other ones, all convenience stores. Every one of them,
and if you go a mile and a half down the road, you've got a Citgo gas station. So that's just my
own input on it. Like I said, I've lived here all my life. I know Jerry Nudi's trying to build this
place all up. My father's property connects to his on the back side. About four houses down,
our property connects to the back side, and I heard in the future some time they're supposed to
put a strip mall there. I don't care that too much, I just don't think we need another
convenience store in that area. Thank you.
MR. FREER-Thanks for coming and staying this late.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board?
BOB SEARS
MR. SEARS-My name's Bob Sears. I'm a broker involved with both of these Fastrac sites.
Just to put something in perspective on Corinth Road, the traffic count on Corinth Road in that
location is around 10,000 a day or less. So traffic along that road is very small compared to
other areas where most of these stores are going. Thank you.
GARY SPRINGER
MR. SPRINGER-Hi, my name is Gary Springer, and I actually live, you go right behind your
development here. I'm the back, that land comes right to mine, and I don't know where, you
know, your traffic study or whatever is, but Corinth Road is a bear. Most people now we take
Luzerne Road, and it looks like that's going in off that private road. Is it?
MR. JACKOSKI-There's going to be another entrance, though, toward, and you can see it right
there.
MR. SPRINGER-So is he going to come in off Corinth Road?
MR. NAPIERALA-A right in, right out only.
MR. JACKOSKI-You can only go west.
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. SPRINGER-Okay. Well, I think the traffic is heavy enough on Corinth Road. Try to get up
through there. So, thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome.
MR. FREER-Thanks, Gary.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Board? Okay. Is there any
written comments? No written comment. If you could come back. I assume you would like
me to poll the Board at this time?
MR. NAPIERALA-Yes, sir.
MR. URRICO-The Planning Board did pass a motion and they did identify the sign issue again.
So that's attached to this motion as well.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike, I'll start with you.
MR. MC CABE-I'd be concerned with the permeability if there were any tilt to the property, but
there's really no tilt to the property. So I don't have a problem with the 21% permeability. So I
will approve the project as proposed.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm more inclined to favor this project than the previous one. I understand the
concern about traffic, but that traffic has been there. We've been approving hotels and fast
food restaurants and a lot of the traffic is generated from the Northway through that section,
through that whole section Downtown Glens Falls and Queensbury. I recognize the problem
there, but I think it would be unfair to un fast track Fastrac.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think the other issue we have here is on the west side it's
basically fast draining sands and McClustrian soils over there. I don't think that putting
infiltrators in on an overly built site is going to have any issues whatsoever. I think you're going
to have no problems at all. So I'd be all in favor of this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, just for the two gentlemen. The only waiver they're asking us for or variance
is for the permeability of water, and that's all we're dealing with.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Not to build it?
MR. FREER-Not to build it. Not the planning that goes into it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Sorry.
MR. FREER-That's okay. I heard you guys wondering what we're talking about, and so the
only variance he's asking for is to have more cement than we typically do on a parcel of land,
macadam. Sorry, macadam. Okay. So I will approve this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in support of it as well. Especially with what Jim had to say.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I agree with my Board members. The way Jim phrased it. It's kind of
what the Town's vision for that part of Town was. I'm in favor of it as well. So I'm going to
close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval of the Area Variance.
Applicant proposes construction of a 5,800 sq. ft. convenience store with 7,752 sq. ft. fuel
canopy (10 gasoline fueling dispensers) and 2,008 sq. ft. diesel canopy (3 diesel fueling
dispensers). Project includes clearing 2.15 acre parcel, installation of new curb cut on Corinth
Road, 2 new curb cuts on private drive and other site work.
The applicant requests relief from permeability in the Cl 18 zone (Commercial Intensive-Exit 18
zone).
61
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes construction of a new 5, 800 sq. ft. convenience store with a 7,752 sq.
ft. fuel canopy and a 2008 sq. ft. diesel canopy. The project proposes 21% permeability where
30% is required. The Board realizes that the fast draining soils in this area should be able to
accommodate any infiltration that's created on site by runoff.
SEQR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 22, 2017;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties.
2. Feasible alternatives may be considered due to the size of the parcel and the project
proposal.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. The relief requested may be considered
minimal. It's only 9%.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district? Minor to no impacts due to the fast draining soils on site. The
project is located in an existing commercial development area.
5. Is the alleged difficulty is self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE
NO. Z-AV-18-2017, FASTRACT CAFE (CORINTH ROAD), Introduced by James Underwood,
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Next item on this evening's agenda, and by the way, for the gentleman here,
the Planning Board meetings would be the meetings that would really address. The Planning
Board's meetings on this project will be where you should address your concerns about
development.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-That's before yours?
MR. JACKOSKI-After.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-After. It'll be in the paper, then.
MR. JACKOSKI-If you're within 500 feet. Always check the Internet. You can always see the
agendas on the Internet for the meetings.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-All right. Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Next item, Sign Variance Z-SV-3-2017. Fastrac, 220 Corinth Road.
There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening.
SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-3-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED FASTRAC (CORINTH ROAD)
AGENT(S) NAPIERALA CONSULTING OWNER(S) JERRY NUDI, SWITCHO, LLC
62
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
ZONING CI-18 LOCATION 220 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
INSTALLATION OF A 76.5 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN ON CORINTH ROAD. ALSO
PROPOSED IS THE INSTALLATION OF A 78.7 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN ON THE FRONT
FACING SIDE OF THE NEW CONVENIENCE STORE/BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MAXIMUM SIZE RESTRICTIONS FOR THE FREESTANDING SIGN. ALSO, RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF THE ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS; 2 ALLOWED; 3 ARE
PROPOSED — 32 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN TO BE INSTALLED ON THE SIDE OF THE
BUILDING; 78.7 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN TO BE INSTALLED ON THE FRONT OF THE
BUILDING; AND A 22.2 SQ. FT. CANOPY SIGN TO BE INSTALLED ON THE NEW
GASOLINE CANOPY STRUCTURE. CROSS REF P-SP 22-2017; P-SUP-5-2017; Z-AV-18-
2017; SP PZ 51-2016 & AV PZ 69-2016 HOTEL, DISC 2-2017 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING MARCH 2017 LOT SIZE 2.155 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-1-35 SECTION
CHAPTER 140
MATT NAPIERALA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-3-2017, Fastrac (Corinth Road), Meeting Date: March
22, 2017 "Project Location: 220 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes installation of a 76.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign on Corinth Road. Also, proposed is the
installation of a 78.7 sq. ft. wall sign on the front facing side of the new convenience store
building.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the maximum size restrictions for a freestanding sign and
from the number of allowable wall signs.
Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required
The applicant proposes 3 wall signs where only 1 is allowed at 30 sq. ft. (or two wall signs no
larger than 30 sq. ft. total and no free standing sign). The main building sign is proposed to be
78.13 sq. ft. fuel canopy sign at 22.2 sq. ft., and wall sign west side of building 32 sq. ft. The
proposed free standing sign at 76.42 sq. ft. where 45 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.
Criteria for considering a Sign 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 sign variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as signs along
the corridor are required to be compliant.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives
may be considered to adjust the number of signs and the size of signs.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested for the number
of wall signs is 3 and only 2 are allowed and to total no more than 30 sq. ft., relief requested
for size of the freestanding sign is 31.5 sq. ft. in excess.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed
may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes the sign package that is associated with the construction of the Fastrac
convenience store and fuel service. The applicant has indicated the signage is utilized for
customers traveling from the Northway and the west towards the Northway."
63
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. NAPIERALA-I'll cut to the chase. Actually I've got one question for Laura. For this site,
two are allowed or one is allowed?
MR. FREER-Two, but they can only be a total of 30 square feet.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. NAPIERALA-It changed with the zone change.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. NAPIERALA-So I want to cut to the chase a little bit since it's so late. What I'd like to, with
the due diligence of the Board, we'll table the monument size. I hope to come back with
something that conforms or comes very close to conforming. So we'll leave that one alone.
The same sign package that we had on the other site, the square footages obviously are what's
at question here for the two in totality. I was going to ask if we could just, if I reduce it to two, to
get a polling of the Board to see if that would be acceptable. If not then we'll look at tabling and
I'll go back to my team and see what we can do for signs.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I have a public hearing advertised for this evening. So I'm going to open
that public hearing. Is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one who'd like to address the Board on that, I'll leave the public
hearing open, but then I'll also poll the Board as to the applicant's request that we temporarily
ignore and he'll come back to us with a different application I guess on the monument sign, but
as far as the two signs and their size, how do you all feel about those? And then we can act
accordingly. So I will start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-As long as we reduced the number of signs and the size of these signs, I'd be
okay. It's 30 square feet total?
MRS. MOORE-Right. So if you're proposing two wall signs that are 30 square feet and which
signs. I was going to say, which signs are we eliminating?
MR. NAPIERALA-So it's 30 square feet total for wall signage? That's all?
MRS. MOORE-If you're going to allow two wall signs. Correct.
MR. NAPIERALA-I'm only allowed 30 square feet total on that side section?
MRS. MOORE-Right. So if you were not to do, and no freestanding sign. That's where it ends
up. So if you propose no buildings allowed, two wall signs, only if you're not going to have a
freestanding sign and the total square footage of the wall signs can't exceed 30 square feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-So if the applicant is going to have a monument sign, how many wall signs can
they have?
MRS. MOORE-One.
MR. JACKOSKI-And how large can that sign be?
MRS. MOORE-Thirty square feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would do one on the building, 30 square feet, your monument sign, and
one on your canopy. You've got three. That's going to give you enough exposure.
MR. JACKOSKI-So that's what he's asking for at this moment in time, and the Board would
approve two with a monument sign, if so, what would they total? That would be the variance.
MRS. MOORE-That would be the variance request.
MR. URRICO-I would not be in favor of the canopy sign. I would want either one freestanding
sign and one wall sign or two wall signs, but I'm not in favor of the canopy sign at all.
64
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So you're hearing what the Board's saying. We don't want to plan for
you.
MR. NAPIERALA-No, I understand. Frankly I'm going to have to go back to the Fastrac
ownership group and obviously marketing and signage is important to them and I can't make
that call. So I'm going to request that we table both items.
MRS. MOORE-The signage total.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do you want to hear what the Board members are thinking as far as what they
would allow or not?
MR. NAPIERALA-Yes, sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-So if you have a conforming, or pretty darn close to conforming freestanding sign,
45 instead of whatever your number is, and this is related to what you have to work over, and I
would support two wall signs, but not a huge variance in the total square footage.
MR. JACKOSKI-So would you say 20% more, 30% more?
MR. FREER-Twenty-five percent.
MR. JACKOSKI-There you go.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Well, I think, you know, you almost have to have a freestanding sign to advertise
your prices. I mean, if you're not doing that, then you're going to be way behind any of the
other stations selling fuel, and, you know, I think that it's fair to say that you should have a sign
on the front of your building, and I also believe that, you know, it's fair to have a sign out on your
canopy. So that's what I would approve is a sign on the front of the building, a sign on the
canopy, and a freestanding sign, and, you know, the size of somewhere around 50 square feet
for the freestanding. I mean, that's probably about what most of the stations around have.
You have the advantage of being able to go LED because we approved LED, where most of
those places don't have the LED, and a building sign somewhere around 40 square feet. I
mean that's fair. Every fuel station that you see around here is going to have.
MR. FREER-That's pretty close to what I said, 25% above the 30 square foot.
MR. URRICO-We didn't allow a lot of the stations to have canopy signs. So don't say that they
all do.
MR. MC CABE-Well, canopies didn't exist back when we made our.
MR. URRICO-If you look at some of the stations that are out there, we did not allow canopy
signs on them. Some of them will try to get around it by putting flags up there instead.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Well anyway, you've heard from the Board. I'd like you to stay as
close to the Code as possible. I don't think you need a lot of signage. I'm sorry, when I look
at Stewarts, I don't even look to see if I can see the logo. I know the Stewarts building. You
can't miss your buildings. I mean, they're very prominent. They're very recognizable. There's
going to be colors with the pumps. There's going to be those awnings. So I'd like you to stay
at tight to the Code as you can. We have a motion to table. The public hearing is still open.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Fastrac Cafe for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury.
Applicant proposes installation of a 76.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign on Corinth Road. Also,
proposed is the installation of a 78.7 sq. ft. wall sign on the front facing side of the new
convenience store/ building.
The applicant requests relief from the maximum size restrictions for a freestanding sign and
from the number of allowable wall signs
Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required
65
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2017)
The applicant proposes 3 wall signs where only 1 is allowed at 30 sq. ft. (or two wall signs no
larger than 30 sq. ft. total and no free standing sign). The main building sign is proposed to be
78.13 sq. ft.,, fuel canopy sign at 22.2 sq. ft., and wall sign west side of building 32 sq. ft.. The
proposed free standing sign at 76.42 sq. ft. where 45 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-3-2017 FASTRAC CAFE (CORINTH ROAD),
Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Tabled to our first May meeting with materials to be submitted by the April deadline.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Henkel
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll make a motion to adjourn, unless there's any further business to come
before the Board. Seconded by Mike.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
MARCH 22, 2017, Introduced by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Henkel
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
66