05-17-2017 015/17/2017)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 17, 2017
INDEX
Notice of Appeal Z-NOA-1-2017 Frank & Isobel Munoff 2.
Tax Map No. 240.5-1-32
Sign Variance Z-SV-3-2017 Fastrac Markets, LLC (Brett Hughes) 17.
Tax Map No. 309.13-1-35
Area Variance Z-AV-35-2017 James Beaty 23.
Tax Map No. 290.5-1-50
Area Variance Z-AV-30-2017 Glenn Durlacher 28.
Tax Map No. 295.12-1-4
Area Variance Z-AV-36-2017 Chris Mackey 32.
Tax Map No. 308.16-1-54
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
015/17/2017)
MAY 17, 2017
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
RONALD KUHL
JOHN HENKEL
JAMES UNDERWOOD
HARRISON FREER
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. JACKOSKI-Hello everyone and welcome. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. We are here at the Queensbury Activities Center on
May 17th, and for those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's actually an easy process.
There is an agenda on the back table. We have some housekeeping to do, some
Administrative items, some Old Business, some New Business, but we'll guide everyone
through it as I work through the agenda. We will call various applications to the floor. We'll
ask the applicants to join us at the table. Roy will be kind enough to read the entire application
into the record. We will then ask the applicants if they'd like to add anything, depending on the
complexity of the project. Board members will ask questions. We'll open up a public hearing
when a public hearing has been scheduled, and fortunately for this evening every item on here
has a public hearing except for one Administrative item among the Board members, and then
we'll decide how we're going to move forward by polling the Board and seeing what the Board is
thinking about the actual application in front of us. So let me do some housekeeping first and
we'll move on and do a little bit of a change up of the agenda this evening. We are going to do
approval of meeting minutes. We are going to do an Appeal, and then we are going to do
some discussion of the Board on signage matters that was brought to us about a month ago. Is
that about right? And we'll go forward. So I need a motion for approval of the meeting minutes
of April 19th
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 19, 2017
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF APRIL 19, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I also now need a motion for approval of the meeting minutes of
Wednesday, April 26th
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
015/17/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The next two items on the agenda are Administrative Items.
Each of the applicants has requested a tabling of the matters.
MR. MC CABE-No, they've withdrawn.
MR. JACKOSKI-Completely withdrawn?
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's even better. So be it. So do we have to actually take a motion to
accept that or no? Okay. Great.
MRS. MOORE-You may want to announce which ones have been withdrawn.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, that's fine. So it is Fastrac Markets, LLC at 773 Quaker Road. That's
Z-AV-17-2017 and then Sign Variance for the same project, Fastrac Markets, LLC, 773 Quaker
Road, Z-SV-2-2017.
MR. MC CABE-And also the withdrawal of Dark Bay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Wait a minute. I'm also going to go through and, Old Business, note for the
members that the application for Dark Bay Properties, Area Variance No. Z-AV-31-2017, has
been withdrawn, by Jonathan Lapper their agent, and then I'm going to flip to New Business. I
know I'm going out of order a little bit, but we've got personnel issues we want to deal with here.
I'm going to now hear the Appeal of Frank and Isobel Munoff. The owners of the property that
the Appeal has been filed agents are Harold & Lyn Halliday. The Notice of Appeal Z-NOA-1-
2017. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening.
NEW BUSINESS:
NOTICE OF APPEAL Z-NOA-1-2017 SEQRA TYPE N/A FRANK & ISOBEL MUNOFF
OWNER(S) HAROLD AND LYN HALLIDAY ZONING WR LOCATION 2599 STATE
ROUTE 9L APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER A DUPLEX OR MULTI-UNIT BUILDING
CONSTITUTES MORE THAN ONE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT
A SPECIFIC PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL ON PROPERTY OWNED BY HAROLD AND
LYN HALLIDAY; PARCEL 240.5-1-32; 2599 STATE ROUTE 9L IN THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY FOR A CONSTRUCTION AND SPECIAL USE OF BOAT STORAGE
BUILDING ON SAID PARCEL WHERE THE HALLIDAY'S RESIDE. CROSS REF SUP 1-
2017; SP 2-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.66 ACRE(S) TAX
MAP NO. 240.5-1-32 SECTION N/A
FRANK & ISOBEL MUNOFF, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. If the Munoffs could
please join us at the table, that would be great, and for the Hallidays, just so you know, you'll be
brought to the table at the appropriate time.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal Z-NOA-1-2017, Frank & Isobel Munoff, Meeting Date: May
17, 2017 "Project Location: 2599 State Route 9L Information Requested: Appellant is
appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals as to whether a duplex or multi-unit building
constitutes more than one principal building and relative to the approvals issued by the Planning
Board for the project.
Staff comments:
First, Standing:
Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing party
aggrieved?
The appeal was filed within the required timeframe.
• The Zoning Administrator letter to the appellant was dated March 24, 2017. The Notice
of Appeal application/letter was filed with the Town on April 4, 2017.
31
015/17/2017)
• While the appellant has not offered any information regarding a direct damage or harm
to them that differs from that of the general public, or an explanation of how they are
aggrieved, they are a nearby property owner.
Second, Merits of the argument if the appellant is found to have standing:
The appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals as to whether a duplex or multi-unit
building constitutes more than one principal building and relative to the approvals issued by the
Planning Board for the project.
The appellant asserts that a Boat Storage Facility is required to be on parcels no less than two
acres. This is correct, however, the project at hand has not been classified as a Boat
Storage Facility, as such uses are not allowable, by definition, within the Lake George
Park. The use has been correctly identified as a Commercial Boat Sales/Service/Storage
Facility and the appropriate approvals have been applied for and granted.
The appellant asserts that there is a duplex or multi-family dwelling on the property and that
such a structure constitutes multiple principal buildings.
Whether the building is a single family dwelling, duplex or 10 unit apartment building, it
is considered one principal building. While other zoning districts call for a minimum
amount of land to be allotted for density calculation purposes, the Waterfront
Residential, (WR) zone does not. As such the argument that a multi-family dwelling
requires 2 acres of land per unit is not valid in the current WR zoning.
The appellant asserts that Halliday identified the dwelling unit on the property as a Single Family
Dwelling and therefore was materially misrepresented to the Town. The application to the
Planning Board clearly indicates an existing two-family dwelling.
The appellant asserts that a "stay" should apply to any furtherance of the development of the
project pending the outcome of this appeal. The appellants appeal to the Zoning Board of
Appeals is considered a "third party" appeal and, as such, the stay provisions do not
apply.
Subsequently, in a letter dated May 5, 2017 and presented to the Town on May 9, 2017 the
appellant has attempted to add/amend/clarify their appeal by making several assertions that
they are appealing the fact that the Zoning Administrator has not acted. Omissions of the
Zoning Administrator are not appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. One cannot
appeal something that has not yet been done or decided."
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, and for those of you who haven't been here before
regarding an Appeal, so just to clarify, the Munoffs have filed the Appeal against the Zoning
Administrator. So we'll allow the Munoffs to speak. We'll allow the Zoning Administrator to
give his side of the story. We'll open up the public hearing and then I assume the Hallidays will
want to speak and others. So we'll try to go through this calmly and coolly and hopefully get to
a resolution this evening or if not soon thereafter. Welcome, if you could identify yourselves for
the record.
MRS. MUNOFF-I'm Isobel Munoff.
MR. MUNOFF-Frank Munoff.
MRS. MUNOFF-And we both reside at 2626 Ridge Road in Queensbury, New York.
MR. JACKOSKI-Would you like Board members to simply ask questions or?
MRS. MUNOFF-No, well, I've never done this before and so I did have some things, you know, I
have what I want to say, and it may take me a little, not forever, but it may take some time to
express myself so that I can get the full thoughts out of why we're here. Because I have to be
honest with you. when we received the paperwork in the mail and we wrote a letter and then
we got a letter back, you know, kind of summarizing why we were making this Appeal, and
actually it wasn't quite, what we thought we had written in our letter wasn't quite making the
point. So we re-wrote a letter, you know, trying to clarify, not trying to amend or change or do
anything differently. It was just clearly trying to make a point what it is that we are appealing,
and apparently I think we probably still were not making, we just are not using the right
terminology or the right words, but some of the things that were just read by Mr. Urrico are
things that we have had concerns about and have had discussions about and have had
discussions with Mr. Brown about to get clarification of. This whole process has gone wrong,
but there's been some things that we have felt that we've been not satisfied with, you know like
4
015/17/2017)
there's still something not sitting right in the thought process. There's something that doesn't
add up in the whole project and how everything has gone. So we felt that, you know, we need
to make an Appeal because it is our contention, and it's really hard for me to say this. I have to
be quite honest with you, nobody wants to say this to somebody else, but as we have studied
the Town Code, and, you know, we've tried to ask questions and tried to, you know, think this
through, it's our contention that there are some issues with the interpretation of the Code and
how it's applied in this project, and it may be a matter of semantics, but they're important ones,
and it changes the whole application. It changes the whole process, and so it's hard to sit here
and say we're appealing it because we don't agree with how somebody did their job basically,
and I don't say that to insult anybody, but we are allowed to have an appeal because we do
have a debate about how things are interpreted and how things are carried out, and we feel that
after you allow us to speak to that, that maybe there will be some better understanding on your
part, on Mr. Brown's part, perhaps even on our part, you know, and hopefully we'll get all of that
resolved and understood, and without hurting feelings and without getting in the way of people's
plans and dreams, but needless to say, we would not be here if we didn't think it was not
important. It is important, and we do have things that we're aggrieved about, things that we find
fault with or may not like about the project, but I think the other concerns we have come before
we would even talk about those things, because we have a„ our main issue is with the way the
process or the protocol has been followed and the interpretation. So that being said, I just
would like to start by saying that we've lived in our home for, oh God, over 30 years now, yes,
32 years, and the Hallidays were in their home before we moved into the neighborhood there,
you know, they were there. They're natives, you know, and we've never had any issues with
our neighbors. We like all of our neighbors. We like our neighborhood and we like the
characteristics of it. So our speaking out is not in any way to be interpreted as trying to, you
know, discount or get in the way of them. It has nothing to do with them actually really.
They've been good neighbors. We do have some concerns, okay. So I guess what I want to
say to start with is that, you know the old saying is that good fences make good neighbors, and,
you know, maybe that's the case, but I also think good zoning laws make good neighbors, too,
and that when the zoning laws are put there, the regulations are put there because they're
meant to keep and preserve the integrity of the community, keep things the way they should be,
keep the flavor of it, keep things so that, you know, our lands are protected, our waters are
protected, neighbors are protected, you know, their rights, people will have a level playing field
so that you should feel comfortable that when you have a home in a certain district and you
have it in the Town of Queensbury or any town that's going to make sure the laws are followed.
They're going to be followed. So that you don't have to appear in front of boards like you, we
don't have to make an appeal because people have done their job and we'd be happy with it if it
was done correctly.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mrs. Munoff, we understand all that well. If we are going to take this long just
to get to this point, we are never going to get through to the specifics of your Appeal.
MRS. MUNOFF-Okay. I'm nervous.
MR. JACKOSKI-I know that, and I respect that, but I'm going to stop just for a moment, take a
breather. Based on just the initial discussions here and what Roy has read into the record, is
there anyone here on the Board who feels that the appellants do not have standing?
MR. MC CABE-Well, I think the first step would be did they file in a timely manner, and my
feeling is that they certainly filed within a timely manner.
MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. We all agree, right? And they are certainly well within, across the
street, it's pretty obvious that they're certainly within.
MR. MC CABE-And do they have standing? I believe that without a doubt they have standing
to grieve Craig's decision.
MR. JACKOSKI-All members are in agreement with that?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So now we can move forward.
MRS. MUNOFF-Okay. So the planning, you know, the project, okay, the application was made
for a commercial boat storage and the boat sales, service and storage facility. That's what's on
the face of the application. That's what they applied for. That's what they were asking a
special use permit for. Okay. In the Town of Queensbury, going through the Codes, a boat
storage facility actually is kind of a separate category. It's not, and we live in a Waterfront
Residential area. So when you read the Town definitions and the Codes in the Waterfront
I:~
015/17/2017)
Residential area and you look at what uses are allowed and what needs to happen for that,
actually a boat storage facility is not permitted. However, a boat, a commercial boat, sales,
service and storage facility and a Class A Marina, which is what they categorize it when you get
onto the Lake George Park Commission side of it, those require a Special Use Permit. Okay.
In other parts of Queensbury I suppose a boat storage facility is allowed, but in those parts of
Queensbury they require a minimum acreage of two acres. Okay. So we've been roundabout
about this and kind of, okay. Now it goes on to the Queensbury Planning Board and they have
all these discussions about this project, and I don't know if you folks have had the opportunity to
read the minutes from that meeting, but it occurred on January 24th, 2017, and the Planning
Board members listened to it, looked at the project, and, you know, they kept coming back to
the whole issue of, you know, so this is going to be used to store boats only, correct, you're
going to store boats, you're not going to sell boats, you're not going to service them, you're not
going to do this, that. It's simply to store boat? Yes. Okay. So, okay, so then, you know, for
whatever reason, it's still considered boat sales, service and storage facility, and if you look at
the Town regulations, if you want to set up a Class A Marina, there's all kinds of gyrations that
you have to go through, and I'm sure you know them, but there's probably a long list of things
that people have to comply with, and, you know, just, I'll runoff a few, is like parking, you know,
bathroom facilities, etc. etc., fences, all kinds of things that one would have to put in place for
that kind of project, and all that stuff in this case has basically been waived because it's not a
boat sales, service and storage facility. It's just a boat storage facility, and this is not my words.
This is in the record. This is in the minutes, okay, but a Special Use Permit gets awarded or
gets granted for this project. It is a boat storage facility. It is not a boat, sales, service and
storage facility, and maybe I'm splitting hairs, but your Town Code clearly distinguishes those
things as being separate and needing to have different treatment, and the boat storage facility
being not permitted in Waterfront Residential. Now, this project also had to go in front of the
Lake George Park Commission which right now at this point they're approving that and passing,
we already had a meeting about it, but it was tabled because they basically agreed that the
foundation is shaky on this, that the Special Use Permit has really been granted in a, it's kind of
faulty. It's not correct, and they felt awkward because they should not be making, doing the
zoning laws or enforcing them, but on the same hand it's not fair to ask the Lake George Park
Commission, when they expect that they're going to get a quality recommendation, they expect
a quality recommendation, but if there's fault with it coming in then there's going to be problems
down the road. So they actually tabled the decision until we could meet here, and then I guess
there's a meeting next week to follow up, depending on what happens here, and, you know, one
of the things that is on the Lake George Park Commission, and I know, I have a lot more to say,
I'll keep it brief, but the Lake George Park Commission, their application therefore example, they
call it a Class A marina because that's their terminology, and in the whole line of question and
things like that there's a part that says are restrooms on this one, there's many examples but
let's just pick on this one. Are restrooms available to customers at all times between May 1St
and October 31 St? There's only one box that you can check, it's the yes box. You can't check
a no box because on the printed application it says, this is required for all marinas. Mark the
restrooms location on the facility plan and attached wastewater system evaluation report as
needed, see instructions. In the applicant's own words, it has an N/A. That's not a choice but
they put it in there, N/A, and there's an asterisk, N/A. This is not a marina. It is boat storage
only. A waiver is requested. So this is a boat storage facility in the costume of a boat sales,
service and storage facility and they're asking for all of these waivers to strip away everything
else that's required. Okay. So is it a boat storage facility? Or is it a Class A Marina? And
it's often referred to as a boat storage facility. Okay. I don't know about you, but it's a boat
storage facility. Okay. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe that's a bad thing. I don't know, but
it's not, getting a Special Use Permit for it is incorrect. That's an incorrect decision because it's
not a boat, sales, service and storage facility. It's a boat storage facility. So that's one thing.
Now, I didn't want to really have to bring up any of this other stuff that I'm going to talk about
briefly because from the get go of this, they're good neighbors. I want to take it on the merit of
what it is, new project, forget past history. Don't go there. Let's just, you know, let's look at it
fresh. It's new. I can't ignore it. There's an elephant in the living room. This facility is coming
from another location. It's being dismantled and re-constructed. It is not a new project. Okay,
and what has happened here is that unfortunately, and I feel, and I understand that there's a
desperate need to find a place to put this building that's already been purchased and built and
make use of it and come close to what you intended its original use to be, and if you have to
start storing boats there, so be it, but I still want to store, you know, my tractor and my, you
know, my electrical cherry picker lift and whatever else you have there. Okay. I get it, but it's
not a Class A Marina, and so it is really troubling to me that someone has a project and they go
to this, and it's not a new project. It's trying to find a way to fix an old mistake or self-impose
hardship. So you go through the Town Code and you sit down in the Planning Board room and
you come up with a way to retrofit the Town Code to suit your needs. That's not right, and you
guys have the power to really take a look at this and see what's going on. This is not a marina.
It's a boat storage facility and it's not permitted in a Waterfront Residential, and beyond that, it's
still even really something in disguise, and that's what I have to say, and I've dominated and 1
6
015/17/2017)
hope you give my husband a few moments to speak, but that's what I have to say, and I have to
trust you guys that you'll look at it honestly and you'll uphold the law because it is the rule of law
that we have to abide by, and we can't just go around changing things to make them suit our
needs. It doesn't help any of us, and I don't really want to be here fighting my neighbors. Our
Town Code should work.
MR. MUNOFF-I just want to say that any time I've had questions about this they've used the
word boat storage facility. When I asked why 3600 square feet, and if you look at the plans, on
the big plans, in small print, it says boat storage facilities will be 1,000 square foot for boat
storage facility. Now I'm totally confused. Why would you only put down 1,000 square feet of
a 3600 square foot building for boat storage for five boats? And the answer is obvious.
Because it's already built and I need a place to put it, and I don't want to hurt anybody's
feelings, but I've got to tell you something, boats aren't going to be stored here, and that's not
what this building is for, and if I have to go back to Fort Ann to read it, I will. In Fort Ann this
building was built for my toys. That's what it says, and you go back and read the minutes. For
my toys. For my tractors, for my snowmobiles, for things for my grandkids, and that's great,
and I have nothing against that. This building was not built for a boat storage facility, and it's
trying to find a place to land, and it was built to store his stuff. He needs a variance to do this
legally I think, but that isn't what it was built for, and we do have, the character of the
neighborhood, we're residential. This is going to be commercial, and when I got it from Mr.
Brown a couple of days in the mail, that was the first time we ever knew there was going to be
mechanics there. There's going to be service there. They're going to sell boats there. That's
what it said, and that just like blew our mind because we had been told the people would come
in the fall and the people would come in the spring. Bring their boat and take their boat, and
that was it. I'm not even happy with that, but that's what we've been told., and now when I got
this letter, they're changing the game, the rules of the game while it's happening, and I just don't
think, if you followed the Codes, that, I want you to think about this for a minute, too. 1.66
acres, 1.66 acres, a three family residence, and I don't care if it's a five family residence, all his
residences are class acts, but his house, three family house, with another 3600 square foot
commercial business in his backyard on 1.66 acres? And the only person that can see that is
us.
MRS. MUNOFF-It's not woods in between. It is visible.
MR. MUNOFF-Our driveway is five feet higher than the top of his building, which means we look
right down on his backyard. From my den I look right down on his backyard.
MRS. MUNOFF-We look down into the open portion of this shed, which is where all the
paraphernalia will be stored that doesn't go under cover. We look at that.
MR. MUNOFF-And the Planning Board didn't do a bad job asking questions. They asked
questions. What would be stored in there? Well, you know, just boats. Are you sure, just
boats? Yes. And every time it was yes, and they said, well maybe a lawnmower. We're not
talking lawnmower, guys. We're talking big tractors, we're talking telephone trucks. I know
what he wants to do with this building, and it's not store boats.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So at this point if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to give Craig Brown an
opportunity to tell the Board how he interpreted the Code that you've mentioned. You can sit
right there for now, and then we'll go forward if that's okay with you.
MR. BROWN-Sure. Yes, just to refocus a little bit, an appeal's kind of a different animal than
an Area Variance, and you guys are all familiar with that, and this is mostly for the benefit of the
applicants and maybe some of the people that are here from the public, but an appeal is
focused very narrowly on a determination that was made, and in this case it's a letter that I had
written and in the letter that I'd written there are two points. One was how are the number of
principle buildings calculated for a parcel, and whether I determined that the applicant had made
some sort of material misrepresentation in their application materials. Those are the only two
points that are appealable, because those are the only two points that are in my determination.
The unhappiness or the displeasure or the disagreement about the type of application, the
decision the Planning Board made, this is not the venue to do that. That's potentially an Article
78 if they disagree with the Planning Board determination. So, again, the two items that are
appealable are principle building calculations and material misrepresentation. I didn't hear too
much of that. I don't know if there's more to come, so I don't have too much more to respond to
because we really haven't talked about the details of the Appeal yet.
MR. JACKOSKI-So why don't you go ahead and start with some of the basics of your letter and
the calculation of principle structure.
015/17/2017)
MR. BROWN-Sure. Mr. and Mrs. Munoff and I had a couple of little, two or three conversations
maybe before they requested that I write a determination. They provided me with a couple of
questions. I gave them some answers, and the determination, it follows the Staff Notes that I
prepared, that, whether it's a hundred unit building or a single family building it's still one
principle building on the property, one principle building on the property. The fact that you have
a two unit, a three unit, a five unit doesn't mean you have two, three or five principle buildings
on the property. That's just not the way that it's done. The Zoning Ordinance does require one,
when it comes to density calculations, it talks about numbers of single family dwellings or
principle dwellings on the property. That's great. It applies. Not in this case. The application
that was applied for by Mr. Halliday wasn't for a principle dwelling. It was for a boat facility,
commercial boat sales, storage and service. That's the definition it fits in our Zoning Code.
So to do that density calculation about numbers of principle dwellings or single family homes per
parcel doesn't apply because that's not what the issue at hand was. In the zoning table the
Waterfront Residential zone does not provide for a density calculation. Some of the other
commercial districts say X number of acres per principle building, or X number of square feet of
non-residential versus X number of square feet for residential. So there's very clear density
calculations under the zoning districts. Waterfront Residential zone doesn't have that. So we
disagree on the way that you calculate density. In this case the building that was applied for,
the project that was applied for wasn't a residential project. So that density calculation doesn't
come into play. The other item about the misrepresentation, the application clearly states, and
I think I provided you guys with a copy of the cover page from their Site Plan application, it says
existing duplex. So there was no representation that it was only a single family dwelling.
Again, it doesn't come into the mix other than to explain what's on the property to the Planning
Board, for starters, and then the proposed project for the storage building.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR. BROWN-And just to clarify for the record. Mr. Munoff stated that I presented him with
information that says there's going to be mechanics and sales there. That's probably a
misunderstanding of the notes, and in the notes I clarified or I identified the use as a commercial
boat sales, service, storage use. That's the way it's identified. It's the same type of definition
that was used in the public hearing notice that they received for the Special Use Permit before
the Planning Board. So it's just the definition that's in our Zoning Code, how this use is
classified. There's not more things that are going to happen on the property.
MR. JACKOSKI-So let me ask this. When the Code mentions sales, service and storage, why,
is it that a property cannot be used specifically and solely exclusively for storage? It has to be
in combination with those other two things?
MR. BROWN-No, no. Just like if you have a Class A marina. You don't have to have all of the
components of the Class A marina requirements to be a Class A marina. The majority of the
marinas on the lake don't have pump out facilities. You have to have an agreement with
another marina to get your boat pumped out over there if you're going to dock at the marina.
It's a requirement. You have to have pump out facilities, but you don't have to have them on
this property. So you don't have to have all the components to meet the definition of that use.
In this case, commercial boat storage, sales, and service. You don't have to have all of those
components to fit that definition.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do you have to have one of those components?
MR. BROWN-Yes. Of course, of course, you have to have one of the components to fit the
definition.
MR. JACKOSKI-But besides storage, because storage is not allowed. Correct? Just storage.
MR. BROWN-No. There's two uses listed in the Zoning Code. One's commercial boat sales,
service and storage, and another use is boat storage facility and that was specifically added to
the Zoning Code in the last round of revisions to allow for boat storage facilities outside the Lake
George Park. If you're in the Park you're either a marina, because you have all the stuff that
goes with a marina, docks, the service and the sales and the service, or you're a storage facility,
you're off the lake and you have a facility to just store boats. You may have some winterization
and put plastic over them, but you talk about that during the Special Use Permit. If you're
outside the Lake George Park, the Zoning Code wouldn't allow you to do any boat storage at all.
So the Town Board added boat storage facility as a use specifically outside the park and that
one is specific to boat storage only. You can't do any of those other components. Service,
maintenance, any of those things. So they're two different uses. One's in the Park, one's out
of the Park.
8
015/17/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. Before we get back to the appellants, are there Board member
questions at this time?
MR. URRICO-Is the definition for commercial boat sales, service, storage, it says a place, site
or structure used to park, house or store. It doesn't say and store. It doesn't say how. It
doesn't use the word "and". It uses "or". To me that indicates one or the other. So that's why
I'm having difficulty with that definition.
MR. BROWN-Yes. On whether you can do all the components?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. URRICO-It doesn't say and. It doesn't say park and house or store on any one lot three or
more vessels. It says or.
MR. BROWN-Right. If that was a determination that I had made and we were appealing it, I'd
have an answer for it. That's not the determination I made that they're appealing. The
determination that that use was this use and it was the approval that they're required to go
through happened months ago, and the timeframe for that appeal of what, how do you classify
this use, that decision has timed out. It's unappealable. The 60 days has run. They've gone
through the Planning Board approval process, but my answer would be, can you do all of the
components, the sales, service, storage? Yes, I think that you can.
MR. URRICO-Because it says the place, site or structure.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before we allow the Munoffs to?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, what's the minimum lot size necessary if you want to do this?
MR. BROWN-There is not a density requirement in the WR zone.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So there's not a two acre, I thought it was expressly written that it had to be
two acres?
MR. BROWN-It is. It is if it's a boat storage facility. This isn't classified and defined and fit the
definition of a boat storage facility. That's for a use outside the Park.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So when the applicants first came to you they applied for a boat sales?
MR. BROWN-They applied for commercial boat, sales, service, storage, that use. That's the
use that's allowed in the district.
MR. UNDERWOOD-With storage.
MR. BROWN-With storage, correct.
MR. KUHL-On an existing 1.6.
MR. BROWN-Yes, on the parcel that they own.
MR. KUHL-And the way the Code still reads under Waterfront Residential it's two acres.
MR. BROWN-If you look at the table, the bulk area table, and you look in the density column in
the Waterfront Residential, it's blank. There's no density requirement that says you need this
number of.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But it's written in writing within the Code book that you have to have a
minimum of two acres sized lot.
MR. BROWN-For a principle dwelling. Right.
MR. KUHL-For a dwelling. It doesn't say principle.
9
015/17/2017)
MR. BROWN-That's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about adding a dwelling to
the property.
MR. KUHL-Well, isn't that what the structure is coming out as a structure, a dwelling?
MR. BROWN-No, it's not a dwelling. You can't live in it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What I would ask for is a clarification. I mean, every month we get a
request for a second garage on properties and stuff like that, and I'm asking you in the same
instance here, this isn't for personal use. This is for commercial use in a Waterfront Residential
area, and somehow it just doesn't seem like that is kosher to me. I mean, if you looked at all of
the. It's an allowed use.
MR. BROWN-That's the use the Town Board put in the Zoning Code.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm not going to argue the point with you. I'm just saying, all I want to say
is if we looked at all the lots on the Waterfront Residential property in Town, everybody in Town
who has a Waterfront Residential property, lot, could apply for this same thing, and you would
have them tomorrow.
MR. BROWN-That's correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It doesn't really make sense.
MR. BROWN-That's a Town Board decision when they put it in the Zoning Code.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 mean, you can't have a personal extra garage on your property but you
can have a commercial garage? That's what you're telling me.
MR. BROWN-That's what the zoning.
MR. HENKEL-Only if you get the special use.
MR. BROWN-If you pass muster with the Planning Board in a Special Use Permit you're entitled
to it.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I think that's the safeguard right there. Any other Board member
questions?
MRS. MUNOFF-May I approach with a piece of paper, since I didn't bring any fancy overheads?
It's a copy of the Town planning chart.
MR. JACKOSKI-You can give it to Mr. Urrico, the secretary, but we have it. We know what the
chart says, we have access to them.
MR. KUHL-We all have it.
MRS. MUNOFF-Just to point out, this is the handy little chart. So it says, boat storage facility,
Class A marina, commercial boat sales and service. This is Waterfront Residential. For the
Class A marina or commercial boat sales, service and storage, you'd require a Special Use
Permit, but under Boat Storage Facility it's blank under Waterfront Residential. That means not
permitted. Why doesn't it also include a Special Use Permit if it is the same thing? Okay.
There's a difference there. There's a difference there and maybe it may be a fine line and
maybe we're splitting hairs, but there's a difference, and I find it hard to believe that density
doesn't apply to Waterfront Residential, and that you can put anything you want on any size
postage stamp that you want. I disagree with that.
MR. MUNOFF-And this is why I don't understand the Code. These are the Queensbury Codes.
179-10-070 parenthesis D. Special Use Permit Boat storage facilities must be on lots, this is
Special Use Permit, must be on lots equal to or greater than two acres in size. 179-5-100,
multi-family dwellings. Each unit in a multi-family structure shall be required to have the
minimum lot areas for the district in which it is located. 179-2-0106266, each dwelling unit
constitutes one principle building. This lot is already 300% over. Now you're going to put
another principle building, and the other law is 179-2-0106, another building located on the
same lot cannot be bigger than the main use building already on that lot in size or in use. In
this case this building is bigger than the house, and so I'm not making this stuff up and I don't
have a lawyer, but we're here because that's what the Codes say and hopefully they'll be
adhered to. I mean, you guys have been patient with us, and I appreciate it.
'10
015/17/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We understand that. So our task this evening, as minute as splitting
hairs as you might think it is, is to focus on what you have appealed. You appealed the letter
written by Mr. Brown and its contents. I understand.
MRS. MUNOFF-No, but I object to that. You can go ahead and speak, and that's fine, but
that's not what we appealed.
MR. MUNOFF-He wrote that. We didn't write that.
MRS. MUNOFF-With all due respect, sir, if you read the law from the Department of State, New
York State Department of State outlines all the regulations on making appeals in these cases,
and that we are entitled to make an appeal if we believe that the Zoning Administrator has made
interpretive errors, and that's what this is about, and that was listed in this fancy paperwork we
got back because something tells me that paperwork might have been prepared by the
individual whom we are questioning.
MR. MUNOFF-And it is not in the character of our neighborhood. We are Waterfront
Residential, and for someone to make their house, their property into a commercial entity that
will have the right to work on boats, they will have their, the Planning Board is not totally at fault
here. They asked every question they could and they were guaranteed no one would be on
this site. There would be no boat, there would be no people, no parking. They don't need
bathrooms. This is a boat storage facility, and that's what the Planning Board voted on, a boat
storage facility, and it's in the minutes. They asked every question that they could, and they
were told, there will be no in and out traffic there. Traffic, they said, N/A, bathrooms, N/A.
Why? Because his own words, it's not a marina. It's a boat storage facility. So, I mean, if it
barks like a dog and looks like a dog, I don't know.
MRS. MUNOFF-I'm just going to close with one thing.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to speak first. Again, the letter that you wrote, your appeal, is directly
tied to Mr. Brown's letter. You did not appeal the Planning Board's decision.
MRS. MUNOFF-Well, we thought we did. Well, we thought we, okay, go ahead. I'm sorry.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand your plight. I get it. I'm a Cleverdale person, too. I get it. I
know what, we all have known each other for probably, I'm 51 so probably 46 years. I get it.
I've got to figure this out. I have to follow the process that is in place for an appeal. I'm going
to let Staff speak right now to clarify being able to appeal a Planning Board decision or what we
are actually dealing with right now. If you could just bear with us a little longer.
MR. BROWN-Yes, the Munoffs can absolutely appeal any Planning Board decision within 30
days of that decision, and to the Supreme Court, not to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board
hears appeals of determinations and decisions that I make or the Zoning Administrator makes.
In this case that was the letter, and the two components in that letter are the only things that are
appealable. Unfortunately it doesn't open the door to file an appeal and bringing all the other
stuff that you weren't happy about with the decision of the Planning Board made. Legally, this
Board can't hear those, they can hear the complaints because you just made them, but they're
not empowered to do anything about it. They can't go back and say, you know what, the
Planning Board was right. They shouldn't have done this. The Planning Board was wrong,
they shouldn't have done that.
MR. JACKOSKI-We understand, okay, the process. So I'm going to go back to Craig. The two
elements of your letter that have been appealed are whether or not it's a principle dwelling or
the number of principle dwellings on the site and.
MR. BROWN-Whether or not there was a material misrepresentation in the applicant, Mr.
Halliday's, application to the Planning Board.
MR. JACKOSKI-So now, that's the next thing we're going to try to focus on here is the alleged
material misrepresentation.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Staff has confirmed to us that it does say it's a multi-family unit building. Is it a
two family, three family or four family building?
015/17/2017)
MR. BROWN-The application that was submitted to the Planning Board says two family, and I'll
go a little further with it doesn't matter because we're not talking about adding dwelling units to
the property where we have to start calculating how many two acre blocks do we have to have
per dwelling unit. It's one principle building and the other building is a principle building as well,
but the zoning definition and the density requirements talk about dwelling units. The application
doesn't add any dwelling units.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there a distinction between principle building, principle dwelling and dwelling
unit?
MR. BROWN-1 don't know the answer to that. I don't, I wouldn't think so.
MR. JACKOSKI-Board member questions? I am going to open the public hearing.
MR. FREER-So there was an allegation that a second, or you have your principle dwelling on a
residential, and that another building can't be bigger than the principle dwelling. Can you
comment on that?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I'd love to know what Section you're referencing.
MR. JACKOSKI-266 I believe.
MR. BROWN-1 don't know that number.
MR. MUNOFF-179-2-010 (C).
MR. BROWN-So it's in the Definitions section.
MR. MUNOFF-Four, parenthesis four. 179-2-010C (4), and this representation wasn't just on
the number of units. It's a three family. There's no question about that. I'm sure they'll tell
you that. It was a misrepresentation in front of the Planning Board and you're telling me that's
not appealable?
MR. FREER-We're not the Planning Board.
MR. MUNOFF-You're right.
MR. FREER-So the only thing we can listen to the appeal on is his decision. You have other
options, but that's not our job.
MR. MUNOFF-Yes, and I can't afford those. I wish I could.
MR. JACKOSKI-So the other issue, if you wouldn't mind, the very first part of the Code that you
read, and I think it was .70. Would you re-read that very first use.
MR. MUNOFF-Boat Storage Facility?
MR. JACKOSKI-Keep going.
MRS. MUNOFF-179-10-070 D. Boat Storage Facilities granted with a Special Use Permit
must be on lots equal to or greater than two acres in size.
MR. JACKOSKI-Goes to your point.
MR. KUHL-Yes, in the practice on 179-3-040 5 Subparagraph B(1) it says two acres per
dwelling unit. It doesn't say single, double, triple or whatever.
MR. JACKOSKI-Or commercial/residential.
MR. KUHL-It doesn't. It says two acres per dwelling unit.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So I'm going to, while Staff and Roy are looking up things, I'm going
to, if you wouldn't mind giving up the table for a moment. There are people here who'd like to
speak.
MR. MUNOFF-Thanks for your patience.
015/17/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Again, we apologize to folks. These things normally don't run this long, but
we're going to get through it. I am opening the public hearing and is there anyone here in the
audience who'd like to address this Board on this particular application? If you could identify
yourself for the record, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
HAL HALLIDAY
MR. HALLIDAY-Good evening. My name is Hal Halliday, my legal name Harold, nickname Hal.
JEFF ANTHONY
MR. ANTHONY-My name's Jeff Anthony. I'm a landscape architect representing Mr. Halliday.
MR. JACKOSKI-Just so you folks know, because we're in a public hearing aspect of this thing,
we generally give each person about three minutes to speak.
MR. HALLIDAY-Gentlemen, the reason, I have to apologize for not being at the meetings. I
have a job that takes me across the country. I made a special point to come tonight to answer
your questions. I'm not trying to deceive anybody. I'm not trying to mislead anybody. I
definitely have a problem with the building. I made it clear to everybody in the Town, and we're
trying to solve a family problem by doing it the right way. We hired Mr. Anthony, our engineer,
and Tom Ulasewicz our attorney. They've acquired permits for us. My wife and I have lived in
our home for 44 years. We are very proud that we have received, it's almost funny because we
received a beatification award from the Town of Queensbury and the Lake George Park
Commission during our period living in the house. I think it was 1978 we first converted it from a
Laundromat, liquor store. Some of you might remember. The house that we now live in once
was a commercial property. It was a Laundromat liquor store that burned down way before my
time, and we took over the building and made it into a beautiful home. We're very proud of it.
I'm glad my application is in. I want you to know I did go, with my representatives, they went to
the Lake George Park Commission. We have a Class A marina permit pending, and the only
reason it's pending is they're awaiting the outcome of the Zoning Board decision tonight. I have
made it clear that I realize that this building is for commercial boat storage only. This year I had
two boats in there, mine and my son's. In the future I hope to have four or five to help pay for
some of these expenses. Comments were made that I put 35 or 40 boats in this building.
Anyone that knows a building of this size, it's physically impossible. I might get five pontoon
boats in there, but that's my goal. I just would like to ask you, have you received letters from my
other neighbors who have called me and told me they've sent letters in from Mr. and Mrs.
Schoonover, Mr. Leonard and Jenny and Michael McLaughlin? Have you received those
letters? I have gone door to door, including trying to talk to Mr. and Mrs. Munoff, face to face, to
try to explain what I'm doing, what my family situation is with this building, how it's going to sit,
what it's going to look like, with pictures and personally I think it's going to look better in my
backyard than it's looked in 25 years. I want you to also be aware that on the property directly
next to us is Castaway Marina, and they're building a 10,000 square foot commercial boat
storage building that is not lakefront property. It's directly next to my property. I will see it from
my dining room table, and I have no objection to it because it's allowed in the Waterfront zone,
and I was very happy to hear that they were doing that because it helped me. They're building
a 10,000 square foot building. I can store boats and incidental equipment in the building I've
been told, and that came from the Lake George Park Commission. I park my tractor in there in
front of one of the boats after putting the boats in the building. I can put my tractor in there that
pulls the boats in there. I can have blocking in there. I can have wheel dollies in there that
move side to side. That's all I intend to do. I disagree that the view is going to be impaired by
Mr. and Mrs. Munoff's home. If any of you have had the time to visit the site, you will see that, I
saw you had the map up on the wall. The garage is 175 feet from the road, and I don't know
how far up the house is from that road, but right now it's totally green and it's going to be very,
very hard to see. I agree with the Town that the road that I put in from my backyard into the
personal storage building, we're putting the underlayment in under the gravel so that the road
they use to build the building will be removed when the building is done, because I do not have
intention of adding major traffic going in. It's going to be my son's boat, my boat and hopefully
two or three other boats in the winter, and that's basically it. I've tried to answer every question
from my attorney and my engineer. Did I forget anything?
MR. ANTHONY-No. I'd like to just mention that we did contact every agency that has
jurisdiction over this project, or that could have jurisdiction over this project, and everyone has
signed off on it and issued their letter stating that we have followed their rules correctly. That
includes the Park Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Lake George Park
Commission, and they had questions on stormwater management and we answered all the
'13,
015/17/2017)
questions. We have no questions left to answer on this project. Everything has been
engineered correctly.
MR. HALLIDAY-And I want to make it really clear. A Class A marina application has been filed.
The fee has been paid. I paid a fine to the Lake George Park Commission for what they say I
did on my own property. We have a consent order signed and agreed to. I'm trying to do
everything I can to make this happen as quickly as possible. I'd like to ask, and enter into the
record if I could, Mr. Chairman, a letter from the attorney for the Lake George Park Commission
dated April 4th that was sent to us, my attorney, and I'll give it to you, and one of the most
important things in this letter it says as for moving the building, Mr. Halliday's ability to move the
building is not dependent on his obtaining a Class A marina application. It is my understanding
that the Town of Queensbury has approved a new location of the building, unless and until Mr.
Halliday obtains a Class A marina permit from the Commission, he would only be allowed to
store his own boats in the building, and that would be limited to two, because their rules clearly
state that if you store, which a lot of people don't know, if you store two or more boats in the
Park, in the Lake George Park, inside or outside, you are required to have a Class A marina
permit, and it's really shaken up a lot of people because if you park five boats behind your store
and you let your uncles and aunts park there, it's now a Class A marina. So I applied for the
permit. I want to do it the right way, and I'm trying to do it the right way, and if I can answer any
other questions for you, that's what I'm here for.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. You can give that letter to the secretary, please. Is there
anyone else here this evening who would like to address this Board? Seeing no one else in the
public, is there any written comment, Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. Okay. 1, James Lettis, am in support of the application submitted
by Harold and Lyn Halliday for the moving of their Pole Barn/Boat Storage building, to their
home location Tax ID 240.5-1-32 at 2599 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804. Mr. and Mrs.
Halliday have been good neighbors and this building will not affect the lifestyle in our
neighborhood. I live across the street from the Halliday residence. If you have any questions
regarding this letter, please feel free to call me. Thank you. James Lettis" "Today my
neighbor, James Lettis, brought me this letter of support for the Zoning Board Meeting on
Wednesday May 17 and I ask that you please enter it into the record. Thank you. Hal
Halliday" "I am the resident property owner living across from the Hallidays residence on Route
9L. We have been neighbors for 28 years. We are in full support of the plan to move the boat
storage building to the Hallidays' residence. We are talking about 5 boats here which is nothing
compared to the property adjacent to the Hallidays that stores boats for Castaway Marina. The
Hallidays are conscientious neighbors who keep their property well maintained. They have
every right to house these 5 boats and we are certain they will plan this tastefully and
respectfully of the neighbors. Please approve their application. Should you have any
questions, please call me. Jane McLaughlin" "I'm not able to be in person for the Appeal
meeting so I am writing this letter to formally express my concerns over the building Mr. Halliday
wants to construct on his property on State Route 9L in Queensbury, NY. I live next door to the
proposed building site. Although I have several concerns on what this building will do in terms
of the quality of the neighborhood's cosmetic appearance, my main concern is the effect this
building will have on our local wildlife. The area in which the building is to be constructed,
seems to be wetlands and I believe a certified study and or testing should be performed by an
outside, non-partisan company in order to ensure that the proposed building will not have a
negative impact on our treasured wildlife, which has been very strong over the last several
years. I for one am glad to see the wild turkeys, grouse, deer and bobcat population grow and
my fear is that should this enormous building be approved to be built, it will prove to be a
negative for the wildlife. I would hope that the Town of Queensbury, in which I thought cared
about the quality of life fits residents, would want to make sure that a building of this size, on a
parcel of land that is not really big enough to house it, and the question of the said land to be
part of Lake George's Wetlands, would want to make sure there will be no short and or long
term on the integrity of area the Lake George. I will not be able to make the meeting, but I
wanted my concerns known. Please note that this letter is my intent to officially, in writing,
voice my concerns of this project. Thank you. Bill Calogero 2629 Route 9L Queensbury, NY
12804" That's it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So at this time I think what I'd like to do is just briefly poll
the Board and get an idea as to where they're leaning, and then try to determine the path we're
going to take going forward. Staff, when there's ambiguity, if there's perceived ambiguity in a
Code or conflict in Code, have there been rulings by the courts that suggest one way or
another? You're not attorneys. I realize that, but I general, what are you hearing?
MR. BROWN-Sure. Typically they're found to be, any ambiguity is found to be in favor of the
applicant because zoning codes, you could argue they're taking away your property rights by
015/17/2017)
limiting things you can and can't do. So if there's ambiguity in the Code, in the way the rules are
presented to you, you, as an applicant trying to do something, get the benefit of the doubt if
there's any discrepancies. Typically that's the case law.
MR. JACKOSKI-And that makes sense from what we've seen in the past.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So is there anyone who'd like to volunteer to go first in expressing their
opinion on this matter?
MR. MC CABE-I'll go first.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-First of all I researched the claim that this wasn't a single building, and I can't
see any reason not to consider a single building. When I look at it, it looks like a single
building. In the definition of multiple family dwellings it says a building. It starts out with a
building. So I believe that the definition is intended to interpret it as a single building. So I
agree with the Zoning Administrator's call there, and in terms of misrepresentation, I guess I'll
have to go along with, again, the Zoning Administrator's decision there. I haven't seen
evidence to the contrary.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Anyone else like to volunteer to go next? Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, I read your lengthy letter, second letter, tried to sort through as much of that
as we can. Again, we have limited jurisdiction certainly, you know, we don't get to tell the
Planning Board what to do. We're here on a specific test that the law prescribes, and I don't
believe that we've been convinced, I haven't been convinced, that Craig has done anything
inappropriate or mischievous and so I would lean toward denying the Appeal.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. As far as the multiple dwelling situation, I don't think there's any
doubt that it's a single building and it doesn't matter to me. It is what it is and it hasn't changed
over the years from what it's always been, as far as I can tell. At this point in time, though, as
far as the boat storage and everything else, it seems to me that you've clarified that it's going to
be primarily, you wish it to be boat storage. Whether boat sales are ever going to take place
there, that's an unknown quantity at this point in time, but I think we can, the ultimate authority
for jurisdiction here in this project is the Lake George Park Commission, and I think if the Lake
George Park Commission issues a permit for a Class A marina, I don't think there's any issue
that we have at this point in time either, but I think that if we get into a situation where they deny
the Class A marina permit, for reasons that they believe it's a boat storage facility, then it will
come back to the Town for enforcement purposes at that point in time. At this point, though, I
don't see that that's going to happen, but I would say that the bulk of the neighborhood doesn't
really have a problem with this project. I would question whether we would allow more of these
to be done inadvertently like this one was done here, because it seems a little bit nebulous what
the purpose of the building is at this point in time. So at this point in time I'm not going to issue
any yes or no on that one. I'm just going to allow it to go back to the Park Commission and I'll
go along with whatever their ruling is.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-First of all I want to say that this has nothing to do, necessarily, with the Zoning
Administrator, because this is a complex Code that we have. It covers a lot of areas, and many
of you have read of ongoing issues of communities because they don't have things specified,
but that doesn't mean this is perfect. There are some ambiguities. There may be some
omissions in the Code enforced there that were maybe not translated correctly when the Codes
were first put together. So I'm going to say I'm on the side of the appellant in this application.
There's clear indication in the Code that a boat storage facility must be on lots equal to or
greater than two acres in size, and that's where I'm going to rule, or at least that's my vote. I'm
in favor of the appellants' application for appeal, based on that. I think they have a case.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. John?
MR. HENKEL-I'm just going to be short and sweet. I'm going to go along with the Zoning
Administrator. I think he made the right determination according to what's written in the Code.
'115
015/17/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I'd go along with the same thing. I'm with the Zoning Administrator that he
went along with what was in the Code. That's all I'm going to say.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So at this point, the Board doesn't have to take official formal action on
this matter tonight. We can continue to leave it open and ponder, seek legal counsel, or we
can make a resolution if someone wants to put one forward to deny the Appeal. I'm going to
close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an Appeal application
from Frank and Isobell Munoff. Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals as
to whether a duplex or multi-unit building constitutes more than one principal building
and relative to the approvals issued by the Planning Board for the project.
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 17, 2017;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the applicable criteria of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of
the NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. The Appeal was filed within the required 60-day timeframe.
2. The Appealing Party does have standing.
3. The merits of the argument as provided by the appellant with responses from the Zoning
Administrator have been considered. It is our finding that the positions offered by the
appellant are not sufficient to warrant overturning the Zoning Administrator's decision at
hand.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY APPEAL Z-NOA-1-2017
APPELLANT FRANK AND ISOBELL MUNOFF, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved
for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. I don't know the details of Article 78's, but certainly that probably is
the next step.
MR. MUNOFF-I just wanted to know, you said you looked at it, I don't understand the word unit.
MR. JACKOSKI-Dwelling.
MRS. MUNOFF-We're done. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
MR. JACKOSKI-The next item for this evening is under Old Business. The next item this
evening is Fastrac Markets under Old Business. It is Jerry Nudi, Switcho, LLC, 220 Corinth
Road, Sign Variance Number Z-SV-3-2017. An Unlisted SEAR. There is a public hearing
scheduled for this evening. There was one on March 22nd. Before we do this, because this
may be pertinent to what we're going to hear in this application, the Board asked me to put on
the agenda for May at some point some discussion about signage in the Town and possibly
some concerns with it, possibly talking about enforcement stuff, etc. So Craig is still here this
evening. If we could give Craig a couple of moments to give us an update on what he knows,
what he's thinking or what he's involved in at the moment, maybe that'll help some of us
understand where we're going with signage.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Thanks, yes. I wasn't at that meeting. So I'm not quite sure what you
guys were specifically questioning. I'm guessing it was the proliferation of kind of temporary
signage around the Town, little stick in the ground signs, what I call the feather signs, banners
that are all over the place. So subsequent to your.
'16
015/17/2017)
MR. MC CABE-And also people that are filling their windows.
MR. BROWN-Yes. So subsequent to your, I guess April meeting, I had a workshop with the
Town Board, and we talked about the Town Sign Code and enforcement thereof. It was on
April 24th I think. So what we've done is we've begun a program to reach out to primarily
business owners, because they're the offenders, to get them, Number One, educated about the
temporary Sign Code, the illegal types of signs, A-frame signs, stick in the ground signs, feather
signs, inflatable signs, human signs, and spread the word and at the same time the second part
of that is to get them to take up the signs that they have and bring their sites into compliance.
So if you've noticed over the last couple of weeks, and nobody's being targeted here. It just
happened to be the place we started, basically Route 9, from about the Stewart's on Route 9
south is kind of where it started. So I'm not sure if you've noticed, a lot of signs have been
gone, and we've had probably about 95 plus percent compliance. We'll give them a week or
whatever to pick up their signs. So it's a work in progress. It's one of the components. You
talked about signage in the windows. That's another component. I mean, we started with the
most, I don't want to disparage signage, but the most egregious stuff, the stuff that's out by the
road that distracts drivers, the flags that hang over sidewalks. So we've tackled that first. It's
going to be a summer long project. There's hundreds of businesses in the Town, and, you
know, we have to get the word out to them and after that's done and they clean it up we have to
stay on top of them because, well `ve had mine down for three weeks and he hasn't. So I'm
putting mine back up, and it's going to be an ongoing project, but we're working towards it. The
discussion with the Town Board I tried to touch on a little bit about their interest in revising the
Sign Code to maybe allow for these types of temporary signage to help either promote or
advertise and they didn't have any interest in doing that. So they do have, there is some
support from the Town Board to get rid of all this signage. So if you're looking for that
information, it's not something that's changed. It's just a different philosophy on enforcing the
Sign Code.
MR. KUHL-And also when they go for re-election they won't be able to put signs out either.
MR. BROWN-No, that's the one type of sign that we don't regulate, political signage.
MR. FREER-That's a freedom of speech guaranteed right.
MR. JACKOSKI-So are we going to see regulation in the future that may allow larger signs and
more signs on property that are not temporary?
MR. BROWN-1 would doubt that. The last Sign Code revision, if you remember, downsized the
allowable size for, Number One freestanding signs went from 50 to 45, square footage, and it
also reduced the allowable sign size for wall signs. So that's the direction they took last time.
Will they go back and make them bigger? I don't see that, but it's always possible, I guess.
MR. HENKEL-I guess my argument is that it really, there isn't consideration given for the size of
the property. So for instance my feeling is that the Heidelberg shouldn't be allowed the same
size as, you know, one of the big car dealerships, because, you know, they just have a lot more
room. So, in my mind, like one of the nicest signs in Queensbury is the Warren County
Municipal Center. Now that's much bigger than 45 square feet, but that's a big complex, and I
believe that sign's very tastefully done. On the other hand, those two businesses across from
The Great Escape, the Snack Shack and Shindigs, their signs are as big as the building. So
that's just absolutely ridiculous. So I believe that there should be some consideration given to
that.
MR. BROWN-Well, I think there is. I'm not sure you're going to like the answer to it, but the
consideration is this Board right here. If you're over, the car dealerships you're talking about a
bigger sign because of a bigger parcel. They need to come to you and ask for the permission
to have those bigger signs and the argument that I'm so far from the highway. I need a little bit
bigger sign so it's recognizable, that's not an unreasonable argument in some cases. I can
think of some places on Quaker Road where there's a 100 foot wide National Grid right of way
that they have to put their sign behind because they don't own any land out by the street. So in
some cases it makes sense. In some cases it doesn't make sense. But unfortunately that's
the relief is you start with a number and 45 is the number for everybody, and if you want more
than that, you've got to come ask.
MR. HENKEL-But it just seems like everybody's coming to ask. So 45 may be a little bit too
small, in my opinion.
015/17/2017)
MR. URRICO-I just want to follow up. Businesses that go out of business. Those are the signs
that he's talking about, like Shindigs and the one across from there that's now the ice cream
place but they have that.
MR. BROWN-There is a provision in the Sign Code that talks about if you're not in business
you've got to take your sign down. The problem we have sometimes and most of the time in
doing that is tracking people down and getting them to be responsive, because if they go out of
business, you're not around, and does the Town go to the expense of removing it and trying to
get reimbursed for it? It's not as easy as you might think.
MR. URRICO-How many people have dialed the Papa John's number?
MR. BROWN-Trying to get a pizza, yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-At one point all signs were to be brought into conformance. What's the status
of that?
MR. BROWN-That's the sunset provision that's in the Sign Ordinance still, and this isn't a great
answer but it's the real answer. That's difficult because we have a manpower issue. That's
not really a priority, and the way we address it is if a sign comes in and a tenant wants to
change their sign, and that sign is a non-conforming sign, that's when we have them address it,
and they come in case by case, rather than to go around Town and say, everybody has to bring
their sign into compliance by today. Right now the way we're doing it is when they apply to
change it, that's when we look for them to bring it into compliance or come here and ask for
relief for it.
MR. JACKOSKI-So a tenant who might be locating or co-locating in a multi-tenanted building,
that's a major burden for them in order to begin their business in Queensbury.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean, there's some level of responsibility, onus maybe, on the part of the
property owner, as, you know, it's technically the property owner's sign, and it's their sign that's
in compliant, and they're giving this tenant permission to have signage on their sign. So it's
complicated, yes, it's a mix, and it does come to be a problem sometimes with tenants who want
to put up a $500 sign and now they have to do a $5,000 sign to bring it into compliance. So
typically those are the times when applicants come to you, the Zoning Board, and say, here's
my hardship. I want to add signage. I want to keep this oversized sign, and here's why.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members on the dialogue? So basically
Craig's telling us that they are enforcing provisions accordingly and it's going to take some time.
MR. BROWN-Stay tuned.
MR. JACKOSKI-And it seems that there's no likelihood that the square footages and number of
signs is going to increase in the very near future.
MR. BROWN-Increase or decrease. I don't think there's any interest in any changes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. BROWN-All right. Sure. Anytime. All right. Thanks.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Now you can come back. I forgot where we left off.
MR. URRICO-Well, I'm just going to read the description of the project and I'll let the applicant
fill in what's happened since then.
SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-3-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED FASTRAC MARKETS, LLC
(BRETT HUGHES) AGENT(S) NAPIERALA CONSULTING — MATTHEW R. NAPIERALA
OWNER(S) JERRY NUDI, SWITCHCO, LLC ZONING CI-18 LOCATION 220 CORINTH
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF REVISED SIGNAGE INCLUDING A 45
SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND 70.7 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN ON FRONT OF THE
BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS; 1
ALLOWED; 3 ARE PROPOSED — 32 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN TO BE INSTALLED ON THE SIDE
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 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.13-1-35
SECTION CHAPTER 140
'18
015/17/2017)
MATT NAPIERALA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-3-2017, Fastrac (Corinth Road), Meeting Date: May 17,
2017 "Project Location: 220 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes installation of revised signage including a 42.2 sq. ft. freestanding sign and 78.1 sq. ft.
wall sign on front of the building. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs; 1
allowed; 3 are proposed - 32 sq. ft. wall sign to be installed on the side of the building and a
22.2 sq. ft. canopy sign to be installed on the new gasoline canopy structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief 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) (or a larger wall sign if a building setback
greater than 100 ft. from the front property line a wall sign can be increased 10 sq. ft. for each
additional 10 ft. with maximum not to exceed 200 sq. ft.). 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 42.2 sq. ft.
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.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate to relevant to the code. The relief requested for the number of wall
signs is 3 and only 1 is allowed and may be larger than 30 sq. ft. based on setbacks.
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 too for
customers traveling from the Northway and the west towards the Northway."
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Pretty straightforward, but if you.
MR. NAPIERALA-And actually we just opened a store in December and I think we showed
some pictures early on, but I'll let you pass these out because it has the same wall package as
we're proposing here. So you can kind of see, and I'll just start here, canopy, main sign, and
then the side wall sign. So you can kind of see the perspective, and as was discussed during
that discussion, we think it's fairly well done. So what we're here for tonight, first off we did
listen. The last time we were here we were talking about the monument sign as well. We
have reduced that monument sign to under 45 square feet. I do have a graphic here, and
actually Laura has it on the screen, where we started and where we ended up on the monument
sign. So we can just talk about that. We started essentially with this which we kind of knew
after talking with Staff that that wouldn't be allowed, but that was a digital display board and this
is what Fastrac likes to do. We then came back and said, well, we're going to keep the same
'19
015/17/2017)
size and infill this with a, for lack of a better term, the pricing beam stick ons, and still being a,
exceeding the 45 square foot. What's being currently proposed is essentially this sign which is
42.2. So it's under the 45 square foot, and so that sign is what's being proposed for the Corinth
Road site. So I think we've taken care of that, that's taking that off the table, but I just wanted
to share the fact that we are listening and we are trying to move forward. The reason we're
here tonight is the wall signage. Our interpretation of the Code is one sign is allowed, since we
have one principle frontage. Our building is over 100 foot back. So our setback is greater than
100 foot. Based on our interpretation of the Code, we are about 130 feet back. The allowable
square footage for that sign, since we're greater than 100 feet, is 130 foot for that sign. That
particular sign that we're looking at for the front of the building is a 78 plus or minus square foot
sign. So that sign is going to be in the front, and that sign looks like that in the pictures that I'm
passing along is that same square footage of that sign on the front of that store. So in massing
of that store you have approximately 70 linear feet and you have that sign. Dimensionally that's
about 12 feet. On the side of the store, which is facing the fuel canopy, and I think it talked, the
very first time I was here that this prototypical layout that Fastrac is doing is taking this fuel and
instead of having that fuel sit out front, which is not very attractive, especially when they're trying
to instill this food service, convenience store, and getting that nice looking store to the frontage,
by putting the fuel canopy here, that becomes essentially another main entry for the fuel users,
and frankly, aesthetically as well as marquees, this side of the store and that side entry, for
those customers that are sitting at that fuel canopy. So we're asking for that sign on that,
essentially that would be the west wing wall of the building on the short side of the building.
The third sign we're asking for is a small Fastrac logo sign. It looks like this with the banding
underneath it that sits on the front of that fuel canopy. Again, graphically that picture from the
City of Utica store shows the symmetric and the size of that. So to put it in brief, we're asking
for three. Code allows one.
MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. Thank you. Any Board members want to ask any questions before I
re-open the public hearing?
MR. KUHL-Could you, because you're asking for 200%, would you go along with just two signs
and not three? By that I mean the one on the canopy stays. The one on the face of your
building stays. The one on the west wall I think is overkill because you've got it on the front of
your canopy. I have trouble with setting precedents. If we go into 200% relief, we can start
things, and I think that you would serve your customers well with the two signs rather than the
three.
MR. MC CABE-I look at it a little differently. I did a quick survey in Queensbury and it's about
50/50, those stations which have canopy signs and those stations which don't have canopy
signs. Just a for instance, no Stewart's has a canopy sign. All the Speedways do. The
Mobils, the Cumbies, the Sunocos are 50/50. So I looked at the, his competition, and you have
to go almost into Glens Falls before you find another one that has a canopy sign. So I would
accept the building, you know, the two buildings and get rid of the canopy, just to be fair to the
other stations which are down the road.
MR. KUHL-So you're supporting two signs, as opposed to three?
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MR. URRICO-And that's where I'm sitting also. I was wondering if you could maybe angle the
freestanding sign.
MR. NAPIERALA-Potentially. We would have to look at those side lines.
MR. URRICO-Okay, but that's where I would sit on it, too. I would be in favor of the two wall
signs and not the canopy sign.
MR. NAPIERALA-I'm waiting to answer this. I just want to kind of listen for a minute.
MR. KUHL-We've had in the past, when Jolley came up, Jolley got one on the canopy and one
on the face, and it was two signs. My comment or my concern is 200% versus 100% relief
here. I mean, you're asking for 200% and if we start that, it just goes then to 300%. So two
signs are good.
MR. HENKEL-Once people pump their gas, they're not going to know they're in a Fastrac. Are
they going to need to see a sign when you walk in that's over that door?
MR. KUHL-Well, it's the guy with the cane and the dog, you know.
015/17/2017)
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's on the pumps, too.
MR. HENKEL-Plus the canopy's got to be blocking that sign. Who's going to be visible to that
sign there on the west side?
MR. NAPIERALA-When you're sitting underneath that canopy, that becomes, because you
don't see the front of the store. It kind of marks an entry. That's really what it's doing is
marking that entry for that customer, and then once you enter this brand new store with the, and
it enters into the bathroom areas as well. The bathrooms sit right there in that wing of the store.
Again, I'm listening before I answer that question.
MR. HENKEL-So, yes, if you go down the street, Stewart's across the street has none. You go
down the street, Sunoco has none. If you go down the street a little bit further, Cumbies has
none. If you go down the street further, you get into the Speedway. They do have it. So, you
know, that's what the neighborhood has done.
MR. NAPIERALA-So my comment would be, we knew this was coming up, and my colleague
Brett Hughes isn't here tonight so he kind of left me to listen and hear the Board. Fastrac, if I
get a favorable decision, will allow two, and we would like to have the canopy, and I can
understand your issue with the canopy because of the proximity. They would like to have the
elevation and to have that sign sitting a little higher. So they would propose the front sign over
the main door and a canopy sign and we would modify our application from requesting three
and requesting two signs.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At that point, we're not there yet, but okay, got it. Any other questions
from Board members and then I'll re-open the public hearing.
MR. KUHL-Just in case we don't see you for the next Fastrac application.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to open the public hearing again. Is there anybody in the audience
wishing to address the Board? Seeing none, is there any additional written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. URRICO-There's no additional written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-At this point, listening to what the applicant has suggested, I'm still going to poll
the Board on the original application before entertaining a request for a reduction. I'm just
going to go right down the line. I'll start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think we're in general agreement that two is reasonable and I think
that, you know, it's your choice as to where they go. I would like to see one on the wall and I
don't really think it's necessary to have it on the canopy, but if that's your choice and you'd
prefer to have it on the canopy I would be in agreement with that with you. I think that we also
have to keep in mind the fact that the monument sign is two sided so that's like two more signs.
We can get into semantic calls, how much signage there is on all the gas pumps, too. So I
think that two is much more reasonable that two was.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I appreciate the monument sign being the right size, and I've stated my
thoughts about the two rather than three, and your choice to go on the top of the pumps, that's
your choice in the face. I don't think your customers are going to be lead astray. Ii think
they're going to know they're in Fastrac. So I'd be in agreement with two.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-I'd give you three. We would like to see the things come up. I'm glad you got the
sign in the Ordinance, I think, but obviously if you guys are okay with two, that just gives us
more support for, as you heard, we have sign issues here, and as we try to attract business and
also keep the quality of the Town, it keeps coming up.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree, it's nice that you have downsized the freestanding sign, but like it
was said, it is two sided. So it could almost be considered two signs, but I have no problem
with the two wall signs, wherever you put them, either one on the canopy or both on the side of
the building. That would be my feeling, two wall signs and one freestanding.
015/17/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-John put it very well. So I'll have to agree with that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-1 would not be in favor of the second sign being on the canopy. I just think it's
going to set a different precedent, and we're going to see a wall from other stations coming in.
I would be in favor of the second sign, but not on the canopy.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-We're going to go through SEQR first. I'd request a motion for SEAR.
MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-3-2017 FASTRAC 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
Harrison Freer:
Duly adopted 17th day of May 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Now after hearing Board member comment, I'm going to.
MR. HENKEL-Did we ever agree with the size of the wall signs?
MR. JACKOSKI-I was just getting to that. So I'm going to have someone put forth a motion that
they believe the Board will pass.
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 revised signage including a 42.2 sq. ft. freestanding sign and
78.1 sq. ft. wall sign on front of the building. Relief requested from number of allowable wall
signs; 1 allowed; 3 are proposed - 32 sq. ft. wall sign to be installed on the side of the building
and a 22.2 sq. ft. canopy sign to be installed on the new gasoline canopy structure.
The applicant requests relief 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) (or a larger wall sign if a building setback
greater than 100 ft. from the front property line a wall sign can be increased 10 sq. ft. for each
additional 10 ft. with maximum not to exceed 200 sq. ft.). 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 42.2 sq. ft.
SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR]
Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV-3-2017 Fastrac 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 Harrison Freer:
Duly adopted 17th day of May 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
A public hearing was advertised and held on March 22, 2017 and Tabled to May 17, 2017
015/17/2017)
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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a
detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign
variance? We believe that it will not.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? We don't believe so. The two signs are
necessary so the customers know where they're going.
3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? We don't believe so.
4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? No we do not believe so.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? We could say it is.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh 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 SIGN VARIANCE Z-
SV-3-2017, FASTRAC CAFE, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Harrison Freer:
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. That the wall signs are to be no larger than what was represented on the prints. One on
the canopy, one on the wall at 78.13 square feet for the wall sign on the front of the
building, and the sign on the canopy is 22.2 square feet.
B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may
request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires;
C. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to
review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking
any action until the APA's review is completed;
D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building & codes personnel'
E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt
of these final plans;
F. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed
project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the
Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or
department.
Duly adopted this 17th day of May 2017, by the following vote:
MR. HENKEL-Did we agree on what size those wall signs would be? Because otherwise they
can go 600 square feet.
MR. FREER-No, they're not asking for a variance for the total size.
MR. KUHL-Do you have a print with the dimensions? That's what they're asking for.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. As long as we know that's the size of the wall signs they're asking for.
015/17/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-So let's go ahead and just modify the motion slightly to modify the language.
The wall signs are to be no larger than what was represented on the prints.
MR. MC CABE-Are we going to condition it that it can be either two on the wall or one on the
wall and one on the canopy?
MR. KUHL-No, we're doing one on the canopy and one on the wall.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's 70.7 square feet for the wall sign on the front of the building.
MR. NAPIERALA-It's actually 78.
MR. MC CABE-78.13, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The one on the canopy is 22.2 square feet for the canopy sign.
MR. HENKEL-I thought they said the size of the building wall sign would be 32. So which one
are we going to go with?
MR. JACKOSKI-We're going with the 78 and the 22.
MR. KUHL-That's it.
MR. NAPIERALA-We can't fit that other one on the canopy because of the size of the banner.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The fuel canopy sign is 78.13 square feet.
MR. MC CABE-No the canopy sign is 22.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That's the main building sign.
MR. HENKEL-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-So the motion is noted that the signage will be as per the prints, 78.13 on the
front of the building and 22.2 on the canopy. Motion amended.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Urrico
MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. We hope you open a second one.
MR. NAPIERALA-They are still looking. I do some forensic engineering and I always say
there's always more than one reason why something fails. In real estate it applies as well.
There's always more than one reason why something fails. So we'll be back for other stuff.
MR. KUHL-We hope to see you again.
MR. FREER-Well, if you comply then you don't have to come back here, if you just comply with
the Code.
MR. NAPIERALA-I hope not to see you.
MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is James Beaty, Hars Pars, Inc., 168
Sunnyside Road. There is a public hearing scheduled this evening for this Area Variance. It is
Z-AV-35-2017, a Type 11 SEAR.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-35-2017 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES BEATY OWNER(S) HARS
PARS, INC. ZONING MDR LOCATION 168 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF LAND WHERE EXISTING GOLF COURSE BAR/ AND 4-UNIT
APARTMENT COMPLEX ARE LOCATED INTO TWO PARCELS. THE APARTMENT
COMPLEX, LOT 1 WILL BE 0.30 ACRES AND THE GOLF COURSE, LOT 2 WILL BE 10.56
ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE/DENSITY, BUILDING
SETBACKS, AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT.
PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE CREATION OF NEW
LOTS. CROSS REF SB 7-2017 PRELIM & SB 8-2017 FINAL WARREN COUNTY
1:,4
015/17/2017)
PLANNING MAY 2017 LOT SIZE 10.69 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-50 SECTION
179-3-040
HERB LAVERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JAMES BEATY, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-35-2017, James Beaty, Meeting Date: May 17, 2017
"Project Location: 168 Sunnyside Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes subdivision of land where existing golf course bar/and 4-unit apartment complex are
located into two parcels. The apartment complex, Lot 1 will be 0.30 acres and the golf course,
Lot 2 will be 10.56 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size / density, building setbacks,
and permeability requirements of the MDR zoning district. Planning Board: Subdivision review
is required for the creation of the new lots.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for 2 lot subdivision to reduce one parcel less than the allowed lot
size, density, building setbacks and permeability requirements of the MDR zoning district.
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone
The project proposes to create a non-conforming parcel of 0.30 ac where 2 ac is required on lot
1. Density requires 8 ac for a 4 unit complex on lot 1. Setbacks for lot 1 —side 17.4 ft. west
where 25 ft. is required then 11.3 ft. for garage where 25 ft. setback is required. Rear setback is
proposed at 13.5 ft. where 30 ft. is required. Lot 1 permeability is 26% where 50% is required.
Setbacks for Lot 2 side setback proposed at 8.7 ft. where a 25 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 limited due to location of the existing buildings on the parcel and the intent to
separate the apartment building from the golf course.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
substantial relevant to the code. The relief for lot one includes 1.7 ac for lot size, 7.7 ac. for
lot density, side setback west 7.6 ft., east garage 13.7 ft. Lot one permeability relief is 24%.
Relief for Lot 2 setback side 16.3 ft.
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.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Staff comments:
The Applicant proposes subdivision of a 10.86 acre parcel into two lots— one 0.33 acre and one
10.53 acres. The apartment building will be on the 0.33 acre parcel and the golf course and
associated buildings to be on the 10.53 acre parcel. There are no changes to the site or
buildings on either proposed parcel."
MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board made a motion, and they recommended on
behalf of the Board there 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 adopted on
May 16, 2017 by a unanimous vote.
015/17/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record and I assume you're
just going to want Board members to ask questions. It's a fairly straightforward application.
MR. LAVERY-My name is Herb Lavery, and to my left is Jim Beaty and to my right is Rick
Colbern and we're the three owners of Sunnyside North.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It looks like your septic field is going to be off the lot. Is that correct?
What's being proposed?
MR. BEATY-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that going to be a problem if you have to dig it up because it's on the golf
course property?
MR. LAVERY-It shouldn't be because it passes through the back of where the garage is, and it
could possibly extend out, but minimally on the golf course.
MR. KUHL-But if I were to buy this apartment house, you could cut off my septic because it
would be on your land.
MR. BEATY-No.
MR. KUHL-Sure. If the septic system is not on my property, without some kind of an
agreement, easement, I don't know what the legal term would be, that Lot One will always have
use of that in that area. It's not a good project.
MR. LAVERY-That's correct.
MR. BEATY-Those marketing the property, I mean, there's easements every day.
MR. KUHL-Yes, we've had other people come that have put in mutual septic systems and
without a document that states that septic system will always be used by those multiple houses,
no matter who owns them, that would protect me if I buy your apartment house. I'd know I'd
always have a septic. Mr. Lawyer, is that what should be required here? In the past we have
required it with other situations like this. To me, if I buy that.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, normally you have to have, when you develop the property, you have
to have the siting of the septic and you also have to be able to site another area on your
property in case your septic fails. Where are they going to put that on this one?
MR. HENKEL-The Planning Board didn't go over that?
MRS. MOORE-It was a recommendation.
MR. CROWE-And to that point I would say it certainly is an issue in terms of approval being
necessary or required for one parcel owner to have their septic encroach, not just encroach I
guess but to actually be placed on the neighboring parcel. So it most certainly, in order to
effectuate a conveyance and a transfer and a sale, is going to require some form of an
agreement between the two property owners, and this could be even, in a situation where either
parcel or both parcels can be for sale, you don't know which one's going to sell first I guess, but
the fact that it's coming from a unified ownership to then, you know, one parcel obviously is
going to be conveyed out first, they'd have the opportunity to put the easement into place.
Having it here for you I think would alleviate a potential issue that's kind of lurking.
MR. JACKOSKI-If this property came to us as vacant property, and we understood that the
proposal was a .3 acre parcel in a two acre zone with a four family being put on it, there's not
one person on this Board that would say yes. Let alone not having any space for a potential
septic failure. That's plain and simple for me. I get it's a four family. I get it's a golf course, I
get it's a mixed use, but the demands on that septic system of a four family and not having the
potential to replace it worries me, .3 acres out of two. We've denied applications of two acre
zoning going down to one acre each because the other parcel was only .99.
MR. HENKEL-Plus we're giving relief of permeability.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, anyway, the septic is certainly a concern for me as well. That's the
concern.
126
015/17/2017)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you guys putting the golf course up for sale? You're not doing that are
you at this point?
MR. LAVERY-That's our purpose. We've had it on the market for over three years.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But with this attached to it? That was part of it or?
MR. BEATY-Yes, it was one parcel.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I see the other potential is this, you know, like if somebody bought
the golf course and decided it wasn't going to work for them, they could take the eight acres that
were remaining, subdivide it, you know, and make it into lots and then it would be doubling
down, you know, on the eight acres that we require for what's there now. So I think that we
would have to have some kind of a caveat that whoever purchases that property doesn't get any
development rights on it.
MR. JACKOSKI-We don't have that ability.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We don't have that ability to do that either.
MR. JACKOSKI-We know that on Bay Road where we lost that fight when we said no further
subdivision.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, but it's not a matter, in fairness to you guys, you know, you guys are
trying to make it work for you so you can sell your thing, but we don't know what's going to
happen down the road, how that's going to work.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we'll get through this. Just bear with us. Any other questions from
Board members before I open the public hearing and seek comment? I'm going to open the
public hearing. There's no one in the audience, let it be known, and then is there any written
comments, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes. There's two identical letters but from separate parties. So I'll read the one
and then give the address of the people that addressed the letters. So "On the meeting being
held on Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. for the application requested by James Beaty of
Hars Pars Inc. (Z-AV-35-2017), Mr. and Mrs. Jack Reese who reside on 165 Sunnyside Road,
Queensbury, NY would like to vote no on their request." And the second letter is identical, and
it's from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Billings who reside on 169 Sunnyside Road would like to vote no
on their request. So those are the two letters.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to note that the public hearing is still open. At this point I
think I'm just going to poll the Board to get a flavor as to what we're thinking and then some
more dialogue if it's necessary. So I'll start at the other end this time and I'll start, if you don't
mind, with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Well, I think we have to resolve this septic issue before we look at the project. I
think that's the elephant in the room, I'm sorry to say, that we need to address that before we
move on.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Yes, I know how this situation developed. The original owner of the golf course
had an antique dealership in what's now the apartment building. The antique shop was
downstairs and he lived upstairs, and then he moved the shop, developed the apartments, and I
would bet that most people don't even realize that that building is associated with the golf
course. So I don't see us doing anything different here than what's been in existence for more
than 40 years. So I don't have a problem with the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I really don't support the project, definitely with the two letters that were read
by Roy and I have a problem with the permeability plus the setback, and with the question of the
septic system. So I do not support the project as is.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
015/17/2017)
MR. FREER-Yes, too much relief requested. I take input from neighbors seriously in my
deliberations, and the septic thing has to be addressed. I'm not sure that we're the septic guys,
but we do have to consider the overall thing in terms of what it's zoned for, and typically, you
know, in 21St century here in Queensbury, no water, no sewer, you need two acres, and so you
guys are asking for a big enchilada that I don't support at this time.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, without anything guaranteeing that that septic would never be taken away from
that Lot Number One, I couldn't support the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think there's too many question marks at the moment. I think you'd
have to go back and re-think how to make things smooth, you know, so if there's a septic failure
I think you'd be doomed, and you don't want to lose the whole rights to the apartment, you
know, have that hovering over your head.
MR. JACKOSKI-So at this point, with this many noes, we can certainly take a formal vote. You
can request a tabling of the matter until you can get some things worked out and come back to
the Board and not lose your place in line, so to speak. You can withdraw your application, or
you can amend it somehow now if you want to that would allow for less relief. Unfortunately
those, we can't tell you what to do, but those are the kind of options you have.
MR. LAVERY-The first thing that we had thought about is, and I think Mr. McCabe made the
point, we've purchased this business 12 years ago, and in my mind this is about ownership,
period. Northing would change in terms of how that apartment building is run today, versus the
golf course bar and grill. There is no change, no change whatsoever. I take the point about the
sewer, septic tank, excuse me, being an issue that needs to have an answer to. If we had an
answer to that that would suffice, in terms of being able to have a replacement system at some
location on the golf course, is that something that would change this?
MR. JACKOSKI-We can't necessarily predict the future. We've got to look at the application as
a whole, but I think you heard from some members there's still an awful lot of relief requested
with the .3 acre, permeability, density, that kind of stuff.
MR. BEATY-And the usage is identical to what it's been for over 20 years. So I mean the
parking, everything.
MR. JACKOSKI-But you may not always be the owner. It runs with the property for ever and
ever. You're not always going to be the owners. Once it's done, then the rights of that property
owner, who knows who'll own the property at that point. Either parcel, and I think that's what
Mr. Underwood was suggesting if the golf course gets, becomes no longer a golf course, if it
becomes a development, it's a whole other ball of wax.
MR. CROWE-Mr. Chairman, if I can comment, there's a little bit of a chicken and the egg
dilemma with the septic and the parcels. As one combined parcel right now, you can't do an
easement. You can't do an easement to yourself on one parcel. So essentially there would
have to be a subdivision in order to create an easement.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right. We understand that, but we could make a contingency, we could make
it contingent on those agreements being put in place.
MR. CROWE-Sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-But we'd like to see where the siting is. We'd like to understand if that's even
feasible.
MR. CROWE-Right, or a different, potentially a different layout or some other way in which you
wouldn't necessarily have the easement here to make the determination because you wouldn't
be able to do it without the subdivision already occurring. So either the easement is a
contingency or there's a different layout that encompasses the septic.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, normally when folks come to us with subdivisions, they not only have a
site plan, they have where the houses are going to be laid out, where they've done test pits,
where they've done septic layouts. They've got all the information in front of us and we haven't
approved the subdivision yet. Right? That's what we're asking in this case. We'd like to see
that proposal.
�:"gig
015/17/2017)
MR. CROWE-Right. That would be the point I'm trying to make is that you couldn't have the
easement in front of you at this stage. So you couldn't agree on having the easement for the
septic.
MR. JACKOSKI-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think it would be reasonable to go to the Town and ask for
suggestions, you know, like where you have the putting green between the two septic fields, you
know, for the golf field.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, let's not plan the project for them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm not planning it for you, but I'm just saying, you know, like in a practical
sense it would be back a little further than where the current one is. So, I mean, if you had to
add that piece on there instead of, to make it work, that might be a simple solution.
MR. JACKOSKI-So again, I'm going to go through the four options at the moment. We can
take a vote, we can listen to your request to table the matter, you can withdraw it or you can
amend it to allow less restriction, and quite frankly I don't see how you could do that tonight.
Normally people in your position request a tabling.
MR. LAVERY-We'll table it.
MR. JACKOSKI-I do have a request from the applicants to table the matter, and would you like
us to say table it to our meeting in July, which would require a June submission of any
revisions?
MR. LAVE RY-Certai n ly.
MR. JACKOSKI-So the applicant has requested a tabling to our July meeting following the June
submission deadline.
MRS. MOORE-So that would be the first July meeting.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
James Beaty.
Applicant proposes subdivision of land where existing golf course bar/ and 4-unit apartment
complex are located into two parcels. The apartment complex, Lot 1 will be 0.30 acres and the
golf course, Lot 2 will be 10.56 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size / density, building
setbacks, and permeability requirements of the MDR zoning district. Planning Board:
Subdivision review is required for the creation of the new lots.
The applicant requests relief for 2 lot subdivision to reduce one parcel less than the allowed lot
size, density, building setbacks and permeability requirements of the MDR zoning district.
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone
The project proposes to create a non-conforming parcel of 0.30 ac where 2 ac is required on lot
1. Density requires 8 ac for a 4 unit complex on lot 1. Setbacks for lot 1 —side 17.4 ft. west
where 25 ft. is required then 11.3 ft. for garage where 25 ft. setback is required. Rear setback is
proposed at 13.5 ft. where 30 ft. is required. Lot 1 permeability is 26 % where 50% is required.
Setbacks for Lot 2 side setback proposed at 8.7 ft. where a 25 ft. setback is required.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-35-2017 JAMES BEATY, Introduced by
Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Tabled to the first meeting in July with data to be submitted by mid-June.
Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. What was the concern or question?
MRS. MOORE-The date would be July 19th
9
015/17/2017)
MR. LAVERY-Okay. Thank you.
MR. KUHL-Do you know Mike O'Connor?
MR. LAVERY-Yes.
MR. KUHL-Talk to him. He did one for his wife.
MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is Glenn Durlacher, Great Escape
Theme Park. 1115 State Route 9, Area Variance Z-AV-30-2017. A Type II SEAR. There is a
public hearing scheduled for this evening.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-30-2017 SEQRA TYPE II GLENN DURLACHER OWNER(S)
GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LP ZONING Cl LOCATION 115 STATE ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE A 160 SQ. FT. SHED. THIS INCLUDES A 50 SQ.
FT. PORCH ON THE SHED. PROJECT IS OR AN OUTDOOR TREE ART BUSINESS
WHERE THE SHED WOULD BE CLOSER THAN 75 FT. TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY AND FRONT SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS OF THE Cl ZONE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION
FOR RELOCATION OF SHED AND DISPLAY AREA. CROSS REF P-SP-32-2017
MODIFICATION; SP PZ-265-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2017 LOT SIZE
10.48 ACRES; 1/5T" ACRE (USING 4500 SQ. FT.) TAX MAP NO. 295.12-1-4 SECTION
179-5-020; 179-3-040
GLENN DURLACHER, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-30-2017, Glen Durlacher, Meeting Date: May 17, 2017
"Project Location: 1115 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to relocate a 160 sq. ft. shed this includes a 40 sq. ft. porch on the shed. Project is for
an outdoor tree art business where the shed would be closer than 75 ft. to the front property
line. Relief requested for travel corridor overlay and front setback requirements of the Cl zone.
Planning Board: Site Plan modification for relocation of shed and landscape lighting to shine on
sculptures/displays.
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—Route 9
The applicant proposes to locate 160 sq. ft. shed to 38.4 ft. from the front property line 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 to locate the shed at 75 ft.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for front setback of 36.6 ft.
for the setback.
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.
1 Y 0
015/17/2017)
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty maybe considered self-
created
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to maintain an exterior wood carving business and relocate a 160 sq. ft.
shed, which includes a 40 sq. ft. porch on the shed. The project includes display areas and to
add landscape lighting to shine on sculptures/displays. In addition the chain link fence along
Route 9 is to be removed and replaced with a rope and wood post fencing along with use of a
portion of the barn area (112 ft. x7 ft.) for storage. The shed is used for storage of materials,
equipment and is part of the display area. The sculpture display areas are to include 2 flood
lights per display area. The signage will have downlight."
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, based on its limited review, passed a motion that
they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current
project proposal and that was adopted on May 16, 2017 by a unanimous vote.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. DURLACHER-Yes. Hello, my name's Glenn Durlacher.
MR. JACKOSKI-And, Glenn, I mean this is a straightforward application. So I assume you just
want Board members to ask questions.
MR. DURLACHER-Correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there questions at this time before I open the public hearing from
Board members?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. Is there going to be any electricity, any water for the shed? Just empty?
MR. DURLACHER-Yes. The shed is just going to be used for some storage of equipment, but I
do a lot of hand carving, so for sale and display of small sculptures.
MR. HENKEL-But no lighting or anything to the shed?
MR. DURLACHER-There's no, it's going to be outdoor lighting in the shed. Outdoor, there's not
going to be any water. There's going to be just lighting outside.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are customers actually going to be able to go into the shed and look at stuff?
MR. DURLACHER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-And the Fire Marshal's okay with the ingress and egress?
MR. DURLACHER-Well, it's mainly just the sculpture's going to be outside. I'm going to keep
my carving equipment inside.
MR. URRICO-Currently you have a trailer there, a mobile trailer that you keep stuff in. Is that
going to replace?
MR. DURLACHER-No, that's the, the mobile, the truck I have is going to be at another location.
MR. URRICO-Okay, and the house that's behind it, that's left over from The Great Escape had
the zoo there, is that going to stay?
MR. DURLACHER-Yes, that's going to stay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to go into any issues with Great Escape when they have
their overflow parking because you're kind of melding together there? Sometimes they, I don't
know that they've been using it that much in the past few years, but.
MR. DURLACHER-Yes, that parking lot is for overflow parking. I have a fence that's going to
delineate it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're going to separate it?
311
015/17/2017)
MR. DURLACHER-Right, so it's separated, separate all the, that's one of the main reasons for
moving the shed up so it would not be in that way.
MR. JACKOSKI-So is the part of the property that you're utilizing completely fenced in, other
than the roadside?
MR. DURLACHER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-So there's no spreading and sprawling out from that?
MR. DURLACHER-No, there's no, it's, I put up fencing and then there's also, actually it's a
plastic yellow link fence that Great Escape needs for emergency access, emergency vehicles.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing?
The public hearing is now open. There is no one here who I believe needs to speak to the
Board. Is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I am going to poll the Board. I am going to start
this time with John.
MR. HENKEL-So basically you're just looking for your 38.4 feet from Route 9. Basically that's
what you're looking for.
MR. DURLACHER-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-It's 26 feet from the property line of Martha's Ice Cream. Yes, I don't see any
problem. I don't see that you're asking for a great deal there. I'm okay with the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, I think it's reasonable and will keep in character with pretty much what's there
and I don't see it as unreasonable that violates our charter in terms of the test. So I would
support the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with the Board members. I think it's a good project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to 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
Glenn Durlacher. Applicant proposes to relocate a 160 sq. ft. shed this includes a 40 sq. ft.
porch on the shed. Project is for an outdoor tree art business where the shed would be closer
than 75 ft. to the front property line. Relief requested for travel corridor overlay and front
setback requirements of the Cl zone. Planning Board: Site Plan modification for relocation of
shed and landscape lighting to shine on sculptures/displays.
The applicant requests relief from setbacks in the Cl zone (Commercial Intensive).
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone
015/17/2017)
Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay—Route 9
The applicant proposes to locate 160 sq. ft. shed to 38.4 ft. from the front property line where a
75 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 17, 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. There are a number of the properties along Route 9 there that are
closer than the prescribed footage.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable to allow The Great
Escape access to the area behind it.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. again because a number of other properties
violate the distance from Route 9.
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;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-
AV-30-2017, GLENN DURLACHER, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 17th day of May 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel
NOES: Mr. Jackoski
MR. JACKOSKI-It's too close to the road for me. You're approved, though. Congratulations.
Good luck.
MR. DURLACHER-Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on the agenda this evening is Chris Mackey, Mary & William
Carey, Dennis MacElroy of Environmental Design Partnership. It is Area Variance Z-AV-36-
2017, a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for his evening.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-36-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 CHRIS MACKEY AGENT(S) DENNIS
MAC ELROY, ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) MARY & WILLIAM
CAREY ZONING CLI LOCATION VACANT PARCEL JUST WEST OF 310 CORINTH
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 2,450 SQ. FT. STORAGE
STRUCTURE ON A VACANT 0.26 ACRE PARCEL OFF EXIT 18, 11-87. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MINIMUM TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY (TCO) DISTRICT SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS FOR THE CLI ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2017 LOT SIZE 0.26 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO.
308.16-1-54 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-030
31Y
015/17/2017)
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-36-2017, Chris Mackey, Meeting Date: May 17, 2017
"Project Location: Vacant parcel just west of 310 Corinth Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes construction of 2,450 sq. ft. storage structure on a vacant 0.26
acre parcel off Exit 18, I-87. Relief requested from minimum Travel Corridor Overlay (TCO)
district setback requirements and setbacks for the CLI zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from setbacks in the CLI zone (Commercial Light Industrial) on
Corinth Rd.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone
Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay—Corinth Rd
The applicant proposes an individual self storage building that will be 50 ft. where a 75 ft.
setback is required. Also requested is side setbacks where 20 ft. is proposed on the East and
West side of the property where a 30 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 limited 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 25 ft. for the / travel
corridor overlay. Side setback relief is 10 ft. for the East and West side.
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.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes construction of a 2,450 sq. ft. storage building. The project includes a
single drive aisle around building with one access to Corinth Road. The site will be cleared to
install stormwater, drive aisle and plantings."
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, based on its limited review, passed a motion that
did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project
proposal, and that was passed on May 16, 2017 by a 5 to 2 vote.
MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. For the record I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design. Here
with Chris Mackey, the applicant for this application. Chris is currently under contract for the
purchase of this property along Corinth Road in the CLI zoning district with the consideration of
a storage building for this site. We have had discussions with Craig Brown about what our
proposal might be and could be for this, what would be reasonable for this property. Chris has
been looking for storage potential for personal items. Currently rents space elsewhere, and this
would be an opportunity to, looked like a good opportunity to purchase the property and use it
as a storage building, as opposed to paying rent. We were talking about it earlier that if you
could kind of think of it as a remote accessory building.
MR. JACKOSKI-A second garage?
314
015/17/2017)
MR. MAC ELROY-Chris lives in Queensbury on Route 9L in a Waterfront Residential zone. So
storage there is limited. So this is an opportunity to invest in this property and have the storage
that he needs. It seems a little different perhaps, but it is, but it's an exchange of winter items
for the summer and summer items for the winter, that's part of what his consideration is for the
use of this. As indicated it involves three variances. There's two side yard setbacks. In a
zone that's required to be 30, we're proposing 20, and the front, while we're meeting the normal
50 foot setback, there is Travel Corridor Overlay consideration there which is 75. So we're
seeking that relief as well. I don't want to blame it on the lot, but it's an undersized lot. It's a
little orphaned lot as I refer to it, and I'm not sure what else could happen and would happen on
that property. If you took the 30 foot setbacks it gives you, on a 75 foot wide lot, it gives you a
15 foot building area. So that certainly limits the potential of doing anything without relief.
MR. JACKOSKI-And it is in a Commercial Light Industrial zone.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any Board member questions at this time?
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 have a question for Staff. Are there any requirements for lighting or
fencing on these storage building projects?
MRS. MOORE-Not in this zone.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Not within the zone.
MR. HENKEL-Because he's got one neighbor on the east side. That's it. The west side's
vacant.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes, it's the site of the West Side Auto.
MR. HENKEL-Because you are going to clear cut it and then re-plant. Is that what you're
doing?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, you know, I looked at this again closer recently, and there's some good
vegetation on that lot, and I think the intent would be to leave whatever you can.
MR. HENKEL-Especially on the one side where the neighbor is.
MR. MAC ELROY-Exactly. While we've shown vegetation to go there, it is a replacement.
Whatever can be saved, and I saw it and looked at it intendedly for that purpose. That tree line
is right along that property line.
MR. HENKEL-It would be nice for the neighbors there.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. KUHL-I assume that you're putting in water and electric? Or just electric?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. KUHL-You're putting in water there, too?
MR. MAC ELROY-There is municipal water there. So that would be something that would be
connected to the building.
MR. KUHL-But basically it's for personal storage?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. KUHL-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? I'll open the public hearing at this time.
Seeing no one in the audience I'll ask Roy if there's any written comments.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment.
3115
015/17/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I will begin to poll the Board.
MR. KUHL-I'd like to be first. As you say, Dennis, it seems to be a good use of a piece of
property, and, you know, with the regulations, and I'd be in favor of it. I don't think it's a lot to
ask.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I'm very concerned that there's going to be boat storage there. No, I'm in favor
of the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It's kind of an oddball one. We can't predict what's going to happen
with that big Westside property to the other side there, but I suppose if some major big deal
wanted to come in, they could buy you out in two seconds and you'd be back to square one
again with no place to store your stuff, but in the interim, I don't have a problem with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, again, I think it's a reasonable project that, while we have these strict rules to
give us a chance to comment on them, I can support it.
MR. JACKOSKI-And John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I don't see any negativity from the neighborhood, so I would be in support of
the little bit of relief they want. No problem.
MR. JACKOSKI-Moving forward I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for
approval.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman?
MR. JACKOSKI-Perfect, thank you.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Chris Mackey.
Applicant proposes construction of 2,450 sq. ft. storage structure on a vacant 0.26 acre parcel
off Exit 18, 1-87. Relief requested from minimum Travel Corridor Overlay (TCO) district setback
requirements and setbacks for the CLI zoning district.
The applicant requests relief from setbacks in the CLI zone (Commercial Light Industrial) on
Corinth Rd.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone
Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay—Corinth Rd
The applicant proposes an individual self-storage building that will be 50 ft. where a 75 ft.
setback is required. Also requested is side setbacks where 20 ft. is proposed on the East and
West side of the property where a 30 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type 11 — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 17, 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 aft.er discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
36
015/17/2017)
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because this is in a commercial area.
2. Feasible alternatives would be considered very limited due to the size of the property.
3. The requested variance is really not substantial since it is a good use of an errant piece
of property.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty; we might suggest it 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;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-
AV-36-2017, CHRIS MACKEY, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 17th day of May 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations, good luck.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Other further business of the Board? We've had a very varied meeting this
evening. No additional topics? I move to adjourn our meeting.
MR. MC CABE-I'll second.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
MAY 17, 2017, Introduced by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Henkel,
Duly adopted this 17th day of May, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
3.7