05-24-2017 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MAY 24, 2017
INDEX
Area Variance Z-AV-32-2017 Sereena Coombes 1.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-39 and 56 (parcels to be merged)
Area Variance Z-AV-37-2017 Kelly Carte 7.
Tax Map No. 300.16-1-3
Area Variance Z-AV-34-2017 Daniel and Denise Abell
15.
Tax Map No. 308.8-1-5
Area Variance Z-AV-33-2017 Rasheed Bhatti (King Hendrick Motel)
18.
Tax Map No. 288.8-1-11.2
Sign Variance Z-SV-5-2017 18 Hospitality LLC 20.
Tax Map No. 309.13-1-73
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.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MAY 24, 2017
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
JAMES UNDERWOOD
HARRISON FREER
MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome everybody. I'd like to begin our meeting for this evening of the
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals on Wednesday, May 24th here at the Queensbury Activity
Center at 7 p.m. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, there are agendas on the
back table with some explanations about how we conduct ourselves, but I'll kind of review that
for you briefly now, and we will ask each applicant to come join us at the table here at the front.
I'll ask Roy to read the application into the record once I introduce it. Every item on this
evening's agenda does have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I will open the public
hearing when it's an appropriate time to do so. After Roy reads the application into the record
and we ask the applicant some basic questions I'll then open the public hearing, possibly close
the public hearing depending on where things are after I poll the Board as to where they think
they're going with the application. Sometimes applications get tabled. Sometimes they get
voted on and approved or denied. Sometimes the applicants can withdraw the application if so
they choose. So we don't have any Old Business or housekeeping to do this evening. So
we're going to get right into New Business and I'm going to start with Sereena Coombes. It is
108 Birdsall Road. There's a public hearing scheduled this evening. Area Variance No. Z-AV-
32-2017, a Type 11 SEAR.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-32-2017 SEQRA TYPE II SEREENA COOMBES OWNER(S)
SEREENA COOMBES ZONING WR LOCATION 108 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING 3 FT. BY 33 FT. DOCK AND REPLACE IT WITH A 4
FT. BY 36 FT. DOCK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS FOR A DOCK IN WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2017 LOT SIZE 0.18 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289. 17-1-39
AND 56 (PARCELS TO BE MERGED) SECTION 179-5-060
SEREENA COOMBES, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, Seerena, and for most of us we know pretty well about this project,
but it's a new application. So I'm going to have Roy read it into the record.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-32-2017, Sereena Coombes, Meeting Date: May 17,
2017 "Project Location: 108 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to remove existing 3 ft. by 33 ft. dock and replace it with a 4 ft. by 36 ft. dock. Relief
requested from minimum side yard setbacks requirements for a dock in WR zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback
requirements for a dock.
Section 179-5-060 Docks, boathouses, moorings—Waterfront Residential Zone, WR
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
The applicant proposes to replace an existing 3 ft. by 33 ft. dock with a 4 ft. by 36 ft. dock where
a 20 ft. setback is required and a 0 ft. setback is to remain. Existing dock was approved as a 3
ft. x 40 ft. dock at a 0 ft. setback AV 36-2006
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant
is replacing a dock in the same location and expanding the dock width by one foot.
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 as the dock was approved in the location per a court decision arrangement.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 20 ft. the east side of
the property where the existing setback is to remain.
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 may be
considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the
area. The dock width is within the applicant's property.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The application is similar to one previous for a 40 ft. dock that had been withdrawn. The
applicant proposes replacement of a 3 ft. x 33 ft. dock with a 4 ft. x 36 ft. dock at 0 ft. setback
from the east property line. The dock location was previously approved as part of AV 36-2006
with a 0 ft. setback and a 3 ft. x 40 ft. dock. The applicant has indicated during discussions with
dock builders that a 4 ft. width is a common width. The applicant has explained there are four
sections with the first three being rolled and the fourth to be a floating segment. The narrative
submitted indicates the neighbors with deeded access are in agreement with the dock as
proposed."
MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourself for the record and if you'd like to add anything.
MS. COOMBES-So my name's Seerena Coombes at 108 Birdsall Road. I am back on the
same topic as last year, primarily because the dock still needs to be replaced after a very long
summer and meeting that you guys tolerated last year. We have had several meetings as
neighbors and have been able to come to what I think is a compromise. I realize we're actually
back asking for what you guys had offered last year, but when we were here that day there was
a lot of controversy and I didn't feel that I wanted to make a step without support from
everybody around me because that's not what a neighborhood is. So since that time we've
had several meetings. We actually were able to plot out 36 by 4 feet on the ice over the winter.
Bill Merritt stood out there on the ice and was able to see that didn't protrude significantly further
than the other docks in the surrounding area, that there would be adequate space for him to
maneuver his boat in and out, and that overall we're not planning, I'm not planning to change
any of the other things that exist over what the dock spaces are, who they belong to, how they
rotate. There would still be two docks spaces on the left hand side and the right side would still
belong to what's currently the Valenti's property, theirs to work through. So the difference
between then and now, I think, is that we have come to a neighborly compromise that this would
be a compromise and reasonable to everybody, that it wouldn't impede on the neighborhood,
but would also provide us a four foot wide dock which I do believe is safer and enables, if you sit
on the dock, for kids to run and jump more safely, and a little bit more dock length for docking
boats because we have a very shallow water line at the inner edge.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any Board member questions at this time before I open
the public hearing?
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So it says you're going to leave the two spaces for the Valentis on the
east side, that they're going to use those two spaces forever. Is that what you're saying? Is
that what I read there, the option?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
MS. COOMBES-Well, there was a proceeding that I had no part of and only acquired as part of
the property, that states that the dock, as it is now there are two dock spaces on the left hand
side. The furthest one belongs to the owner of the property. The inner one is on a rotational
schedule for the eight properties that share the dock access, and then the right hand side of the
dock, because it's no longer in my property, you know, it's past my property line because of the
zero setback, belongs to the Valentis. They have their own dock and that is what they use. It
does not say they can't park anything there, but nothing is there currently, and they would be
only impeding their own water space if they park something there. So if they, they have their
own dock. If they were to use that side of my dock it would be only interfering with themselves.
Does that make sense?
MR. HENKEL-But you don't want to keep it the same? What's wrong with the same angle that
you have the dock now? If you put the new dock in, wouldn't that be better for everybody with
that angle?
MS. COOMBES-We were only discussing possibly shifting the base over a foot or two, not very
much. That was primarily to maintain as much access space actually on the Merritt's side as
possible, that there's a little bit of a pinch angle by taking it out 36 feet instead of 33. It relieves
the pitch angle a little bit that the western side of the dock isn't out any further, any closer to the
Merritts that it is right now. I think that's negotiable, but that was the suggestion from the
neighbors. That was the discussion all of us together. The Valentis at one point actually
suggested that it could extend over the property line. I didn't think that was a good idea for
future.
MR. HENKEL-So you're saying that 36 feet will not extend beyond your imaginary property line
that goes out into the lake? It won't.
MS. COOMBES-Correct, it will not, no. No, I didn't think that was a good idea, but they
suggested we move the base over and that would just decrease the pinch angle slightly.
MR. JACKOSKI-So by moving over the base you reduce the pinch angle, as you've referred to
it, on the Merritt's side, but you've technically increased the boat traffic angle toward the shore
on the eastern side, because as you kick it this way, as you kick the base toward Merritt's, now
the boats backing out of the Valenti's side actually go more into the front of their property
instead of that way. Does that make sense? Because you're now creating the pinch angle
going the other way.
MS. COOMBES-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-And the Valenti's have signed off on this?
MS. COOMBES-Yes, they actually suggested it, and they suggested that it cross the line, which
I didn't think was appropriate, just for future owners, and that that might be a concern down the
road. I think their perspective is that they have their own dock space to get in and out and
weren't planning to put any boats on that right side. If maintaining it along the property line
directly is a better answer for the Board, then I don't think that would be a problem, but it's only
one or two feet off the line.
MR. HENKEL-That's going to cause a problem later if the Valentis sell? Can't that be taken to
court? I mean, we really don't have a right to say what goes on in the water. That's not our
say, right? According to the law.
MS. COOMBES-The legal proceedings from before say that I can't put, neither myself nor any
of my neighbors have any rights to dock on that side of the dock in the first place. It would only
be boat traffic that actually belongs to that person, and that's basically it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, technically that side of the dock belongs to what is known in the
neighborhood as Canada, which is the vacant lot on Marley Way which the Valentis also own.
So the dock rights on your eastern dock side belong to that vacant current lot. So if the
Valentis ever did sell that lot, it would go to that side, so it's no longer Valentis water craft. So
it's a little bit clouded, but if the Valentis have signed off on this and have said this is what they
want to make harmony in the neighborhood, that's what it is.
MS. COOMBES-And I do have two mailers, they were at some of our neighborhood meetings to
support that.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions from Board members before we move forward?
So I do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone who would like to
speak and address the Board concerning this? Mr. Lapper, if you would. So we're trying to
limit each public commenter to about three minutes, twelve or fifteen or so minutes for each
topic. So I only say that because I know you're long winded.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JON LAPPER
MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper. I'm here on
behalf of both of the adjacent property owners, the Merritts and the Valentis, and to start with
they are all in support of the application for the variance. The only thing that I'm asking for
tonight is just to include in your resolution some conditions, which is just what everybody's
agreed to, for the sole purpose that it's in the record, so that as you were just talking about
when future people buy the lot they can go to Town and know exactly what the rights are. So
that they don't get into it again, you know, the relator told me blah, blah, blah. So the only thing
that we're requesting that you include is that the new dock is for three berths, of course one on
the east side and two on the west side. That the two on the west side are limited to two boats,
one 16 feet in length and seven feet in width, which is what they previously agreed to, it can't be
an extension of the dock that it's just 36 feet, and then finally that pull up spot for the small
motor craft all the way on the west side. We'd like that to be secured to the land so it can't float
away and hit any of the Merritt's boats. That was all part of the stipulation that there can be
one motorized boat pulled up onto the shore on the west side. So those are just their concerns.
This really buttons on.
MR. JACKOSKI-How do you recommend that watercraft be secured?
MR. LAPPER-If there were something like in the sand, just that it could get hooked to.
MR. JACKOSKI-A stake? I mean, the kids play on that lot all the time. So if there's no boat
there and kids are running around, they could trip over a stake.
MR. LAPPER-It could be like, you know, a little U in the sand,just for a clip.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Like a cradle or something just to hook the bow into.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, just so it can't float over into the Merritt's boats, and that's it, and they're
glad that this is settled with the neighborhood.
MR. HENKEL-Now what are the conditions on the east side? Did you say about the conditions
on the east side?
MR. LAPPER-Just on the east side it's just one berth.
MR. JACKOSKI-Why is it only one?
MR. LAPPER-Because that was what was agreed to.
MR. JACKOSKI-Why can't it be two?
MR. LAPPER-It wasn't what was agreed to.
MR. HENKEL-I thought it said right here that they agreed on the side.
MR. LAPPER-Three berths, two on the west side and one on the east side.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. It's an awful long dock slip for one boat.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I'm just reading what was agreed to. I'm not trying to change anything.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We'll let Board members decide
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-I appreciate it. Would anyone else like to address the Board before I find
Board member comment?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
DAVE DE SANTO
MR. DE SANTO-Hey, folks. Dave De Santo 31 Marley Way, Queensbury. Just regarding that
last piece that was brought up. Some of the things that were mentioned aren't part of the
application. They do affect other folks in the neighborhood who probably weren't expecting that
to come up, for instance that the dock can never be extended further. Twenty years down the
road maybe there's some different thoughts and the dock could be extended. So I would hate
to see the Zoning Board put that in play here when that wasn't part of the application. It was for
a dock not what could possibly be done in the future, excuse me. Pull up spot, again, not part
of the application, but I understand what they're saying. I think everyone wants to be safe, but
it wasn't part of the application. I don't have a problem putting in a temporary pull up stake, but
I do agree with the person who said something about a stake, somebody tripping over it. I
haven't seen that spot, I've used it for a few days, but I haven't seen it used very often. So now
you have a stake in the ground and that might be a concern. The Valentis side is the Valentis
side. If they signed off that they want to put one boat there and not two, that's their business
not mine, but I'm not sure on that. And then just the other thing that was mentioned that we
can only put two boats there. They're asking you to put that permanently somehow. On the left
hand, or the west side of the dock, I have personal watercraft that I don't want anybody to
interpret, personal watercraft isn't a boat. So if I want to put a few personal watercraft there, or
anything else, I own that spot, and I want to be able to put whatever watercraft I want there. So
I just want to make that clear, too.
MR. HENKEL-Okay you're saying you have the two personal watercraft?
MR. DE SANTO-1 may want to put two in that spot. I have two.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So that defeats the one then.
MR. DE SANTO-And I've been putting two since I've been over on that, I bought two lots there.
So I just want to make that clear because they're asking for a few things that weren't part of the
application. I don't think it's fair to spring that on everybody now when they didn't have an
opportunity to read that in advance. I read everything that was applied for before I came, and I
read some of those things. It wouldn't be too fair to some of those folks if it wasn't part of the
application to make some changes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Were you here for the last meeting?
MR. DE SANTO-Yes, sir.
MR. HENKEL-So two watercrafts are probably longer than 16 feet, then, together.
MR. DE SANTO-No, not back to back,just side to side.
MR. JACKOSKI-You put them side to side?
MR. DE SANTO-Just because I try to keep them to the spot that I know I have ownership in.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you.
MR. DE SANTO-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else in the audience? Is there any written comment, Roy?
MR. URRICO-There's no written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-At this point, for those of you who have been here many times in the past, it's
unlike me to give my opinion on matters, but tonight certain Board members have suggested
that I have to give my opinion. Usually I'm just the tie breaker. So I'm going to pull a Jim and
I'm going to wait and see what the rest of the Board says. I'm okay with the application
provided that there are size limitations to the docks, things that were vessels, watercraft. I do
not agree with side by side moorings of vessels. I think that's a danger, especially if storms
whip up on the lake. I think that creates extra current. I'm not in favor of that. I don't know if
I'm in favor of the stake in the ground because I always understood that pull up spot to be up
and out of the water, but I don't know why you would need the stake in it if you were up and out
of the water. That's my take. So depending on how you craft the resolution, I don't know if I'd
be for it or against it. I'll say yes right now temporarily. Anyone want to go first after that?
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
MR. MC CABE-I'll go. We had quite a lengthy discussion the last time this subject came up,
and I agree, as a compromise, to four foot, which is the standard dock width, by 36. 1 thought
that was a good compromise with the original three by forty, and so nothing's changed since
then. I am very impressed that the applicant approached he neighbors and got concession
from the neighbors. I believe that that's the signs of a vibrant community. I would agree to the
four by thirty-six without conditions.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Harrison?
MR. FREER-So 1, too, applaud the efforts in terms of working together. As far as the no dock
extension, I think that has to do with the fact that there must be words in the legal agreement
that can be forded, so I would be okay with putting no further dock extension. I don't think that
that's the intent that this whole issue revolves around trying to get a four foot wide so it's more
functional and I think that makes sense. I don't think we need to put three berths. I mean, I
don't feel like we're in the business of dealing with that in terms of a condition, and the boat size
I guess is part of some other legal document, I would be curious to hear your feedback, but I
would support the application.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the application as applied, as presented to us. I am not in
favor of any of the additional conditions.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor as well, with the consensus that everyone came upon. My
concern is the enforceability of the conditions. Is there a body here within the Town of
Queensbury that could enforce the number of boats that are on the dock at any given time? So
for that reason I am in favor without conditions.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I'm going to have to agree with everybody else. I think the four by
thirty-six. I think that was the suggestion that was taken to heart by the neighbors. As far as
the ingress and egress of boats out of there, it's up to you people to police yourselves, all right,
and I think everybody knows the score and everybody has expectations from all the parties
involved, and I think it can be dealt with on a neighborly basis. I don't think that we have to dial
in 16, 17 foot boats or any further extensions of that dock. Anybody can come in and ask for a
permit for a longer dock if they want to, up to 40 feet, and I don't think that's going to happen at
this point in time. I think that as far as the excess boat on the shoreline being moored or tied
off or something, obviously if it's a jet ski it's going to get pulled up onto the shore. I think you
could put a four foot post or something to tie it off. That might make more sense than a stake in
the ground or something you could fall on, but I don't think we need to go there. I think you
people can work it out amongst yourselves and make it work. I think that the application was
reasonably done and I think that the neighbors have agreed to it in essence. So we'll keep it as
is.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. I'm also impressed the way they came together as neighbors, especially
after that last meeting, and like Michelle says, I don't know how we can really put restrictions on
what they do in the water. It's safe for everybody, so I guess I would be okay with the
application the way it's written. I would approve it as is.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So having no written comment, listening to everybody in the audience,
I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm going to seek a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Sereena Coombes. Applicant proposes to remove existing 3 ft. by 33 ft. dock and replace it
with a 4 ft. by 36 ft. dock. Relief requested from minimum side yard setbacks requirements for a
dock in WR zoning district.
The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback
requirements for a dock.
Section 179-5-060 Docks, boathouses, moorings—Waterfront Residential Zone, WR
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
The applicant proposes to replace an existing 3 ft. by 33 ft. dock with a 4 ft. by 36 ft. dock where
a 20 ft. setback is requires and a 0 ft. setback is to remain. Existing dock was approved as a 3
ft. x 40 ft. dock at a Oft setback AV 36-2006
SEQR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 24, 2017;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because we're simply replacing a dock that already exists.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and we believe that what we've arrived at
here is a reasonable compromise.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because in effect this dock already exists.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
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-32-2017, SEREENA COOMBES, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 24th day of May 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr.
Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Seerena, I was in your shoes once, or similar shoes, thank you, good luck and
enjoy your summer.
MS. COOMBES-Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is Kelly Carte, 207 Fuller Road, Ward
3. Area Variance Z-AV-37-2017. Type II SEAR.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-37-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 KELLY CARTE OWNER(S) KELLY
CARTE ZONING LC-10A LOCATION 207 FULLER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON THE EXISTING 45 +/-
ACRE PARCEL WHERE A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ALREADY EXISTS. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ON A
PARCEL IN THE LC-10A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP 45-2011; AV 8-2009; AV 19-
2007; AV-1993 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD
LOT SIZE 45.99 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 300.16-1-3 SECTION 179-3-040
KELLY CARTE, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. There is a public hearing
scheduled for this matter as well this evening.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-37-2017, Kelly Carte, Meeting Date: May 17, 2017
"Project Location: 207 Fuller Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a second single-family dwelling on the existing 45 +/- acre parcel where a single-
family dwelling already exists. Relief requested from number of allowable single-family
dwellings on a parcel in the LC-10A zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from number of allowable single-family dwellings on a parcel in the
LC-10A zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-area requirements LC-10A zone
Section 179-4-010C one principal building per lot
The applicant proposes to construct a second dwelling unit on the property where only one
dwelling unit is allowed
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to 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 available to apply for a subdivision, however the lot arrangement may still require a
variance due to the nature of the home locations to the proximity of the road.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code. The requested relief 2 residential units on one
parcel where only one residential unit is allowed.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project will have
minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the
neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a second home on a 42 ac parcel that has an existing
home. The information submitted indicates the existing home is about 736 sq. ft. and the new
home would be about 2,800 sq. ft. The new home would be located on the parcel to be
compliant with the setback requirements. The project would also maintain an existing 4,480 sq.
ft. barn building. The applicant has submitted plans show the location of the proposed home
with elevations and floor plans."
MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening.
MR. CARTE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Kelly Carte. My actual home address
is 659 West Mountain Road, which is just around the corner from Fuller Road. I own the
property from the back of my home around to Fuller Road, big L-Shaped piece of property that's
135 acres actually. This parcel that it's on, the former Fuller farm, is a 46 acre that has road
frontage on Fuller Road. Just a little background. First, I bought this property about 16 or 18
years ago, and appeared before the Board at that time to subdivide off the old Fuller farmhouse
on two or three acres of land and sell it and keep the rest. I had no intention of subdividing any
of the rest of the land, and the Board at that time could not understand my explanation as to
why it would be necessary. The zoning, of course, is 10 acre, with 100 foot road frontage, but
the problem is a couple of things. Number One, with the location of the house where it is on
the property, there's no really feasible way of dividing off 10 acres of land and not creating what
you folks really are abhorrent to which is strange pieces of long 5400 feet wide and a half a mile
long or something in order to get 10 acres. So the physical location of where the house is is
one thing, but the more important thing is the 10 acres of land that I would have to subdivide to
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
put this house on is worth way more than what the house was worth. My estimate would be
something in the range of$100,000 for that land in that location, and the house is an old 80, 90
year old, as it said, 7, 800 square foot farmhouse which is in need of repair, but the biggest
problem is no bank will loan money on a project like that where the value of the land is way
more than the value of the house. They like to see things where, you know, the land is 10 to
20, maybe 25% depending on what it is, where the house is. They don't want to loan money on
raw land. So it would be a situation where nobody would be able to get a mortgage on that
house if it was on 10 acres of land because the 10 acres is worth way more than what the
house is worth. So that would leave the only way that somebody would be able to purchase it
is if they had the money up front and if they had it all in cash, and who's going to buy a 700
square foot old farmhouse if they have that kind of money. They're going to end up wanting to
tear the thing down, which is an expense. So, you know, and in effect, if I was to sell it at
$150,000 or $175,000 which would be the value of the land and the value of the house,
somebody's going to pay that kind of money, pay some more money to tear the house down
and then start building a house on it. So it just didn't make any economic sense at the time and
it still doesn't make any economic sense to do that. My proposal is the house that I want to
build is going to be back in the woods. It will not even be seen from the road. I've already
taken steps to, the only area that you would be able to see it from the road now. I have planted
trees there to grow a hedge so that once that's filled in it would not be able to be seen at all from
the road. It's going to use the same curb cut, the same driveway that the existing house uses.
The power that I would be using for that is already, there's a pole already in there with a
transformer on it that supplies the barn that I built, barn and workshop that I built on the property
there. So there's nothing more there. The only other utility I would need would be Town water
to be run in, basically along the same area as the power pole, power lines are going in there.
So I actually have, as I said, 135 acres there. The only problem with this, the thing is if you
count 400 foot frontage for 10 acre zoning, with the existing house, that only leaves 250 feet left
for another house on there because of the requirements for that zone. So I'm requesting to
build a house on the property. The old house will be torn down at some point in time. I'm not
willing to put a lot of money into it to keep it going, but right now it's, it has a young couple in
there that really want to be there, really take care of it, pay me on time, which is nice, and it
helps with the taxes and the property at this point, but if something major comes up with the
house that needs a lot of work or whatever, I will end up tearing it down. So that's the situation.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board member questions before I open the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to live in it?
MR. CARTE-Yes, I'm definitely going to live in it. I'm selling the house on West Mountain
Road.
MR. HENKEL-Have you thought about coming to this Board and asking for a variance for that,
to like say put six acres with that house and sell that off like that and then build your house
behind it? Because you could come to us and ask that for.
MR. CARTE-As I said, I was turned down before that.
MR. HENKEL-How many years ago was that, 15?
MR. CARTE-Sixteen, seventeen years ago when I first bought the property.
MR. HENKEL-It's a different Board now and we've given requests like that before.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy and I were both on the Board at that time.
MR. HENKEL-Well, we give variances now for that, and for less road frontage, too. So that's
something you could.
MR. CARTE-1 guess, I mean I could do that. Really the house is not something that somebody
would want to buy. I mean, when it comes right down to it, even on two or three acres of land,
the house is not valuable.
MR. HENKEL-Have you checked with realtors about that to ask that?
MR. CARTE-I've talked to several realtors, yes, about the house over the years.
MR. HENKEL-People buy property like that all the time. Would you be willing to, if we approve
this, would you be willing to say that you're going to re-build your new house, you're going to
tear down that old house right after that? I mean, maybe that could be a condition.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
MR. CARTE-1 would not like to be locked into that, but I would specify maybe a timeframe, say
within four, five years.
MR. FREER-Is that north/south clearing some kind of a runway?
MR. CARTE-No, I mean, that keeps coming up with people. Somebody got the idea that, no, I
just wanted a pasture. My daughter's been asking me to get a horse and I wanted to clear it
and level it. It was all woods before except for the first, I don't know, one acre I guess, the first
part that's on the road was cleared. I mean, the house that I'm proposing, you can't see, you
have the drawing, I suppose, that shows it on there. Where I'm proposing it is not, you can't
see it from the road. I mean, you won't be able to see it from the road. The only place right
now is from the end of that cleared strip. If you look to the west and you really know what you're
looking for you'd be able to see it, but as I said, I've planted a double row of trees along the
road, to block it off, and, you know, within the next three or four years you won't be able to see it
at all. The fact it has no, you know, no impact on, again, I'm using the same curb cut, the same
driveway that's in there, nothing, no more impact than, you know, on the Town's right of way or
anything else like that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? Seeing none at this moment, is there
anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this application? Is there any
written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's one letter. "The City of Glens Falls has no objection to the applicant,
Kelly Carte, adding a second residence to 207 Fuller Road, parcel number 300.16-1-3. The
City requests that our right of way be maintained and shown accurately depicted on maps or
plans that will be submitted. The City requires that any structures or septic systems be at least
20 feet away from the centerline of the raw water main and the City would like to make our
review a condition of the site plan approval." And that's Steve Gurzler.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. There was somebody in the audience. If you'd like to address the
Board. Welcome.
DEB FERRANTI
MS. FERRANTI-Hi. I'm Deb Ferranti. I live at 216 Fuller Road, right across from that property.
I guess I'm not really sure where the house is going in relationship to mine.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Carte, could you point out the parcel?
MR. CARTE-Okay. The existing house is right here. The driveway comes in as a circle like
this and then it goes around behind the house and out like this to my barn out there. The
proposed house is way back in here, in fact it's going to be even further than that. It's going to
be something up in this area here. So as I said, this is all treed. You can't see, if you look
from this point and just past everything here, you might be able to see it for a while, but in
essence it's going to be up in this area in the woods.
MR. HENKEL-He's saying roughly 390 feet from Fuller Road.
MS. FERRANTI-Well, I live right across the street from that clearing in the front and there's
been no care to this property for the neighborhood at all. It's like a, seems like it's a playground
where all the toys go and all that stuff, and we see, there's a rental house. There's that big
crazy structure. There's the building attached to the structure. There's a shed. There's the
barn, and there's no guarantee that Mr. Carte's going to be living there and I've been in that
rental property. It's not very nice, but this area has not been taken care of, if you drive down
Fuller Road at all, and that's a shame, and we look at it every day. He doesn't have to because
his house a is a nice big house, landscaped, on the other side, and I just think it's a shame that
there's no guarantees. I'm not sure why he has so many structures on that property now. I
didn't think that was allowed, and none of them have been taken down or followed through with.
So I'd be pretty concerned with what might happen.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do you recall how many feet of road frontage you have?
MS. FERRANTI-A little over 200.
MR. HENKEL-186 it says here. Does that sound right?
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
MS. FERRANTI-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else? Okay. If you would, sir.
BRAD UNDERWOOD
MR. UNDERWOOD-Good evening. I'm Brad Underwood. I live at 249 Fuller Road which is
down below Mr. Carte's property. Some time ago Mr. Carte approached with, there's two
mountain streams that are coming down off the mountain, and my concern is flooding in the
future. By him combining them. That's one of my concerns. And the second concern would
be just more traffic. I have grandchildren and people go up and down that road. That's all I
have to say.
MR. HENKEL-There were some problems with flooding back years ago when they built that
development, when the Hayes' built.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, definitely.
MR. HENKEL-And I think that was due to some blockage that Mr. Carte did on his property that
caused that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I know at one point, I know that was part of it, but there were two
other streams that he wanted to combine at one point, and I know one of them was in the area
of which he's talking about building his home. Like I said I'm below him.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Anyone else?
JOHN MENEELY
MR. MENEELY-Hi. John Meneely. This is the view from my property, adjacent to the property.
MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourself for the record, and then I'll note as you're getting
back to the table that the public has handed us some color photographs of the current site
conditions I would say within the last few days, weeks, months, last year, today.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll pass it along to our secretary. It's showing all the multiple structures
and solar apparatus, etc.
MR. MENEELY-Hi. John Meneely, 223 Fuller Road.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is it on the map?
MR. MENEELY-It should be the property right adjacent.
MR. JACKOSKI-And how much frontage do you have, sir?
MR. MENEELY-Two hundred, approximately, 198.
MR. HENKEL-It says 200.
MR. JACKOSKI-So about an acre.
MR. MENEELY-And my only concern is the same as Brad's. I know he's had a culvert
underneath the road that he's using to go to his house has plugged up a couple of times. The
water did come down through the front of everybody's house all the way down through. I just
didn't want to see another rental property going in there. I know he says he's going to move in
there. I haven't seen any guarantees of that. The people he has in there now seem okay.
The ones previously he had there we had to ask him to get them out of there. That would be
my concern is that it's not going to be a rental property. He does have several structures on
there now. Myself he could build whatever he wants there as far as I'm concerned. He bought
the property, but there are laws. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board? The Board has
heard some public comment. The public hearing is still left open. If you would like you have
an opportunity to address some of the public comment.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
MR. CARTE-1 certainly will. The most obvious I guess is an error in the water situation there
that one of the Board members is apparently familiar with. It has nothing to do with this
property. It has everything to do with my house on 659 West Mountain Road, which is right
adjacent to the Hayes' housing development over there, and it was nothing that I did
whatsoever. I have not changed the land or anything. In their construction of those houses
there they made the catch basin that used to be there when Ashton was there, they made it
smaller so that they could get more houses in there and it diverted the water that went into the
catch basin into my backyard and across my backyard into the neighbors on Applehouse Lane
and that into a situation with his septic. It had absolutely nothing to do with this. It's an entirely
separate, and this water that is here on this property does not interact with the water from that
property or anything. There's no connection. There is a spring on this property which the
Fullers used for water for their house, which I can show you the location of it here in a minute,
and there is also, behind my barn, back where you can see a little bit of it right at the very top of
what's showing there of the property and the right hand corner, you can see a little snake line
there. That is a springtime runoff ditch. It only runs in the spring. It's dry by June or July and
dry for the rest of the year. It does, when it runs, it goes across the next property to the right
there, the other house that's in the back that used to be owned by Joe Brayton, Jr. I don't know
the name of the guy that owns it now, but you can see where it goes across that other property,
and it does end up in a, it ends up in Clendon Brook eventually. It comes into a little pond
that's near the beginning of Fuller Road on the right hand side from the road and then runs
under Fuller Road and down into Clendon Brook. Again, that is only a runoff. It does not run
year round and three months out of the year maybe. That's it. The spring, however, does run
year round. It goes along behind the old house and soaks into the ground just about where it
leaves my property. Let me show you what I'm talking about. The spring is up in here, and it
runs down like this and it comes down behind the old house and down behind the old barn and
around and right in this area here soaks back into the ground. If there's a lot of water it goes a
little bit over onto, in this area, maybe 50 or 75 feet or something.
MR. MENEELY-t comes all the way down in my backyard which is three lots down.
MR. CARTE-There's a, the stream would go down there. I have, and as a consequence of
being able to clear the land on the right hand side there, the strip, had DEC and APA both came
and the Army Corps of Engineers was the most interested in the whole thing surprisingly. That
guy came three times to the property looking at the runoff stream and also the spring. They
took measurements. They took soil samples. They did everything, and they came back with a
ruling that the spring does not run into any body of water. Therefore they had no interest in
controlling it. They have no legality in this thing because it doesn't go anywhere, because it
soaks back into the ground there. It goes a little further or less depending on the amount of
water in the spring, but the spring does not go down anywhere. There's a culvert that goes
under the road into the piece of property going back here. This driveway right here goes back
to this house. It used to belong to Joe Brayton, Jr., and there's a culvert that goes underneath
that road, and that culvert is completely blocked. The Corps of Engineer guy that was there
saw that, saw that there was no way that water could go through there, to go beyond that, and,
as I said, got a ruling, I have it in writing somewhere here that there is no problem with that
water getting to the pond on the end of Fuller Road or into any navigable waterway.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Mr. Carte, you're more than welcome to come over and look in my
backyard. That land is flooded right now, due to that stream, due to that spring. It's not the
brook. The brook is lined, but that is flooded in my backyard, and in Porlier's backyard which is
right next door.
MR. CARTE-Can you see it running under the culvert this road. Well that's news to me
because as I said, when we were there, the culvert.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Mr. Porlier's concern was that that yard, because there's a swale there
and now it's saturated and there's a body of water.
MR. CARTE-But the point I guess I'm making is that none of that has any effect on my building
a house.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Providing that the location of your house and your septic isn't anywhere
near that stream.
MR. CARTE-Well, the house is nowhere near it, and the septic can't be anywhere near it
because it has to be approved by the New York State Health Department for it.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry, I've got to keep the applicant focused on us. We understand what
you're suggesting. So at this point I think what would be appropriate is to hear some feedback
from the Board members as I poll the Board.
MR. CARTE-Okay. Well, one more thing. The thing about the various buildings that were on
there. The house and the old barn, which are up near the road, obviously were just when I
bought the property they were there. The only thing that I've built is the one in the back which
is a modern barn and workshop and whatever there. I fully intend on tearing down the old barn
for the wood. It's nice weathered barn wood and whatever. I just have not done it because I
expect to use the wood in this house that I'm building, and there's no need to go to that trouble
at this point in time. The one other structure that's there now that may be on the pictures is a
garden shed that my tenants requested, came and requested permission to do from the Town.
It's built to less than the footprint that was allowed. I forget 10 by 12 or something that was
allowed and that's, they built it smaller than that. I had nothing to do with that, and it's a
temporary structure. I mean, when they go it goes because I don't necessarily want it for
anything. So that's, and I do fully intend on living in this house. I mean, I don't know how I can
prove that other than having my house up for sale at this point in time, but I'm not going to put it
for sale before I get permission to build, to be able to build another house, but I will build it to
live in this house.
MR. JACKOSKI-Does the Board have any questions at this time?
MR. URRICO-1 have a question for Laura or our counsel. According to, I'm reading the Code, if
I'm reading it correctly, that zoning district would require 50 acres in order for them to create a
subdivision here. Would it? Would it not?
MR. CROWE-You're looking at?
MR. URRICO-10-A subdivision, conservation subdivision.
MR. CROWE-Right.
MRS. MOORE-A conservation subdivision?
MR. URRICO-Yes. Would that be applicable here? In other words, could he put a subdivision
there even if he came for a, he would have to come for a variance. Right?
MR. CROWE-Correct.
MRS. MOORE-1 haven't explored that I guess yet.
MR. URRICO-I'm saying that there is an option.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So it's time to talk Board talk. Jim, I'll start with you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think that we can recognize the fact that the conditions that currently
exist on the property have existed that way for well in excess of 80 plus years, if not 100 years
when the Fuller farm place was originally built. I think that the request before us tonight
includes many facets, but essentially the applicant is asking for the ability to build a brand new
home on this site. I think that there's anticipation that probably in the near future within five
years that the original Fuller homestead farm would probably be razed at some point. It looks
to me as if the applicant is also anticipating taking down the original barn that exists on the site
there which will greatly improve the situation with the neighbors as far as the visualization of the
buildings that are currently out close to the road. I think that the applicant has the ability to build
a new home. I don't think it's a big stretch that anybody would not want to build a new home
there. I think that we can anticipate also that Mr. Carte would be living on the site. That it
would not be a rental, and I think that the situation would be greatly improved. I think that the
runoff situation is something that we dealt with 20 years ago. I don't know as if that's changed
or altered over the course of time either. I think it waxes and wanes depending on whether you
have a heavy winter or light winter, the amount of runoff you have in springtime conditions. So
I think that what's being requested here is not unreasonable. It is a big request because it will
be a second home on the site, but at the same time I think that we can anticipate that there will
be removal of the original older structures on site and it will improve the situation in the
neighborhood.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I apologize. I was supposed to go first. Sorry, guys. So I'm not in favor
of the application as presented. I think there are alternatives that this Board could explore in
the future with the subdivision that's more formalized and could create a 10 acre lot and a
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
remainder lot with 300 something feet of road frontage each which isn't that much less than 400.
It's in keeping with the character of the neighborhood based on all the different size lots and
road frontages that are already there. So that's my take on it. John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. I'll also agree with Steve. I think there are alternatives that can be
achieved, other ways. There's no guarantee that if he builds a house that he would be tearing
the other one down and there seems to be a lot of structures on that property and there's no
doubt. I would not be in favor of the project the way it is presented.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in agreement that as presented I would not be in favor of it. I think there
are alternatives. I believe there's plenty of room there to support a second house, but I think
there are better ways or more formal ways to divide up the property so that it can handle the
residence per lot, and if the applicant doesn't want to do that, that's his prerogative but I would
not be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, I think it's an unusual request and it sort of doesn't keep with what our Zoning
Code is all about in terms of trying to make sure there's, you know, one principle residence in a
residential area. I'm familiar with the lot. There's a lot of mountain, you know, elevation and
stuff, but I think there's other ways to get what you want done without having the two structures
on this and ask for this variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I agree with most of our Board members. I'm in in favor of this either
because of the same reason, there are other alternatives. I think there's a better way to keep
with the continuity of the neighborhood, and I'm concerned with the variance that would run with
the land and what would happen in the future if we grant this variance as is.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I support the application. I think we have to respect the fact that the applicant
has so much land here. I think that we did allow a second residence on a single parcel up off of
Luzerne Road which isn't too far away. So it would not be out of the nature of what we've done
in the past, and I think if the applicant did have a house on the structure that he'd be more likely
to take more care of the land which is the concern of a couple of neighbors, or at least one
neighbor, and so I would support the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-So at this point.
MR. CARTE-Can I ask what you think the other, what other avenue could I do, short of
subdividing this land into 10 acre parcels? I mean, I don't want five houses or 10 houses or
whatever in there.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think you have the road frontage to do that. I do think, though, you
could create two parcels, one 10 acre parcel with 300 plus feet of frontage and the remainder
parcel with 300 plus feet of frontage.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Or remove the old structures on site, then you'd be good to go.
MR. CARTE-Well, I already committed to removing the old barn. There was no time frame on
it, but when I got the permission for clearing the land.
MR. JACKOSKI-The barn is not the issue. It's significant relief to have two principle dwellings
on the parcel.
MR. CARTE-Would you look favorably, and this is a hypothetical obviously, but being able to
sell the old house with less than 10 acres, 2 or 3 acres, which is about what I can do from
putting it on one end of a piece of a parcel, and then going to the west border or something like
this? Again, it's in the same situation, the 10 acres is worth too much in regards to the value of
the house. So it's not saleable.
MR. JACKOSKI-I struggle with your suggestion of that, and I'll give you an example. Take a lot
on, in the Town of Queensbury on Glen Lake or on Lake George. A replacement cabin is
$40,000 or $50,000 for the structure. The land's worth five or six hundred thousand. Those
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
individuals are getting mortgages on that property. So I'm not sure I understand your argument
that a house that isn't worth quite as much as the land is not able to be mortgaged. I don't
understand it. I got a mortgage on Lake George and I can assure you my house, the principle
structure is nowhere near worth what the land is, but I have a mortgage. So I'm not sure I
understand your argument.
MR. CARTE-Well, it may be different for the value on Lake George, but I talked to two realtors
and two banks at the time that I tried to do this, and that was what I was told by all of them, that
it is not feasible to do this with 10 acres of land. This is back, now maybe they've changed.
MR. HENKEL-People buy houses all the time that are like falling down, and not worth as much
as the property.
MR. JACKOSKI-We can't tell you what to do. We're not professionals with experience in
mortgage lending. So what I'm going to say to you is right now the Board is not in favor of the
application as presented. We really can't tell you how to come in front of us or what we're
going to approve. What we can suggest to you is you kind of heard some of the flavor of where
the Board is leaning. I would suggest you go back and re-think and possibly withdraw this
application and modify it, or table it, or ask us for a vote.
MR. CARTE-Okay. Really there is no choice for me. I have to knock down the old house. I
mean, I'm hesitant to do that because as I said it's a home for the young couple that want to
live there and are finally taking somewhat care. I mean, they're not making it into a garden by
any means, but they are taking care of it, but there's just no way that I could go to the trouble or
expense or anything else of subdividing off 10 acres of land.
MR. JACKOSKI-Just bear with me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Craig Brown has the authority
to do a simple two lot subdivision. Correct? But it would still require a variance.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-You've got your surveys already done. I don't know how much more
expensive it would be, but that's your prerogative. So I'm asking you at this moment what
would you like the Board to do.
MR. CARTE-Well, it doesn't really matter if I withdraw it or if you turn it down. It's the same
result for me.
MR. JACKOSKI-Or you could table it, because then you don't lose your place in the queue and
it's in the works and you move forward, but it's up to you.
MR. CARTE-No, I'll withdraw it.
MR. JACKOSKI-The applicant has requested a withdrawal of the application. The next item on
the agenda is a Daniel & Denise Abell, and Jacqueline White from Miller, Mannix, Schachner
and Hafner is the agent. It is 474 Upper Sherman Avenue. It is Area Variance No. Z-AV-34-
2017. A Type ll SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-34-2017 SEQRA TYPE II DANIEL AND DENISE ABELL
AGENT(S) JACQUELYN P. WHITE, MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER, LLC
ZONING MDR LOCATION 474 UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO REPLACE 1,360 SQ. FT. ROOF PORTION ON EXISTING HOME AND TO CHANGE
ROOFLINE PROFILE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
N/A LOT SIZE 0.52 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.8-1-5 SECTION 179-3-040
JACQUELYN WHITE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-34-2017, Daniel and Denise Abell, Meeting Date: May
24, 2017 "Project Location: 474 Upper Sherman Avenue Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to replace 1,360 sq. ft. roof portion on existing home and to change roofline
profile. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district.
Relief Required:
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements MDR zone
The applicant proposes a new roof section and to change roof profile to be 24.3 ft. setback
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 location of the existing house.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 5.7 ft. for the front setback
on Burnt Hill Dr.
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 to remove a portion of the existing roof and replace with a different roof
line. The proposed new roof line construction does not meet the required setback along Burnt
Hill Dr. The applicant has indicated the existing roof is separate portions and includes a portion
of roofing over an older roof section. The applicant has explained the existing roof configuration
has caused issues within the home."
MR. JACKOSKI-Very straightforward application. Welcome.
MS. WHITE-We believe so.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm hoping you're just going to let us ask questions, but it's up to you. If you
could identify yourselves for the record. Go ahead.
MS. WHITE-Jackie White with Miller, Mannix, Schachner and Hafner, and I'm here with Dan
Abell. Mrs. Abell's hiding in the back. So I won't bore you with a long spiel. We're just trying
to replace a roof. The house has been there since 1950.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any questions before I open the public hearing?
MR. HENKEL-I think it's a great project. It looks good.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this
application? So having no public comment and no written comment, I'll keep the public
comment period open, but I'm going to poll the Board and see where they are on the
application. I'm in favor. Roy?
MR. URRICO-This is an easy yes I'm in favor of it. She satisfies all the criteria.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem with the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-There's a lot of pluses. They're going to increase the permeability, the curb
appeal's going to look great for the road and the neighbors. So, yes, it's a great project. Go
for it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, I support this. It complies with what we're supposed to do in terms of the
Code.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm also in agreement.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 have no problems with this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. 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
Daniel & Denise Abell. Applicant proposes to replace 1,360 sq. ft. roof portion on existing
home and to change roofline profile. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for
the MDR zoning district.
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements MDR zone
The applicant proposes a new roof section and to change roof profile so to be 24.3 ft. setback
where a 30 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type 11 — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 24, 2017;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because the application will make improvements to the house and
therefore improve the neighborhood.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because essentially the house is remaining
where it's at.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district?
5. Is the alleged difficulty is not self-created. It was created years ago when that house
was built so close to the road, but quite a few of those houses were built like that back
then.
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;
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
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-34-2017, DANIEL & DENISE ABELL, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr.
Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-That wasn't bad, right?
MS. WHITE-Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right next item on this evening's agenda is the King Hendrick Motel, 1602
State Route 9, Area Variance No. Z-AV-33-2017. Mr. Bhatti is here with us. It is a Type II
SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-33-2017 SEQRA TYPE II RASHEED BHATTI (KING HENDRICK
MOTEL) OWNER(S) RASHEED BHATTI ZONING Cl LOCATION 1602 STATE
ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DECK ADDITIONS ONTO
EXISTING MOTEL. THE NORTH DECK IS TO BE 296 SQ. FT. AND SOUTH DECK TO BE
200 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY (TCO) DISTRICT IN THE Cl ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS
REF AST 169-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2017 LOT SIZE 3.95
ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-11.2 SECTION 179-4-030
RASHEED BHATTI, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Rasheed Bhatti (King Hendrick Motel), Meeting Date: May 24, 2017 "Project
Location: 1602 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of two deck additions onto existing motel. The north deck is to
be 296 sq. ft. and south deck to be 200 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum setback
requirements for the Travel Corridor Overlay (TCO) district in the Cl zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the Cl zone (Commercial
Intensive) and Travel Corridor Overlay district in the Cl zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone
Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay—Route 9
The applicant proposes construct a north deck is to be 296 sq. ft. is to be 54.5 ft. from the front
property line and south deck to be 200 sq. ft. and to be 54 ft. from the front property line. The
required setback is 75 ft.
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.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
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 location of the existing building.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 20.6/21 ft. respectively for
the travel corridor overlay.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct ground level decks to an existing motel building. The
project includes the 296 sq. ft. deck to be on the north side and will allow access for the lower
units to an outdoor space. On the south side will be a 200 sq. ft. deck and will also provide
access for the lower units to an outdoor space. The plans submitted show the location of the
decks on the building."
MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourself. Again, a simple application in front of us, but feel
free.
MR. BHATTI-My name is Rasheed Bhatti from King Hendrick, 1602 Route 9. Requesting for a
couple of decks. This building was built back in time, and I've been renovating it for the last five
years. I was thinking it was a good idea to do the two decks up north and south so the guests
can sit.
MR. JACKOSKI-Very simple. Any questions from Board members before I open the public
hearing? Seeing no questions, is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this
Board? Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's no written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment. I'll poll the Board. I'm in favor. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I'm also in favor of it. I think the nature of the hotel with the
outbuildings and it's been there for many years. It probably long pre-dates the Travel Corridor
Overlay, and I don' think there's going to be any anticipated negativity to flow on the road or
anything.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in agreement with our esteemed Chairperson.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm also in favor. I just want to see that your addition will be no closer to the
road than the building that exists.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I'm worried about the south deck there because it's the same side as the
shooting range. So is that going to be a hazard? I'm just kidding. There's a concrete wall
there. I support the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-I support the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also, with that being four lanes as it is now that road's never probably
going to be widened. So it's not going to come any closer. So it's not a problem. Go for it.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Rasheed Bhatti (Kind Hendrick Motel). Applicant proposes construction of two deck additions
onto existing motel. The north deck is to be 296 sq. ft. and south deck to be 200 sq. ft. Relief
requested from minimum setback requirements for the Travel Corridor Overlay (TCO) district in
the Cl zoning district.
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the Cl zone (Commercial
Intensive) and Travel Corridor Overlay district in the Cl zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone
Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay—Route 9
The applicant proposes construct a north deck is to be 296 sq. ft. is to be 54.5 ft. from the front
property line and south deck to be 200 sq. ft. and to be 54 ft. from the front property line. The
required setback is 75 ft.
SEQR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 24, 2017;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because this is a ground level deck. It just modernizes the facility
as he needs.
2. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the fact that it was built prior to the overlay
zoning and he's kept the decks no closer to the road than the other structures.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's not a large structure, just a
ground deck.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district?
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but again it's more in the vein of modernizing the
property to provide better support.
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-33-2017 RASHEED BHATTI (KING HENDRICK MOTEL), Introduced by Harrison Freer,
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
Duly adopted this 24th day of May 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr.
Jackoski
NOES: NONE
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck.
MR. BHATTI-Thank you, sir.
MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is 18 Hospitality LLC, Jonathan Lapper
is the agent for the applicant. It's Sign Variance No. Z-SV-5-2017, an Unlisted SEAR. There
is a public hearing scheduled for this evening.
SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-5-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED 18 HOSPITALITY LLC
AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) 18 HOSPITALITY LLC
ZONING CI-18 LOCATION 216 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
INSTALLATION OF A 2ND WALL SIGN TO BE 161.17 SQ. FT. WHICH WILL BE LOCATED
ON THE EAST FACADE FACING INTERSTATE 87. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN SIZE AND NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS.
CROSS REF SIGN 114-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2017 LOT SIZE 6.76
ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.13-1-73 SECTION CHAPTER 140
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-5-2017, 18 Hospitality LLC, Meeting Date: May 24,
2017 "Project Location: 216 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes installation of a 2nd wall sign to be 161.17 sq. ft. which will be located on the east
fagade facing Interstate 87. Relief requested from maximum allowable sign size and number of
allowable wall signs.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from maximum allowable sign size and number of allowable wall
signs.
Section 140 Siqnage—wall sign size and number
The applicant proposes to place a second sign on the east side of a hotel currently under
construction. The sign is to be 161.17 sq. ft. Relief is requested for placement of second sign
where only one is allowed and to exceed the 100 sq. ft. maximum size wall sign allowed. The
building setback where the sign is to be located is 100.2 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 the building
fagade faces the Northway where the sign is to be located.
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 limited due to the orientation of the building with one facing Corinth Rd
and the other building fagade facing the Northway.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
substantial relevant to the code. Relief is for 1 additional wall sign for a total of two walls
signs where only one is allowed. One wall sign may be 100 sq. ft. is setback is greater than
100 ft. and relief is requested for 61.17 in excess. A wall sign size may be increased if a
building setback is 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.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The additional sign may
have minimal impact on the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
The applicant proposes placement of a second wall sign on the east side of a hotel currently
under construction. The sign is to be 161.17 sq. ft. and the applicant has indicated the scale is
appropriate for the building size. In addition the applicant has indicated travelers on the south
bound side of the Northway would not be able to see the monument sign or the south facing
sign of the hotel. The plans show the location of the signage and the details of the sign."
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, please identify yourself for the record.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Jerry Nudi a member of the applicant. I think
that Laura summarized what we submitted pretty well. Jerry feels it's really important to have
visibility on the Northway side. If this was considered a typical corner lot, which it isn't because
the Northway is limited access, you would have anywhere else in the Town when you were on a
corner you would have the sign on each side and for that same reason Jerry feels that he needs
a sign on the Northway side.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Comments from Board members at this time?
MR. FREER-So question. We just approved a Sign Variance for Fastrac. Is that on the same
corner?
MR. LAPPER-No, that's a subdivision. That's by Stewart's. That's on Corinth Road. This
hotel is all the way in the back.
MR. HENKEL-It's right next to McDonalds.
MR. FREER-I just was curious.
MR. HENKEL-Is the sign in the front there, I mean, that's kind of almost like a, I understand the
one on the Northway. That's no problem, but the one that's in the upper left hand corner, I
mean, you're already going to be in that area. The only reason you're going down that road is
for that hotel.
MR. LAPPER-But the Hotel has to have a sign in front so you know it's them.
MR. HENKEL-I realize that. I'm just saying, you know, because you're going to be pointing,
there's going to be a sign by the road, going into the road.
MR. LAPPER-Well, if you're on the Northway coming north, you'll see the one on the front of the
building.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I guess so. You'd think that you'd want it on this corner, then. The east
corner, and then it would be more visible to the Northway.
MR. LAPPER-But it still wouldn't accomplish seeing it when you're heading south, and then
you'd have two signs next to each other. I mean it wouldn't accomplish the goal.
MR. HENKEL-Well it would accomplish more than this one here. Because this one here, you're
right going down the Northway, yes, but wouldn't you see this one better coming down the
Northway?
MR. LAPPER-The Hotel has to have a marquee.
MR. HENKEL-I understand. I'm just saying that huge sign there doesn't really make sense. It
would be better over here.
JERRY NUDI
MR. NUDI-Yes, that would be on the south side of the building. So left or right, either way it
would be filtered because of the trees from McDonalds and then right along the Northway ramp.
It's my hope to be able to get some of those trees removed, maybe replace them with some
other trees, but that's the south side. So still when you're coming south you have a short time
to glimpse, as you're coming south, to see the Hotel. Your eye is drawn there, but you don't
know what it is because you never get to see a sign.
MR. HENKEL-There's no doubt, you're right. That one on the east side definitely makes total
sense.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
MR. NUDI-This would, yes, this would accomplish that.
MR. HENKEL-But coming the south going north it would make more sense to have it over here.
MR. NUDI-Yes, we debated on that. We thought that it would be better visibility over there.
MR. HENKEL-Or even here above it.
MR. NUDI-I think structurally it didn't work there. So it's built now to accept the one on the left
side, you know, everything behind the walls is built to support a sign.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Any other questions?
MR. URRICO-How are you going to direct traffic to the Hotel? Once it comes off the Northway.
MR. LAPPER-There's a monument sign.
MR. NUDI-So there's a monument sign. It's not really visible from the Northway. You have to
kind of know it's there a little bit. And also we're going to, you can't buy these signs until you
have an open business, but the signs along the Northway, you know those things we're going to
try to get both of those.
MR. HENKEL-If they have reservations they're going to know.
MR. NUDI-If they have reservations, and also because of that location, my hope is that we get a
lot of drive by business, whether it happens at that moment or it happens because they drive by
over and over that location, location. The people that are traveling to Canada, they'll start
changing their route, like new Hotel. Stay in a nice place instead of some older not so nice
place.
MR. HENKEL-And then in the wintertime you've got to go quite a ways to find a decent sized
hotel if you're heading north.
MR. NUDI-Yes. You have to leave the Town of Queensbury.
MRS. HAYWARD-Just an observation. I drive up and down the Northway quite frequently, so I
was intrigued when I was looking a couple of days ago. I couldn't even see that whole area
until I was on the exit ramp.
MR. NUDI-Going south?
MRS. HAYWARD-Going south.
MR. NUDI-Yes. Well, you can see it when you're driving south, not exiting, but that may be
about the case.
MRS. HAYWARD-But I'm just saying I couldn't even see if I was in the right hand, you know, the
right most lane. I wouldn't be able to see it going past it.
MR. NUDI-Because there's trees behind the property, right.
MRS. HAYWARD-Yes.
MR. NUDI-Which we didn't remove.
MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, and they're deciduous trees for the most part. They're going to lose
their.
MR. NUDI-I think there's a lot of pine trees, too.
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm just saying it would be less filtered in the winter, fall.
MR. NUDI-Maybe. There's a lot of pine trees there.
MRS. HAYWARD-Yes. I just would be hard pressed to see it either way, to me.
MR. NUDI-I know. I'd like to work with them and try to find somebody at the State, but I wanted
to wait until the signs were up. We had a good idea, we thought after looking at the right side,
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
left side, they decided on the left side. There were varying opinions on it, and they went with
the left side, of the south side, which is the front of the Hotel, and then subsequently just
realized that coming south there's no real view.
MRS. HAYWARD-If you're driving by at 65 miles an hour.
MR. NUDI-But there's a lot more people that do that drive over and over and they know people
that are coming here. They have to refer them somewhere. Or the people coming from the
north. Montreal to New York, it's a great halfway. It's a lot of great locations. They talked to
people that are connected up there, and Exit 18, they're calling it Exit 18.
MRS. HAYWARD-1 think you get more visibility from the State signs on the highway than you
would.
MR. NUDI-I would have loved to have had a big pole sign there, you know, but that's not the
way we do it now.
MR. URRICO-Can I ask? If there comes a time when those trees get removed and there's a
better visibility that you would request another sign on the north side of the building?
MR. NUDI-On the north side?
MR. LAPPER-Facing the woods.
MR. URRICO-If the trees were taken down.
MR. NUDI-It's kind of cocked a little bit to the side. So the building isn't square with the ramp.
I don't think it's even square with the Northway. I'm trying to picture that.
MR. URRICO-I'm not saying now. I'm saying down the road.
MR. LAPPER-That's in the State right of way.
MR. NUDI-If you're saying yes, I don't think anybody's going to turn down a sign.
MR. URRICO-I'm not saying yes. Because of the highway act they're limited as to what they
can do. They have to stay on their property.
MR. NUDI-Yes, there are trees there. I'm not been thinking or hoping ever there's a sign on the
north side of the building.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Any chance of making the sign smaller?
MR. NUDI-It's residential on the other side also. So we looked at that. So I hired this
company, before I even started this, they've been holding my hand all the way through this,
Prestige Hospitality. They're in the business of running hotels. That's what they do, and they
managed the Hyatt at Exit 12. In fact, the Hyatt, the majority owner is the owner of the hotel,
the Bette and Cring people, and there, if you drive by you'll see. That sign is too small, just by
experience. It's a nice sign, but it's Hyatt and it's too small. You don't notice it. You can't
really read it, and that's, so we went through that and we picked the smallest sign that we
thought would work, you know, from that distance.
MR. HENKEL-But you've got more lettering on this sign than that sign has. So that would
make it work at this point, because this is going to be all lit.
MR. NUDI-This would be lit, yes. I think theirs is lit.
MR. LAPPER-It's also, not to be lost on the fagade, just in terms of being appropriately sized for
the size of the fagade.
MR. JACKOSKI-What are Board members thinking about consistent with what, and I remember
there was discussion about signage off of the highway and distracting the drivers and Concord
Pools, the whole mess that we had down there with the orientation of the signs and too many
signs, and a million other things. They had approval for it, but I think they ran it parallel or
perpendicular. I don't remember which one, and that surprised the Board, but nonetheless we
still had some wall signs and we had a pole sign. How are we all feeling about the discussion
being consistent with that about signage in the highway?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think when we think of like the Ramada, you know, which is, you
know, you can't see it at all from, as you travel north, and I think in anticipation of what's going
to happen here, this is a brand new state of the art place. In this day and age nobody does not
book well ahead of time when they want a motel room, and I think that the idea that you're
driving by and out of the flash of your eye you see the Holiday Inn. You don't really have time,
like you said, if you're going southbound to even hit the on ramp or the off ramp, you know, you
miss it and be gone down the road to Saratoga. So I think we shouldn't be premature in
granting extra signage if it's not necessary, and there's no proof in the pudding yet that you're
not going to get any business. I would think you're going to get business fully booked all the
time, you know, because of, just like you said, because we're halfway between New York and
Montreal, and I think that, you know, the excess signage is something that everybody can say,
they can make an argument for any time and say more is better, but I don't really agree at this
point in time that you need it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-So I'm not a sign gestapo. This makes sense in terms of it sounds like you've
done the homework and decided that this is the appropriate sign. So we've had this debate,
and, you know, people would like to make it smaller, but you're trying to get business and I think
the point that folks miss is that, yes, you're going to be full in the summertime, but we're not 365
yet and so the signage is important. So I would support the application.
MR. JACKOSKI-So at this point we're going to open the public hearing I guess. Seeing no one
in the audience.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. NUDI-Yes, but I would like, could I address James Underwood's comment?
MR. JACKOSKI-In two seconds.
MR. NUDI-Pretty briefly. So the point that it's not necessarily impulse buying. The idea is that
they even know there's a hotel there now, because there's so many people, even in this Town,
they don't read the paper. They don't even know. I have people that I socialize with all the
time and they're like, hey, the hotel's looking great. What brand did you say it was? And I
have to explain. It's, when you go shopping for clothes, you probably know where you're going
because you're familiar with the place. That's the whole idea is it's like that advertising by the
sign is so that you know it's there when you need it. So you don't have to go looking for it
because you remember it's there. You saw it when you went by ten times, that sort of thing.
It's not to sell you the room that night. It's just to make you aware that there's now a new hotel
in Queensbury and that maybe when you have a group of people coming they go there, you
have a baseball team or something and they need to stay somewhere. We've had a lot of
those calls, just because they see it going up. Anyway, that was my comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, is there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-There's no written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to keep in mind we have to do SEQR tonight as well. So I'll, at
this point, poll the Board. After last week's extensive discussion about signage and listening to
the Board members about trying to rein in excess signage, I'm hesitant, to be honest, to grant
this second sign. I understand its intent. I get it. Based on its size and it being second, I'm
not sure, I'm in agreement with John that quite frankly I would have loved to have seen a sign
over in the corner, the fagade of the building. So I can probably go either way on this one but
right now I'm leaning toward no. So, having said that, I'll start with Harrison.
MR. FREER-Yes, so I mean we just had Fastrac come in with three but we let them have two.
So I'm okay with two in this application. The size, it's not like you came in vacant. Fastrac
came in, it was 300% bigger than the Code. This is 50% more than the Code is, and even if
you were a little bit further away you'd get more size as I understand it, and so I support the
application.
MR. JACKOSKI-So two and size, yes. John?
MR. HENKEL-Like I said, I have no problem with the one facing the Northway on the east side.
I do have a little problem with the sizes. The one in the front there at that corner, I'd like to see
it a little bit smaller. Is there any way that that can be smaller or no? Is that something that's
in?
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
MR. NUDI-So it's here, the signs.
MR. HENKEL-The signs are here.
MR. NUDI-Yes, and the other thing about that is that is so much further away for the view that
we're looking at.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I realize that.
MR. NUDI-You're going to be south of the exit.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I know what you're saying.
MR. NUDI-It's not going to look big from there. It's going to be identify, my hope is that it's
going to be identifiable because of the green H. That's going to hopefully get people to realize
what it is.
MR. HENKEL-I also, talking about size of the building, size of the property that they should be
granted bigger signs. So I would be in support of this project even though I don't really care for
that. So I'd be support of this project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and yes. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm still going to be against it. I think if it was a simple version of the sign
with just an H on it like your H in Holiday sign, I would be in favor of it, but I think it's too busy,
it's too much, it's redundant at this point.
MR. JACKOSKI-So maybe yes on two but no on size.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No on size.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I think Jon Lapper knows my history on signs a little bit, but I think we've
been somewhat lenient with some of the hotels in this area when it comes to roadside highway
signs. You go back to Six Flags, the Ramada. There's another hotel we granted further up the
road past the Outlets. I think it's a Comfort Inn, and I think it's reasonable. Ii think it's
reasonable to have some identification along the highway as long as it's not ostentatious and it
provides travelers with some guidelines of where it's located because GPS is great. You can
book ahead of time, you're going to know where it is, but you still have to locate it sometimes
from the highway. I mean, GPS is not perfect all the time. Ask the people that end up on
railroad tracks, and sometimes I think having that extra sign is a good thing. I would like to see
it made smaller if possible. Could you just go with the H or a smaller lettering, that would really,
I would be more in favor of it then, but I'm still in favor of it as it is now.
MR. JACKOSKI-So definitely yes on two, possibly no on size.
MR. URRICO-No, I said yes on both.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-Well, I'm going to say no on the other sign. As you can probably imagine
from my comments before, I'm also concerned in that whole corridor especially on the east side
of the highway the number of lights. It's lit up so brightly now with all the street lights and then
all the stores. I just think it's all too much for the whole community. So that's why I'm not in
favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, Mike, before I ask for your vote, which is usually a position I'm in, right now
we have four yes votes for a second sign. We don't have four yes votes for the size of the
sign.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. I believe that the second sign is reasonable because basically it is kind
of on two streets, and to be consistent I favor the little bit bigger sign because then you're not
stretching to identify what you're looking at. You can see it a little bit more directly. So I
support both the size of the sign and the second sign.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So that'll work. I'm going to close the public hearing and
seek a SEQR motion please.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-5-2017 FOR 18 HOSPITALITY, LLC 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 John Henkel:
Duly adopted 24th day May 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Underwood
MR. JACKOSKI-Now I need a motion for approval.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
18 Hospitality, LLC for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of
Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of a 2nd wall sign to be 161.17 sq. ft. which will be
located on the east fagade facing Interstate 87. Relief requested from maximum allowable sign
size and number of allowable wall signs.
The applicant requests relief from maximum allowable sign size and number of allowable wall
signs.
Section 140 Siqnage—wall sign size and number
The applicant proposes to place a second sign on the east side of a hotel currently under
construction. The sign is to be 161.17 sq. ft. Relief is requested for placement of second sign
where only one is allowed and to exceed the 30 sq. ft. maximum size wall sign allowed. The
building setback where the sign is to be located is 100.2 ft.
SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR]
Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV-5-2017 for 18 Hospitality, LLC 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 John Henkel:
Duly adopted 24th day May 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Underwood
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 24, 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 will not be an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood
nor will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign
variance.
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 found that the benefit sought by the
applicant cannot be achieved by some other manner.
3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? The requested Sign Variance is moderate but
not substantial.
4. The proposed sign variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/24/17)
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-5-2017 FOR 18 HOSPITALITY, LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. 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;
B. 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;
C. 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'
D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt
of these final plans;
E. 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 24th day of May 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. FREER-I guess one of my concerns with what we saw people coming in and asking for
three and we had to go back to two. I'd rather see people come in with the minimum instead of
using the system. That's one of my.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other discussion? Motion to adjourn?
MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion that we adjourn the meeting of May 24th, 2017.
MR. JACKOSKI-Seconded by John. Thank you, John.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
MAY 24, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Henkel:
Duly adopted this 24th day of May, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr.
Jackoski
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
29
(Queensbury ZBAMeeting 05/24/17)
Steven Jaokoski. Chairman
30