07-26-2017 Z[3
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 26, 2017
INDEX
Sign Variance Z-SV-7-2017 Chris Carte (Cont'd Pg. 12) 1.
Tax Map No. 296.9-1-5
Area Variance Z-AV-46-2017 Robert Bolen, IV 1.
Tax Map No. 266.1-2-22
Notice of Appeal Z-NOA-2-2017 Frank & Isobel Munoff 5.
Tax Map No. 240.5-1-32
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
I
Z[3
JULY 26, 2017
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
RONALD KUHL
JOHN HENKEL
JAMES UNDERWOOD
MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everybody. I'd like to bring the meeting to order of the Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals for this evening, July 26th. For those of you who haven't been here in
the past there is an agenda on the back table. There's also a sheet that kind of explains what
we do but I'll give you a rundown. So first we handle housekeeping. Then we handle tonight's
matters. We only have New Business. We have an Appeal case in front of us at the end of
the meeting. So we'll call the applicants or the appellants up to the table. We'll have Roy read
the application or the letters into the record. The Board will ask questions if necessary. We
will open a public hearing when a public hearing is scheduled, and every one of these items on
the agenda this evening has a public hearing scheduled. We'll poll the Board and decide
where we're leaning, and then ask the applicant what they want us to do accordingly. So it's
actually a pretty straightforward process. So we don't have any housekeeping this evening,
which is just great. So we'll start right off with Chris Carte, 1067 State Route 9, Sign Variance
Number SV-7-2017.
NEW BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-7-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED CHRIS CARTE ZONING CI
LOCATION 1067 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE EXISTING
FREESTANDING SIGN STRUCTURE FOR THE WOOD CARTE TOO AT 27 SQ. FT.
EXISTING SIGN DOES NOT MEET 15 FT. SETBACK REQUIREMENT. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR SUCH SIGN. CROSS REF
P-SP-25-2017; Z-AV-24-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2017 LOT SIZE TAX
MAP NO. 296.9-1-5 SECTION CHAPTER 140
MRS. MOORE-He's not here.
MR. JACKOSKI-He's not here.
MRS. MOORE-1 apologize.
MR. JACKOSKI-Really? All right. We'll hold off on Chris. We'll go to the Bolens. How about
that? Robert Bolen and his wife at 224 Pickle Hill Road. Area Variance Number Z-AV-46-
2017, a Type 11 SEAR. There's a public hearing scheduled for this evening.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-46-2017 SEQRA TYPE II ROBERT BOLEN, IV OWNER(S)
ROBERT BOLEN, IV ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 224 PICKLE HILL ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2-STORY 900 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL
ADDITION ONTO EXISTING 1,008 SQ. FT. HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RR-5A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.92 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 266.1-2-22
SECTION 179-3-040
ROBERT & CARLY BOLEN, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
STAFFINPUT
Z[3
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-46-2017, Robert Bolen, IV, Meeting Date: July 26, 2017
"Project Location: 224 Pickle Hill Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 2-story 900 sq. ft. residential addition onto existing 1,008 sq. ft.
home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the RR-5A zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the Rural Residential (RR-
5A) zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements RR-5A zone
The proposed addition is to be located 64.5 ft. from the south property line and 97.8 ft. from the
north property line where 100 ft. is required. The setback on the east property line is to be 61.8
ft. where the setback requirement 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. The
addition is an existing open area used as a portion of the driveway.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives
may be considered limited due to the size of the lot in the RR-5A zone where new
construction may be subject to a variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief is for 35.5 ft. on the south, 2.2 ft. on the north and
13.2 ft. on the east.
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 a 900 sq. ft. addition to the east side of the home. The survey shows
the addition over the exiting driveway area. The floor plans show garage and at the lower level
and main level interior arrangement. The elevations are included showing all sides of the
addition."
MR. URRICO-That's it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. BOLEN-Good evening. My name is Robert Bolen.
MRS. BOLEN-And I'm Carly Bolen.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I think quite frankly we'll just have Board members ask questions, if that's
okay with you.
MR. BOLEN-Absolutely.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any Board member questions at this time on this application?
MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. It says you don't know where the septic tank is. Right?
But with this expansion, is there a need for more?
13
Z[3
MR. BOLEN-When we bought the house we took out a bedroom to add a dining room. It's a
small house. So what we're doing is adding that bedroom back. So according to what we've
been told now it's turning back into a three bedroom. It should be adequate. I think down the
road it's probably something that we're going to replace and upgrade anyway because I don't
know who did it.
MR. HENKEL-What's the year of the original?
MR. BOLEN-78. It hasn't bothered us, two people.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? We do have a public
hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the
audience who'd like to address the Board on this particular application? I do have someone.
So if you could give up the table for just a second.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAUL DAVIDSON
Good evening. I'm Paul Davidson. I'm the property owner to the east of the Bolens, and I'd
like to support their application for the variance. It's nice to see them investing money in the
property there, and they're in a situation where the lot was small when the house was put on it
and there's really no answer except to give them a little bit of a break on the setbacks. So thank
you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir, I appreciate your time. Is there anyone else here who'd like to
address the Board? Okay. If the Bolens could come back to the table. Is there any written
comment, Roy?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment and no additional public comment, I'm going to poll
the Board just to see where they're leaning on this. I'll start with Jim Underwood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think that the action required on this one here is a result of the five
acre zoning, and obviously when you're on a .92 acre lot there's no way you're ever going to
meet a request, and I think the five acre zoning came in long after this lot was created. So I
don't think it's a self-created problem that you've got here, and I don't think you're having any
impact on anybody, including yourself or your near neighbor who's already signed off that he
doesn't think it's a big deal either. So good luck with it.
MR. BOLEN-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it meets the minimum requirements and again, as Jim said, with the five
acre. So I'd be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I think it's a great plan and a lot of thought apparently went into this in how
you used the square footage. You're only going to 1900 square feet. So I support it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I believe it satisfies the test. I'd be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I think it'll improve the looks of the dwelling and I'll support the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, he's only encroaching like 1.9 feet on the existing home of relief. So it's a
good request. No problem.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval.
r41
Z[3
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Robert Bolen, IV.
Applicant proposes construction of a 2-story 900 sq. ft. residential addition onto existing 1,008
sq. ft. home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the RR-5A zoning
district.
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the Rural Residential (RR-
5A) zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements RR-5A zone
The proposed addition is to be located 64.5 ft. from the south property line and 97.8 from the
north property line where a 100 ft. and is required. The setback on the east property line is to
be 61.8 ft. where the setback requirement is 75 ft.
SEQR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 26, 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 applicant will improve the looks of the property.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not possible at this particular time.
3. The requested variance, although it seems substantial, really isn't considering the size of
the lot.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty, although it seems self-created, really was not. It was created
when the house was built before the current zoning regulations.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-
AV-46-2017 ROBERT BOLEN, IV, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 26th day of July 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr.
Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you.
MR. BOLEN-Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, so the Carte application didn't show up?
MRS. MOORE-You're going to hold off? Yes, I left him a message and I texted him. So I'm
hoping, and I tried to call the building and they're closed.
5
Z[3
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We'll go on to Old Business, then. Possibly the last item for this
evening's agenda. It is the Appeal of Frank & Isobel Munoff on the Hal & Lyn Halliday property
at 2599 State Route 9L. It is Notice of Appeal Number Z-NOA-2-2017. This is a carryover
from last Wednesday's meeting on July 19th. If the Munoff's could come to the table for us we'd
appreciate that.
OLD BUSINESS:
NOTICE OF APPEAL Z-NOA-2-2017 SEQRA TYPE N/A FRANK & ISOBEL MUNOFF,
APPELLANT OWNER(S) HAROLD AND LYN HALLIDAY, PROPERTY OWNER ZONING
WR LOCATION 2599 STATE ROUTE 9L, PROPERTY OWNER: HAROLD & LYN
HALLIDAY APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ISSUANCE OF
THE BUILDING PERMIT (OUR FILE NUMBER: AST 148-2017 HAROLD HALLIDAY ISSUED
ON APRIL 13, 2017) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,600 SQ. FT. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
BUILDING. CROSS REF NOA 1-2017 MUNOFF RE: HALLIDAY PARCEL: SUP 1-2017;
SP 2-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.66 ACRE(S) TAX MAP
NO. 240.5-1-32 SECTION N/A
FRANK MUNOFF, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-And I believe the way we left this was we were going to determine the status of
the building permit as it relates to its signature with counsel, and I have an update for the Board
at this time. Unfortunately, in order to seek legal counsel, special legal counsel, on this matter
because of the potential conflict of interest that the Town legal counsel had when they recused
themselves„ and the applicant, sorry, the property owner's legal counsel being that conflict, we
need a special resolution from our Board to request the Town Board to hire a new law firm in
order to get legal counsel. So unfortunately we had to convene in order to do that kind of a
motion to request special legal counsel to get an opinion on the matter at hand. Since that
time, I should also notify the Board, that the Halliday family, I believe that's correct, Mr. Halliday
went in and actually signed the building permit application. So at this point I think the signed
application part is a non-issue. I mean, I can't imagine any court at this point would tell us that
we have to accept the Appeal based on that when the property owner has actually filed it. So it
would bring us back to the original merits of the original Appeal as to whether or not
procedurally and administratively our Staff did something inappropriate or not in keeping with
the process and procedure that would warrant the granting of the Appeal. So having said all
that, Mr. Munoff, I think I've gotten across to everybody what's going on. Ron, you weren't
here, but Michelle was. So that's good. I think what I'd like to do at this time, unless Mr.
Munoff would like to add anything at this time, and you can certainly feel free to.
MR. MUNOFF-Yes. I would like to know, One, when Mr. Halliday came here and printed his
signature. Two, was it done over the phone? Listen, my intelligence is insulted with the help
that Mr. Halliday has had from members of the Queensbury government here.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Munoff, I'm going to stop you right now. If you're insinuating that I or
anyone on this Board has.
MR. MUNOFF-No, not at all.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well you said the government.
MR. MUNOFF-Excuse me. This application, I think I deserve the right to know how this got
signed, other than Mr. Halliday was in Town.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I will find that out for you.
MR. MUNOFF-I think that's an ethical question.
MR. JACKOSKI-I have no problem doing that. I will find that out for you.
MR. MUNOFF-Thank you. Thank you. It didn't surprise me that it was going to be signed, that
I was going to come here, and I know I'm fighting City Hall, and if you did consult a lawyer, I
would really appreciate if someone on this Board would consult a lawyer about the Codes that
are not being followed and haven't been followed from the beginning. I know it's an old, old
thing and I keep raising it up and raising it up, but to me the truth really does mean something,
ladies and gentlemen. The truth means something. Why do you start an application with a
lie? Why do you start? Just tell me. I don't care if you've got 10 people living there. Put the
number of bathrooms you have and the number of residents you have in your building, write it
down and be honest and fair. That's all I'm saying, and as of right now Mr. Halliday, sometimes
Z[3
it says single family, sometimes it says two family. Sometimes it says 1.62 acres. Sometimes
it says 1.66 acres. It's a joke the way this thing has all been gone through without Mr.
Halliday's help. He has lawyers. He has architects. I have no one, and I'm going to tell you
something, it has not been a fair process on both sides. That's all I have to say. There's not
much I can say.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At this time I'm going to turn to Mr. Brown and try to get an answer to
the questions that you posed to the Board, questions regarding Mr. Brown or Staff because
certainly Staff is more involved in the day to day running's of the front window than Mr. Brown.
Can someone there help me understand how the application got signed?
MR. BROWN-Yes. Actually, as fate would have it, I happened to be at the Building Code
window when Mr. Halliday came in on Monday, I think, the 24tH
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Halliday actually showed up here in the Town of Queensbury building and
actually was at the window and you actually watched him sign the application?
MR. BROWN-That's correct.
MR. MUNOFF-He couldn't have watched it being signed because it wasn't signed.
MR. BROWN-Monday of this week he came in and signed the application.
MR. MUNOFF-I don't think that's what you're asking. That isn't what I was asking.
MR. JACKOSKI-What are you asking?
MR. MUNOFF-I was asking about the original application that was not signed.
MR. JACKOSKI-I can't tell you about that, Mr. Munoff. I don't think at this point anybody even
has a recollection of when, who dropped it off.
MR. MUNOFF-I think it was done over the phone with help. I think I have a right to ask that
question.
MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately I don't think it has anything to do with the ruling that this Board
has got to make. Whether the application was done over the phone, what part are you saying
was done over the phone?
MR. MUNOFF-My question was, did Mr. Halliday come and fill that out, or did Mr. Halliday have
help with this application. I don't think that's an unfair question. I really don't.
MS. HEMINGWAY-Do you want me to answer it? I'm Staff in Building and Codes and Zoning.
I personally received Mr. Halliday's application on April 7, 2017. We were talking and I was
putting information into the computer. I saw his name printed on the bottom. I neglected, by
mistake, to get the actual signature. It's just a clerical error. I own the error. I did it, but I
took his application in and it went through processing as usual, and I received his fee for his
application and it continued on its review as I normally conduct business day to day.
MR. MUNOFF-I appreciate your answer. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Sue, do you believe that Mr. Halliday's intent was to actually formally file for a
building permit?
MS. HEMINGWAY-Absolutely.
MR. JACKOSKI-And he did pay his fee?
MS. HEMINGWAY-Correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-And he did go upstairs and then you got a receipt from upstairs that he paid?
MS. HEMINGWAY-That's correct. Our computers are connected. We know right away
immediately when payment is made. The Clerk's Office computer is connected to our software
program and it comes up paid in full.
MR. MUNOFF-I believe you. And thank you.
.7
Z[3
MS. H E M I N GWAY-An d I've worked for the Town for 31 years.
MR. MUNOFF-No, I believe you, but I deserve an answer and I got it and I appreciate it.
MS. HEMINGWAY-And he signed it on July 24th, 2017 on Monday, with an actual signature.
His handwritten print is April 7th, 2017.
MR. MUNOFF-May I say one more thing? So that gets me back to the point that I do not think
this accessory building is legal. I was not appealing the Special Use Permit. An accessory
building has to meet certain criteria, and I've gone everywhere from the Attorney General to
Adirondack, APA and they all say the same thing, yes, those are the Codes, yes, they must be
met. We can't make Queensbury enforce them. You all know the rules for an accessory
building. You all know the rules. Just think about this. You have a 1.66, .62, whatever it is,
you have a three family house and hopefully tonight maybe Mr. Halliday will admit I have a three
family house, and I have nothing against, Mr. Halliday's tenants are great tenants. The
Hallidays are fine, but I want the truth to be known. You have 1.62 acres. You have a three
family house, and you're going to build a 3600 square foot building on it. There's no, that's
never been done in Queensbury. Never been done. I know people that are trying to get
accessory buildings and what they have to go through. So all I'm saying, there's been a
channel here. There's been help here. It's really going to set a precedent, and I expect the
building will get up eventually with the help that Mr. Halliday has, but I'm going to make it known
how it got up. That I will tell you. That's all I can say.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, Mr. Munoff, may I ask, I think you alluded to the fact that you've spoken
with the APA and the AG.
MR. MUNOFF-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-And each of those offices opined that the Town of Queensbury is not enforcing
their Code?
MR. MUNOFF-About each unit representing, yes, yes, about the number of units in a house
being each unit, it's in your Codes. I read it here the last time, and as far as misrepresentation
on the application, I mean if you read the Queensbury Code it says that, and it's all falling on
deaf ears, any of the Codes that I bring up. The building can't be bigger than the primary use.
The primary use is a residence. You can't build, under your Codes, you can't build a 3600
square foot building bigger than the residence. You've got to have five acres, I believe it's five
acres, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Brown will correct me. It's got to be five acres before you
can have a building over 1100 square feet. I mean, you can go on and on with your Codes.
MR. JACKOSKI-The Code isn't the law. The Code is a generic guideline for easy submission
of an application to be approved rapidly. Where if there is an opportunity for the building to be
larger or smaller or whatever the deal is against the Code, then Mr. Brown issues his letter of
denial and it comes in front of this Board and this Board has the power to grant that relief.
MR. MUNOFF-And I understand that, but under your Codes he would need a variance to build a
building that big. I wouldn't have any problems if he went for a variance, but at the same time,
with a building of this size it has to meet the criteria of your Codes, and the fact that it was done
back in April, and with the meetings I had with Mr. Brown, this is what concerns me. It was a
sneak attack. I asked him what was the next move, and he said the next move was we were
going to wait to see what Mr. Halliday does after the decision with the Lake George Park
Commission. Well after the decision of the Lake George Park Commission it was within two
days. I know there's rebar there. I know the footings are all done, and Mr. Brown said let me
go look in my records, and he came out of his office and he told my wife and I, and I apologize
for her not being here. She's on vacation. He came out and he said, no, his application was
not contingent upon the Lake George Park Commission approval. It was not. So that
concerned me. Last meeting, last week Mr. Brown said just the opposite. So now I'm very
confused.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Brown, from what I recall, communicated to us that it was not contingent.
MR. MUNOFF-No, not at the last meeting. I can even check your notes. I think he said it was
contingent.
MR. JACKOSKI-Does anybody here remember if it was contingent? Because I left here
believing that it was not contingent and that they could go ahead at their own risk and expense
and do whatever they want to do.
8
Z[3
MR. MUNOFF-Then why was it stopped?
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't believe it was stopped. I believe Mr. Halliday volunteered to stop it.
Number Two, I do believe you said that the Park Commission decided. They had a decision
and within two days of the decision. It was not a decision.
MR. MUNOFF-Right.
MR. JACKOSKI-It was a Notice of Intent to possibly deny and that gives, that opens up a whole
process for the property owner. So there was not a decision.
MR. MUNOFF-And the reason he did that is because he already had the April application.
Listen, in his back pocket, which I knew nothing about, and I feel that was very unfair advantage
to me. Sitting down, talking to Mr. Brown, Mr. Brown and Mr. Halliday knowing we've got this
April accessory building and I have to go spend six hours going through the files to find it. I just
think that's a very unfair advantage and I think if you're going to be a public servant and you're
going to serve the people, I think you should be equitable on both sides. That's all I have to
say.
MR. JACKOSKI-So Mr. Munoff has said that's all he has to say. Mr. Brown, could I confirm with
you, please, that an accessory structure cannot be larger, I think those were the words of Mr.
Munoff, than the primary structure?
MR. BROWN-That's correct, but that's not what we're talking about with this particular
application.
MR. JACKOSKI-I know what we're talking about the building permit being issued. It starts in
that field.
MR. BROWN-Well, I guess we're, and we've been over this. I'm a little frustrated because
we've been through it about a dozen times, but the approval that was issued, none of which is
on appeal tonight, so I'm hesitant to go into much detail because it's not a topic for this Board to
talk about tonight, but.
MR. JACKOSKI-Let's ask the Board. So the point is that the Appeal in front of us is the
issuance of a building permit itself based on the Planning Board's approvals, and whether Mr.
Brown should have authorized and released whatever it is he does in the process to have the
building permit issued.
MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to clarify that it's not the issuance of the building permit. It's Mr.
Brown's portion of that that we're passing judgment on.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right because you cannot appeal Dave Hatin's actions.
MR. MC CABE-That's right. All we can do is say whether Mr. Brown did what he was supposed
to do, which he doesn't, as I understood it, he doesn't issue the building permit. He just is a
check mark in the process, and so that's all we're doing is we're verifying that Mr. Brown was
indeed to authorized to check mark that particular portion or his portion of the process of issuing
a building permit.
MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. I mean, that's the intent of what the Appellant is trying to accomplish.
So at this time I'm going to poll the Board. Knowing that we have a signed application in front
of us. I'll start with you, Mike.
MR. MC CABE-So I'll start, and so there's been a lot of rhetoric here, and mostly it's been
chasing a tail, but, you know, the fact of the matter is that the whole thing here was set up by
the Planning Board by issuing a Special Use Permit and under that permit Mr. Brown or the
Zoning Administrator looked at the permit, looked at the application to put the building and it met
that criteria. So therefore I support the Zoning Administrator's decision.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the primary issue here, and I think where Mr. Munoff is coming
from is the issuance of the Special Use Permit and my understanding of the Special Use Permit
is that when one is granted there's no notification of the nearest neighbors affected by a Special
Use Permit.
9
Z[3
MR. JACKOSKI-That's not true.
MR. BROWN-No, that's not true.
MR. JACKOSKI-There's a public hearing.
MR. BROWN-Yes, there's a public hearing for the issuance of a Special Use Permit, and not to
interrupt the poll of the Board but there's a public hearing for the Special Use Permit application,
but there's no public notification ever for any building permit. So there's no notice for the
building permit part of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-But there is, and I know we're polling the Board and I apologize, but there is,
you can come into the Town on a regular basis and get the listing of what building permits have
been issued.
MR. BROWN-Absolutely.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think that the issue at hand here is whether Craig has done something
wrong, and I think Craig has followed regular procedures, as Mike pointed out. At the same
time, though, I think that what needs to be clarified here is that, you know, we get into these
situations I think because it almost appears like sleight of hand because you know building
permits get issued without anybody knowing it in the near neighborhood, and I think that in the
past we've dealt with several other issues that have come up, and I think that because people
are not notified of major actions, you know, whether it's multiple buildings going up or anything
like that, I think that it would make more sense that people, if we see something on the radar
screen that appears that's going to be sticking in somebody's craw, I think under normal
circumstances I think building permits are issued and I don't think there's any issues, but
occasionally we run into situations where it happens, and in this case here I think with this
Special Use Permit we got into a situation because of the marina use which was overturned by
both the Park Agency and the Park Commission, and at the same time I think that
MR. JACKOSKI-It wasn't overturned. They've only issued a notice of intent to possibly deny.
They haven't overturned, they haven't done that yet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No I'm just saying on the other site.
MR. JACKOSKI-We need to focus on this application in front of us not the whole process and
procedure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. At this point in time I don't feel that Craig is responsible, or has
been irresponsible in his duties, and I think that because we're still pending the outcome of what
this whole thing is going to be when the Lake George Park Commission meets on the 21St I think
that we'll have a better idea whether it's going to come back to this Board at that point. So at
this point I would support Craig.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-Based on the testimony I've heard, I believe Mr. Brown used his due
diligence in following through on the process based on the Planning Board decision.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I also agree with that. Mr. Brown did nothing wrong. I understand Mr. Munoff's
problem but Mr. Brown did nothing wrong?
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-1 don't think this has a simple answer. I support Craig. I think his role in the
process was correctly handled, but I also think that in lieu of actual advice from legal counsel
here, I'm not sure if the Appeal refers to Craig or the actual building permit. Now I think that
seems to be what the issue is and where is the actual issuance? Is it when the applicant signs
for it, pays for it? At what point is it issued? When it gets agreed upon, you know, to give the
person a building permit? I think there's enough gray area there to warrant having legal counsel
weigh in on this and in lieu of that I'm going to rule in favor of the Appellant.
10
Z[3
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I feel that the procedures were followed, and based on the procedures that I support
the Zoning Administrator in his decision.
MR. JACKOSKI-So at this point, after polling the Board, and I still know that the public hearing
is open, I'm going to ask if there's anybody in the audience who'd like to address this Board at
this time, and before I do that, Roy, is there any written comment on this?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So there is no written comment.
MR. MUNOFF-May I politely say something in regards to this? I am not appealing Mr. Brown's
letter. I think you're missing the point. I'm appealing the accessory building being, I'm not
appealing Mr. Brown's actions. I know that Mr. Hatin does the building permits. I'm appealing
this application for an accessory structure building that does not meet the Code and the criteria
for the Town of Queensbury. The Special Use Permit, yes, that was a marina. Now he
doesn't want a marina. He wants a storage area, and I'm appealing an accessory building
3600 square feet does not meet the Town Code. That's what I'm appealing. I'm not appealing
Mr. Brown. I'm not appealing what he did. He has to do it because it was signed, and I'm sort
of embarrassed that you think I'm just appealing Mr. Brown. I'm appealing the application for
an accessory building on 1.62 acres of land. You can't do it in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. JACKOSKI-That is an appeal that was heard by this Board in June. Is that correct?
MR. BROWN-May I think.
MR. JACKOSKI-It was in May, and the Board on that appeal denied the appeal and supported
the actions of Craig Brown. Correct?
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. MUNOFF-Special Use Permit. I'm not arguing with that. There's no Special Use Permit
on this application.
MR. JACKOSKI-I cannot change whether you have standing or not.
MR. MUNOFF-No, I understand that.
MR. JACKOSKI-I cannot change the timelines. In fact, I believe while you continue to suggest
that people in the Town of Queensbury have helped Mr. Halliday, I honestly believe that this
particular Appeal that is sitting in front of us was written in the way that it was presented Staff
actually helped get you in front of us, to be quite honest. So I know you say that there's a lot of
help going on and one sided, but quite honestly I'm looking at this thing thinking I can see what
you're intent was and I think Staff understood what your intent was and they helped get it in
front of us.
MR. MUNOFF-A Special Use Permit doesn't exist anymore. You do not have that with this
building. And now he doesn't want a marina anymore.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Munoff do you understand I can't allow this Board to rule on anything that's
not in front of me. What's in front of me is your letter and your Appeal with your wife regarding
the issuance of the building permit.
MR. MUNOFF-And the Town Codes don't have to be followed.
MR. JACKOSKI-I didn't say that.
MR. MUNOFF-Okay. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I did leave the public hearing open. I don't know if anybody in the public
would like to speak. I would like to go to a vote, but it's up to the property owner if you'd like to
speak or not.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Property owner.
I"'I
Z[3
MR. JACKOSKI-Sure, please come forward.
JIM SCHOONOVER
MR. SCHOONOVER-Jim Schoonover. I own the property directly across from Hal. I also own
the land between Frank and Hal. So Frank cannot even see the building.
MR. JACKOSKI-I did look, Mr. Schoonover. I think, especially in the wintertime, you will be able
to see it. I really do think you can.
MR. SCHOONOVER-You can hardly see his lights at night.
MR. JACKOSKI-I appreciate that. I understand what you're saying and I know where the
Munoff home is located and I know where the Hallidays have cleared the property and I drive by
it every single day. So I don't know that it's necessarily accurate that they won't be able to see
it at all. I do think that they're going to be able to see it. I agree it's not.
MR. SCHOONOVER-In the wintertime they may be able to see a building there.
MR. JACKOSKI-It's not going to be the North Queensbury Firehouse sitting right out on the
road. I get that. I understand.
MR. SCHOONOVER-Okay. Just so you know. I do own the land between Frank and Hal. So
he does not own the property next door to him. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I appreciate it. Is there anyone else who'd like to address the
Board?
JIM LETTIS
MR. LETTIS-My name's Jim Lettis. I live at 2586 Ridge, directly across from Castaway Marina
storage building, their proposed building, which I have no problem with. Two doors down on
the same side are the Hallidays. Now I have a great view of both their front yard and backyard,
and I don't have any problem with their proposed building. I don't see why anybody else would.
You probably won't even be able to see it. That's all. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-I appreciate it. Thank you. I do have someone else.
NICHOLE GILLIS
MRS. GILLIS-So, Nichole Gillis, 2428 Ridge Road. I did have just a couple of questions, if I
may, regarding the Appeal. I understand that Mr. Halliday has now signed the building permit.
I had a question last time, last week, that there were some areas left blank or as well as the
Appeal was for misrepresentation as well that there was misinformation. Has that been now
corrected? Or the blanks, have they been filled in from the setbacks?
MR. JACKOSKI-So again, fortunately for you, if you look at the full application, you will see the
survey is part of it, but the Planning Board approved, and all of that detail is on that document.
So administratively if something didn't get filled in in a column here, it is part of the package.
MRS. GILLIS-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-So it is there. I mean, I think you can see it. So I don't think there's any
misrepresentation, but I can't tell you if there was misrepresentation or not because I'm not a
surveyor or an attorney, but the intent of the application is consistent with what we've seen
coming before us in the past, and I've only been on this Board for five or six years and I know
some folks here have been on for, can I say decades?
MRS. GILLIS-Okay, so I just wanted to circle back around and ask that. And then the other
question I did have is that obviously we're awaiting this decision from the Lake George Park
Commission in August. Would you be able to tell me then what would happen with this
accessory building permit if Mr. Halliday was unsuccessful in that decision from the Lake
George Park Commission?
MR. JACKOSKI-I can't tell you what they would do.
MRS. GILLIS-No, I mean the Board. What would be made of this accessory building permit,
because it was spoke of that he would then need a variance. This accessory building permit
Z[3
that he has done in April, would that then also again still be valid if the decision is declined by
the Lake George Park Commission?
MR. JACKOSKI-If the Zoning Administrator makes a determination that there is a change of use
as it relates to the structure and the property, then he would act accordingly and then if it was
appropriate it would come in front of this Board.
MRS. GILLIS-Okay. I guess that's my question is what would be acting accordingly? Would
Mr. Halliday need to fill out a new application for the building?
MR. JACKOSKI-Staff would guide them on that. Yes.
MRS. GILLIS-Okay, and then it would be a variance process from there.
MR. JACKOSKI-I can't tell you for sure because I don't know what he's going to use the building
for and I don't know yet until we see what the intent of the applicant is.
MRS. GILLIS-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Though I'm pretty confident that I can tell you that if he doesn't get the
approvals from all the appropriate authorities and he ends up using the building in a way that is
not in keeping with the zone or the intended use that enforcement will move forward
accordingly. Is that fair to say, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Absolutely.
MRS. GILLIS-Thank you. Thanks for your time.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Seeing no one else, I am going to close the public hearing and I
am going to seek a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION TO: Disapprove Appeal Z-NOA-2-2017, Frank and Isobel Munoff
regarding property owned by Harold and Lyn Halliday at 2599 State Route 9L, Tax Map
No. 240.5-1-32;
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Frank and Isobel Munoff. Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to the
issuance of a building permit for the above-referenced matter.
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 and on Wednesday,
July 26, 2017;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the applicable criteria of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of
the NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. The Appeal was filed within the required 60-day time-frame.
2. The Appealing Party is aggrieved and were found to have standing.
3. The merits of the argument as provided by the appellant with responses from the Zoning
Administrator have been considered. It is our finding that the positions offered by the
appellant are not sufficient to warrant overturning the Zoning Administrator's decision at
hand.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY APPEAL Z-NOA-2-2017,
FRANK & ISOBEL MUNOFF, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Urrico
13
Z[3
MR. JACKOSKI-Hopefully anticlimactic. So thank you all for attending. So, Staff, do we have
the Carte family here?
MRS. MOORE-No, I do not have the Carte family here.
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing the Carte family is not here and it is 7:43, I'll seek a motion for
adjournment.
MR. BROWN-Do you want to table this to a date?
MR. JACKOSKI-I assume they abandoned their application.
MRS. MOORE-1 doubt it. I don't think so.
MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion to table?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Chris Carte for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury.
Applicant proposes to utilize existing a freestanding sign structure for The Wood Carte Too at
27 sq. ft. Existing sign does not meet the 15 ft. setback requirement. Relief requested from
minimum front yard setback for such sign.
The applicant requests relief from the minimum front yard setback for such sign.
Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required
The applicant proposes to maintain the sign frame and install a new panel where the frame is
8.8 ft. from the front property line where a 15 ft. setback is required.
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-7-2017 CHRIS CARTE, Introduced by Michael
McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
Until the September meeting with a submission deadline of August 15tH
Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2017, by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-You can move it to August. You have sufficient room, but that's up to you.
MR. JACKOSKI-With a submission deadline in August.
MR. HENKEL-I'll say no because he didn't give us any information.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Henkel
MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion for adjournment, please.
MRS. MOORE-1 have just one more item before you do that. In regards to the Fulmer
application, you will need to re-open the public hearing for that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right. We know that.
MRS. MOORE-You do need to do it by motion, correct?
MR. BROWN-1 think the next time it comes back,just make sure we do that. That's all.
MR. JACKOSKI-So can I have a motion for adjournment?
MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting.
MR. JACKOSKI-Seconded by John. Thank you, John.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
JULY 26, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Henkel:
Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 2017, by the following vote:
Z[3A
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr.
Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-We're done. Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
15