2007-12-19(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 19, 2007
INDEX
Area Variance No. 49-2007 Mandy L. Manney 1.
Tax Map No. 308.6-1-48
Area Variance No. 60-2007 Matthew Emmens 4.
Tax Map No. 239.15-1-19
Sign Variance No. 56-2007 1093 Group, LLC/Rite Aid Store 11.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-55
Area Variance No. 67-2007 Robert McDonald 19.
Tax Map No. 308.18-2-19
Notice of Appeal No. 10-2007 Jean M. Hoffman 26.
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 19, 2007
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
CHARLES MC NULTY
JOYCE HUNT
RICHARD GARRAND
ALLAN BRYANT
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. ABBATE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals hearing dated 19 December 2007. On opening
the public will be allocated a maximum of five minutes to comment on any specific
appeal, and the purpose of this time limitation is to provide each member of the public an
opportunity to be heard, and also to limit the length of the hearing to a reasonable time
frame. Mr. Secretary, would you monitor the time, and if we have any correspondence,
would you be kind enough, please, to read it into the record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-None at this time.
MR. ABBATE-None at this time, very well.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II MANDY L. MANNEY OWNER(S):
MANDY L. MANNEY ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 58 BURCH ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN EXISTING ABOVE GROUND SWIMMING POOL IN THE
SIDE YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REQUIREMENT FOR PLACEMENT OF
POOL IN THE REAR YARD. CROSS REF.: BP 07-264 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.90 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-48 SECTION: 179-
5-020
MANDY L. MANNEY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2007, Mandy L. Manney, Meeting Date:
December 19, 2007 “Project Location: 58 Burch Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes maintenance of an existing above ground pool.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 78 feet of relief from the 113 foot minimum front setback requirement
for a pool on this corner lot.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to maintain the pool in the existing location.
2. Feasible alternatives:
There appears to be significant areas available for a more compliant pool location.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for 78 feet of setback relief from the 113 foot requirement may be
interpreted as substantial (69%).
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
A petition of neighborhood support was submitted with the application materials.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
Previous discussions with the applicant have revealed that this is a new pool. As such,
the difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2007-264 2520 sf residential addition issued: 5/30/07
BP 2007-364 Above Ground Pool pending
Staff comments:
The yard is in enclosed by a pre-existing stockade fence that appears to screen the pool
from view from the streets.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Now we did receive some supporting documentation, and I’ll read
that into the record, because that kind of summarizes what we’re going to be making the
th
decision based upon. This letter was received on November 13. “Dear Zoning Board
of Appeals: I, Mandy Manney, residing at 58 Burch Road, Queensbury, NY 12804, am
providing new information to get approval for the variance needed to keep existing pool
in the same location. Attached you will find a letter from the previous owner, Dorothy
Hammond, stating that there was an above ground pool on the property when she sold
the house to me in 1998. There is also a letter from I.B.S Septic and Drain stating that
there should not be a pool within 10 feet of the septic, which is located in the same area
where I would not need a variance. The third letter that I have is from Adirondack Pools.
The owner went to the property and came to the same conclusion that I did; the pool
should not be moved under the large pine trees due to the degree of difficulty it would
make to keep the pool running properly. In conclusion, I would like to ask that you grant
me the variance to keep the pool where it is located because it would be almost
impossible to move and maintain the pool in the area where I would not need a variance.
Thank you. Mandy L. Manney” And the other letters that supported it. “To Whom It May
Concern: I, Dorothy Hammond, former owner of the house located on 58 Burch Road,
Queensbury, NY 12804, am writing to advise you that there was an above ground pool
installed on the property when I sold the house to Mandy Manney in 1998. Thank You
for Your Time in This Matter” And that’s signed Dorothy Hammond, who now lives in
Whitehall. The other one. This is from IBS Septic and Drain Service, on Lower Warren
Street, Queensbury. “Dear Mandy, In regards to your question about putting a pool on
top of the new septic system, I would not advise it. It could cause the ground to compact
and result in system failure. I would recommend not putting the pool any closer than ten
feet from the system. Sincerely, Ivan C. Bell, President” And the last one. “I visited the
home at 58 Burch Road yesterday to look for an alternative location for the 24’ above
ground pool. Based on the septic system and the Town of Queensbury’s requirements
the only alternative site is in the back left of the property. Unfortunately, there are
several very large pine trees in that area which will potentially cause serious problems
for the pool. The debris from the trees will make it very difficult to maintain the proper
water balance, filtration, and sanitation. There is also a much greater chance that the
pool will sustain winter damage from broken branches or a sudden release of snow. I
would also be concerned over the high concentration of insects that surround the trees.
They often chew holes in the vinyl liner. They will be a potential problem in the area for
many years even if the trees are removed. If the pool is located in that area we would
highly recommend several inches of compacted stone dust under the work site. If you
have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Chris Sabo
Adirondack Pools” That’s it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, and Ms. Manney, you’re up here. Do you remember
what our procedures are, basically?
MS. MANNEY-Basically.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and if you have any questions, you certainly can ask. Are you
ready to proceed?
MS. MANNEY-Sounds good. Yes, I’m ready.
MR. ABBATE-Please do.
MS. MANNEY-Okay. Thank you for reading those for me. I don’t know exactly what to
say. I would really like to keep the pool. I think that I really went out and tried to get
enough support to keep my pool where it is. I really don’t think that it would be a good
idea to move the pool because of all the reasons that I’ve given you. So hopefully you
will grant me my variance to keep it where it is.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Do any members of the Board have any
questions for Ms. Manney? Okay. If there are no questions for Ms. Manney, then I’m
going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 49-2007. Do we have any
folks in the audience who would like to address 49-2007? Raise your hands and I’ll be
happy to recognize you.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised. I’m going to now ask the Board members for their
comments. Do any Board members wish to comment on Area Variance No. 49-2007?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll comment.
MR. ABBATE-Please, Joyce.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I listened to the new evidence, new material, and I think it’s answered
all the questions I’ve had in the past, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other Board members who would
like to offer their opinion?
MR. GARRAND-I’ll go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Please, Rick.
MR. GARRAND-When this application first came before me, there was no
documentation or anything I could find that would say why this pool shouldn’t be moved.
After visiting the site today and seeing the documentation here and going over
everything, I do believe that this is probably about the most feasible place for the pool.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I thank you very much.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Question, yes.
MR. BRYANT-The letter from the previous owner states that there was a pool, you know,
on the property when she sold it. I think what was in question was, you know, your GIS
map that didn’t show a pool, and it was dated around 2001 or something like that, and
she states that there was a pool, but she doesn’t state where the pool was.
MS. MANNEY-Well, she’s like 80 something years old. I just, it took me a long time to
find her name and number, and I finally got it and I just asked her if she would be willing
to write me a letter and I would come out and get it, and when I got there, that’s what was
there. So I didn’t question it, I didn’t ask her to re-write a letter.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. What is your position, Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-I’m still opposed to it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and we’ll go to Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think the substantiation satisfies me. I think that the fact that
it’s, you know, the pool is already up. It’s surrounded with the stockade fence. It’s a
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
logical place to put it. It’s a side yard because of the corner there, and I think we said
before, I mean, I think I said previously before I would be in support of your application.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I appreciate the applicant. I think she’s tried to meet all the
questions that the Board had asked, and I appreciate that. I wish there were a different
way of doing a variance, because I’d kind of like to say yes to the applicant, but the
trouble is a variance runs with the land, and I’ve thought this over the last couple of days.
I end up with a serious problem of having a pool and the previous nonconforming fence,
which is very clearly in the majority of what is the second front yard for that property, and
I guess for that reason I’m going to agree with Mr. Bryant. I’m going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’ve said it in the past, we’ve granted these type of variances
consistently in the past, and any questions that were asked she has answered, and I
would be in favor of the application.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, it would appear that we would have at least four folks who are
in favor of it and apparently are satisfied, and I’m going to join the majority. Quite frankly,
I think you made every effort, an honest effort, to do the thing that’s right, and I’m going
to support the application as well. Now, the public hearing is going to be closed for Area
Variance No. 49-2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask if there’s a motion, please.
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2007 MANDY L. MANNEY,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
58 Burch Road. The applicant proposes maintenance of an existing above ground. The
relief required, the applicant requests 78 feet of relief from the 113 foot minimum front
setback requirement for a pool on this corner lot. Whether the benefit could be achieved
by other means feasible to the applicant, I think the applicant has documented that this is
the best place for it because of the large trees and the septic system. Whether an
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, I don’t think
so since the pool is surrounded by a high fence, and the neighbors have submitted
support. The request might be substantial but this corner lot makes it difficult. Whether
the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood, I
don’t think so because the pool is not visible from the street, and the alleged difficulty is
self-created only because Ms. Manney wants to keep the pool that she has.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 49-2007 is five yes, two no. Area
Variance No. 49-2007 is approved, and good luck to you.
MS. MANNEY-Thank you guys very much. I appreciate it.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II MATTHEW EMMENS AGENT(S):
JARRETT-MARTIN OWNER(S): MATTHEW EMMENS ZONING: WR-3A
LOCATION: 2 HIGHVIEW ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 2,500 SQ. FT. OF RESIDENCE
INCLUDING A 632 SQ. FT. ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STRUCTURE AS WELL AS FOR
STORMWATER CONTROL DEVICES PER CHAPTER 147. CROS REFERENCE: BP
93-693 2-CAR ATT. GARAGE; BP 95-179 SUNDECK OVER EXISTING DOCK; 87-119
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
BOAT SHELTER & DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 12, 2007
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-
1-19 SECTION: 179-13-010B, D & E; 179-4-030; 147-14; 147-9
TOM JARRETT & GABE HODGE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-We have previously heard this at an earlier meeting. I believe the
enclosed porch is now an open porch, right? They took the roof off.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2007, Matthew Emmens, Meeting Date:
December 19, 2007 “Project Location: 2 Highview Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes partial demolition and reconstruction of a portion of the
existing single family dwelling.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests shoreline setback relief in two locations, one for a rebuilt portion of
the home at 27.5+/- feet from the shoreline and the other for the construction of an
enclosed porch on an existing open deck at 41.75 feet from the shoreline. The minimum
shoreline setback applicable here is 75 feet. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for
the expansion of a non conforming structure. Further, as the proposed Stormwater
Management System for the project includes stormwater infiltration within 100 feet of the
shoreline, relief is necessary from Chapter 147.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to perform the desired renovations and expansions.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives appear to be limited with regards to the location of the current
structure.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for 47.5 feet and 33.25 feet of setback relief from the 75 foot requirement
may be interpreted as substantial. With regards to the Stormwater Infiltration devices, a
20 shoreline setback is proposed, versus the 100ft requirement, which may be
interpreted as substantial. Similarly, the devices are proposed at a 25 foot setback from
a water supply source where 100 ft is the minimum requirement.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal to moderate impacts regarding the building construction are anticipated as the
structure currently exists. Effects on the neighborhood and community relative to the
stormwater variances are unknown at this time.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be attributed to the location of the existing home.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Site Plan Review -- pending
Staff comments:
What are the actual separation distances between the infiltration devices and the
shoreline. Attached please find the Planning Board recommendation for this project.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. UNDERWOOD-And again, this is probably going to go through complete Site Plan
Review at some point. I’m going to read in, because the last time it was the Board’s wish
that the Planning Board give us some kind of an idea as to what they thought about the
variances that we were going to allow on this project here.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It was reviewed by the Town Planning Board and they had a record
of resolution on it. The motion states the following. “MOTION THAT THE
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS THAT THEY GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR THE 100 FOOT
VARIANCE FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF INFILTRATION OF STORMWATER WITHIN
100 FEET OF THE LAKE, DUE TO THE SITE CONSTRAINTS AND THE FACT THAT
IT’S A DESIGN THAT WILL ACHIEVE THE INTENDED RESULTS, Introduced by
Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr.
Hunsinger
NOES: NONE”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, gentlemen. I see that you’re at the
table. Would you be kind enough, please, to tell us who you are.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Martin Engineers and to my left is
Gabe Hodge of Balzer, Hodge and Tuck, the project architects, and to my right is Bill
Dean, Creative Construction, the project manager and builder.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Are you ready to proceed?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Go right ahead.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you. In the way of a quick history of this project, it’s been a while
now, we first presented this to both this Board and the Planning Board in September.
You referred it to the Planning Board and we went then to the Planning Board and they
asked for a number of technical issues to be addressed in September. In October we
submitted revised plans to both Boards, and included in that was an elimination of two of
the variances that we originally applied for from this Board, both structure setbacks, and
Gabe Hodge can quickly review that with you, if you wish. In November we went to the
Planning Board, and they reviewed the project, specifically under your request for, your
referral to their Board. They liked the project considerably and they recommended
approval to you. They asked for a couple of technical modifications to the project which
we’ve since submitted in December. I don’t know if you’ve seen those modifications or
not.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have those, folks?
th
MR. JARRETT-December 13.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that the map right here?
MR. ABBATE-Is that the map you’re referring to?
MR. JARRETT-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re showing the changes on there. That’s all the changes.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Jarrett, what modifications are you talking about?
MR. JARRETT-They asked for a stormwater erosion control plan and revised plantings,
th
and we submitted that to Craig on December 13.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that was a submittal for the Planning Board.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. JARRETT-The Planning Board. You may not have seen it and we can show them
to you if you wish.
MR. ABBATE-All right. No problem.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. So would you like Mr. Hodge to go through the changes to the
project briefly?
MR. ABBATE-I don’t think you really want my advice. I would suggest you prepare your
case based upon.
MR. JARRETT-We will go through them quickly.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. HODGE-Basically what we have, basically what we’ve done is we have cut, we had
one dimensional variance here. We’ve cut the roof back so that the new structure will
match precisely the location of the existing, and in the southeast corner, we had a
screened porch off the master bedroom on the second floor. We’ve cut that porch out
and taken that roof back to its current position. So, in effect, that corner of the building
will, again, be replaced in kind. The other things we’ve done is we’ve reduced the scope
of paving on the lakeside so that there’s a slight, and in the driveway, so there’s a slight
net decrease in impervious surface to the entire property. So really that’s it for cuts, as
far as adjusting and sort of dialing back the scope of work on the property, and as Mr.
Jarrett mentioned we altered the planting plan slightly and included additional erosion
control measures for during construction and otherwise.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Do you have anything else you wish to
say at this time?
MR. JARRETT-Not at this time. We’ll open it up to questions from the Board.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great. All right. Mr. Bryant has indicated he’d like to ask a
question. Please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
MR. BRYANT-The setback on that open deck, what are we talking about, the proposed
boathouse? The Site Plan is not that.
MR. BROWN-On the front of the house, or the lakeside of the house?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but isn’t there also a setback requirement relative to the dock?
MR. HODGE-The dock isn’t part of this application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s pre-existing.
MR. HODGE-Yes. There’s a pre-existing dock. There is, in the future, we’re going to
apply for a new boathouse and dock configuration. That’s not part of this application.
MR. ABBATE-You’re absolutely correct. It is not part of this application, and it is pre-
existing. We really should not address it.
MR. BRYANT-Well, the reason I’m asking the question is because you do show it on the,
the adjusted proposal you show this proposed boathouse.
MR. HODGE-Yes, but we just included it so that you’d get an overview of the future
scope of the entire project. It’s really so that, you know, nothing surprises you later on.
it’s really not part of this application, and there won’t be any variances involved in that
project.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. JARRETT-That’s a key factor is that there won’t be variances for the boathouse. So
you won’t see that application later.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. HODGE-The Planning Board will, though, obviously.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Good. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other members of the Board have any questions for 60-
2007?
MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Zoning Administrator.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, indeed.
MR. GARRAND-There’s a stormwater control maintenance agreement between the
applicant and the Town. Who is going to sign for this, on behalf of the Town?
MR. BROWN-Usually it’s the Town Supervisor.
MR. GARRAND-The Town Supervisor is going to get this and sign off on it?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-All right. Thank you.
MR. BROWN-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other questions from Board members at this
time? All right. Then I’m going to move on, and I’m going to open up the public hearing
for Area Variance No. 60-2007, and do we have any members of the public who wish to
address this particular appeal? Be kind enough to raise your hand, I will recognize you.
I see no hands raised.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have one letter.
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Secretary.
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-We did receive one letter on December 13 from the LGA, the Lake
George Association, addressed to the Community Development office. “Stormwater
management should be the main emphasis for discussions of Site Plan approvals for the
proposed changes on this site, as the property has limited land surrounding a very large
house (proposed 8000 sq ft home) on a slope only 28 ft from Lake George. The .97-acre
parcel is absolutely lovely, with beautiful exposed rock outcroppings surrounding the site.
Concerns about the amount of blasting and devastation that will occur to this property to
recreate additional living space and manage runoff should be discussed, albeit at this
late date (the proposed additional sq ft to this home is not limited to just the application’s
noted 632 additional sq ft, but something quite a bit more expansive than that, realized
after having reviewed the proposed elevations that were submitted). This brings up a
question that we should be continuously asking ourselves regarding approved
development within the Lake George watershed. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to
design a building to conform to the existing site rather than changing the site to conform
to a building? Can’t we begin to recognize which design alternatives are less
environmentally destructive, and isn’t the health of Lake George what is at stake here?
We are committed to preserving, and need to begin to focus on restoring the water
quality of our lake and watershed. That being said, the revised planting plans as
submitted in the Landscaping Plan dated 12/12/07 has a more substantial shoreline
buffer than previously proposed, but needs to be enhanced over time. Fortunately the
shoreline includes some areas of undisturbed hemlocks and plantings, which currently
exist and will remain. There are only ten identified new shrubs to be planted between
the house and the lake, but all of the land in this area should become an enhanced
vegetated buffer vs. lawn (ideally more trees, shrubs and under story, including
perennials, if desired). Continually adding additional vegetation and replacing existing
turf grass between the lake and the house should be seriously discussed due to the fact
that deeper-rooted native plantings would more effectively reduce sediment flow and
infiltrate pollutants and nutrients from all stormwater runoff on the site. With such a large
roof surface, rain gardens should be located throughout the property and next to any
impermeable surfaces that are planned (one location has been identified for a rain
garden off the driveway). In addition, the new driveway could become more permeable if
asphalt were not the chosen surface. The only proposed new trees on this site will
surround the existing/new septic absorption field behind the house, away from the lake.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
Using trees and shrubs to block the absorption field from potential use as a parking area
is a good idea. This entire site should retain its native vegetated character, which will
eliminate the need to use any fertilizers or pesticides. Thank you for your continued
interest to protect the natural habitat and water quality that may be affected by lakefront
development.” That’s signed Kathy Bozony.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Okay. I opened up the public hearing, and now I’m
going to turn to the Board members and ask the Board members if they’d like to
comment. Do any of the Board members have any comments for Area Variance No. 60-
2007?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll go first if you want. I think in general the septic and runoff has
been vastly improved from what it originally was, and I think that, you know, we were
looking for some kind of signoff on the part of the Planning Board, and they’ve given their
nod to this project as it has been proposed, and, I mean, it is a difficult site, and
everybody recognizes the hardship when you’re on bedrock. There’s not much you can
do to improve rock hard surfaces, but I think that in this instance here I think you have
really tried to make a real benefit with this project, and it’s going to achieve something for
the applicant as well as for the future of the lake. So, I’d be for it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Underwood. Okay. Do we have
anybody else?
MRS. HUNT-I have a question. I guess it’s really not germane to our decision, but I’d
just like to know. Have you given any consideration to green driveways, to permeable
driveways?
MR. HODGE-We have looked into it.
MR. JARRETT-We discuss this on almost every project we work on, and frankly they
don’t work very well in the North Country. They sound good. They work for a short
period of time, and then they don’t work, and they cost a lot of money and they
breakdown more quickly than conventional asphalt.
MR. HODGE-Mainly due to salt.
MR. JARRETT-Frankly, we’d love to go to that, if we find one that really holds up.
MRS. HUNT-Well, I think you’ve made a lot of changes that we asked for, and the
Planning Board is in favor. So I would be in favor of the variance.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, ma’am. I appreciate that.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question. This is for Staff. Relative to the filtration system, is that
something that the Town Board has to act on?
MR. BROWN-No. It’s the Planning Board, reviews the stormwater management plan,
but they’re here because they can’t meet one of the minimum dimensional requirements.
MR. BRYANT-Well, what exactly can you, in laymen terms, will you explain exactly what
this filtration system is going to do and handle?
MR. JARRETT-Stormwater or wastewater?
MR. BRYANT-Stormwater.
MR. JARRETT-Stormwater. Essentially we have two main systems designed for the
driveway and the house. On the northern portion of the house, we’re routing stormwater
roof runoff and stormwater near the house into a subsurface infiltration system. It’s in
front of the house because that’s frankly the only place to locate it, and of necessity it’s
within100 feet of the lake, but right now it runs into the lake unabated, untreated. So
what we’ll be doing is putting it underground and giving it treatment. It slows it down
significantly. It seeps into the groundwater instead of running directly into the lake. The
southern part of the house and all of the, I say all of the driveway, except the most
western portion of the driveway, that will run into what we’re designing as a sand filter at
the corner of the driveway. It will run through that sand filter for treatment, then go into a
series of terraced series of rain gardens for infiltration, treatment,
evaporation/transpiration, and in severe storms it might overflow to the lake.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. BRYANT-And have you done this type of filtration system close to the lake, as close
as 20 feet?
MR. JARRETT-Actually, the filtration system is over 100 feet from the lake. It’s the
subsequent rain gardens that are closer than 100 feet from the lake, to the lake.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, we have done these within 100 feet of the lake. We only do this
where we have to, where conditions.
MR. BRYANT-Any negative effects?
MR. JARRETT-No. Actually, in the situations where we’ve used it, it’s situations like this
where we have a pre-existing condition and we’re vastly improving stormwater runoff,
where there is none presently, we will get significant treatment now.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have a position, Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-Not yet.
MR. ABBATE-Not yet. Okay. Can we go to Mr. Urrico, please?
MR. URRICO-I’m basically in agreement with Mr. Underwood and Mrs. Hunt. I believe,
given the modifications that have been made, I would think that the granting of this
variance would have a minimal impact, and so I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that, and Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Obviously they’ve worked on this to make improvements. The
fact that they’re compromising doesn’t carry a lot of weight with me because I’m not
looking for a compromise. I’m looking for end results, but I think they’ve accomplished
from what they’ve told us and what the Planning Board has told us. It sounds like what
they’re proposing is going to accomplish the same thing or better than placing these
devices 100 feet from the lake. So, given that, I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that, and Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-You bet.
MR. GARRAND-My primary concerns here were the impact on the environment and the
surrounding properties, mainly the neighbors, with regard to stormwater and runoff. I
think they’ve taken all practical measures that can be undertaken to mitigate the effects
of the landscape and the topography of the area. At this point I’d be in favor of the
application with the changes that they’ve made.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, sir, and now Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-I would also be in favor of the application.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and I would agree. The majority of the
Board agrees that you have acted in good faith, that you have made compromises, which
is a reasonable approach to this thing, and I, too, would support the application. Having
said that, now, the public hearing is now going to be closed for Area Variance No. 60-
2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to respectfully ask a Board member to move a motion for
us, please. Do we have a volunteer to move a motion?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll make it.
MR. ABBATE-Would you, please. Thank you, Jim.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2007 MATTHEW EMMENS,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
2 Highview Road. The applicant is proposing the partial demolition and reconstruction of
a portion of the existing single family dwelling, and as far as the relief that we’re going to
grant them, they’re requesting shoreline setback relief in two locations, one for a rebuilt
portion of the currently existing home and that will be built in the same area, at 27.5 plus
or minus feet from the shoreline. The other is for construction of an enclosed porch on
an existing open deck, and I believe that’s all an open deck now, at 40.9 feet from the
shoreline. The minimum shoreline setback here is 75 feet, and that’s what we’re
granting relief from, and also we will be granting them relief from the stormwater
management system for the project, and that’s because it’s located within 100 feet from
the shoreline. I believe it’s at 30 feet from the shoreline. As far as this project goes, the
building is going to grow from the current size of 6,081 feet to 6,712 square feet, and we
recognize that the blasting that was a concern initially in this project, that’s going to occur
primarily in the garage area. It’s not going to be down by the lakeshore, and it’s going to
vastly improve the living conditions in the home, relative to the water that’s running
through the project. As far as feasible alternatives, it’s really, there aren’t any, as far as
we’re concerned. I think that it’s dictated strictly by the site and the rocky nature of the
shoreline there, it’s bedrock. It is substantial relief relative to the Ordinance, but at the
same time it’s replacing what’s already there for the most part. The only thing that’s
going to be added on to substantially is the garage itself. As far as effects on the
neighborhood, we do not anticipate any effects as far as the neighborhood or
community. In fact, we think it’ll be an improvement, due to the stormwater retention
devices that are going to be built and the gardens that will effectively more control runoff
than currently exists as none, and as far as the difficulty being self-created, it is because,
but the difficulty really is attributable to the fact that the home is located on site where it is
now. So I would move for its approval.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 60-2007 is seven yes, zero no. Area
Variance No. 60-2007 is approved. Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. Have a good holiday.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED 1093 GROUP, LLC/RITE
AID STORE AGENT(S): BLAIR COMPANIES OWNER(S): 1093 GROUP, LLC
ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 724 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES
PLACEMENT OF ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS ON THE FAÇADE OF THE RITE AID
STORE. ALSO THE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL
FREESTANDING SIGN ON THE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF
ALLOWABLE SIGNS. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 LOT SIZE: 2.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-55 SECTION
140
JOHN SVARE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 56-2007, 1093 Group, LLC/Rite Aid store, Meeting
Date: December 19, 2007 “Project Location: 724 Glen Street Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes construction of an additional free standing sign and multiple
additional wall signs.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief for a total of 7signs; 1 freestanding sign and 6 wall signs.
Clarification is needed for the Glen Street freestanding sign as some of the application
materials call for a 47.81 sf sign while other papers show that same sign to be 59.81 sf.
If the larger version is the proposed sign, then the minimum setback requirement is 25
feet from the property line. No setback is indicated on the plot plan. It appears as
though the applicant is looking to bind the signage above the main entrance into one
large sign, however the size of such a sign is not clear. Again, the table shows the sign
to be 86.89 sf while the elevation drawing of the sign shows a sign approximately 81 sf.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
While no relief would be need for a sign under 100sf clarification of the actual size is
necessary. Signs 3 and 4 from the table are additional wall signs and need relief from
the ordinance. Signs 5, 6, and 7, if mounted at a height greater than 6 feet, are also
considered additional wall signs requiring relief from §140-6.
The directional signs 8 and 9 do not require permits nor variances.
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct the proposed signs in the preferred locations.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives may include a lesser number of signs, consolidation of signs, and
smaller signs.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for multiple wall signs where only one are allowed may be interpreted as
moderate to substantial.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
The community is a commercially developed portion of Route 9. Would a variance for
multiple signs trigger additional requests for surrounding properties?
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Site Plan Review approval for Rite Aid ( minutes previously provided)
Staff comments:
Clarification of applicable signs and sizes should be the first order of business. Setback
information needed for the freestanding signs as it is not shown on the submitted plot
plans.
SEQR Status:
Type Unlisted”
MR. ABBATE-Good evening, sir. I’m assuming that you are representing Rite Aid?
MR. SVARE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Would you be kind enough, sir, to tell us who you are.
MR. SVARE-My name is John Svare. I’m an attorney with Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart &
Rhodes. I do have a signed authorization.
MR. ABBATE-As an agent?
MR. SVARE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. May we have that, just for the record, please. Just to keep
everything rather orderly, and I’ll give it to the secretary. I thank you, sir.
MR. SVARE-Jon Lapper and Stefanie Bitter were unable to be here this evening. So
you’re stuck with me. I do have a packet of information, Mr. Chairman, that I don’t know
if the Board has received or not, but I’d like to also pass this out, with the exact size,
location of each sign.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. ABBATE-We’re always willing to accept eleventh hour evidence, Counselor. As a
matter of fact, we have no choice, as you know. Thank you very much. All right,
Counselor, if you’re ready, go right ahead.
MR. SVARE-Thank you. So, I notice from the Staff Notes that there seemed to be some
confusion as to the exact size of the various signs and location. If you look at your
handout there, the first sign, Sign Number One, is an 80.55 square foot sign, with the
wording Rite Aid Pharmacy/GNC Live Well. Sign Number One would be located along
the main entrance facing Upper Glen Street. Sign Number Two A, 5.60 square feet, with
the word Food Mart, this sign would be fronting the Wendy’s restaurant on the façade.
It’s critically important for Rite Aid to have this language on the façade, as it reflects that
this is not only a pharmacy, but indeed is a Food Mart. So it is important to the facility
that consumers know exactly what type of facility it is. It’s not only a pharmacy. Along
those same lines, the One Hour Photo reflected on Sign Two B, 5.52 square feet, and
this is fronting Upper Glen. Signs 4A, 4B and 4C are on the drive thru canopy. Sign 4A,
would be three square feet; 4B, 1.5, and 4C, 1.5. Sign Five is a proposed freestanding
directional sign four feet, four square feet. Sign Six is another freestanding directional
sign, also four square feet. Sign Three 59.81square feet, a freestanding sign. There
was a notation in the Staff Notes concerning the setback and Sign Three. I don’t have
anything indicating this on this map. I am told that it meets the setback requirements. I
cannot represent to this Board anything beyond what our client is telling us, and they
would be happy to relocate that sign to meet any setback requirements.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MR. SVARE-So, I guess in summary, if we’re looking at Signs One, Two A and Two B,
which are on the facades, you’re talking about less than 100 square feet in total, with
these three signs, and again, the theory here is that it’s not only a pharmacy. This is a
food mart. It’s a place where consumers can get one hour photos, and we think it’s
certainly a reasonable request here. So I’d respectfully ask for an approval here this
evening, and I’d be happy to answer questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are they open 24/7, these guys?
MR. SVARE-That’s my understanding, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I figured they were.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any members of the Board who would like to ask
Counsel any questions?
MR. URRICO-You say this is something that the Rite Aid people would like, but not in
every location are these signs used. So, obviously their pitch is to try to get as many
signs as possible, with the intent of getting as many as the area will approve?
MR. SVARE-Well, you know, first, I understand how seriously the Board takes Sign
Variance requests, and I don’t want to, in any way, indicate that this isn’t something to be
taken seriously here, but I cannot speak for every single Rite Aid in the country or Rite
Aid in Warren County.
MR. URRICO-Well, let’s talk about some of the ones in this area. Manchester, Granville.
Manchester has one freestanding sign, one wall sign. That’s it. They’re able to get their
point across what they’re selling there.
MR. SVARE-Right. Again, at this location, it’s Rite Aid’s opinion, and I think it’s a
reasonable request, that it needs to be reflected that it’s not only a pharmacy, and that it
is a food mart.
MR. URRICO-Can they do that on a freestanding sign?
MR. SVARE-Can they?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. SVARE-I don’t think that it triggers the same impact, obviously, from the road.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. SVARE-So I guess that’s, you know, where we’re coming from.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. ABBATE-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-There seems to be a discrepancy in the areas, the signs. Sign One, the
entrance sign, you said 77 square feet?
MR. SVARE-Sign One is 80.55 square feet.
MRS. HUNT-And how about Two A?
MR. SVARE-5.60.
MRS. HUNT-Okay, and Two B?
MR. SVARE-5.52.
MRS. HUNT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and, Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t have a detail of Sign Seven. Is that the same as Sign Three?
MR. SVARE-I’m glad you brought that up. It’s my understanding that in conversations
with Mr. Brown that that sign location was actually on an adjoining property. So we
would have to seek their approval if we were going to be going along with that. That’s
not part of what we would be requesting this evening. Sign Seven wouldn’t be a part of
that.
MR. BRYANT-So what you’re saying basically is that we’re going to grant you X number
of extra signs and then you’re going to come back to us for another freestanding sign?
MR. SVARE-It’s not part of the present request.
MR. BRYANT-The other question I had was relative, I think, to Five and Six. They’re not
higher than six feet. So those are directional signs, is that correct, and don’t require a
variance?
MR. ABBATE-According to zoning, that is correct.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to verify it.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I don’t have the package that you guys received tonight, and the
table that’s in the original submittal doesn’t really match up with the numbers on the
drawing. So Five and Six for what you have may be a different number. It’s a little bit
confusing.
MR. BRYANT-They are 52 inches high? Are those considered directional signs?
MR. BROWN-If they’re less than six feet high and under four square feet in size, they’re
directional and do not require permits. That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-So do these match, you’ve got eight inches by four foot six. That’s more
than four feet.
MR. BROWN-Eight inches by four foot six?
MR. BRYANT-I’m looking at the wrong sign. The three by sixteen, what is that, three
foot by sixteen?
MR. BROWN-That’s less than four feet.
MR. BRYANT-Less than four feet. Another question relative to 2A and 2B, 2A is actually
on the side, I think, where Wendy’s is. It’s not going to be visible from the north side.
Why aren’t 2A and 2B combined into one sign, right on the face of the building? You’d
eliminate a sign that way.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. SVARE-Again, I think the theory here is to receive as much attention, obviously, and
one facing the food mart, sign is going to draw that attention, and the other one is the
one. I can’t answer in the negative. I mean, this is the most appealing plan and the plan
that’s going to garner the most customer attention.
MR. BRYANT-It might be the most appealing plan to Rite Aid, but not necessarily the
most appealing plan to us. Obviously we want to reduce the signage, and so my
question, again, is.
MR. SVARE-I think that combining the two would actually create more of an eyesore,
respectfully, than one on one façade and the other on the other, but again, I mean, taken
in combination, these are less than 100 square feet in total, which I think is important.
MR. BRYANT-That’s right, and if they’re combined, they’ll still be less than 100 square
feet, and eliminates the request for an additional sign, and that’s my question.
MR. SVARE-True.
MR. BRYANT-And frankly the effectiveness of 2A is questionable because the only
people who are going to see that, really, are the people in the Wendy’s parking lot, okay.
As far as 2B, now that’s an effective sign. It’s right on the face of the building and it’s
clearly visible coming both sides on Route 9.
MR. SVARE-If that’s something the Board would want to incorporate, I’m sure that we
could certainly accommodate that.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Any other members of the Board have any questions? All right. Hearing
no questions, then we’re going to move on to the public hearing will be open for Sign
Variance No. 56-2007. Do we have any members of the public who wish to address that
Variance?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised, so I’m going to move on, and I’m going to now ask
members to please offer their comments on Sign Variance No. 56-2007. Do we have a
volunteer? All right. How about Mr. Urrico? Please.
MR. URRICO-From where I’m sitting, there’s still too many questions and not enough
answers, in terms of why we should allow this number of signs. So I would be in favor of
one freestanding sign and one wall sign, and that’s it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and can we move to Mr. Garrand, please?
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first time they came to us their request
was for 10 signs. This time around it’s a request for seven signs. I see that as definitely
an improvement. Going over the plan, there’s three out of these seven signs that, unless
you’re a patron of this business, these signs are tucked right away back behind the
building. Nobody’s really even going to see them. There’s only going to be, for the
general public, there’s only going to be four visible signs on the outside of this building
that anybody’s really going to see. At this point, I’d be in favor of this application.
MR. ABBATE-You would. Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think they’ve made some compromises, but I would like to see the
2A and 2B combined. I agree with Mr. Bryant, the one sign is only visible from the
parking lot, and I can’t see that does much good. I would be in favor if they combined the
two.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and let’s go to Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, looking at this, and again, thinking in terms of what the Sign
Ordinance says, that a variance should be granted only if the applicant would be
deprived of the practical use of the sign without the variance. I think there’s, well, first let
me acknowledge that the applicant certainly has improved from what they originally
requested. Now the entire front of the building is not a sign, in effect, and I appreciate
that, but again, when I look at the requirements in the Sign Ordinance, I have to conclude
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
that one sign over the main entrance where they’re proposing it, and one freestanding
sign, certainly should be adequate, while adding the two little food mart and one hour
photo to that one main front sign on the building might clutter that sign a little more, I
think that’s a doable item if they want, if they feel critically that that’s got to be out front.
Most all these other signs either meet this requirement for a directional sign or I think
could be designed to meet the requirements for directional signs, so, while some of
these stores in the past may have been granted this kind of relief, I think it’s time to get
back to what the Sign Ordinance says, and so I’m going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I, too, am going to be opposed to the excess wall signs, the
GNC sign, the food mart, and the one hour photo signs. I think that in general, in this
day and age, everybody knows that drugstores provide many other services besides
pharmaceutical goods, and I think in this, you know, what we’re trying to achieve here in
Town is to clean things up and not clutter things up with more redundant type signage,
and in this case here, the other signs in the back I don’t have any problem with at all, but
I would not be in favor of any of those extra wall signs.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and I think we need Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
MR. BRYANT-I basically concur. I think 2A and 2B should be joined on the face, on the
Glen Street side, and I don’t understand why, there’s no elevation of 4A, B and C, but I
don’t understand why they all couldn’t be combined into one sign, and then we’re talking
about three signs, as opposed to six signs, and it still requires a 200% variance, which is
still excessive, but it’s not uncommon. So I think we need to, I know that you’ve done
some work on it, but I think we need to go back to the drawing board, combine some of
those signs, and let’s walk away with three signs and not have six.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-As far as the freestanding sign, I know you’re not asking for a variance
now. One freestanding sign is sufficient. I don’t recall any case, and I’ve been here
seven years, where we’ve allowed two.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Counselor, it appears as if this Board has not only
considered your arguments, listened to them, but it finds them somewhat without merit.
However, this Board is fair and we provide every opportunity we possibly can for not only
but an impartial hearing, and let me offer you three options. You can either table your
appeal for the next available date and address the concerns of this Board, or perhaps
you may wish to withdraw your application, or you can request we continue your
application. Now the decision is totally yours. You have the right to reject any of the
suggestions that I’ve made without prejudice. Now, having said that, Counselor, do you
have a position?
MR. SVARE-Right. Well, I guess what I’m hearing is that Sign One, Sign Number Three,
and I’m hearing from some people that Signs 4A, 4B, 4C would not be an issue. So I
guess I’d be looking for a motion possible to approve those signs that are agreeable to
the Board, and if we can, table the remaining issues.
MR. ABBATE-So you’re asking the Chairman to table this request for the next available
hearing date?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. He wants to approve the ones that we all agree on, and then
table the ones that we.
MR. ABBATE-It’s up to the Board. We could address this in two parts and make a
decision and table the others. Yes, we could do that.
MR. URRICO-My position would not change. I want to see the whole package before I
approve anything.
MR. ABBATE-Good point, Roy. Let me go down, so we don’t waste time here. Would
your position change. Mr. Urrico said no.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. URRICO-No, it would not.
MR. ABBATE-Would your position change?
MRS. HUNT-No.
MR. ABBATE-No. Would your position change?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No.
MR. ABBATE-Would your position change?
MR. MC NULTY-No.
MR. ABBATE-Would your position change?
MR. BRYANT-No.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Counselor, I offered you three options. I’ll go over them again.
th
Number One, you can table your appeal and I’ll consider you for the 16 of January
th
2008. Wait a second, you won’t be able to meet the 15. So what I will do, with a
modification is ask you to submit your recommendations and changes and modifications
th
by January the 15 to Staff, and I will schedule you for the first hearing in February.
MR. SVARE-There’s no possible way to get on the January?
MR. ABBATE-Well, the deadline, well, there’s always a possible way to do anything, but
th
we have a deadline of the 15 to submit the application, submit the modifications and
th
what have you, and this is the 19 of December. I’ll leave it up to the Board.
MR. UNDERWOOD-When is that place supposed to be up and running and open for
business? They’ve got to have a sign.
MR. SVARE-We’ve got to have a sign, and that’s why, respectfully, if there’s a way here,
this evening, we will withdraw any signs that are objectionable, but if we can have a
motion to approve those I’m hearing across the Board would not be an issue, and we will
withdraw the request for the other signs.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So what you’re basically submitting now to the Board an appeal
that, in view of the fact that there’s going to be an opening, it would in the best interest of
your client to have at least those signs that we agree upon. Is that what you’re saying?
MR. SVARE-Yes, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, but that’s going to be up to the Board, and I’ll be more than
happy to poll the Board again.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what we’re looking at is the freestanding sign in front. I don’t.
think anybody had a problem with that.
MR. BRYANT-No, that’s allowed, and so is the one big sign, is allowed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The one big sign on the building is allowed, that would be Rite Aid
Pharmacy.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And everything else would be off the Board, except for those
directional signs in the back.
MR. BRYANT-Can I make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman?
MR. ABBATE-By all means, please do.
MR. BRYANT-One of the options should be to proceed with the two signs that are
allowed, plus the directional signs, and withdraw this current application and go back to
the drawing board, but at least they have their signs for their opening. I mean, that
makes the most sense to me.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. URRICO-They don’t need relief for the freestanding sign and the wall sign.
MR. BRYANT-No. All they have to do with withdraw their application.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Exactly.
MR. BRYANT-And then this is the end of the discussion. They get the permit for the two
signs that are allowed, and they walk away with, and then he can come back later on for
a variance if they want to pursue the other sign.
MR. ABBATE-That’s, in other words, what basically what Mr. Bryant is saying, I think
he’s addressing my third request to you, if I was request, the second request, is that you
withdraw your application, and by withdrawing your application, there’s no action on our
part, and then you can put up those signs that require no variance and are authorized
and then come back to us at another time for the other signs.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we check with Craig, first, quickly.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think technically you’re really looking at Option Number One, which
is table the variance request, and the request is for the additional signs. They can come
in tomorrow and file a sign, and I think they actually have filed a sign permit application
for the freestanding sign, doesn’t require relief. The consolidated wall sign over the main
entrance doesn’t require relief. So they can get those building permits. I think what I
heard from the Board is a request to maybe consolidate the signs on the two sides and
maybe consolidate the smaller, pick up delivery signs in the back in the back into one
bigger kind of a strip sign. I think if they want to revise their application and come back
and seek different relief for those signs, that’s probably the tabling request, Option One.
The other signs are in the application. Just to let you know how many signs in total are
going to be on the building, again, the freestanding sign and the wall sign above the door
are allowed signs. They can get permits for those. They don’t require relief for those.
So they can definitely have signage for their opening, but all of the signage they want is
going to require some sort of variance from this Board.
MR. ABBATE-That’s a good point, because that’s what I said, well, I think it’s a good
point because that was my initial one, I agree with the Zoning Administrator. Table it and
continue to march, put up those signs that are authorized.
MR. URRICO-Can I ask a question?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. URRICO-If they get the permit for the wall sign, and it says that Rite Aid Pharmacy
there, and at a later date they want to add verbiage to that, will they have to get another
permit?
MR. BROWN-No. I think right now the plan is, and I don’t know what sheet number it is, I
doodled on it already, but the one that says Rite Aid Pharmacy and GNC Live Well, I
think that’s the plan for the sign above the front door, and at 80 square feet, they still
have 20ish square feet to play with, to add to that sign and make it a conforming sign, if
they wanted to add the one hour photo or food mart to that, if they’re unsuccessful with a
variance. So, do they need another sign permit? No. Could they modify that one up to
100 square feet without a variance? Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Counselor, it’s up to you.
MR. SVARE-I couldn’t say it more eloquently than Mr. Brown, and I’m agreeable to.
MR. ABBATE-So you wish to table your request?
MR. SVARE-To table, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Now, I’d be more than happy to table your request. Now you have to
th
understand that the modifications will have to be in to Staff by no later than the 15 of
January, and having said that, then I’ll be more than happy to schedule your client’s
appeal to the first hearing date in February 2008.
th
MR. BROWN-That’s the 20.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
ththth
MR. ABBATE-February the 20, is that what it is? The 20. Okay. February the 20
2008. Is that agreeable with you?
MR. SVARE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then I’ll move a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2007 1093 GROUP, LLC RITE AID
STORE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan
Bryant:
724 Glen Street. Be rescheduled for a hearing on 20 February 2008.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Sign Variance No. 56-2007 is seven yes, zero no. The
motion is carried. Sign Variance No. 56-2007 is tabled for the February 20, 2008
hearing. Thank you, Counselor.
MR. SVARE-Thanks.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2007 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT MC DONALD AGENT(S):
VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): ROBERT MC DONALD ZONING: SR-1A
LOCATION: 593 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT HAS A 4-LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION AND SEEKS INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAYS FOR EACH LOT. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.:
SUBDIVISION NO. 16-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 14, 2007
LOT SIZE: 1.03 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-2-19 SECTION: 179-19-020C
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-2007, Robert McDonald, Meeting Date:
December 19, 2007 “Project Location: 593 Corinth Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes a 4-lot residential subdivision. Two of the lots are proposed
to have direct access off of Corinth Road, a regional arterial road.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 140-feet of relief from the double the minimum lot width
requirement (for lots 1 and 2) for residential lots fronting on arterial roads, per §179-19-
020 for the SR-1A zone.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct an individual driveway for lot 2 and maintain
the existing driveway on lot 1.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives may include a reconfiguration of the subdivision to offer lot 2
access to Kimberly Lane.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for 140-feet of relief from the minimum 300-feet (two times the minimum lot
width of 150-feet) for each of the lots could be deemed considerable relative to the
ordinance (47%).
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
Moderate effects on the community may be anticipated as a result of this action.
“Unrestricted access onto arterial and collector roads can hinder the safe and efficient
movement of traffic” (§179-19-020).
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SUB 16-2006 Final stage approved 5/31/07
AV 73-2006 Denied 12/20/06
SB 16-2006 Sketch Plan: Pending, 4-lot residential subdivision.
BP 93-713: Issued, 11/24/93, septic alteration.
Staff comments:
The subdivision was reviewed and approved by the Planning Board with a shared
driveway configuration for lots 1 and 2.
The current proposal ( single drives for lots 1 and 2 ) is identical to the proposal that was
denied by the ZBA less than one year ago (AV 73-2006). See attached resolution and
minutes.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, you’re at the table. Would you be kind enough, please, to
identify yourselves.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, with Van Dusen and Steves, representing
Robert McDonald. Mr. McDonald is sitting at the table with me.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Are you ready to proceed?
MR. STEVES-Yes, we are.
MR. ABBATE-Please do, sir.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Again, this is property on Corinth Road. I know it’s been in front of
you before. I believe in that meeting we had stated what we thought was a fairly
substantial garage, and we pleaded our case, and we know we were denied. We went
on with the Planning Board, and we told the Planning Board that we were relocating the
driveway to a shared driveway because of the result of the Zoning Board, but wanted to
make sure that we had the ability to come back, as we had discussed. So here we are.
We’ve got a few other bits of information I’d like to pass out to the Board as well. We had
discussed last time regarding the size and type of structure, being a large concrete block
building, and the cost to renovate it. I apologize for the delay in getting you the cost.
After the contractors it took about six months to get cost proposals.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry to interrupt, but I think, as Staff has pointed out,
this is the identical request to one we denied. Does that not make this a re-hearing?
MR. ABBATE-No. The law is clear that an individual may submit an identical variance
without prejudice by the Board. It’s not a re-hearing. They have the right to do that. An
appellant has the right to submit, subsequently submit an identical request for a
variance.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’ll take your word for it.
MR. ABBATE-And Mr. McNulty is not incorrect, and I’d like to point out for the record that
Area Variance No. 73-2006, which appeared before this Board, in a vote of five to one,
disapproved the identical appeal that came before us initially, and that was Area
Variance No. 73-2006. So, for the record, I confirm what you said. Okay. This is an
identical appeal, unless you can tell us differently?
MR. STEVES-No.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Go ahead and proceed.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Because, it’s identical in the fact that the existing garage and the
existing driveway are where they are. We cannot change the location. The original
approval with the subdivision was to remove that driveway, share a driveway because of
the double lot width requirements, and we had stated at the time that there was a fairly
substantial building. It’s not a wooden, stick built garage. It’s a substantial garage with
masonry block. So we went through to a few different contractors and got costs of not
only, you know, instead of tearing down the garage, as some people have said maybe it
might be an alternative, which was very expensive just to relocate the garage doors.
Matt Cifone did go over there, measure it all up, measure for the doors, masonry work,
and it’s around $19,500 to relocate the garage doors to the back of that existing concrete
block garage, and not even tearing it down, because it’s such a, as I say, a substantial
structure, and that doesn’t even include the cost of, I know this isn’t a Use Variance, so
we’re not looking at financial hardship, but we’re just telling you some of the things that
we had tried to discuss before. The existing septic for that house is right out behind the
house. The driveway would have to loop considerably around that to the south, or
relocate the septic system, you know, another fairly sizeable expense with the driveway
and moving the septic, about $15,000, coupled with the garage renovations to enter from
the back, you’re looking at about $35,000, and we just said, geez, if somebody was
anticipating buying this and it’s another large expense, and the driveway is existing. The
garage does exist facing Corinth Road, and we just wanted to be heard one more time,
to see if there was anything that the Board had a chance to go over there and look at that
garage again in detail, and to look at the area of detail, and it is our belief that the one
additional driveway on Corinth Road, when Hudson Pointe Boulevard is just to our west
there, southwest, would not have a substantial impact in the neighborhood.
MR. ABBATE-And let me confirm for the record, which will also relieve myself, Mr.
McNulty, I just checked the law, and they can do that.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Have you concluded, up to this point, your argument?
MR. STEVES-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. Let me continue on here. All right. Do any members of the
Board have any questions for Area Variance No. 67-2007?
MRS. HUNT-I do.
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. Now, Lot Two, where will the driveway be on Lot Two?
MR. STEVES-We propose it in a location that would be the minimal tree clearing on that
lot for the frontage. We could adjust it anywhere you want it.
MRS. HUNT-It would be on Corinth Road, though?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MRS. HUNT-Why is there a problem with going to Hudson Pointe Boulevard?
MR. STEVES-You cannot.
MRS. HUNT-You can’t do that?
MR. STEVES-The property line for the Boulevard, as we discussed originally, is there’s a
homeowners association piece of property between the actual road bounds and the
actual southern part of Lot Two. So we would have to modify the PUD, I think it is, for, or
the subdivision for Hudson Pointe, and I know that would not happen.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there a big pit there over on that side towards Hudson Pointe? Is
that what that is on the plot?
MR. STEVES-It’s a little two foot depression.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Minor.
MR. STEVES-Two feet, 101 at the bottom 103 at the top.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other members of the Board who would like to ask
any questions?
MR. BRYANT-I have a technical question.
MR. ABBATE-Go ahead.
MR. BRYANT-Was this, this is a proposed subdivision. Was it reviewed by an engineer?
MR. STEVES-Yes. The Town Engineer?
MR. BRYANT-No, an engineer. Was it certified by an engineer? By State Education
Law, a subdivision plot has got to be done either by a licensed engineer or.
MR. STEVES-A subdivision plat has to be done by a licensed land surveyor.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. My question is, and this is why it’s technical, if you get this
approval, okay, isn’t this the document that’s filed with the County?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-Well, what’s the difference? Mr. Zoning Administrator.
MR. BROWN-Is this map you have before you the map that gets filed at the County?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. BRYANT-What map is filed?
MR. BROWN-The map that has the Planning Board Chairman’s signature on it, that
approved the subdivision.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Let me just go back again, because I think that the last time that
this came up, somebody in the general public mentioned it, and I went through a great
deal of research relative to it. These subdivision plats that are filed, and I know the way
to get around it is to say proposed, okay, but these subdivision plots that are actually
physically filed with the County have to be certified by a licensed engineer, or a
landscape architect. That’s in the law.
MR. BROWN-Or a surveyor with an N exemption.
MR. BRYANT-No. It has to be, this is a Paragraph N, and there are only two in this
County, and Mr. Steves is not one of them.
MR. ABBATE-I agree with the Zoning Administrator.
MR. STEVES-I don’t get the point, but if there is any engineering that needs to be done
as far as septic or water or drainage, yes. No subdivision map can be filed in New York
State without a surveyor’s signature on it.
MR. BRYANT-That’s fine.
MR. STEVES-Okay. I don’t understand the question.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I think I sent you the documentation on this already. Okay, and it’s
in the New York State Education Law which requires any of these subdivision, proposed
subdivision things, that are actually used to create subdivisions, have to be certified,
have to be sealed by a New York State engineer, licensed engineer, or a landscape
architect. The only exception, and I think they call it Paragraph N, somebody who
knows, correct me if I’m wrong, they were a list of engineers that were acceptable when
the law came into being.
MR. BROWN-Surveyors.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. STEVES-Surveyors.
MR. BRYANT-Surveyors, yes, and I raised this question, I think the last time you came
before us with a subdivision, and I just wanted to, I mean, why do we do this, just out of
curiosity? Explain this to me.
MR. ABBATE-I’m not even sure I know what the question is, Mr. Bryant.
MR. STEVES-The subdivision, when it was originally done and approved, was done by
Van Dusen and Steves Land Surveyors and Hutchins Engineering, and the plan is filed
with the County, signed and sealed by myself and Mr. Tom Hutchins, a P.E.
MR. BRYANT-It’s this one?
MR. STEVES-No. This is a revised plan to remove the shared driveway. This is a
proposal in front of you for a variance request.
MR. BROWN-So procedurally what they’ll have to do is go back to the Planning Board,
have the previous subdivision modified to give Lot Two a driveway, and they’ll re-file
another map with all the appropriate stamps and signatures on it.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I was just curious, that’s the question.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Because I just wanted to make sure.
MR. STEVES-It isn’t filed in this manner, no.
MR. BRYANT-No, I understand that, but eventually, I just wanted to understand the
process, because eventually, it’s got to be filed in the County.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-So the question is, you know, what happens between now and then, and if
it eventually is sealed by a licensed engineer.
MR. STEVES-This plan would not have to be sealed by a licensed engineer. It’s a
modification to a lot line or a driveway relocation. It has nothing to do with.
MR. BRYANT-But the original one was.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. That was it. It was a technical question. Thank you.
MRS. HUNT-I have another question.
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry. Go ahead, please.
MRS. HUNT-If you eliminate the shared driveway, where would the driveway be for Lot
Two?
MR. STEVES-Like I say, we had proposed it in a location just about two thirds of the way
up the northerly lot line, or along Corinth Road on the north, two thirds the distance from
the north/south distance, where it would be the least amount of tree clearing along that
little hedgerow on the Corinth Road. I believe it shows it about 75 to 80 feet south of the
common lot line on your plan, it says proposed drive.
MRS. HUNT-So it’s pretty close to the existing driveway.
MR. STEVES-You don’t have the same plan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-She’s got a different one.
MRS. HUNT-I see. I don’t have that one.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got the old one.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. STEVES-But I mean we can relocate that anywhere that you would like along that
line. We just think that, in looking at the existing surroundings lot across the street,
entrance to Hudson Pointe Boulevard, distance from the existing driveway, that that’s the
optimal location if we were to obtain a variance.
MRS. HUNT-I just think that that section of road is rather dangerous as it is, without
another driveway.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else on the Board have any questions at this
time? All right. Then I’m going to go on and open up the public hearing for Area
Variance No. 67-2007. Do we have any members of the public who wish to be heard?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. ABBATE-I see no hands raised, so we’re going to move on. Now we’re at that point
now where I’m going to ask Board members to offer their comments on Area Variance
No. 67-2007, and do we have any volunteers? Who would like to go first?
MR. BRYANT-I would, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please, Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t really think much has changed. Since December 2006, and my
opinion hasn’t changed. I think the one single shared driveway was acceptable by the
Planning Board and I’d have no problem with that. I think the variable is Corinth Road.
Corinth Road is a, I mean, I travel Corinth Road often, and it is a treacherous road. I
mean, people are trying to pull out from all the side streets. Additional driveways on that
road would be detrimental to the traffic flow. So, in my view, a shared driveway is
sufficient.
MR. ABBATE-So you’re against it?
MR. BRYANT-I’m against it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Thank you. All right. Can we move to Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I, too, haven’t changed. I was opposed before. Again, while it’s
going to cost a little more, a shared driveway is still one option. I keep thinking in this
terms. This is not some homeowner with some unusual extreme difficulty. This,
essentially, is a developer that wants to build houses on four lots instead of three, and
that’s the other option, leave the Corinth Road frontage as a single lot and subdivide the
other two lots and build. So I think there’s two options here. I don’t see the need for us
to help a developer make every last penny off a piece of land. In this case, I think like
Mr. Bryant says, the other factor is Corinth Road is a busy road, and I think in this
particular case with the other roads that are very close to this, an additional driveway
would add to the danger factor. So I’m going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, sir. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I can’t say that I’ve changed my opinion from last year because I wasn’t
part of this decision at that time, but I do agree with my two previous Board members
here. I think we’re talking about a regional arterial road. It’s not just a collector road. It’s
not a local arterial road. This is a major road and before we start adding curb cuts and
driveways to this road, we have to think long and hard about it. There’s a reason why
the statute exists, or the Code exists the way it does, and that’s to make sure that the
traffic entering this road is minimized. So, I’m sorry, I would be against this project right
now.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and let’s move to Rick, please.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. GARRAND-This isn’t a case where there’s an unnecessary hardship. This seems to
me to be a case where they’re trying to get the most they can out of the land. What we
want to see here is the Town plan says we’ve got to have uninterrupted traffic flow along
these arterial roads, and adding driveways to that doesn’t provide for the uninterrupted
traffic. So basically my position hasn’t changed that much.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, sir, and I think Mrs. Hunt is next.
MRS. HUNT-All right. Thank you. Yes. I’d have to agree with my previous Board
members. I’ve been out on Corinth Road and almost had an accident and have seen a
couple of other close calls. I don’t think we need another curb cut. I don’t have any
problem with the shared driveway, and I don’t think that $19,567.22 is an exorbitant
amount, considering the price of houses, and the fact that this is a new development. So
I would be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, and Mr. Underwood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Last time we went through this, I was the only one that was
supportive of the project, and I think that, you know, they’ve substantiated having to
change that garage access from a shared driveway, because obviously it wouldn’t make
sense to have to drive around the horn, through the whole backyard, to get to it, is a
hardship. Sometimes I think that like when we specifically look at the Code book in
regards to the arterial drives like Corinth Road is, what we have to keep in mind is we’re
not proposing a whole bunch of things. In other words, when Hudson Pointe
development went in, they built the boulevard. A substantial amount of new traffic was
created that was going to go onto Corinth Road from that single drive that’s been created
there, and it is a boulevard. It’s very attractive. These guys explained the last time they
came in, obviously if Hudson Pointe Boulevard was just a regular street, they could have
easily accessed that out the side of their lot and that would all be taken care of. It seems
to me that, I don’t understand why the homeowners association would be so opposed to
it. It would be a pain in the butt because you’d have to come in the boulevard and loop
back around to get into that Lot Two there if you were going to do it that way, but in a
practical sense, you’re going to add one driveway on Corinth Road. I don’t think that’s
going to tip the scales that, you know, it’s going to become suddenly more impossible
than Corinth Road already is with the many driveways that do go out onto that roadway
there. So I’m still going to support what you’re doing here. I supported it last time, and I
think the addition of one additional driveway, as long as the traffic exits head out going
into the traffic, is reasonable to me. I don’t think it’s way over the top. I mean, the only
other thing I can see doing is having an access that goes in to access all three of those
properties, but they’ve already got Kimberly Lane back there for the two in the back,
that’s all taken care of. It’s really that pre-existing house in the front, if there were no
house on that lot, Lot One, it would be easy to do the shared drive, but the addition of
one single more driveway to me doesn’t real trigger it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. There certainly is merit to what Mr.
Underwood says. There’s no question about it, and there’s also merit to what the
majority of the Board so far, five, have said. At this point, I’m not convinced either way,
and so I’m going to abstain on voting on this appeal, and at this point I’m going to ask
that the public hearing be closed for Area Variance No. 67-2007.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to respectfully ask the members of this Board if they would
like to move a motion for Area Variance No. 67-2007. Ladies and gentlemen, I need a
motion one way or the other.
MR. BRYANT-May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
MR. ABBATE-Sure.
MR. BRYANT-Are you going to afford the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the
application?
MR. ABBATE-If he wishes to do that, he certainly has that opportunity.
MR. STEVES-Could I discuss that with him for a second?
MR. ABBATE-By all means. How about we recess for five minutes, to give you an
opportunity to talk to your client.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. UNDERWOOD-One thing I would add, too, is there any possibility that you could
talk to the homeowners association over there about getting one little dinky driveway
coming into their boulevard? I mean, I would think that would be, you know, if you’re not
going to get this, you’ve got to do something.
MR. STEVES-I agree, and it’s a good point. We discussed that before, and I just
discussed that with Bob, and he said we’ll try, but he doesn’t think so, but I’ll talk to him
about it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and you know the three options I offer.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So we’re going to take a five minute recess so that the client and
the appellant can discuss the terms.
MR. STEVES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Sure, you’re welcome. No problem. All right. We’re going to resume,
guys. Okay.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Mr. Chairman, I’ve discussed it with my client, and we would ask if
you would allow us to withdraw this application at this time.
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. STEVES-And then we will contact an attorney and see what we can find out with the
Homeowners Association of Hudson Pointe, again.
MR. ABBATE-Sure, by all means. So then is it the wish of our client to withdraw Area
Variance No. 67-2007?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then there is no action on our part. Thank you very much.
MR. STEVES-And we thank you for your time.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, gentlemen.
NEW BUSINESS:
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 10-2007 SEQRA TYPE: N/A JEAN M. HOFFMAN
AGENT(S): WILLIAM J. KENIRY, ESQ. TABNER, RYAN & KENIRY, LLP OWNER(S)
JEAN M. HOFFMAN ZONING: LOCATION: 159 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPELLANT
IS APPEALING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S DETERMINATION OF SEPTEMBER 14,
2007 IN RELATION TO PREVIOUS APPROVALS REGARDING THE BOATHOUSE ON
THE PROPERTY. CROSS REF.: AV 46-2005; SPR 50-2001; AV 91-2001; BP 2002-
142 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT
SIZE: N/A TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-9.11 SECTION: 179-17-040; 179-16-050
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a question on this appeal. The question is that I
th
don’t have the determination letter of September 14. I’ve never seen a copy of that.
MR. ABBATE-Right. Mr. Zoning Administrator, I requested that you, I sent you an e-
mail, based upon the request of Mr. Bryant, indicating that we never received your letter
determination, and as I recall in an Executive Session with you and the attorney, we
were promised that the next day you would be writing a letter, which I suspect you did,
and that we all would be receiving copies, and the reason I say that is because we are
the offended party, and I think we have a right to understand why, what the Appeal is
based upon. Would you agree or not agree?
MR. BRYANT-Exactly.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Did I make your case for you?
MR. BRYANT-Absolutely.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This was delivered via hand delivery. It was addressed to
Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator. RE: The application of Jean M. Hoffman, our File
23985, Site Plan application 50-2001. It’s now 2007, remember that.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Dear Mr. Brown: On behalf of Jean Hoffman, we hereby appeal
your determination of September 14, 2007, which purports to rescind any/all approvals in
relation to the above referenced application. We are filing this appeal in an abundance
of caution, as there is a pending consolidated Article 78 proceeding challenging the
Town’s actions relating to this property, which now also contains the Town’s lawsuit
claims against Mrs. Hoffman. Your determination is legally and factually insufficient, and
we hereby appeal. Enclosed herewith, please find an Application for Appeal dated
November 13, 2007. We rely upon the voluminous records already filed with the Town,
in particular the April 6, 2007 submission of a certified copy of the deed by Ms. Hoffman,
which deed was provided to the Town immediately upon notification of the mistake.
Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your assistance.” And that’s signed Bethany
Schumann-McGhee from Tabner, Ryan and Keniry, and that’s it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, I have something to read into the record as well. It is in
response to Mr., Tabner, Ryan and Keniry’s letter. There’s a letter requesting,
addressed to our Town Counsel, Mr. Fuller, requesting, it reads as follows. “Enclosed
herewith, please find a copy of the letter which places Mrs. Hoffman’s appeal of the
Zoning Officer’s determination on the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda for
December 19, 2007. In light of the pending court action, it is prudent to hold this
application in abeyance pending Judge Aulisi’s decision. As such, we will not be
attending the meeting of December 19, 2007. This is consistent with the procedure we
have followed in relation to Mrs. Hoffman’s pending application throughout the pendency
of this action. If you disagree please contact me immediately and directly. With best
wishes, Very truly yours, TABNER, RYAN AND KENIRY, LLP William J. Keniry” Okay.
Now, having said that, Mr. Secretary, again, we raise the issue, is there any reason why
you didn’t provide us with copies?
MR. BROWN-I think there’s a follow up letter from Matt Fuller to Bill Keniry that says
there’s been an agreement to table the application.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, right. No, but that’s not my question. You apparently went out with a
letter, okay, revoking, based upon fraudulent documentation.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. We don’t have a copy of that.
MR. BROWN-Okay. I mean, you’ll get it with the Staff Notes. I didn’t prepare any Staff
Notes for this application because it’s my understanding that this was going to be tabled,
but, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s okay with me. Is that alright with you?
MR. BRYANT-No, it’s not alright with me, because I think the original agreement of this
Board was that we would get a copy of that letter.
MR. ABBATE-Well, that was the original agreement.
MR. BRYANT-So, I mean, I would like to just see the letter, just.
MR. ABBATE-Well, wait a second guys. We really should not be discussing this in
public. I would go into Executive Session, if you wish, but first of all what I’m going to do
is table this thing, and then if you wish to go into Executive Session then I could justify it
by saying that we’re going to be discussing litigation. Mr. Brown, would you have any
problems discussing it in Executive Session rather than in the open?
MR. BROWN-No, I don’t have any problem.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thanks a lot. I appreciate that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we do anything with the public tonight, or no?
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m not finished, guys. Give me a chance to go through this thing,
okay. Okay. Counselor for the appellant has requested that the appeal of Jean M.
Hoffman be held in abeyance, in a fax to the Town Attorney, Mr. Fuller, dated 11
December 2007, to hold in abeyance Appeal No. 10-2007, pending a decision by
Supreme Court Justice Aulisi. Before I begin, I respectfully recommend that the
members of this Board do not comment on this Appeal or answer any questions.
Comments volunteered by members of the Board could place this Board in legal
jeopardy. The public hearing will now be open. Do we have any members of the public
who wish to address Appeal No. 10-2007? All right, sir, you have five minutes.
However, let me caution you, Mr. Salvador, that none of the Board members will be
answering any questions or making any comments.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-I understand. As I understand what’s going on here, the applicant is
th
appealing the Zoning Administrator’s determination of September 14, which basically
advised the applicant that he had rescinded all project approvals because, quote, we are
still lacking any discussion of the discrepancy in the deeds. Furthermore I note that the
variances which preceded this application to the Planning Board have since lapsed their
terms. Thus, the application to the ZBA is required. Further, Mr. Brown goes on to void
all permits and/or approvals granted by the Town on this boathouse, including the dock, I
would assume, because he determined that the discrepancy in the deeds constituted a
material misrepresentation of the facts. You will recall that the deed discrepancy of
which the Zoning Administrator speaks dealt with an error of commission. That is a very
pertinent Town Planning Board and Zoning Board condition of subdivision plat approval
were omitted. The part that was omitted, if I can read this, all conditions of the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals imposed on the 1999
subdivision which subdivision is shown on said map by Van Dusen and Steves, by the
way that’s one that Matt Steves stamped and he doesn’t have an N Exemption, okay, by
Van Dusen and Steves, which conditions shall also be covenants and restrictions
running with the land, including the following. Now this is the omission. No new docks
may be constructed on the lakefront, but the existing docks may be modified within the
allowable regulatory limits. The deed submitted to Staff for Area Variance No. 91-2001
and Site Plan No. 50-2001, which was accepted by Staff, and upon which all reviews and
approvals were made, did not include the paragraph I quoted. This is a new dock. No
new docks were allowed. There’s no question that this is new. The existing was not
modified, it was demolished. No demolition permit was applied for nor granted. There is
a new boathouse which could not exist without the new dock. It was never addressed.
After the Zoning Administrator reminded the applicant that, as long as the deed
discrepancy remains unexplained, all permits are void, he then gratuitously gives the
applicant 60 days to appeal. Appeal what? Section 179-17-040 is the Zoning Code, and
the nullity of the permits there from is an operation of law. An error was made. It nullifies
the permits. It’s an operation of law. It’s got nothing to do with determinations. The
applicant takes the bait and files a Notice of Appeal on 11/13/07, one day short of the 60
days, and reminds the Zoning Administrator that on April 6, 2007 a certified copy of the
deed of record was submitted to the Town, immediately upon notification of the mistake.
That’s the error of commission that I spoke of. I had altered Mr. Brown of the deed
discrepancy as early as July 19, 2006, almost a year earlier. No mention of that. The
applicant then claims that the Zoning Administrator’s determination is legally and
factually insufficient, and accordingly this Appeal, and another no-show, because on
12/11 the applicant addresses Mr. Fuller suggesting, in light of the pending court action,
it is prudent to hold this application in abeyance pending Judge Aulisi’s decision. As
th
such we will not be attending the meeting on the 19. Why we do have to agree with
this? Why not a default judgment? There’s no reason why you can’t proceed with this
Appeal. They don’t want to show, they face a default judgment. There are five pending
Article 78’s on this project. Can you imagine another one? I’d hate to go to Judge Aulisi
with this in my hand, ask him to make a determination on a matter that has not been fully
settled, and after he makes the determination, then you’ve got another Article 78
coming? Also at this time there’s a Lake George Park Commission enforcement action
pending, and that’s being held in abeyance pending the outcome of what’s approved by
this Town finally, because their permit is predicated on Town permit, and in the
meantime the APA has, I think it’s 2002/2003, come out with some recommended
boathouse construction which they limit to one story. How high is one story? So this is
the quagmire we’re in, but I maintain there are many, many open issues besides the one
narrow one you’re dealing with, which is the height of the boathouse.
MR. ABBATE-I have a question for you.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-How did you get that information from the Zoning Administrator when we
don’t have it?
MR. SALVADOR-What information did I get?
MR. ABBATE-Well, you mentioned, you quoted Mr. Brown.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s in the file.
MR. ABBATE-What do you mean it’s in the file? We don’t have it. How did you get it?
MR. SALVADOR-The file downstairs. I FOIL’d the.
MR. BROWN-Freedom of Information.
MR. SALVADOR-Freedom of Information request.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Then when will we be getting what the public has?
MR. BROWN-With the Staff Notes.
MR. ABBATE-When will we be getting the Staff Notes?
MR. BROWN-When you’re going to hear this application.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t think that’s good enough. I think we need it ahead of time.
MR. BROWN-How about tomorrow?
MR. BRYANT-Is it on the microfiche?
MR. ABBATE-Great. If you could do that, Craig, I’d really appreciate it. It will save.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I’ll double check my e-mails. This may be something we sent out by
e-mail back when I wrote it. That’s my recollection, that it was electronically sent, but
we’ll get you another copy.
MR. ABBATE-That would help out considerably. Thank you, Mr. Salvador.
MR. SALVADOR-But the point I want to make is that the permits that have been issued
to this date are a nullity by an operation of law. There has been a misrepresentation.
The applicant calls it a mistake, refers to it as an error, okay. All bets are off, start all
over again. Correct it, if you want to correct the mistake, fine, then start the process
again.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. All right. Now I’m going to keep the public hearing
open, and I move a motion to honor the request of Mr. William J. Keniry.
MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 10-2007 JEAN M. HOFFMAN,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
159 Cleverdale Road. At the request of Mr. William J. Keniry, to hold Notice of Appeal
No. 10-2007 Jean M. Hoffman in abeyance pending notification by Mr. Keniry of a
decision rendered by Judge Aulisi.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-In a vote of seven yes to zero no, the motion is passed. Okay. Thank
you, ladies and gentlemen. Okay, now, ladies and gentlemen, a Board member has
requested that we go into Executive Session, and, Craig, you’ve answered our question
on the letter, there’s no reason for you to have to stay for that.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-So we’re going into Executive Session to discuss litigation.
MR. SALVADOR-Before you go.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, by all means.
MR. SALVADOR-I heard this secondhand today, but I would like Craig Brown to help me
and confirm this, but, as I understand it, last night at the Planning Board meeting, the
Planning Board decided to open a review of a previously reviewed Site Plan, and to do
that before the Site Plan went to other Boards, the project went to other Boards for
approval.
MR. ABBATE-What was the subject? What are you talking about?
MR. SALVADOR-I don’t have to mention the project.
MR. BRYANT-I thought the Planning Board meets tomorrow?
MR. BROWN-Last night and tomorrow.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right.
MR. SALVADOR-The point is that we have always had this debate in Town who gets first
crack at a project, the ZBA or the Planning Board?
MR. ABBATE-I see, you’re talking about procedures. I understand.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, procedures, and I have always maintained that the Planning
Board should have the first crack, that is the broad brush to see that the project fits into
the landscape, okay, and we have been always in the past, and Hoffman is one of them,
Hoffman is one of them, the ZBA had the project first, okay, and then it went to the
Planning Board. There was practically no review at the Planning Board.
MR. ABBATE-Well, maybe I can make your Christmas for you. I have discussed this
with a couple of Board members and potential Board members, what comes first, the
chicken or the egg?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, and so are we all in agreement, now, the Planning Board?
MR. ABBATE-There is no agreement. Have a Merry Christmas. This session is closed.
We are going into Executive Session and I need a motion.
MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LITIGATION, Introduced
by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-And the vote is seven yes, zero no. We are now in Executive Session.
MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Charles Abbate
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of December, 2007, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/07)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
31