2008.07.23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 23, 2008
INDEX
Area Variance No. 5-2008 K-Twin Holdings/Daniel W. Krueger 1.
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-9 and 10
Area Variance No. 52-2007 Larry Clute 7.
Tax Map No. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29
Area Variance No. 19-2008 Ronald Ball 17.
Tax Map No. 295.10-1-31.1
Area Variance No. 43-2008 Anthony Classi 20.
Tax Map No. 38.10-1-36
Area Variance No. 44-2008 James & Michele Morris 23.
Tax Map No. 308.18-2-34
Sign Variance No. 45-2008 Ed Moore d/b/a Log Jam Outlets 26.
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-17
Sign Variance No. 46-2008 Jolley Associates/Mobil 44.
Tax Map No. 288.16-1-3
Area Variance No. 9-2008 Gregg Brown 49.
Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7; 239.7-1-6
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 07/23/08)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 23, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOYCE HUNT
RICHARD GARRAND
JOAN JENKIN
BRIAN CLEMENTS
RONALD KUHL, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
rd
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the July 23 meeting of the Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our
procedures once again for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we handle each
application, I’ll call the application by name and number. The secretary will read the
pertinent parts of the application, the Staff Notes and the Warren County Planning Board
decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any
information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the
applicant. Then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing is intended to help us
gather information and understand it about the issue at hand. It functions to help the
Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for the Board
members. There will be a five minute limit on speakers. We will allow speakers to speak
again after everybody has had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes,
and only if after listening to the other speakers, the speaker believes that they have new
information to present, and Board members, I’d suggest, because we have the five
minute limit, that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking.
Rather, we should wait until a speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask
the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read any correspondence into the record,
and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to public comment.
Board members will discuss the request with the applicant. Following that, the Board
members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and then the
public hearing will be closed or left open, depending on the situation. Finally, if
appropriate, a motion to approve or disapprove will follow.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II K-TWIN HOLDINGS/DANIEL W.
KRUEGER AGENT(S): RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): K-TWIN
HOLDINGS/DANIEL W. KRUEGER ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: WEST SIDE
MEADOWBROOK RD., NORTH OF QUAKER RD. INTERSECTION APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,329 SQ. FT. OFFICE BUILDING WITH
ASSOCIATED SITE DEVELOPMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD
AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
WETLANDS CLEARING REGULATIONS AND RETAINING WALL HEIGHT. NEW
INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR JULY 2008. CROSS REF. FRESHWATER
WETLANDS PERMIT 4-08 SPR 7-08 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY
13, 2008 LOT SIZE: 0.22 AC.; 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-9 AND 10
SECTION: 179-4-030 TABLE 4; 179-6-060B1a; 179-6-060D2e3
RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-We have previously heard this at other meetings, and it was tabled
for more information and a slight modification, and there was some new information for
this that was submitted tonight. I think what I’m going to do is have Roy read in the Staff
Notes, and then I’ll have you guys present and explain to us what modifications you’ve
made on this.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2008, K-Twin Holdings/Daniel W. Krueger,
Meeting Date: July 23, 2008 “Project Location: West side Meadowbrook Rd., north of
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
Quaker Rd. intersection The Planning Board has not yet completed the SEQR review for
this project. Consideration should be given to further tabling this application until the
Planning Board completes SEQR review. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to construct 2,886 sq. ft. office building with associated site improvements on
0.61 acres. These plans are an update of previous plans addressing the Planning Board
concerns over stormwater management issues derived from Planning Board meeting
dated May 20, 2008.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 44.30 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum shoreline setback
requirement of the Highway Commercial (HC-Int) zone. Additionally, the applicant
requests 20 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback per Section 179-4-030.
Further, hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline will need relief from this Board.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct and operate a business office on the property
as desired.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives appear to be limited as the front setback and shoreline setback
overlap. Some relief will have to be granted in order for this project to move forward.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?
The request for 44.3 feet or 59% relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback per Section
179-4-030 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the Ordinance. The
request for 20 feet or 40% front line setback relief may be considered moderate relative
to the Ordinance.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action as the
design of the office mimics the neighborhood located east of the project.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created as the site does not lend itself to
development of any kind.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
No parcel history evident.
Staff comments:
The proposed project is severely limited due to the zoning constraints imposed on the
parcel and the subsequent relief required. The shoreline setback and frontline setback
overlap throughout the site. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline is also
proposed. That being the case, there is no place for a compliant building to be
constructed on this site. The applicant has reduced the proposed footprint substantially
and made it more compliant in relation to the original plan submitted.
SEQR Status: Unlisted”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to come up.
MR. JONES-Good evening. For the record, Richard Jones, architect for the project, and
with me is Dan Krueger from K-Twin Properties. As indicated in Staff Notes and as
demonstrated from our original proposal, we’ve made some major alterations to the plan,
as well as site the site plan. We’ve drastically reduced the size of the building, dropped it
from a two tenant structure to a single tenant office building, and in doing that, basically
we were able to reduce the setback variance that we were looking for in the front yard. It
also enabled us, basically because of the limited amount of pavement that we need at
this time, because of the reduction in the building size, to delete the retaining wall that
we were proposing on the back side of the property. That is gone completely. Basically
what we’ve been able to do is incorporate an on site drainage system that’s compliant
with the regulations for the Town of Queensbury, in regard to the stormwater
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
management, and it’s a basic storage system, which is sized and basically is looking at a
100 year event and we’re able to basically incorporate that and store it on site. The
impacts that we were looking at and discussing with the Planning Board basically have
all been pretty much mitigated at this point. They had some concerns in reference to the
stormwater drainage, the proximity of the retaining wall, the height of the retaining wall,
and in working with the Planning Board over the last two to three months, we’ve been
able to basically mitigate the questions and problems that they were looking at, that they
felt we had with the project. We know that we need variances, and as Planning Staff had
indicated, the basic site is of a size that basically the front yard setback requirements
and the setbacks to the wetlands overlap. There is a very small sliver of property, about
five feet wide in the middle of the property, that would allow us to build a building, but we
still would need variances for pavement and everything else. With that, I’d be happy to
answer any questions that anyone may have.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you anticipate any problems with the Freshwater Wetlands
Permit you’ve got to get from?
MR. JONES-No. In discussions that we’ve had with DEC, they realize the limitations that
we have on the site as well. They indicated to us that they felt favorable in us pulling the
building forward and asking for a front yard setback variance, rather than pushing it back
closer to the wetlands, and the original proposal is the one that they were responding to,
which had the retaining wall. Now they’re response has been much more favorable even
than that. So I don’t anticipate that we’re going to have a problem getting our wetlands
permit from them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re basically going to control stormwater runoff on site.
MR. JONES-Yes we are.
MR. UNDERWOOD-For the building and the parking lot.
MR. JONES-Building, parking, the eaves of the building as well.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And Planning Board has essentially signed off on that, they think
that’s reasonable?
MR. JONES-Basically they feel that we’ve mitigated any questions that they’ve had and
anything that we’ve come up with at this point has basically addressed their concerns.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. GARRAND-Have the lots been consolidated as of yet?
MR. JONES-No, they have not, and they would be as part of any variance application or
Site Plan Review.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other Board members have questions?
MR. KUHL-So even if you get approval tonight, you still, then, have to go through the
DEC for their approval?
MR. JONES-We have a submission in place right now with DEC for the wetlands permit.
We also need a wetlands permit from the Town of Queensbury as well, and we still need
Site Plan approval. So there’s still several hurdles that we have to go through.
MR. KUHL-And does that, Jim, does that mean that they’ll come back?
MR. UNDERWOOD-They don’t have to come back to us. That’s a Site Plan issue with
the Planning Board. So that’s just hoops you’ve got to jump through. Why does the
Army Corps one have to go to Florida? Is that the nearest office or is that just?
MR. JONES-It’s a joint application. I have no idea.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Sure, yes, no, I just noted that. All right.
MRS. JENKIN-What about the 100 foot DEC wetlands setback, because that’s right near
the road.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. JONES-That’s correct. Their setback is different than the Town. I believe the Town
is 50 feet. DEC is 100.
MRS. JENKIN-And the 75 foot wetlands. So we have no interest in that at all? Do we?
MR. OBORNE-Well, the Town is a 75 foot shoreline setback and the 50 foot is for hard
surfacing.
MR. JONES-Right.
MR. URRICO-I have a question for Staff. Why are we recommending we wait for a
SEQRA review process to be completed, if they’ve already satisfied the Planning Board?
MR. OBORNE-Well, typically the Planning Board needs to begin SEQRA prior to asking
for a recommendation. They neglected to do the SEQRA this past last month I believe,
no, the first meeting of this month, and they should have done SEQRA and then sent the
recommendation along to you, and they failed to do that, so they did send a
recommendation along to you, but you really can’t act on the recommendation until they
commence SEQRA.
MRS. JENKIN-With moving the building forward, are you going to have to blast that rock
outcrop?
MR. JONES-No. We wouldn’t be addressing, we would be leaving the outcrop as it runs
parallel with Meadowbrook Road. We’ve dug a series of test holes from Meadowbrook
Road back on the site, as well as across the site heading to the north toward the Town of
Queensbury property. What we’ve found is that the rock adjacent to Meadowbrook, we
started digging just behind the outcropping, probably 10 feet behind the outcropping, and
we had about eight to ten inches to bedrock at that point. We then we went back a little
bit further, which would have been the front line of the building, and we had two feet to
rock at that point. We then dug in the middle of the building, and we basically went to
five feet and did not hit bedrock. As we went to the north towards the Town of
Queensbury property, again, we did not hit bedrock and on that end of the property we
were down substantially. The other thing that you need to realize is that we’re also
building up the site above the elevations that are there because we’re building up a
plateau to build the building on in the center of the site. So we’re going to be adding an
additional roughly 18 inches to 24 inches of fill in that area as well. So we feel we have
adequate dimension to bedrock for our storage system, installation of our sanitary lines
and our water lines coming in and out of the building, both of which would come out the
north side of our building and go to the northeast corner of our property. We dug a test
hole in that area as well to make sure that we had sufficient cover, frost protection for our
water line, and we do in that area. The only area that we would actually be impacting the
rock would be on the front side of the building, and there we would be pinning our
foundations to the rock in that area. I know the Planning Board was asking about
additional landscaping trees along the Meadowbrook side of the property, but we can’t.
We know in the corners of the property we have enough depth for root system on some
fairly major trees, but in the center of the property we do not. We don’t have adequate
depth.
MRS. JENKIN-And you’re essentially going to clear cut the property?
MR. JONES-The property is basically saplings at this point. There’s not very many
major trees and we, at this point, are looking to cut to the back side, and we would end
where we’re grading. We’re not sure if we can salvage the trees that are adjacent to the
wetland area. If we can we certainly would.
MRS. JENKIN-The problem has been with the flooding to the north.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-And I guess I don’t understand. If you’re going down, you’re taking care
of all the drainage and everything within the property itself.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-But where does it drain to after that? When it goes underground, where
does it go to?
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. JONES-It’s basically infiltrating. There’s a slow infiltration out of the system. That’s
the way it’s designed. It’s basically designed for a storage capacity for a 100 year event,
and it actually has extra capacity above and beyond that. There is a slow trickle. If we
get an event that’s in excess of a 100 year storm, it’s going to flow out the top of the
structures similar to any other structure in the Town.
MRS. JENKIN-Right, but the thing is, then it will gradually seep into the ground and go
away, correct, after that.
MR. JONES-That’s correct.
MRS. JENKIN-Where is that going to go, then? Will it go to the north?
MR. JONES-I assume that it will. Eventually everything goes to the north in that area. At
the present time, that wetlands is basically a pass through wetlands. If you look at the
culverts that are coming under Quaker Road, they’re dumping an immense amount of
water on what would be the north side of Quaker Road. It flows parallel with Quaker
Road ‘til it hits the back side of our property, and then it flows to the north. Part of the
problem to the north is that the storage units that are there, they built over the top of the
wetlands, and they installed culverts through there to basically divert the wetlands, and in
so doing they basically restricted the flow. So everything backs up into the back side of
the property. When Midas Muffler was built, they filled the wetlands which displaced
them to the east, which is the back side of our property. If you look at the original
wetlands maps, you’ll actually see the wetlands are under the Midas Muffler building,
and in constructing that building, they built it up and everything pushed to the east
because of that.
MRS. JENKIN-I’m just concerned because if. the building has already taken place to
Midas Muffler and the parts to the north and everything, and then if you continue to build
and, is it going to make the problem worse? And I understand that you’ve got the
drainage and everything taken care of on the piece of property, but you have to look at
the whole area.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if you look at it from an historical perspective, the whole
Quaker Road corridor there was wetland, and all those businesses were backfilled.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, definitely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I believe that was when they took the insurance company building
down a lot of that was deposited there as the base for that, and the problem emanates
not necessarily from your property but from that whole, from the center of Glens Falls
from about Notre Dame Street coming this way, and in filling in those wetlands, that’s
what created the lack of capacity for flood water, like in an event like this evening, but,
you know, and as to whether this one is going to do it, it’s up to your judgment, but this is
a high spot there. This is not a low spot.
MR. JONES-Yes, and that site is actually a filled site as well, and in doing our test pits,
we encountered all kinds of crusher rock run boulders, everything imaginable is on that
site.
MRS. JENKIN-So where do you think that came from?
MR. JONES-I have no clue. There was a refrigerator in one of the holes, so there was
somebody’s boot. So, yes. Anything imaginable is on that site.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I have one. Maybe, Jim, can we act on this without having
anything written from the Planning Board?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Without the SEQRA review, I don’t think we can. I mean, but we
can give him an idea as to whether we think it’s reasonable or not. I think at least maybe
that’s what you’re looking for this evening, you know, with the new information that’s
been submitted here. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Is there anybody from the
public wishing to speak this evening?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. URRICO-I don’t see any.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. In lieu of the fact, I mean, this is an Unlisted Action, and in
lieu of the fact that we kind of gave the Planning Board the go ahead to do the SEQRA
review, I mean, it’s unfortunate that they didn’t do that the last time you met with them,
but we’re not going to be able to give you any definitive yes or no on this tonight, but I
think that maybe what I’ll do is poll the Board to see what the Board’s feelings are,
whether this has changed enough from the original application so you’re more
comfortable with it or whether you still think it goes down. So, Brian, do you want to go
first?
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I’ll start. Yes, I feel that the downsizing of the project and some
of the other things that you’ve done have helped in maybe making this variance a little
less than it would have been. So I would be, I’d be in favor of this project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I also feel it’s much smaller. The elevation doesn’t fit with the
drawing, but I suppose because you, this is a conceptual floor plan.
MR. JONES-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-You didn’t do another for the elevation drawing. So it probably doesn’t
make any difference. It’s going to be built on a slab.
MR. JONES-That’s correct, slab on grade.
MRS. JENKIN-It’s such a problem in that area anyway, but I think that the measures that
you’ve taken to take care of that, the stormwater and it’s a 100 year, I think that I would
probably be in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-While I applaud the efforts of the applicant here to mitigate the
stormwater problems, I have problems with any kind of development at all within the
Meadowbrook Road corridor. The flooding problems created here by the development in
Queensbury are impacting the neighbors to such an extent one of them’s even built a
dock in his back yard. Any further development in this area I think is going to have
adverse effects on the neighborhood. So at this point I can’t be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-At this point I would say I am more favorable about the project than I
would have been the last time, based on the changes you’ve made, but I won’t say that
I’m ready to approve it at this point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Well, I think with the updating of the previous plans and the downsizing of
the building, and your stormwater management issues, I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Well, I didn’t see the previous proposal. I didn’t see it coming down from
what it was before, but based on what this is here, you know, to me it looks feasible, and
the 100 year water runoff is something that’s needed, but if I had to vote, I would vote in
favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Barring some major hang ups that the Planning
Board may have with the SEQRA review, I think I’m also comfortable with the
modifications you’ve made. I think it’s been downsized. It’s a difficult site to work with,
and I think you’ve shown that you can handle the stormwater runoff that you’re going to
create there by the project. It would be easy to point fingers and blame and say that, you
know, you’re going to greatly exacerbate the problem, but I don’t think that’s the case. I
think it’s reasonable to assume that you’re doing a better job than anybody else has
done in the area, considering the past record, but at the same time I think we’ll, you
know, you know where we’re at right now. I think we’ll just go back to the Planning
Board and we’ll table this and, you know, this can be a quick meeting I think once you
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
come back to us the next time. Sorry for the hold up on that. So I think what we’ll do is a
tabling motion.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2008 K-TWIN HOLDINGS/DANIEL W.
KRUEGER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Joyce Hunt:
West side Meadowbrook Rd., north of Quaker Rd. intersection. Tabled to the
September 17, 2008 meeting.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that going to be on the Planning Board agenda for next month, or
is it this week coming up? I’m not sure when.
MR. OBORNE-No, you’re the last meeting of this cycle.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve only got one meeting in the month of August. So it’s August
th
20, I believe.
th
MR. OBORNE-It would be August 20.
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we’ll put you on for August 20.
th
MR. JONES-Our meeting with them isn’t until August 26.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, so you’re on the back end.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So I guess we’ll put you the first meeting in September, which is
thth
probably like the 16 or 17.
MR. OBORNE-Seventeenth.
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2007 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED LARRY CLUTE
AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): LARRY CLUTE ZONING: SR-20
LOCATION: HOWARD ST. AND GENEVA DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 18-LOT
SUBDIVISION; EXTENSION OF GENEVA ESTATES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
AREA, LOT WIDTH, AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS PER SECTION 179-4-030.
CROSS REF.: SUB NO. 7-1992 GENEVA ESTATES WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
N/A LOT SIZE: 6.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-11, 28, 29 SECTION: 179-4-030
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-And the difference on this one is I believe last time we were at 20
proposed and we’re at 18 tonight. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-That’s right.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2007, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: July 23, 2008
“Project Location: Howard St., Geneva Dr. Note: This application has been tabled until
the Planning Board completes SEQRA and issues recommendations to the Zoning
Board of Appeals per ZBA resolution dated 9/15/07 (see attached). Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes development of an 18 lot residential subdivision.
The applicant has reconfigured the design to show 18 lots and not 20. This new
configuration eliminates the need for an Area Variance for minimum lot widths per 179-4-
030. The applicant has also made 1 lot compliant in regard to lot size and the remaining
17 more compliant as a result of the reconfiguration.
Relief Required:
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
The applicant now requests relief from the minimum lot size requirements of the SR-20
zoning district for all but one (1) of the 18 lots. Specifically, seventeen (17) of the
eighteen (18) proposed lots are less than 20,000 sf. Maximum allowable density for this
subdivision is 14 lots. Density relief if 67,320 sq. ft. is needed.
18 lots x 20,000sf + road area (55,000)=415,000 minus parcel size 347,680 = 67,320.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicants would be permitted to create 18 residential building lots for sale and
development.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives include reduction of the number of lots by increasing the size to the
allowable minimum lot size. 14 lots would be available at the 20,000 sf minimum lot size.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The cumulative requests for seventeen of the eighteen lots to be substandard in size by,
on average, more than 20% (lots in need of relief range from 15,000 sq. ft. to 19,945 sq.
ft.).
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Lots in the immediate community average roughly 0.43 acres or nearly 19,000 sf. The
proposed development would create a second means of access to the Geneva Estates
area.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
As there appears to be compliant configuration available, the difficulty may be
interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Geneva Estates subdivision was approved in 1992 as a 10 lot cluster subdivision for
mobile homes when the applicable zoning called for a 1 acre minimum lot size. The
approval, in effect left the remaining lands (lands proposed for the current subdivision) as
th
the 10 lot as open space lands for the cluster subdivision. It was an 11.9 acre parcel
(minus road acreage) which allowed for 10 lots and the cluster layout created smaller
lots with the left over land as the common land. Subsequently, Area Variance 33-1993
(for a 15 lot subdivision of the land in this proposal) was denied. Per the denial
resolution…. “ it would appear to be in direct conflict with the intent of the Planning
Board’s resolution allowing Mr. Diehl to use the Town’s clustering provisions, and their
understanding that this lot would remain open space.”
Staff comments:
The proposed subdivision offers conveyances of land currently occupied by a Town
Road ( Howard Street ) yet no indication from the Town Highway Department and or
Town Board has been submitted relative to the abandonment of the roadway as shown
on the plan. Additionally, it appears as though lands of Swinton and Steady are also part
of this subdivision proposal yet the parcels are not listed as part of the application. Does
the applicant have authority to convey these lands? Further, tax parcel 301.20-1-19
appears to be part of the proposal yet it was not listed in the application materials but is
described in deed 3234/299 as the first described parcel. Has this parcel already been
consolidated with the other Clute lands? Further, the ‘lands of Clute’ directly west of lot
11 is the original lot 10 of the Geneva Estates subdivision yet is not part of its own
subdivision. Some form of clarification may be need as this also appears to be a non-
conforming lot.
As noted in NYS Town Law, Section 277, paragraph 6, the Zoning Board of Appeals
shall seek a recommendation from the Planning Board for subdivisions requiring
variances. The minimum centerline radius for a curve in a local road is 300 feet. The
proposed subdivision offers a 175 ft centerline radius.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
Would a rezoning of the land be a more appropriate action rather than creating 20 non
conforming lots via Area Variance?
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just a question for you guys. Has the Planning Board reviewed the
differences?
MR. LAPPER-We went through this last night. We had a very lengthy discussion. They
granted a SEQRA Neg Dec and they made a recommendation that they were in favor of
this, and so we’ve gone through all that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So we wouldn’t have received that anyway if it was last night.
MR. OBORNE-You don’t have the resolution.
MR. LAPPER-Keith was here, fortunately.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and basically the resolution, they basically punted it to you, is a
better way of saying it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I wouldn’t say that, because they said that, they specifically said that
they saw no impact. You had asked them a list of six questions, and they said no impact
on these issues, traffic. They were very comfortable, and we went through this at some
length and a bunch of neighbors were there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we re-visit for a minute, because I know for the Board
members it’s been a little while, but I know there were concerns about the neighborhood
down there, about off road toys playing in the backyard and stuff, and there was a sense
that this would be better off with houses because you wouldn’t have, that problem would
go away at that point in time. Has that been something that you have thought about, or
is that going to completely clear up that problem down there?
MR. LAPPER-Well, that’s a lot of the justification for why we’re here. This is a very
mixed neighborhood. There are, you know, Larry said last night, some $40,000 homes
in this area, you know, and also a lot of newer homes, many of the ones that he’s built,
but this is certainly a moderately priced neighborhood, and what he’s trying to
accomplish, the reason why we have 15,000 square foot lots proposed, is because that
is in keeping with what he built in Geneva Estates to the west, and most of the lots in this
area are roughly this size, but it’s not, he needs to be able to price the houses between
$150,000 to $175,000 so that they’ll sell in that area. You’re not going to sell $200,000
houses and basically in order to accomplish this road, which is a public benefit to, right
now we have two areas that are landlocked, they just have one access, and part of the
Comp Plan says, you know, connecting dead end roads is a positive here, and we’ve
certainly met with the Highway Superintendent, and he supports this road configuration.
There’s a lot going on here, and we’ll get into as much detail as the Board wants, but
when we were here previously last year we had neighbors talking about the fact that
there are bonfires and kids partying there and snowmobiles and ATV’s, and there are fire
pits, if you go back there right now, that Larry pointed out yesterday, and there’s a circle
track where people race four wheelers. So it’s basically just a rough area in the middle
of an area that’s getting better, and this is a way to clean that up, and we had people
from Queen Victoria’s Grant in the Fall, and a few of them last night, that acknowledged
that things are going on back there that’s kind of out of control. So, the reason for the
variance is to be able to construct houses at a price point that will sell in that
neighborhood because it’s not the most desirable neighborhood in Town, but we think
that this project is really going to help improve the neighborhood, and the Planning Board
acknowledged that last night. We had a real good meeting with them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you, you know, in the past, I mean with these smaller
subdivisions, when we get down to minimal sizes here, I mean, we’re always faced with
a whole bunch of requests for pools later on, garages, etc. I mean, are these houses
going to include garages on them, so we don’t have to come back and do approvals for
them?
MR. GARRAND-Yes, we don’t want 18 variances coming back.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-We don’t want to do this ad infinitum, you know.
LARRY CLUTE
MR. CLUTE-Yes, pretty much as a standard now I put garages on every home, and most
of the septic designs for this additional subdivision request is designed for front yard, so
as to be able to maximize your rear yard. So we put a lot of thought into being able, and
I’ve actually, prior to this, I do it anyway, I’ve pretty much re-built this neighborhood. So
I’ve had to kind of consider those things over time anyway.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So are you going to have any kind of community green space in the
back? I mean, you’ve got that buffer between you and Queen Victoria’s, right?
MR. CLUTE-That’s the beauty. That’s your built in green space right there, and that was
brought up last night. Queen Victoria’s Grant’s extremely happy with that set up that
they have, as they should be. There’s a lot of wildlife in there. There’s deer. There’s a
lot of things back in there. That is not really the case here. This is kind of a race track.
They had it up on the screen last night, and it’s been a race track forever, and continues
to be, and that’s one of the negative comments of Queen Victoria’s Grant, but that buffer
obviously is going to stay in place. It’s part of Queen Victoria’s Grant. We were talking
last night. We felt that the wood line along the northerly lots, that we could probably
incorporate a 10 foot no cut to be able to tie as best as possible into that pre-existing
buffer zone that Queen Victoria’s Grant has.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the free for all area fully contained in this, or is this also adjacent?
MR. CLUTE-This is it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This is it.
MR. CLUTE-Yes, this is it. If this is developed, that’s the end of it.
MR. LAPPER-You said last night this is the access to that.
MR. CLUTE-It is the access, and to be honest with you, it’s cut off. Queensbury as a
whole, over time, was all trails, and it was all log roads, and so these trails have existed
forever. Most, even this particular trail, you dead end. You’re in somebody else’s back
yard, no matter what direction you go in, but that’s not preventing people from riding to
that back yard. So once the head of this particular trail, this road goes through, that’s the
end of it, the activity’s gone.
MR. LAPPER-I think also in answer to your question, Jim, could you switch to the front
sheet, Larry. You’re talking about, you know, just in terms of future variances and what
could go on this, if you look at the map, in terms of Geneva Estates, the cul de sac that
Larry did, those lots are essentially, they’re 15,000 square feet and these are 15,000 or
larger up to almost 20,000, the largest lot. So basically what you have there in terms of
the size of the house construction, you’re talking 900 to 1300 square feet. So these lots,
these 15,000 square feet lots, can accommodate that with a back yard, with a garage,
and that’s what Larry’s been successful in building. He also went on in some detail last
night about how on Howard Street he’s been buying and consolidating parcels, parcels
that had older trailers that he took three parcels and then combined them and then drew
a line in the middle to create two lots where there used to be three, and built houses. So
he’s been really upgrading that whole neighborhood one lot at a time. He’s done a lot of
the construction in that area, but yet it’s still a mixed area, and that’s really why we’re
here, that it’s just, it’s a matter of cost and it’s a matter of character of the neighborhood.
Nothing that we’re proposing would be out of character, because it’s really the same as
what Geneva was, but there are also some, in the Staff Notes there are a number of
issues that we need to touch on. When they talked about a cluster and the green space,
this was, when this was first approved, Geneva Estates, this was a one acre zone, and it
was subsequently reduced in size. So that land, there’s not a density issue anymore, but
at that time, the prior owner went to the Town Board and actually asked for this to be
considered as parkland, in lieu of the fee, to save the $500 a lot, and the Town Board
said no, it’s too small, by itself, there’s no benefit. So the Town Board didn’t accept it as
parkland, and instead the paid the fee. So that was also part of the history in the 90’s.
Larry views this as a way to continue to improve the neighborhood, and that’s really what
we’d like you to acknowledge and what the Planning Board ultimately did last night after
we went through it and had the neighbors. In terms of the road configuration, and the
radius, I’m going to ask Tom to get up, but it’s going to continue to dead end at the, what
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
would be the northern end, because that gets to two people’s lots, and that has to stay
there, and the Highway Department told us that they want it that way anyway for pushing
the snow, but they really like the idea of being able to connect the roads, both for the
snow.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Instead of having to back out.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Just, a benefit as well, but.
MR. CLUTE-The green space, Charlie, when he got this approved, the ball was kind of
dropped on the developer’s side as well as Queensbury’s side. They wanted it as open
space, but it was never determined as to whose open space and whose responsibility.
So a homeowners association wasn’t established to give these 10 lots the ownership of
that, nor did Queensbury say, hey, I want a park. Charlie didn’t want any part of it if he
couldn’t develop it, tried to ask Queensbury to take control of it, and as Jon stated, they
didn’t want any part of it. I inherited it at my, I purchased, well, I purchased Geneva
Estates from Charlie, and coincidentally I live in the neighborhood, and I thought a
pocket park would be very nice for this developing neighborhood. I also offered it to the
Town of Queensbury. Denied. So the property has sat there and just continued to be
used as it’s always been used, which is actually a detriment to the community, or to this
neighborhood, whereas the pocket park may or may not have been a nice idea, but
Queensbury wasn’t open to the idea at the time, either by Charlie or myself.
MR. LAPPER-Tom, why don’t you just show them what we’re doing in terms of the road
and everything.
MR. NACE-Okay. Basically the existing road on the east side Howard Street comes in
and dead ends up in here, and then there are two lots that have access off that dead
end. The Highway Department, we’ve talked to them, and rather than this being
abandoned and these lots re-connected to the new road, they’d like us to leave that
there, leave, leave it as a Town right of way, so that when they push snow up here, they
can push a big pile up in the back of that and then come back and plow the proposed
new road. So there will be no abandonment, no re-dedication of existing highway right of
way. The road radiuses on this one is substandard, that your regulations call for
marginal access of actually 250 foot centerline. We’re proposing 175, simply to be able
to make the configuration work with the existing land down there, the existing piece of
land, and we don’t think, because it is a very limited access, it certainly won’t be any
considerable amount of through traffic, that still will be adequate.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I notice that, you know, in your lot configuration you’ve got the south
side, you know, those ones are like 16, there’s one 15,000 square foot lot down there
that kind of weird shaped one, shaped like the state of Nevada there.
MR. NACE-Here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but the ones on the north side you’ve got them all at 15, like
you’re really cramming a lot in there, you know, so is there justification? I realize that,
you know, when you do these things, that you want to get as many lots as you can, but in
other words, our Board is charged with giving you the minimum that we allow, and the
20,000 square foot configuration, I don’t know if it would make more sense to make
those lots slightly bigger up there and loose one more lot or something up there. I mean,
I don’t know for the small amount of gain that you’re going to get on side lines on those, if
that’s going to make any difference.
MR. LAPPER-It’s been so long since we were here, and part of it was that we came with
a concept plan to talk about the variance, and in order to get the recommendation of the
Planning Board we had to do the full preliminary, but that was actually helpful, because
then with coordinated review we got through the real detailed SEQRA review, but Larry
went into a long explanation about, just in terms of the prices in the neighborhood, and
that’s really why the 15, part of it is that Geneva Estates is 15, and so this is the same,
but also, just in terms of his marketing, and I’d like him to just talk about that a little bit
again.
MR. CLUTE-I understand the concern of the minimal authorization. This neighborhood
here, and I’m not just talking this new subdivision. Queensbury, and a lot of you
personally, have been very understanding. I’ve been here numerous times for other
projects, Howard Street, Leo Street, Eisenhower, and all of them, I mean, it’s a
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
problematic neighborhood, and I progressively do my best to raise it’s value or take away
some of the issues, but again, by dealing with that neighborhood as described, dollars
and cents are really restricted as to try and encourage people to come into the
neighborhood. So, I mean, my price shot has got to hold as close to that $150,000 as
possible, otherwise you really can’t encourage the growth, and the growth is what
encourages the development and the improvement of the neighborhood. I know that
sounds a little odd, but that’s what it is. In order to bring the people in, the more people
in, the better the neighborhood becomes, and then it just allows the improvement of that
neighborhood, which has been proven. That’s what I keep doing over and over.
MR. UNDERWOOD-How many square feet are these houses going to be?
MR. CLUTE-They’re anywhere from nine to thirteen hundred.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So they’re pretty small.
MR. CLUTE-They are. They’re all starter homes, and to be honest, that’s what this
neighborhood is, it’s young families. Young families and kids, modest means. So it gets
really restrictive, not only for the affordability, but you’ve got to over, even people of
modest means sometimes question themselves, whether they’re going to come in to this
neighborhood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you build into your plans like the ability for people to add on if
they want to on the back? I mean, is that going to be a possibility?
MR. CLUTE-No, absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I’m just thinking in a sense of when you do your layouts for
your septic and all that, that you don’t preclude the logical place to put an addition.
MR. CLUTE-My education has been an ongoing one, especially this neighborhood, and
so this essentially being the last opportunity for development for this neighborhood, I’ve
learned a lot as we’ve progressed through it, and so, as I said earlier, septic systems to
the front, to try and maximize the amount of usage on this property, always anticipating
will there be a pool? Maybe they’re going to kick out this side here, how can I do that,
and I try and think of it in advance of that. So, yes, there’s a lot of room for growth.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I’m even thinking in the offset of your houses, like they’re
not centered in the lot.
MR. CLUTE-No, we try and push them, you have minimal offsets, but garage side, say, I
bring my garage side to my tight side, leave as much space to my other side, exactly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-With this, if you’re putting a 1300 square foot home on it, could you tell
me exactly the square that it would be with these lots? Is it possible to just sketch in
where one of those homes would be on one of the lots there?
MR. CLUTE-A 1300 more than likely would be a two story unit, taking up a lesser
footprint, required footprint, rather than the ranches are more of a sprawl. Geneva
Estates, this one here is a colonial and that one is a colonial. This one here is the largest
out of Geneva Estates. That’s 1500 square. This one’s 1232, but by going two story I’m
more compressed. I’m more square footprint. These are raised ranches, the majority of
them, except for these ranches here. A ranch, even the smaller ranches, the two
bedroom ranches, say 36 foot wide, they don’t take up a lot of the lot. So, you don’t get
into the larger ranches. The 1300 foot is more colonial, and it takes up a minimal
footprint. You can see they’re all very well placed. These are 15,000 square foot lots, all
pre-existing, and you can see how well the houses fit on these.
MRS. JENKIN-Now, what’s the width of the lot when it’s 15,000, because there’s no
widths given here?
MR. CLUTE-They’re 100 foot, 100 foot road frontage.
MRS. JENKIN-These are 100 foot, and then back it’s 155. Okay. I see that now, thank
you.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. CLUTE-And we’ve simply, that 100 foot is identical to these pre-existing Geneva
lots, except in the cul de sac. These rectangular lots are the exact same lots proposed in
the new extension.
MR. CLEMENTS-Did you build all of those houses in the Geneva area there?
MR. CLUTE-Any new house on any of these roads are mine.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-Now Queen Victoria’s Grant is right north of there.
MR. CLUTE-It’s north of there. The forest that you see, that’s their buffer.
MRS. JENKIN-Those are larger homes there, are they not?
MR. CLUTE-Queen Victoria’s Grant? No, they’re the same size. They’re going to be
900, they were meant to be affordable homes at the time.
MRS. JENKIN-They’re the tiny ones, too.
MR. CLUTE-They’re tiny. They’re duplexes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. CLUTE-They’re duplexes.
MR. URRICO-What about the Staff concerns about the lands of Swinton and Steady?
MR. LAPPER-What’s highlighted in blue does not include all of Larry’s ownership.
Would you point out that piece in the corner?
MR. CLUTE-Which one’s that?
MR. LAPPER-The one on the east side of the property line.
MR. CLUTE-These up in here? Yes, I own these lots, too. I own this house. There’s a
barn back in there that would be being brought back down. So I own this parcel here,
that small triangular piece is also mine.
MR. LAPPER-And it’s on this, too.
MR. URRICO-Lot 21, is that what would be Lot 21 now?
MR. LAPPER-19, 20, and 21, that area that we’re talking about, because the question in
Staff Notes is how are you going to put the road in, and if you look at what’s in blue,
that’s why Keith asked, you don’t see that he has a connection to Howard, but if you look
on S-2 drawing, it clearly shows that owns this, and so that (lost words).
MR. CLUTE-Yes. On the application it stated 6. some odd acres, that is this, but the
other acreage needs to be added and as John said on Sheet Two it states it’s at 7.
something or other acres, and that’s including these other smaller lots that I have that are
attached to this.
MRS. JENKIN-But that’s not going to be part of the 18 homes?
MR. CLUTE-It is.
MRS. JENKIN-It is part of the 18 homes.
MR. CLUTE-Yes, this blue line here.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. These lines.
MR. CLEMENTS-Eighteen, nineteen, and twenty, those are the ones that are kind of in
that area, those lots?
MR. CLUTE-Right here, yes.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions?
MRS. JENKIN-Now you say that the road isn’t a problem because it’s a neighborhood
road, but it still has to be approved, doesn’t it?
MR. CLUTE-The radiuses.
MR. LAPPER-Tom talked to the Highway Department.
MRS. JENKIN-Because I guess with snow removal and everything they want.
MR. NACE-Sure, no, we have talked to the Highway Department about that specifically.
They’re aware that it’s a tighter radius than normal, and they’re fine with that.
MRS. JENKIN-They’re okay with it.
MR. NACE-They’re okay with that, and they are okay with, they want, in fact they’ve
asked us to leave the existing right of way and road where it comes up on the north side
of the site to leave that in place.
MR. CLEMENTS-By Lot 20?
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-That was actually very helpful that it was pointed out in the Staff Notes, so
that Tom went and got together with the two people at the Highway Department,
Highway Superintendent and his assistant, and went through this before the Planning
Board meeting so that we’d have answers, and now we know that they support that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions? All right. I guess I’ll open the public hearing.
Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter this evening? Any
correspondence?
MR. URRICO-I don’t see any.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right, because we’re a Type I situation, what’s going on
with the Planning Board as far as the SEQRA review, is that something you anticipate?
MR. LAPPER-We went through the Long Form last night, and they granted a Neg Dec,
and I thought that the Staff would have had it in writing, but I understand it just happened
at 10:30 last night.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Based upon the fact that we don’t have it, I mean, we can
assume that yes it did occur.
MR. OBORNE-It did.
MR. LAPPER-Keith was there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right, and I don’t want to have that hold us up. Do you guys want
to do this tonight? Do you want to give your opinions as to whether you think this is
reasonable or not first before we do that? Okay. Why don’t we start with you, Roy.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think, as it stands right now, I would be in favor of the project. I’m
satisfied that they’ve made the necessary changes, gone through the necessary
measures to see that this project is the best it can be. I think they’ve demonstrated to
me that at least there’s obviously a benefit to the applicant. The feasible alternatives
have been looked at and improved. I do agree that there’s relief substantial relative to
the Ordinance, but I think it fits in with the character of that neighborhood and the
surrounding neighborhoods. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. I was pleased to see the reduction from 20 to 18, and I
think you’ve answered a lot of my questions, and I think that it will be a, the variance will
not alter the character of the neighborhood, but improve it. So I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich?
MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, by reducing the number of lots in the neighborhood he
basically eliminated the need for a lot of the variances that were previously asked for
here. It also allows for future growth on some of these lots, like was mentioned, if
someone wants to expand their house, put in a pool, whatever. I’m also, I like the idea of
a 10 foot no cut zone on the north end. All in all, I think this is a much better application
than we saw previously, and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Why didn’t you just make a 90 degree Geneva, turn on Geneva instead of the
radius?
MR. CLUTE-The Town, they had that option available to them as well, but what you see
as a layout is the preferred method by the Highway Department that met with the
engineers. So they did have the option of a “T”, but they preferred the slight radius.
MR. KUHL-Really, okay. So I think it blends in with Geneva. I think it looks good. I’d
have no problem with it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. It concerns me that we have to give variances for the size of lots,
because when people come in because they want additions and they want swimming
pools, then we have to grant variances for those too, and they’re close to the lot lines
and it makes for a very crowded neighborhood, especially if people put up fences and
things, it doesn’t help, but I also think that the argument you’ve given to fit that whole
area is a very valid one. I think that it would fit in with the neighborhood well, and I feel
very strongly that in Queensbury we need lower income housing, we really do need it,
and we’re putting up these very huge homes and the poor people that are starters and
young families, they just can’t afford it. So, in that, the way I feel about that is I think that
this is quite important to do, and so I would be in favor of it because I feel it’s needed in
the community.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I think with the work you’ve done with the Highway Department and the
Planning Board, along with reducing the number of lots and it’s really in the same as the
surrounding area and the neighborhood. I would be in favor of this. I assume that
probably you’re going to be the one that builds all the houses on here. I know that that’s
not a, I wouldn’t put that in, but because of that you know where to place houses, to
leave property in the back, and we’ve discussed that, so I would be in favor of this, as
long as the Planning Board comes down with a positive reaction, as you’ve said, then I’d
be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Once again I’d like to thank you for doing a thorough job on
this one, and making it more reasonable than what you originally proposed here, not that
it wasn’t that unreasonable to begin with, but at the same time, I think it, you know, it
fulfills a requirement that the Town provide some housing for people of moderate means.
That’s not the norm with the way the Town has been going the last few years here, and I
think it’s a grand attempt, I mean, I think that your improvement of the greater
neighborhood there has been a good thing for everybody, and it’s going to get rid of one
of the long term problems down there, as far as the vehicle usage and stuff like that, and
that’s just one of the things that’ll be something that occurred in the past that doesn’t
occur anymore. Although we could hold your feet to the fire and make you go with a 14
lot subdivision here, I think there’s a benefit to doing the 18, the four extra houses. It
gives you incentive to keep doing what you’re doing here, and that is, you know, trying to
make the world a better place down on the end of Town, and it’s not going to be any
detriment to having the houses that close together, and thanks to the fact that you’re
going to plan this out so your houses can be built onto and pools will fit behind the
buildings and not in the side yards, I think that’s a plus also. So I guess, what do we do
as far as the SEQRA? We’re going to rely upon, based upon the fact that the Planning
Board signed off on this, so have we got to do any kind of a?
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. OBORNE-Well, my question is, is this coordinated review?
MR. LAPPER-It is coordinated review. It was Type I.
MR. OBORNE-It was a Type I because it’s a realty subdivision.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So should I just read that little short blurb? Okay. I’ve got it right
here. All right. At this point in time, I would imagine everyone has reviewed the Short
Environmental Assessment Form that was submitted with this application?
MR. LAPPER-This was a Long.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This was a Long Form. Yes. So everybody needs to say yes to
that?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If so, I’ll make the motion as follows.
MOTION REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2007 LARRY CLUTE, THAT BASED
UPON A REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM THAT WAS
SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION, IT IS MOVED THAT THIS PROPOSED
ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS. AS SUCH, I HEREBY MOVE THAT WE ADOPT A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AS THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ALSO DONE, AND FURTHER
MOVE TO HAVE PART III OF THE SUBMITTED SHORT FORM TO BE COMPLETED
AS SUCH, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Richard Garrand:
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want me to do the motion on this one?
MR. GARRAND-You can do it if you want to.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MS. HEMINGWAY-You need to close the public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2007 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Howard Street and Geneva Drive. The Planning Board has completed their SEQRA
review and given it a Negative Dec on this project. The applicant is proposing
development of an 18 lot residential subdivision. The new configuration eliminates the
need for an Area Variance for minimum lot widths and the applicant has also made one
lot compliant in regard to lot size, and the remaining 17 more compliant as a result of the
reconfiguration. As far as the relief required, they’re now requesting relief from the
minimum lot size requirements of the SR-20 zone district for all but one of the 18 lots,
specifically 17 of the 18 proposed lots are less than 20,000 square feet, and the
maximum allowable density for this subdivision is 14 lots. The density relief, if it’s 67,320
square feet that’s needed, the 18 lots times 20,000 works out to 55,000. It’s equal to
415,000 minus the parcel size of 347,680 square feet, and so it’s deficient by 67,320
square feet. Under the benefit to the applicant, they’re going to be creating 18
residential building lots for sale and development. The alternatives would be that we
would allow them only 14. As far as the relief, whether it’s substantial, the cumulative
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
request for 17 of the 18 lots to be substandard by on average more than 20%, and that’s
lots in need of relief, and those range from 15,000 to 19,945 square feet, I guess we
would say that’s moderate relief. The effects on the neighborhood or community, as far
as comparing it to the rest of the lots in the immediate community, most of those lots in
the area are roughly .43 acres or 19,000 square feet, and the proposed development
would create a second means of access to the Geneva Estates area. So we would think
it would be a positive effect. Is the difficulty self-created? It is self-created in the sense
that the compliant configuration could be done, but in this instance here we assume that
the extra four lots are sort of a bonus for cleaning up the area down there. As far as the
rest of it, then, essentially I would say that the Town Highway Department has signed off
on the concerns about the road radius, according to the applicant. The consolidation of
those other Clute lands, which will be the access point where the radius of the curve
comes off, those will be consolidated with the entire project before this is completed, I
would believe, and as the Planning Board has signed off on this subdivision, I guess we
have the approval of the Planning Board. The recommendation from the Planning Board
was there were no concerns on their part, as proposed.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. This was a good process. It took us a while to do
the detail and get back to you but there was a good result, and we really appreciate you
working with us on this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Thanks.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II RONALD BALL AGENT(S):
CHARLES SCUDDER, SCUDDER ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): RONALD & LINDA
BALL ZONING: SFR-1A/RR-5A LOCATION: 1085 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A REVISION TO THEIR ORIGINAL 3-LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION TO A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM
LOT WIDTH AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SUBD. NO. 3-2008
SKETCH PLAN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: APRIL 9, 2008 LOT SIZE: 8.59
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.10-1-31.1 SECTION: 179-19-020C; 179-4-090; 179-4-030
CHARLIE SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-Reminding everybody that one house is already present, and so we
had asked them to show us the exact location of where they would propose the single
house up on the Rural Residential Five Acre land up on top of the hill there. So that’s
what they’ve submitted to us.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2008, Ronald Ball, Meeting Date: July 23, 2008
“Project Location: 1085 West Mountain Road Note: The Planning Board recommends
to the Zoning Board of Appeals to use the Code for their determinations regarding slopes
and lot densities. Regarding access, Planning Board recommends one (1) access point
for the two (2) lots in question. This recommendation is no longer pertinent as the
Zoning Board of Appeals has directed the applicant to revise the original three (3) lot
subdivision to a two (2) lot subdivision. The applicant has submitted plans for a new two
(2) lot subdivision and is before this board for an Area Variance. Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes development of a two (2) lot subdivision.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from the minimum lot width for Lot 1 and density requirements
for the proposed subdivision. Specifically, the proposed subdivision does not meet the
minimum density requirements for any additional lots after subtracting the required
“undevelopable” lands where slopes exceed 25%; as such relief is needed for the
additional lot proposed. Further, as the road frontage for the property is on West
Mountain Road, a Local Arterial Road, the minimum required lot width is 300 feet for all
lots with their own individual driveways per Section 179-19-020(C). Lot One (1) does not
meet the lot width requirement.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be able to subdivide and develop one (1) additional lot.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives appear limited as any subdivision of this land will require some
level of relief.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for 235.31 feet of relief from the 300 foot minimum road frontage
requirement per Section 179-19-020(C) for Lot 1 may be interpreted as severe. The
request for 0.66 acres of density relief from the minimum 5.0 acres density requirement
per Section 179-4-030 may be interpreted as minimal.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this action.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Sketch Plan Subdivision is pending.
Staff comments:
The applicant has been before this Board seeking relief for a 3 lot subdivision. As per
Resolution dated 6/18/08, the Zoning Board of Appeals has directed the applicant to
submit revised plans for a two (2) lot subdivision. The applicant has submitted revised
plans and is now before the Board seeking relief from lot width requirements for Lot 1
and density requirements for Lot 2. As per the density calculations submitted for lot 2,
the buildable space is 4.34 acres and the total lot size is 5.55 acres. The slopes that are
greater than 25% equal 1.21 acres; the difference between buildable lot space and the
total parcel size. It should be noted that there is an existing house on lot one (1) with a
paved driveway. It should also be noted that both lots reside on a boundary between
the RR-5A and the SFR-1A zones.
Per NYS Town Law 277, subdivisions requiring variances must be referred to the
Planning Board for recommendation prior to deciding on the variance application.
Type II”
SEQR Status:
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I do want to make a correction on the substantial relief relative to the
Ordinance. The request is actually for 117 feet, not 235.31, which makes it 39% overall
relief requested, which I would probably deem as moderate.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Anything you want to add or want to explain?
MR. SCUDDER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does anyone have a question? I think that
the matter is clear.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think last time we left off people just wanted an exact location. So
that was it. Anybody have any concerns or questions they want to ask? Okay. Anybody
from the public wishing to speak on this matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I don’t think we have any correspondence.
MR. URRICO-No correspondence.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Then I guess I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll poll you guys and see what you want to do here. Everybody
pretty much feel like this is more reasonable than where we started with two houses up
on the hill there? I think the Planning Board pretty much said this is in our court, read the
regulations, figure out whether it’s reasonable, and I don’t think there’s any doubt going
in here that, you know, we could have said, no, nothing up there on the hill because
there’s not adequate space for it, but, nonetheless, you’ve got 7.05 acres up there, and I
think it’s reasonable to assume that the addition of one single house up there, but I think
with the stipulation that no more subdivision of that seven acres would occur in the
future. I guess maybe down the road if the zoning changes, 20 years from now,
something smaller, you could come back at that point, whoever owns that house, but
until such time I would think that we’re going to be looking at the single house up on the
hill. So does somebody want to make a resolution here?
MRS. JENKIN-Sure, I could do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan.
MRS. JENKIN-Were you going to poll the Board, first, though.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think last time, the Board, the only questions that people had
were where the place was going to be located. I think that was the only outstanding
issue that we had, and since it’s sitting on the plot in front of you, you can see it now.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2008 RONALD BALL, Introduced by
Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
1085 West Mountain Road. The Planning Board recommends to the Zoning Board of
Appeals to use the Code for the determination regarding the slopes and lot densities.
Regarding access, the Planning Board recommends one access point for the two lots in
question. This recommendation is no longer pertinent as the Zoning Board of Appeals
has directed the applicant to revise the original three lot subdivision to a two lot
subdivision. The applicant has submitted plans for the new two lot subdivision. So this
motion is to approve the two lot subdivision, and is before this Board for an Area
Variance. The applicant proposes development of a two lot subdivision and requests
relief from the minimum lot width for Lot One and density requirements for the proposed
subdivision. Specifically the proposed subdivision does not meet the minimum density
requirements for any additional lots, after subtracting the required undevelopable lands
where slopes exceed 25%. Further, as the road frontage for the property is on West
Mountain Road, a local arterial road, the minimum required lot width is 300 feet for all
lots with their own individual driveways. Lot One does not meet the lot width
requirement. For the benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be able to subdivide
and develop one additional lot. Feasible alternatives appear limited, as any subdivision
on this land will require some level of relief. Is the relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance? The request for 117 feet of relief, which is 29%, from the 300 foot minimum
road frontage required for Section 179-19-020 C, for Lot One, may be interpreted as
moderate. The request for .66 acres of density relief from the minimum five acres
density requirement per Section 179-4-030 may be interpreted as minimal. Effects on
the neighborhood or community are anticipated to be minimal as a result of the building
of the two lot subdivision. The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created as the
applicant wishes to build this additional house on this very steep property. One of the
stipulations to put with the approval of this variance would be that there would be no
further development of this land, if the zoning happened to change, and I would like to
put one condition on, that the applicant do as little cutting of the trees as possible for this
construction, just to maintain the property as it is and keep it as wild as possible and
natural. With that said, I move to approve Area Variance No. 19-2008, according to the
road frontage and the density requirement.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-Before we second that, this has got to go back to the Planning
Board?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So I don’t know if we can really do this.
MR. URRICO-Why not? They put it on our court.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, they put it our court to decide it. I mean, we can
decide it, but, I mean, it’s subject to Planning Board review. I mean, they may put some
other stipulations on there as to the actual parameters of where your road’s going to go.
MR. SCUDDER-Yes. We have to do those 12 things that the Town’s Engineer identified.
We have to do all the usual things, but there’s no point in doing anything if we’re not
given the variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Okay. So I think what we’ll go through the vote. It looks like
you’re going to get approval for it this evening, then, and maybe just say subject to
Planning Board modification.
MRS. JENKIN-So I’ll move to approve Area Variance No. 19-2008 subject to Planning
Board approval.
MR. URRICO-I’m sorry but why do we have to put in subject to Planning Board
approval? Isn’t that pretty much what we do all the time?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but I mean in the sense of a subdivision, usually subdivision
review, like the last one we just did there, the Planning Board kind of does the SEQRA
review and they tell us everything’s a green light.
MR. OBORNE-This is not a coordinated review.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. OBORNE-So what you’re basically approving is the Area Variance of density and lot
width.
MR. URRICO-I’m not for it if we’re going to put that stipulation in. I don’t think we need
that stipulation.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want to leave it out, then?
MRS. JENKIN-Okay, then I’ll say that we’re approving the variance according to the road
frontage and the density requirement. All right. I move to approve that.
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. OBORNE-You are approved for the Area Variance.
MR. SCUDDER-Thank you all.
MR. GARRAND-You’re welcome.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2008 ANTHONY CLASSI OWNER(S): ANTHONY CLASSI
ZONING: (SR-20 AT TIME OF SUBD. APPROVAL); CURRENT SR-1A LOCATION: 12
HERALD DRIVE, CORNER LOT – HERALD SQUARE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT
PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF AN ABOVE-GROUND SWIMMING POOL. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM REQUIREMENT FOR PLACEMENT OF A POOL IN THE FRONT
YARD. CROSS REF.: BP 92-501 SFD; BP 2001-212 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 2005-870
PORCH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 308.10-1-36 SECTION: 179-5-020
ANTHONY CLASSI, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-The front yard relief is because it’s on two roads there. So you’ve
got two front yards.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. CLASSI-Yes.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2008, Anthony Classi, Meeting Date: July 23,
2008 “Project Location: 12 Herald Drive, corner lot – Herald Square Subdivision
Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 24 ft. by 12 ft. above
ground pool in the non-architectural front yard of a corner lot.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from rear yard placement of a pool per Section 179-5-020.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct a 24 ft. by12 ft. above ground pool in the non-
architectural front yard.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to the configuration of the parcel and the
location of the leach field.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
The request to locate the pool approximately 25 feet into the non-architectural front yard
due to the corner lot configuration may be considered minimal.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action as
surrounding homes have similar lot configurations.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2007-701 Issued 12/11/07 Shed
BP 2005-870 Issued 11/17/05 Enclosed Porch
BP 2002-631 Issued 08/01/02 Porch
BP 2002-632 Issued 08/01/02 1-car attached garage
BP 2000-212 Issued 04/18/00 Septic Alteration
BP 98-442 Issued 07/22/98 Deck
BP 92-501 Issued 10/29/92 Single Family Dwelling w/ Attached garage
Staff comments:
The pool is currently buffered by a stand of pines in the side yard and is located 83 feet
from Michele Avenue, the side street to this property. The distance to Herald Drive from
the proposed pool is approximately 75 feet. There is a deciduous screen facing both
Herald Drive and Michele Avenue, however, this will need to be further screened per
Article 5 with additional landscaping.
SEQR Status:
TYPE II”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Pretty self-explanatory what you’re wanting to do here.
MR. CLASSI-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As per usual, this is one of our E pluribus Unum, one from many,
because we’ve had many of these similar requests over the years. Board members
have any questions or is everybody pretty much on page with what he’s asking for?
Okay. As far as the relief, the only relief that’s required here is the rear yard placement
of the pool, and because of the corner lot here, we’ve run into this on many previous
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
occasions, and I don’t think we’ve, I can’t remember if we’ve ever denied one. Can
anybody remember one? Anybody have any questions at all?
MRS. JENKIN-Will you be putting up a fence?
MR. CLASSI-There is one that surrounds it actually.
MRS. JENKIN-I was out there. I can’t remember whether there was a fence or not.
You’ve got a chain link fence.
MR. CLASSI-Yes, and I just added some bushes to one, that side of the property.
MRS. JENKIN-Where the trees are on that side?
MR. CLASSI-Yes.
MR. URRICO-The Staff recommends some additional screening.
MR. CLASSI-Okay.
MR. URRICO-It’s in their notes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I guess we’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from
the public wishing to speak on this matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence at all?
MR. URRICO-Yes. It says, “To Whom It May Concern: I live across the street from
Anthony. Let’s have a pool party! He owns the home, pays his taxes. Let him have a
pool anywhere he wants! It is his land! As a matter of fact, I will jump in the pool myself
if invited. Thanks, Ed Garrison”
MRS. JENKIN-Sounds like a good neighbor.
MR. CLASSI-Don’t even know him.
MRS. JENKIN-Will you be putting decking around it or anything?
MR. CLASSI-Yes, I was thinking of getting a deck around the pool.
MRS. JENKIN-That would be nice.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t see any reason to really poll the Board. I think we can just,
does somebody want to make the resolution on this one?
MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2008 ANTHONY CLASSI,
Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
12 Herald Drive – corner lot – Herald Square Subdivision. Applicant is proposing the
construction of a 24 foot by 12 foot above ground pool in the non-architectural front yard
of a corner lot. The applicant is requesting relief from rear yard placement of a pool as
per Section 179-5-020 C(2). With respect to the balancing test, can benefits by achieved
by other means feasible to the applicant? At this point, given the location of the house
on a corner lot with the septic, I don’t think there’s any other means feasible to place this
pool other than the spot chosen. Will this produce an undesirable change in the
neighborhood or character to nearby properties? No, it will not. It will fit in with the
neighborhood. I do not deem this request as substantial. Will this request have adverse
physical or environmental affects? I can’t see how it would. It’s an above ground pool.
I don’t see how it could have any adverse environmental effects. Is this difficulty self-
created? I do not believe so. Given the nature of the house and the location of septic,
and the fact that this is a corner lot, I don’t believe this is self-created. So I move we
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
approve Area Variance No. 43-2008. We should add the vegetative requirements, and I
don’t know if that’s something to do with their building permit, whether they’ll be advised
as to what’s necessary for screening it.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-The only thing we should probably add on there is the vegetative
requirements, and I don’t know if that’s something to do with their building permit,
whether they’ll be advised as to what’s necessary for screening it.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s per Town Code that you have screening that eliminates anybody
looking in. It’s basically for driving safety.
MR. CLASSI-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. CLASSI-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II JAMES & MICHELE MORRIS
OWNER(S): JAMES & MICHELE MORRIS ZONING: SR-30 (OLD) LOCATION: 24
KIMBERLY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF AN INGROUND
POOL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2001-571 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A
LOT SIZE: 0.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-2-34 SECTION: 179-4-030
MICHELE MORRIS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-2008, James & Michele Morris, Meeting Date:
July 23, 2008 “Project Location: 24 Kimberly Lane Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to construct a 32 ft. by 16 ft. in-ground pool in rear yard.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 13 ft. or 65% of relief from the minimum 20 ft. rear setback and 3
ft. or 30% of relief from the minimum side setback of 10 ft. per Section 179-4-030 for the
SR-30 zone for this property.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct the proposed 32 ft. by 16 ft. in-ground pool in
their back yard within the setbacks described above.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Build a smaller pool in order for it to be more compliant. However, due to the lot
configuration, some form of relief will be needed.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for 13 ft. or 65% of relief from the 20 ft. rear setback per Section 179-4-030
may be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. The request for 3 ft. or 30% of
relief from the 10 ft. minimum side setback per Section 179-4-030 may be considered
minimal.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action as many
lots in the neighborhood have inground pools.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However, the applicant is limited due to
the configuration of the lot and the subsequent small back yard.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2001-571 Issued 8/9/01 Single Family Dwelling with attached garage.
Staff comments:
The swimming pool location is constrained by the positioning of the house relative to the
layout of the lot and the attitude of the road. The pool could be more compliant in
relation to the side setback by reducing the length to 29 feet. However, the rear setback
would seem to be difficult to solve as there is an existing deck located at the rear of the
house as well as the leach field directly to the north of the deck.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything you want to add to the explanation?
MRS. MORRIS-Sure, just one thing. I’ve had several pool companies come out and take
a look, and they have all recommended that we reduce the size of the pool due to the
location of the deck to kind of keep it symmetrical within that lot. So we’re actually
looking at a smaller sized pool, but he said to still maintain the setbacks that we were
asking, just to, you know, locate it away from the deck a little further than we had
anticipated.
MRS. JENKIN-What would the size of the pool be?
MRS. MORRIS-Probably 14 x 28, somewhere along there, instead of the 16 x 32 that I
originally requested. He said it would fit better in that location to make a smaller pool.
MRS. JENKIN-The white fence is yours?
MRS. MORRIS-No. The white fence is not, and there is a nice buffer on the side.
MRS. JENKIN-Will you be removing any of those trees?
MRS. MORRIS-No.
MRS. JENKIN-It fits within the trees?
MRS. MORRIS-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, that’s good.
MRS. MORRIS-So there’s a real nice buffer between the neighbor’s house and my
house, and really there’s no one on the other side.
MRS. JENKIN-I noticed that, but I just wondered if the trees would encroach on that.
MRS. MORRIS-No.
MRS. JENKIN-Now the other question I had, will you be putting a concrete or some sort
of walkway around the pool?
MRS. MORRIS-Yes. That’s why they recommended a smaller pool so that we could
keep the concrete more symmetrical to make it look even, so it would go around the
entire.
MRS. JENKIN-So then how far away from the fence will that be then, or how far away
from your lot line would that, the concrete be?
MRS. MORRIS-He said we could go between two and three feet for the concrete. So I
think he calculated, I think that’s why he recommended that we have a smaller pool so
that we didn’t push it even further out closer to the fence line.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions?
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. Your neighbor to the back of you is 131 Sherman Island Road.
It’s on the other side of that fence?
MRS. MORRIS-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-They have a huge backyard there, don’t they?
MRS. MORRIS-They do, and I asked them if we could just move the fence back and give
me a little of their space, but they weren’t willing, but they are in favor. We kind of polled
the neighbors, and I’ve actually had some neighbors stop by to take a look, and they all
said that they had no problem with it.
MRS. JENKIN-Will you be joining the deck to the pool area, will all be one piece, then,
after that?
MRS. MORRIS-Well, we’re going to try to make a step down. That’s why they
recommended we move it further away from the deck, so that they’re going to try to
make an opening to come down into the pool area.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. That would be nice.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the
public wishing to speak on this matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No. No pool parties.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll go back to the Board and poll the Board
then. Ron, do you want to go first?
MR. KUHL-Yes. It looks like they’ve, if it’s going to be a smaller pool, the relief is right.
There’s no houses around it. It’s not like there’s going to be somebody backed up to the
pool. I have no problem with it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. My concern was the size of the pool, because I felt that it was so
close to the fence if you were going to put a walkway around it, then it would be right on
the.
MRS. MORRIS-Right. That’s why they recommended it smaller. At the time that we did
this, we didn’t actually own the home. We just moved in less than a month ago. So I
was trying to get this all together and just had a few pool contractors out, and they all
recommended the same thing, that we keep the pool size smaller.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Great. So I would have no problem with the new size of your pool
and the variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I’d have to agree with my other Board members on this and be in favor
of this application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I don’t think you have a lot of choice here, and since there was no
negative comments from your neighbor behind you, which would have been the closest
one, I would be in favor of this application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have no problem. It’s a strange configuration for the lot, and the fact
that you’ve reduced the size of the pool, I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. URRICO-I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I, too, would be in favor, you know, I mean it’s a reflection of
the odd shaped lot. When they did that subdivision it must have been the lucky guy who
got the last piece of the pie, you know, gets whatever’s left. So certainly we could make
it more conforming, but, I mean, then it’s going to minimize the size of the pool. It’s going
to be the size of a frog pond probably, and that’s more than what you need. So the
configuration makes sense. So, does somebody want to do the resolution on this one?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll do one.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2008 JAMES & MICHELE MORRIS,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
24 Kimberly Lane. The applicant proposes to construct a 28 by 14 foot in-ground pool in
the rear yard. The applicant requests 13 feet or 65% of relief from the minimum 20 foot
rear setback, and three feet or 30% of relief from the minimum side setback of 10 feet
per Section 179-4-030 for the SR-30 zone for this property. Whether the benefit could be
achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant has already
downsized the size of the pool. There would be no undesirable change in the
neighborhood character or to nearby properties. The request is moderate to minimal,
and whether it will have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood, I
don’t think so. Many neighborhood homes have in-ground pools here, and its alleged
difficulty is limited because of the configuration of the lot and the small back yard, and I
move that we approve Area Variance No. 44-2008.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MRS. MORRIS-Thank you.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 45-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED ED MOORE d/b/a LOG
JAM OUTLETS OWNER(S): ED & ED T ENTERPRISES, LLC ZONING: HC-INT.
LOCATION: 1476 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF
ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS FOR SEVERAL TENANTS IN THE PLAZA. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS PER SIGNS PER BUSINESS
IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. CROSS REF.: SV 69-2006; SV 40-2004; SV 10-2004
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 9, 2008 LOT SIZE: 4.51 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 288.12-1-17 SECTION: 140-6
ED MOORE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 45-2008, Ed Moore d/b/a Log Jam Outlets, Meeting
Date: July 23, 2008 “Project Location: 1476 State Route 9 Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing Pylon Sign located at the entrance of
the business complex. The applicant proposes to place two (2) wall signs on the west
side of building below the current Brooks Brothers sign and six (6) additional wall signs
attached to the wall of the covered walkway facing Route 9. Further, the applicant
proposes to attach four (4) duplicate tenant wall signs to the north corner facade.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the minimum of one wall sign for all existing tenants
per Chapter 140-6. Further, the applicant requests additional relief from the minimum
one wall sign for four (4) of the tenants located at the rear of the business complex.
These four (4) signs are duplicate to the signs requested facing State Route 9.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to place one (1) extra wall sign for eight of the tenants and
two (2) extra wall signs for four (4) of the tenants located to the rear of the business
complex.
2. Feasible alternatives:
The request could be down sized to include only one (1) additional sign per tenant.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?:
The request for one (1) additional wall sign or 100% relief for 8 tenants and the request
for two (2) additional wall signs or 200% of relief for 4 tenants may be considered severe
relative to the Ordinance.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action as this
area is highly commercialized.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Sign Variance No. 69-2006 Approved 11/22/06 (Brooks Brothers second wall sign facing
State Route 9)
Sign Variance No. 40-2004 Approved 7/21/2004 (Twenty foot high, 130 sq. ft.
freestanding sign located 6.5 ft. from front setback.)
Sign Variance 10-2004 Denied 3/24/2004 (Carter’s second wall sign facing State Route
9)
Staff comments:
The applicant is proposing to tear down a twenty foot high, 130 sq. ft. pylon sign. The
applicant proposes to replace the advertising that sign afforded with multiple, in this case
12, signs located on the west facing end of the property (8 total) and signs facing on the
north side of the property (4 total).
SEQR Status:
Type II”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 9, 2008
Project Name: Ed Moore d/b/a Log Jam Outlets Owner(s): Ed & Ed T Enterprises,
LLC ID Number: QBY-08-SV-45 County Project#: Jul08-22 Current Zoning: HC-Int.
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes installation of
additional wall signs for several tenants in the plaza. Relief requested from number of
allowable signs per business in a business complex. Site Location: 1476 State Route 9
Tax Map Number(s): 288.12-1-17 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes
installation of additional wall signs for several tenants in the plaza. Relief requested from
number of allowable signs per business in a business complex. The information
submitted indicates the existing pylon sign is to be removed and the additional sign
would be located on the south side and north side of the building. The number of signs
existing is 12 where a total of 24 are proposed. The application information indicates the
project would be increased visibility of the mall. Staff recommends no county impact
based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS
General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning
Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill 7/14/08.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. MOORE-It sounds like a lot of sounds, doesn’t it?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It sure does.
MR. MOORE-Well, when you take into consideration both sides of that big pylon sign.
Basically what we want to do is this pylon sign here, which we find very unattractive. We
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
didn’t put it up. When we purchased the building, it was there. We want to take that
down, you know, to get clutter off the road and to make our front area more pleasing with
greenery, etc., and basically what we want to do is take the new façade which we built
last year, put another tenant here, another tenant here, and then the other tenants can
have exist tag, can have tags underneath here. So that’s the second wall sign is what
we’re asking for.
MR. OBORNE-Excuse me. Could I have the applicants please state your name for the
record.
MR. MOORE-I’m sorry. I’m Edward Moore. I’m the owner. This is Art Belden, property
manager.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just out of curiosity, in other words, you guys were in here not too
long ago when you when you put the Brooks Brothers sign up on the side of the building.
What’s the current business climate? Has it made any difference as far as that goes?
ART BELDEN
MR. BELDEN-Yes. As far as the new tenants we’re trying to get in want to be
underneath Brooks Brothers. That’s what they want for their visibility to see.
MR. MOORE-As you know, that building, you’re all Queensbury residents, the past 15
years it hasn’t been overly successful. We’ve had a lot of luck. We’ve had a lot of visits.
We’ve had some more visits from perspective tenants coming, and that’s the one thing
that they want is the signage, which, again, translates into more jobs and more tax
revenue, you know, which we’re already there.
MR. URRICO-When you came before us for the Brooks Brothers sign, it was an appeal
to make Brooks Brothers more visible because it was going to be a super tenant that
would attract people, and now we’re changing that one little sign into basically a side of a
building which is going to become a billboard.
MR. MOORE-That wasn’t us that applied for that variance.
MR. URRICO-Okay. That wasn’t you.
MR. MOORE-No. That was the previous owner.
MR. URRICO-Well, okay, that would be my statement, and I’ll ask you a question.
Places like Manchester where they also have outlets, they don’t allow this sort of thing
there. Brooks Brothers is there. Orvis is there. Olympia Sports is there. They get one
sign on their wall and they get one pylon sign? Why is it acceptable to make that request
here?
MR. MOORE-Well, the reason why we want to make that request is because we want to
take the pylon sign.
MR. URRICO-But the pylon sign is something that the Town of Queensbury
recommends for all complexes. It’s one of the things they put into their planning as a
recommended sign, and you’re saying that that’s not good enough and you want to
replace it with basically a wall of sign. Well, I wouldn’t determine it as a wall of signs,
but I would want to take this down because I think, Number One, I don’t find this sign
attractive. I don’t think it goes with our area.
MR. URRICO-You could replace the sign.
MR. MOORE-I could replace the sign, but I’d like to put it up here because I think it’s
more visible and when people look, they look at the building. They don’t look at the sign,
at the pylon sign. That would be my answer for that, and there are other outlet centers
throughout the country where you are allowed to have more than one wall sign besides
Manchester, such as Lee and North Carolina and Florida.
MR. URRICO-Yes, we call them tacky towns. I have a question for Staff. Does the
whole side of that building now constitute a sign, under this proposal, and why aren’t
they asking for another Area Variance, another Variance for the size of the sign?
MR. OBORNE-Well, one question at a time.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. URRICO-Don’t they have a maximum, isn’t there a maximum signage allowed,
based on the proximity to the line, property line?
MR. OBORNE-For the pylon sign.
MR. URRICO-Not for this one?
MR. OBORNE-No, they’re far enough away. Each tenant is allowed two signs, if they’re
wall signs, one pylon sign and one wall sign, or two wall signs.
MR. URRICO-Okay, and what’s the size that they’re allowed.
MR. OBORNE-I can look that up for you.
MRS. HUNT-I have a question. The area that goes down those stores, you’re going to
have two signs for each building, I mean the same sign duplicated? Is that?
MR. MOORE-No, no. What we want to do is, because, there’s several stores down here,
way down below, you can’t see them. So it would be only like three extra signs. You’d
want to put them up here so they would be visible to the people that, when they drive by.
So people could say, there’s so and so, let me pull in.
MRS. JENKIN-Won’t those be at the front of the building, on here?
MR. MOORE-Right, but you can’t see that when you’re coming from the north heading
south. Like you come down from Lake George, you don’t see that by the angle of the
building. When you drive down, you know, say from Lake George Village or you come
from Vermont, you don’t see that until you’re past the building, the way that is angled at
the road. If you have a plot plan, if you look the way the building is to the road.
MRS. JENKIN-That’s what I didn’t understand. So you’re going to put them up here?
MR. MOORE-Yes, in amongst the other ones. Like say next to Brooks Brothers, like
Brooks Brothers and Carters, there would be, you know, one of those placards up there.
Say in the back if we had, you know, say Nike or somebody, they would have a sign up
there where when you come down the road you’d be able to see it. If they were in the
back, like when Levi’s was back there, if you didn’t know it was there, you wouldn’t see
that store name.
MR. CLEMENTS-So let me just ask a question about number of signs. So what we’re
talking about here is, correct me if I’m wrong, two signs for each store that’s in there.
MR. MOORE-Right.
MR. CLEMENTS-Would that be right? Both of the signs would be on walls, rather than
on a freestanding sign.
MR. MOORE-Correct.
MR. CLEMENTS-But you don’t have some of those places filled down there, so you don’t
know who’s going to be in there and what signs are going to be there. Is that correct?
MR. MOORE-Correct.
MR. CLEMENTS-But you’re asking for a total of 12 signs.
MR. MOORE-Right. Correct.
MR. BELDEN-It might work out, if someone comes in and takes 10,000 square feet, you
might only have one.
MR. MOORE-One more sign.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay, and you’re planning on having them up here, some of the up
here under the Brooks Brothers?
MR. MOORE-Just two more underneath the Brooks Brothers and the rest would be
hanging below.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. CLEMENTS-Down in here?
MR. MOORE-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-That’s where they would all be. Now what about the ones from the,
you’re talking about somebody coming from the north.
MR. MOORE-What’s there is there. See, when you’re coming from the north, you can
see them.
MR. CLEMENTS-So it’s only going to be the signs on the front of the store there?
MR. MOORE-Right. Correct.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MR. MOORE-Like, see, when you’re coming south, when you’re coming from the north
heading south, you can see those signs plain as day.
MR. CLEMENTS-Except the ones way down on the end.
MR. MOORE-Except for the ones way down on the end. That’s why we’re asking if we
could put an extra sign here and here.
MR. CLEMENTS-And that’s included in the 12 you’re talking about?
MR. MOORE-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And I do have an answer regarding Mr. Urrico’s question. The minimum
area is 30 square feet. That’s the minimum area for a wall sign, but the surface area of
signs attached to any building should not exceed 25% of the area of the wall or roof,
which is not in this case. It further says a minimum area of 30 square feet shall be
allowed in any case.
MR. URRICO-I’m also looking at a section which says the wall roof signs shall be
regulated by the distance, and at a distance of up to 100 linear feet. The wall or roof sign
shall be limited to 100 square feet, and then it says allowed additional 10 feet per every
additional 10 feet, 10 square feet.
MR. OBORNE-As your distance increases, the size of your sign can increase.
MR. URRICO-So what is the distance from the property line to that wall?
MR. OBORNE-That was not measured, and I think the main issue is that 25% of the wall
is actually not breached in this instance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Those smaller ones you’re just going to hang like the ones in front
of your store, just hanging off the beam up there?
MR. MOORE-Right, hanging off, between the posts.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Between each of the posts.
MR. MOORE-Right. Correct.
MR. CLEMENTS-They’re not on the back wall, they’re going to be hanging between the
posts? In other words, they’re not on the wall here. They’re going to be hanging?
MR. MOORE-There’s going to be two on the wall, underneath Brooks Brothers.
MR. CLEMENTS-Right here, and then these are hanging on.
MR. MOORE-Right, will hang underneath these posts. As you guys know, we have
French Mountain Commons also across the road and we’ve won many Beautification
awards from the Town, with the flowers and the way the building, you know, we try to be
an asset to the community. I don’t want to put a mish mash of signs. That’s why I really
want to take this sign down because I don’t think it fits in the area. We actually, these
were all back lit. I don’t know if you remember, one was a back lit Carter sign with the
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
neon. Same thing with Orvis, Season was a banner, and we took the expense just to
change them and put those signs up.
MRS. JENKIN-But I have a question. The variance, then, if you say that you’re taking
down the pylon, then they would be allowed two wall signs.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MRS. JENKIN-So then they’re not asking for the variance relief from minimum of one
wall sign for all existing tenants, because there are actually two allowed.
MR. OBORNE-Right, but each tenant also has a wall sign by their entrance.
MRS. JENKIN-Correct, but they have one by their entrance and then they would have
one here. So that’s two.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-So they don’t need relief from that, then.
MR. OBORNE-They also have, they have one by their entrance. They have one above
on the façade, and then they have one on the wall, one on the pylon sign. At this point
they’re going to remove, so in essence they have three signs as it stands now. Correct
me if I’m wrong, Ed.
MRS. JENKIN-They do. So there’s two here.
MR. MOORE-Well, underneath there’s what we call blade signs that hang down in the
thing, but I thought those were allowed, too.
MR. OBORNE-They obviously were approved from a previous Board.
MR. MOORE-There’s only a couple of stores that would be in the back that would have
the big wall signs on them.
MRS. JENKIN-So on this side you actually have two signs for each store on this side
now?
MR. MOORE-Well, we don’t have two wall signs. We have one wall sign and then
underneath when you walk under the overhang there’s a blade sign that’s about a foot
wide and eight, above the door.
MRS. JENKIN-Above the door. Is that considered another sign?
MR. OBORNE-That’s considered another sign, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I don’t think anybody’s here from the public, but I’ll open up
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD- Do we have any correspondence at all, Roy?
MR. URRICO-There is no correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So Warren County Planning Board basically said no impact on the
County. All right. Do we want to poll the Board and go through the individual ones and
what we like, what we don’t like, or what do you guys want to do? Do you guys want to
do it that way? Brian, do you want to start? Why don’t we do this. Let’s go, first of all,
for, let’s just ask about the palatability of the ones up behind the Brooks Brothers Factory
Store, this one here, everybody take a look, okay. The two white ones right there you’ve
got in front of you.
MRS. HUNT-I have another question. I’m kind of confused. These signs that are going
to hang down, they’re here?
MR. MOORE-Yes.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MRS. HUNT-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just like the other ones.
MR. MOORE-They’re in the brochure, or the packet or whatever.
MRS. HUNT-I didn’t see, I don’t have that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Here’s a suggestion, before we get into this. You’ve got your
hanging signs in front of each business. So, in a way they’re a little bit redundant, you
know, because not everybody has a sign up on the wall above. Is that the case right
now? Like Sports Shoe Center and all those ones?
MR. BELDEN-Yes, no. They have a, they are now Olympia Sports. They have a sign.
MR. MOORE-We have empty stores there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. You have empty stores there. What if you shifted all of those
signs down to this end of the building there? I mean, it’s sort of redundant when you
think about it. You could actually do that and move the location of those ones that you
have now. I don’t know if people would think that would be just.
MR. MOORE-That would be the deal. If you had Nike down at the other end of the
building and people pulled up underneath the sign.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Where are they? Yes, it makes sense.
MR. MOORE-We would love to do that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let’s start, then, and let’s go through these and see what
people think about it. How about the Brooks Brothers, the ones below, the two below the
Brooks Brothers sign, let’s start with those ones, because those are the two biggest ones
that we’re looking at. Brian, what do you think?
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure, I would be in favor of this because I agree with the owner that the
sign out in front, be taken down, I think that this would look much better than that sign
that’s out in front. So, for this part of it right here, I would be in favor of that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-I feel the same way. I think that that pylon sign is cluttered. It’s not pretty.
When you look at it, you’re not really reading the stores as they are. I think it’s just a
mess. So I would think that it would be an advantage to take it down, and as you’ve said,
then people would focus on the building itself and the building front is very nice now. So
I would be in favor of adding the signs to the front of that building.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I would be against those two signs, and for the reasons I’ve stated earlier.
This is creeping signage, in my opinion. When this was first proposed, and I know there
were different people here, but the proposal was we just needed that one sign for Brooks
Brothers to get them to come in and in order to have people heading north to have a
better view of the Plaza would be an attraction, but I think the benefit to the applicant
could be achieved in other means than the one trying to be achieved right now. There
are feasible alternatives. I think this is, the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance,
and I think the effects on the neighborhood or community, everybody seems to be
glossing over that, but we’re opening up a can of worms here if we allow this. Because
businesses complexes throughout the, when we talk about business complexes we’re
talking about the entire Town of Queensbury. We’re not just talking about that Outlet
Center, and I think we’re going to have other people coming before us and asking for the
same kind of relief. So I would be against it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. I think the request is highly significant
and aesthetically I don’t think it’s what the Town envisioned in their Master Plan when
they wanted people going down the Million Dollar Half Mile and looking at a billboard for
a building. So I’d be against it.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have mixed feelings, but I do think that that pylon sign is not a very
attractive one, and I think it’s really dangerous because you have to slow down to read.
MR. MOORE-You know, and it’s also, too, when you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m sorry, but I can’t have you interject.
MR. MOORE-Okay.
MRS. HUNT-I think probably the two store names under the Brooks Brothers would be
an improvement over the pylon. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Are these store names under Brooks Brothers going to be limited in height
and width?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think in essence what you’re seeing on that picture, that’s the
attitude, that’s the size reference to go from.
MR. KUHL-Well, yes, but, is that, do we have that size and will that be put in the
proposal?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I believe it’s on there. That’s the two wall signs on the west side of
the building. I mean, there’s no stipulation.
MRS. HUNT-Will they be black lettering?
MR. KUHL-It’s not like 16 by 34 or?
MRS. JENKIN-Didn’t you say two by four, am I wrong?
MR. MOORE-The two by four ones are the blade signs that are underneath. Those
signs are 20 inches high. They’ll be 20 inches high. The letters will be 20 inches high,
and I think it’s 16 feet long and that’s 70 feet long.
MR. KUHL-Okay. So they will be defined.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, they’re pretty good size.
MR. KUHL-Yes. I don’t think I’d have a problem with it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. My take on those two is I’m going to take the conservative
bent. I think that, you know, like with signage in Town, we’ve been pretty clear as to
what we can accept. The only suggestion I would make would be, but I know Brooks
Brothers probably isn’t going to want any signs above their name, right? I don’t know.
I’m guessing you could do two smaller more compliant signs up underneath the lights up
there on that side. That might shrink you down a little bit in size, you know, I mean, it’s
approximately the same, but maybe not 20 inches high, but it looks to me like you’ve got
four, it looks to me like right now you’ve got four yes, three no. Okay. So that looks like
that’s a go in my book on those two. So let’s move on to the next ones. All right. The
six additional hangers down below, and that’s going to be between the columns on that
same end of the building there. Those are, in essence, going to be the same size as the
ones that currently exist in front of every business on the north side of the building there,
in front of each building for identification purposes. So let’s go back through again.
Brian, do you want to start again?
MR. MOORE-Could I say something? Those won’t be that big. They’ll be, the panels
will be that big, but the letters themselves will be the same size as this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. MOORE-The panels might be 18 inches by 10 feet long, but they’ll be vinyl letters
that will only be the 20 inches that the Brooks Brothers is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian, do you want to go?
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, again, I would be in favor of this because I would like the sign
taken down out in front that’s out there now. The other thing is that, and Roy had hit on
this about opening a can of worms, but I look at this as a different kind of configuration
than a lot of the other, some of the other places that you’re putting signage up, where
you have a row of things that are going way back, versus something that’s flat against
the road. So I would be in favor of this, and I think it’s kind of a special deal here
because of the way of the configuration of the stores. So, yes, I’d be in favor of those
signs also, particularly because of the smaller size.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Okay. Rich, do you want to go?
MR. GARRAND-Sure. For the same reasons previously stated, I would not be in favor of
this. The Town has a master plan for a reason, and basically they don’t want The Million
Dollar Half Mile to look like a Jersey strip mall. So I wouldn’t be in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-I have nothing against it. I’ll go along with that. Yes, I would be for it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-I also feel that it’s an, it would be an advantage to remove that pylon sign
for all of them and put up something that was clearer and a little bit more simple, and the
feasible alternative would be to erect a new pylon sign, and then, and try to make that
one a little bit more artistic, but I think that, put against the building, the building is simple
itself, and putting some, just some simple signs along there, as long as they’re not too
large, I think that that would be effective, and I would be for it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to stick to my guns here, and regarding the effects on
neighborhood, all the complexes in this Town have unique configurations. They all have
different kinds of problems that we have to deal with, but they don’t involve putting signs
on the walls of every business in the complex. I would be against it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I think this is not very visible from Route 9. I think it’s difficult, in fact, I lived
here several years before I went to any of the stores there because I didn’t know what
was there. In fact, I think I went to the Log Jam and saw what some of the shops were.
So I would be in favor of these signs.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’m the only one left to speak on this one. I guess I’m
going to feel the same way. In other words, we, in our interpretation of the Code, this is
going to be like a third sign added on here, and I guess in essence it will be a third sign,
even with the taking down of the pylon sign out in front, and I think as Roy and Rich have
said, we have to be careful because if everybody else starts coming in and asking for the
same thing, we’re going to be hit with a million Sign Variances coming up here. We’ve
pretty much stayed on track with trying to remain, you know, reasonable, but at the same
time, understanding what you’re trying to accomplish here. I understand what you’re
trying to accomplish here. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, but at the same time,
we’re stuck with the Codebook and our interpretation of what it is, and unfortunately, this
is really going to maximize the number of signs, I guess, but it looks like you’ve got
enough votes for those ones, too. The last ones are the ones on the north side, all right,
and that’s four duplicate tenant wall signs, and I would believe those would be for the
four stores located furthest from the road back there.
MR. BELDEN-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-In essence, and that’s basically to give them exposure because
they’re so far back from the road unless you had a telescope you wouldn’t see them in
most cases with all the cars parked and everything else. So why don’t we start, and this
time we’ll go with you, Rich.
MR. GARRAND-Certain situations where there’s little to no visibility I can see the
addition of a sign to increase foot traffic for that business. I don’t see where something,
you know, so far off of the main road would have any significant impact. I would be in
favor of those signs.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy, do you want to go?
MR. URRICO-In those cases, I think that there is a case to be made for the visibility. We
have made exceptions for certain tenants in Town for the second sign, Panera Bread,
Hanneford, even some of the car dealerships. So, in this case I would be in favor of that
part of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I would be in favor of the four duplicate tenant wall signs.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I’d be in favor. I don’t think there’s any other way that you would be
able to tell what stores are back there unless you had some signs coming from the north.
So I’d be in favor of that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-I’m going to be opposed to this because we’re adding, yet, another sign,
and I think having three signs for each of the stores is more than adequate. You’ll have
the signs on the front of the stores. I think that people going by, they will be visible.
Even as people go by they’ll still be able to see those signs. They’re going to be quite
obvious, and I think that it would clutter up this other end to have signs placed in
between the other stores. It would confuse people because they’ll see Carters and then
they’d see another store, and then they go to that store and it’s not there. I think it’ll be
much more complicated. So, I would not be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-No, I’d be in favor of it. I have nothing against it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. In essence I think what we’ve got to be careful with here,
guys, is that we don’t want to re-invent the sign code. In other words, the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, you know, was devised to try and give everybody a fair
shake at what we’re doing here, and I think the idea with the pylon sign out front of every
business complex that has more than one tenant is such that that provides the signage
necessary to identify who’s there in that building. I think in essence what we’re doing
here, I mean, you guys can vote the way you want to vote here, that’s your prerogative,
but just keep in mind if you start messing with the way things are, you’re going to open
up a real Pandora’s Box for us in the future, because it’s not only going to be these guys
in, not to say that what you’re proposing isn’t reasonable, but, you know, the Code is
what we’ve got, and, you know, we have to be careful with, you know, how much leeway
we give and things like that. So in essence, you know, it’s a give and get thing here. I
mean, we’re going to be getting rid of that pylon sign out there, and you guys are going
to be owning the place for now, but, you know, like down the road if you sell it to
somebody else, I can almost guarantee you the first thing they’re going to want to do is
put a pylon sign back up on that place. I’m just surmising that.
MR. MOORE-Well, can I just, we own French Mountain Commons. We built it, since
1987. My father built it, now I run it, and part owner in the other place. I have a family
here. We’re going to be here for a long time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. MOORE-So, I understand your point, but I’m just, you know.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Well, in essence, then, I guess that, just because I’m the
big cheese here tonight, I guess I’m going to have to say I can’t go along with that
request, but, as a person, I can understand where you’re coming from. It’s not me, it’s
the Codebook that I have a problem with.
MR. URRICO-Jim, I’d like to also revise my thinking on that. I would be against it, the
whole plan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So it looks like you’re going to have enough here to get
everything you asked for. So I guess I’ll close the public hearing.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. JENKIN-Jim, would you rather that we, and we can discuss this, even though
we’ve polled, but would you rather that they put up a new pylon sign because that is, and
then do that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I’m just thinking, in a sense of, you know, as Rich pointed out.
If you go to nicer developed malls, and it’s not to take away from your other mall that
you’ve got up the road there or anything like that, because as you’ve said, it’s gotten lots
of awards. It’s nicely done with the flowers and everything else, and things like that, you
know, it’s an attempt, I think, on their part, to stimulate the success of what they have
here. It’s not a negative thing in that sense. I mean, you’re a businessman. You’ve got
to bring people in if you want to make money. Otherwise your tenants are going to blow
Town and go somewhere else, but at the same time, you know, the configurations of the
malls, I mean, there’s many similar ones around Town, you know, and I’m just wondering
what trigger this is going to be for change. The other thing is to go to the Town Board,
but that’s a real pain, you know, they’re doing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan right
now.
MR. URRICO-But the Sign Ordinance is not being touched, as part of the new CLUP. As
far as I know, that’s something that’s still going to be in effect, what we have.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, but I mean, I don’t think what you’re doing here is going to be
extremely unattractive, ugly. I know you guys are going to make the signs look
reasonable. They’re not going to be gaudy, lit up, you know, neon junk that we’re used
to seeing in other parts of Town. I mean, it’s a nicely done thing. It looks nice the way it
right now, and I can understand where you’re coming from. So I don’t know, we can
deliberate this onwards, but it looks like you’ve got enough votes for everything you’re
asking for here. I hope you’re happy with the end result and I hope the Town’s happy
with it, you know, but no one has commented on this, either, so, I mean, take that into
account, for whatever that impact is, too. So I guess I’ll need somebody who, why
doesn’t somebody who was in favor of all these things do the resolution here.
MR. CLEMENTS-I was in favor of all of them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian, do you want to do it?
MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll give it a try.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and have we got to do any kind of impact on this, because it’s
a type what? This is an Unlisted. So we’ve got to go through this. All right. As far as
the Unlisted action, am I going to use that Short Form thing we’ve got again, or should
we actually go through the form you guys submitted? I don’t know if there’s one
submitted with the application.
MR. OBORNE-That’s a typo. This is a Type II.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a Type II. All right.
MR. OBORNE-I apologize for that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. If you want to go through and do it, Brian, go ahead.
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 45-2008 ED MOORE d/b/a LOG JAM
OUTLETS, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Joyce Hunt:
1476 State Route 9. The applicant proposes to remove existing pylon sign located at
the entrance of the business complex. The applicant proposes to place two wall signs
on the west side of the building below the current Brooks Brothers sign. The applicant
requests relief from the minimum of one wall sign for all existing tenants per Chapter
140-6. The benefit to the applicant would be to place two wall signs on the west side of
the building below the current Brooks Brothers sign. Feasible alternatives would be to
downsize, include one additional sign per tenant. Is this relief substantial? The request
is, I look at this as the request not being substantial because two signs would be
available for each store. The effects on the neighborhood or community. Minor effects
on the neighborhood would be anticipated as a result of this action. Is the difficulty self-
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
created? It could be interpreted as self-created, and I would continue making a motion to
approve that part of this project, and the signs should be dark colors, in compliance with
the other signs that are there.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Before we go on, let’s just stop for a minute and let me just
interject, because I know you’re doing this motion here, but I’m just trying to think back to
when we did the Brooks Brothers sign. Did we require it to be the green writing on there
or is that Brooks Brothers’ colors? I don’t know.
MR. URRICO-I don’t think we stipulated any specific color, no.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think we stipulated, but I don’t know, when you guys put the
other signs up on there, do you want to keep them all one color or something, just so we
don’t turn it into like the.
MR. MOORE-Absolutely. That’s not their font. We make them, you know, like, we’re
making them all look like this. Before they were all the back lit, cheesy, sports, they
could put whatever they want. Now we’re saying listen, you’ve got to keep block
lettering, one color, no back lit, we want the overhang candliers. We don’t want.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I’m just wondering if we ought to keep them all green even, you
know, if you guys are going to improve.
MR. MOORE-The Brooks Brothers is black. Well, it’s like a really dark blue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, almost blue black.
MR. MOORE-Do you want to keep them the same color?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we keep them dark colors at least.
MR. MOORE-Okay. Even the under hand ones?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean, your under hung ones are littler, but I’m just thinking
thematically it’ll keep it more of the Adirondacky style, not so as it’s every color of the
rainbow.
MR. MOORE-Absolutely. I wasn’t going to do it any different than the Brooks Brothers
colors.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Go ahead, Brian.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Jim, how do we do this? Are you doing it divided into two?
MR. GARRAND-No. It’s all one.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s all one, but.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, then what if I was for one and against the other one, what do I vote?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think what we’re doing is we’re doing the, so far you’ve done
the two wall signs, all right.
MRS. JENKIN-The whole front area.
MR. CLEMENTS-I have, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-On the front. We’re doing the two wall signs. So let’s just have
everybody vote on that.
MR. CLEMENTS-Stop there, and go through the rest of the stuff.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Stop there and have everybody vote, and then we’ll go on to the
next section, so we don’t confuse it.
MR. CLEMENTS-Do you want me to go through the other stuff here, the benefit to the
applicant, or just do that one?
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure, go ahead.
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt
NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So now we’re going on to the six additional signs on the west
end of the building.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 45-2008 ED MOORE d/b/a LOG JAM
OUTLETS, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Ronald Kuhl:
1476 State Route 9. The description of the proposed project would be six additional
wall signs hanging between the pillars of the walkway facing Route 9, and those signs
will be 18 inches by 10 feet, and removing the existing pylon sign. The relief required
would be for six additional signs for the tenants located to the side of the business
complex. The benefit to the applicant would be to place the signs stated beforehand.
Feasible alternatives would be to downsize or not put in other signs. I don’t believe that
the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance because again it would be still only three
signs per store. The effects on the neighborhood and community. Minor effects on the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. The difficulty is self-created,
and I move for approval.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-And are we going to keep those the same size as the other hanging
ones?
MR. MOORE-They’re going to be smaller.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Smaller.
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements
NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and the last one, these would be on the north side of the
building towards the front. I’m not sure exactly where because I don’t think you’ve
determined where they’re going to be yet.
MR. MOORE-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-These will be somewhat in between those other ones that are
placed up on there.
MR. MOORE-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And these are to give more visibility to the tenants who are located
at the very rear of the complex, way in the back.
MR. BELDEN-And again, if we got two big tenants back there, it would only be two.
MR. MOORE-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. It will be up to four signs in that configuration. So just make
sure you say that, from two to four signs, limited to a maximum of four.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 45-2008 ED MOORE d/b/a LOG JAM
OUTLETS, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Ronald Kuhl:
1476 State Route 9. The applicant proposes to remove the existing pylon sign located
at the entrance of the business complex. Further the applicant proposes to attach up to
four duplicate tenant wall signs to the north corner of the façade, and that would be in
Spaces 9, 10, 11, and 12, as shown on the map, to be similar to the ones that are on the
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
west facing façade, and the same sizes and colors. The benefit to the applicant would to
place up to four signs on the north side. Feasible alternatives would be to not put these
signs up. Is the relief substantial? I would say that it isn’t because signage is needed
for cars coming from the north. Effects on the neighborhood. Minor effects to the
neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, as the area is highly
commercialized. The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, and I make a motion
to approve. That there will be complete removal of the present pylon sign out front, and
all its associated signage, and these signs, as approved, will be replacing that pylon sign
in the front.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements
NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood
MR. UNDERWOOD-So that one’s not approved? You’ve got four to three down.
MR. MOORE-So you guys approved.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They approved the ones out front, but they didn’t approve the other,
the ones on the north side. So, I don’t know what you want to do.
MR. MOORE-Didn’t you two guys approve the ones that we’re moving up from the rear?
MR. GARRAND-Cumulatively, no. It’s too much relief for all those signs on that one
building.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, it looks like you’ve got most of. I don’t know if you
want, what you want to do at this point, but it looks like you’ve got no sign out front
anymore. You’ve got the ones on the end of the building, and the ones on the end of the
building, is that enough to include all your tenants, or are you missing some as a result?
MRS. JENKIN-That’s going to be all your tenants.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Six plus two is eight. Right?
MR. BELDEN-Yes, it’ll be all our tenants, but the big one in the back won’t have any sign
out front. You’ll only be able to see it coming from the north, and then you’ve got the two
biggest stores.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, do you want to give them one sign on there? Do you want to
modify that request? We voted. I didn’t think about that.
MRS. JENKIN-You won’t have a sign at all in the front? I thought you were going to
cover all the signs in the front?
MR. MOORE-No, when you come from the north.
MR. BELDEN-When you come from the north, the rear of the building won’t have any
signage.
MRS. JENKIN-It doesn’t matter, but on the front of your building, you will include all the
stores in that complex, correct?
MR. MOORE-Right.
MR. BELDEN-When you come down from the north, you can’t see the front of that
building.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, that’s all right. You’re still going to have signs for each of the
buildings in your complex here.
MR. MOORE-Remember, they won’t be visible from the south. When you’re heading
south, you won’t see them.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, they’ll see them, well, anyway. That’s giving three signs for each of
your stores, and you would have to, for the relief we’d have to be giving four signs.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. BELDEN-(Lost words) we could not put the under the walkway sign up and there
would still be three per each, on the front of their door. We just, on those stores we won’t
put it up and we wouldn’t need the relief.
MR. MOORE-See, like currently there’s a sign on this side and there’s a sign on the
other side. So technically that’s two signs. It’s counted as one, but technically it’s two.
Now I’m saying I’ll take down those two signs and just put one up. So you guys said
okay to that, but the ones that are in the rear, that I can’t, that won’t be visible now
because this sign is down, I’m asking to be put up there. So, that’s what I’m saying,
you’re not going to see them coming from the south, coming from the north heading
south.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, maybe, if you’re not satisfied with this, maybe you need to erect a
new pylon signs and have all the signs, front and back, on that.
MR. MOORE-Well, that takes away the point of taking down the pylon sign.
MRS. JENKIN-Right. Well, you’d have to build a new one.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, do you guys want to do anything about it or do you want to,
you got some of the signs that you wanted. I don’t know. I didn’t think about the fact that
you weren’t going to get these ones. What was our vote? Can you go back through the
roll again on that last one?
MS. HEMINGWAY-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Four to three.
MS. HEMINGWAY-Mr. Underwood was no. Mr. Kuhl was yes. Mrs. Jenkin was no. Mr.
Urrico was no. Mr. Garrand was no. Mrs. Hunt was yes. Mr. Clements was yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. That’s what we polled, too, prior?
MR. MOORE-No, when they polled Mr. Garrand and Mr. Urrico were for.
MR. URRICO-Yes, but I also said that I changed my, while Mr. Underwood was
speaking.
MR. BELDEN-After he commented on changing the sign policy for the Town.
MR. OBORNE-If I may, Mr. Chairman.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-I know on that last, the four on the right angle, the ones facing up here,
when you first polled it was five, two, and then Roy changed that back to four.
MR. URRICO-It wasn’t five, two, it was four, three.
MR. OBORNE-I’m pretty sure the minutes will hold that, and you could be right, but that’s
my recollection. I’m reasonably certain that all three passed on your poll.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I had thought all three passed.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That was my take on that, too.
MR. OBORNE-And I think that minutes will back that up, too, sir.
MR. GARRAND-We could handle it all as one variance, okay. Just vote for the entire
variance, okay, and as one, and see how that rolls.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do that, then. All right. So you’re either yes or
you’re no on this project. You’ve got to decide, Joan, because it’s going to come down to
you. Okay. Let’s go back.
MR. URRICO-Well, is the applicant willing to concede some issues here? Does it have
to be the way he’s presented, or is he willing to back off some of the request?
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. MOORE-Well, I mean, basically.
MR. URRICO-Because we’ve already voted now. All right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes, once, it’s a binding thing. We voted.
MR. CLEMENTS-Could I say something here?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, Brian.
MR. CLEMENTS-I think that one of the things that we have to look at here is you don’t
know how many tenants you’re going to have in there. You may have somebody that’s
taking up two store spaces. So there may be one sign instead of two signs in some
instances. I think what we’re really looking at here is the concept of taking down the
pylon sign and putting up hanging signs in between the pillars. So, you know what I
mean, if you look at it that way, I think that’s how you should vote on it, whether you
agree with that concept, the way it would be done or not.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, but then that doesn’t include, when you’re saying that, you’re talking
about the front of the building. You’re not talking about the sides that is going to, there’s
going to be more confusion with this other, these other signs that are put here that
people weren’t, might know the stores are there, but they’re not going to know where
they are.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t want to turn this into a debate club, because, you know, you
guys have got to remember that your charge is to look at the Codebook and make your
decisions based upon what the Codebook says, not that, you know, it can’t be changed
in the future, but as it exists, that’s the bible, that’s the Ten Commandments that you
follow when you’re doing things.
MR. CLEMENTS-In that same line, may I make a suggestion, then? This is just a
suggestion to you guys. What you’re talking about, because you have a sign over the
front and then you have another sign when you walk underneath and go into a place.
That makes three signs. If you took one of those down, I mean, would you be willing to
do that?
MR. MOORE-Yes. I’m not opposed to that. I mean, that’s a tiny little sign.
MR. CLEMENTS-Then you’re talking about two signs for each store.
MR. MOORE-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And that’s allowed.
MR. BELDEN-So if you do the front, which you did, as long as, in the back, we don’t, on
the big space way in the back, we don’t put that little overhang sign up, we’re good to go
anyway.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think that would be the case. Because you’re allowed two.
MR. BELDEN-We’re allowed two.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So you’re just going to take down the little hangers, then?
MR. BELDEN-Well, no, it would be three because you would still have the sign out on
the front.
MRS. JENKIN-They’re still talking about three for that extra one of the people in the back
for visibility.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve still got three, you know. So I think in essence with the
duplicate tenant wall signs on the north side, that’s going to kick you up to four signs,
right?
MR. MOORE-But if you take down the hanging signs now, you’re back down to three.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. BELDEN-When you go there and you see what’s done and you see it, it’s just, and I
know you guys have rules.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Give me some direction here, guys. I’m only one voice. It’s
a Board, you know, what do you want to do?
MR. GARRAND-Why don’t you poll everybody respective of the entire, everything as one
variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’re going to look at the project in its entirety as proposed
here, then, and you’re either going to vote yes for all of it or no for all of it. That’s what
your choice is on this one.
MR. CLEMENTS-You’re polling?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m polling again. Okay. So, let’s just go through it. They’re going
to remove the existing pylon sign. They’re going to place two wall signs on the west side
of the building, six additional wall signs attached to the wall of the covered walkway,
facing Route 9, and those would be like those hanger ones on high hooks or something,
and then there’s going to be four duplicate tenant wall signs crammed in down there on
the north side to advertise those tenants, and it may be up to four, hopefully two if they
get two big tenants, and I’m sure that’s easier for you, dealing with an extra tenant, and
I’ll move for its acceptance, I mean, move for its approval for the whole project, then. So
I need a second.
MRS. JENKIN-So what are you doing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m actually making a resolution on top of the ones that we’ve
already made, because they’re trying to get the whole farm here.
MRS. JENKIN-So you’ve now made a motion, correct?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I just made another motion, okay, and that’s for you to either
approve or disapprove all the requested signs.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 45-2008 ED MOORE d/b/a LOG JAM
OUTLETS, IN ITS ENTIRETY, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
1476 State Route 9. Applicant will remove the existing pylon sign, place two wall signs
on the west side of the building, six additional wall signs attached to the wall of the
covered walkway facing Route 9, and those would be like those hanger ones on eye
hooks or something, and then there’s going to be four duplicate tenant walls signs
crammed in down there on the north side to advertise those tenants, and it may be up to
four, hopefully two, if they get two big tenants. I’ll move for its acceptance.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl
NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So what does that mean, then the whole thing’s negated?
MS. HEMINGWAY-Four noes and three yeses.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I don’t know how that’s going to swing? What do you guys
want to do? Do you want to take some time out and think about? Why don’t you do this.
Why don’t you table and then come back next month with some feasible alternatives
here as to what the outcome might be. We just, in essence, said no to the whole thing.
So we can deny without prejudice and have them come back. That’s probably the
easiest way to go, come back with a different proposal, and I think, here’s what I might
suggest. We’re caught, because of the Town Code, as it exists, all right, and if you’re in
a shopping complex, you’re supposed to have some kind of identification out in front of
the place to identify it. I mean, that’s the purpose of the pylon signs, and it wasn’t to
create some gaudy sense of pylon signs, and as you suggested, you’re not happy with
the way your sign looks out there now. So maybe in the interim you can come up with
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
something different, you know, that might work for you under the current guidelines that
we have here, but, you know, our charge is that we can’t deviate way, way, way far away
from what we’ve got on the books as far as wall signs, etc., because, once we open up
the door, that means everybody else can do it in Town, too, and it’s not to say that what
you were proposing wasn’t reasonable. It is reasonable, but.
MR. MOORE-So what if I said forget about moving the four signs up? I just want to take
down my pylon signs.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, if you want to forget about the four on the north side
there then, then I guess let’s go back and vote again, without the four on the north side,
and so in essence you’re going to be getting the two wall signs on the west end, the six
hangers down below, taking down the pylon sign, and the four duplicate tenant wall signs
to the north are gone. All right.
MR. CLEMENTS-But we already approved those.
MRS. JENKIN-So are you going to remove the signs right above the doors as well?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, no, no.
MR. MOORE-No, just not put the duplicates up.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We just voted on the totality of the project, and we voted it
down completely.
MRS. JENKIN-That’s right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So they’ve got nothing right now. Okay. They’re right where they’re
at.
MRS. JENKIN-So we really can’t vote again, can we?
MR. UNDERWOOD-We can modify. We can vote as many times as, to get to some
point of reasonable conclusion here.
MR. URRICO-Hey, Jim, I’m not sure about that. I think their only course of action now is
to re-submit a new drawing. I don’t know that we can keep voting until we get the right
one.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I was hoping we could resolve this, but in other words.
MR. URRICO-I don’t know.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, if the thing that held it up, it looks to me like you had a
four to three vote for the wall signs, and the six additional hanging signs, and the thing
that killed it was the four duplicate tenant signs on the north side, all right. So if we take
away the four things on the north side there, in essence you’ve approved those other
ones, if that’s what you want to do. I mean, I don’t know where we’re at.
MR. OBORNE-May I make a suggestion?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-You’ve already approved two of the three aspects of this plan, but you
defeated the totality of the plan. It is on record that, yes, you have defeated the totality of
the plan, but portions of the plan have already been approved, and I would let it lie.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sure. Well, let’s do it that way, and I think that we can
assume that, you know, if you’re going to remove the duplicate tenant wall signs from the
north side, you’ve still got the other ones that you were asking for, and the pylon sign is
history.
MR. MOORE-Right. That’s what I’m asking for. Can I take down the pylon sign and put
up the hangers and the two wall signs?
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we gave permission, you know, and that looks like it’s going
to work.
MR. OBORNE-It’s my understanding that you are finished, sir. You’ve already approved
two. You’ve defeated one, and you defeated totality.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Then I guess we’re set.
MR. MOORE-So I can take down the pylon sign and put up the other signs?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, why don’t you do this. Tomorrow we can review this
with Craig and see what Craig says and let Craig be the ultimate authority, since he’s the
Zoning Administrator, in case we did something potentially, you know, illegal.
MR. OBORNE-As far as the protocol?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. MOORE-So we shouldn’t run up there at six o’clock tomorrow morning and go to
work?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, don’t do that yet.
MR. MOORE-Thanks for your time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sorry about that, guys. Yes.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 46-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED JOLLEY
ASSOCIATES/MOBIL AGENT(S): SEAN CRUMB OWNER(S): JOLLEY
ASSOCIATES ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1412 STATE ROUTE 9, EXIT 20 OF I-
87 APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF TWO CANOPY SIGNS. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS. CROSS REF.: BP
2008-086 CANOPY SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 9, 2008 LOT SIZE:
1.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.16-1-3 SECTION: 140-6
SEAN CRUMB, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-And this is listed as Unlisted Action, too. Is that correct? Or should
it be?
MR. OBORNE-That is a Type II action.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Type II also. All right. The applicant is proposing the installation of
two canopy signs. It appears those, if you drive up there, they’re already there.
MR. CRUMB-We actually had those covered because of.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sure. I would assume that’s just a matter of the materials,
as they arrive, it’s all one big chunk of plastic for the whole piece.
MR. CRUMB-It was. We had a little confusion on the sign permit. Craig, for some
reason, had filed it and I was under the impression we had it. I questioned on it, and he
pulled it out and said, you need to get a variance for the two canopy signs. So there’s a
little confusion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 46-2008, Jolley Associates/Mobil, Meeting Date:
July 23, 2008 “Project Location: 1412 State Route 9, Exit 20 of I-87 Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install two (2) wall signs totaling 14 sq. ft. each
to the gas canopy. One sign would directly face Route 9, while the other sign would face
north bound traffic on Route 9.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests two (2) additional wall signs to be attached to the gas canopy.
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to have two additional wall signs on site.
2. Feasible alternatives:
One possible alternative is to have one (1) sign instead of two (2) in order to be more
compliant.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
The request for two (2) additional wall signs or a 200% increase in the allowable number
of signs relative to the Ordinance may be considered moderate.
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minor effects on the neighborhood or community may be anticipated as a result of this
action as this is highly commercialized and there are numerous signs in this environ.
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2008-0105 Issued 3/31/08 Commercial Addition Fuel Canopy.
BP 2008-0087 Issued 5/28/08 Sign
BP 2008-0085 Issued 5/28/08 Sign
BP 2007-0720 Issued 4/4/08 Commercial Building
BP 2007-0682 Issued 11/09/07 Demolition of Business and Canopy
6 sign permits issued in 1995
Staff comments:
The property is located near Exit 20 of the Northway and is on the east side of State
Route 9. The applicant wishes to place two 14 square foot Mobil signs on the soon to be
completed canopy. During a field visit, it was noted one sign had already been installed.
Clarification from the applicant may be needed concerning the premature sign
installation. Further, the applicant proposes one freestanding double-faced monument
sign approximately 15 feet from the front property line and one (1) wall sign on the
building that is currently under construction. Both of those signs are allowed per Chapter
140-6(3)(c).
SEQR Status:
Type II”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 9, 2008 Project
Name: Jolley Associates/Mobil Owner(s): Jolley Associates/Mobil ID Number: QBY-
08-SV-46 County Project#: Jul08-25 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes installation of two canopy signs.
Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs. Site Location: 1412 State Route
9, Exit 20 of I-87. Tax Map Number(s): 288.16-1-3 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The
applicant proposes installation of two canopy signs. Relief requested from the number of
allowable wall signs. The information submitted indicates the two canopy signs are to be
for Mobil where the third wall sign will be for the convenience store. The plans show the
location of the signs. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information
submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law
Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill 7/14/08.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you want to add?
MR. CRUMB-Well, the reasoning that we had requested these, when we originally
bought the property there was a single pylon sign and there were two canopy signs
without a building sign. So the real issue here is we had added a Jolley sign above the
door, and unbeknownst to me the other two were not compliant, so we requested the
variance. I didn’t feel that it was unreasonable due to the previous circumstances that
they had actually existed. So, if you look back in time to what was previously there,
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
we’re really asking for one additional wall sign to be placed on the building identifying
Jolley, but obviously.
MR. UNDERWOOD-On the record, there were like six sign permits issued in ’95 for that
site, I guess, in total, yes.
MR. CRUMB-Were there? So we’ve done our best to try and keep things toned down,
but we would like additional brand recognition with that, and that’s our reasoning, again,
going back in time and having had the two Mobil legends on the canopy previously.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the status with Mobil Exxon? Because I heard they’re going
to get out of the retail business. So are these going to be all changing over to Valero or
something on it?
MR. CRUMB-Well, these particular sites that we purchased were part of the Mobil
divesting in New York back in ’05. They’re now selling off all of their sites throughout the
US. This site is privately owned by Jolley Associates. It has, our only allegiance with
Mobil was our contract with them to provide Mobil product. So I don’t anticipate any
further changes for quite some time. It’s a family owned business, and there’s several
youngsters waiting to come up through, if you will.
MR. URRICO-Will there be anymore wall signs added? You have a Dunkin Donuts
going in?
MR. CRUMB-We do have Dunkin Donuts, and our policy with Jolley Associates, we do
not allow any additional signage on our building. So it’s been made very clear to Dunkin
Donuts, both at this location and Exit 19, because we also have approval there, that we
will allow no additional building signs there. So the signage that you see is what will be
there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And those ones, if they put a neon sign in the window, that’s not
included in the wall signage.
MR. CRUMB-Well, you know, what we have stated in that case is they need to get Town
approval, okay. So in that regard we would allow them a sign within the window, being a
smaller type sign, if it was approved by the Town, but additionally we do not advertise.
We don’t put our beer signs. We don’t put special, six sodas for a buck, whatever it be in
the windows. We run a very clean. We want to have folks able to see in and out of the
store. We don’t put 100 cases of windshield wash out on the front walk. You won’t see
any of that with our stores at all. Granted you may see it now at Exit 19, and as well as
Route 9 and 254 because of the smallness of those stores, but as we change those,
that’s going to go away.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. CRUMB-And granted, I’ll give you the fact that the Mobil legend did wind up up
there, and that was due to the way we have to order things ahead of time, some wires
got crossed, but I did request that these signs be covered up.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any questions from people?
MRS. JENKIN-Well, when I drove up there, I felt that the front of that, where you have
the one covered, the other one wasn’t covered, the one is covered. I felt that there was,
you could see that from both north and south, as you’re coming from the north and
coming from the south, because, and I was actually on a bike on the sidewalk, and I
could see it quite clearly. So I don’t understand why you need the southern, coming from
the south and one on the side there, when you will have a pylon sign as well, which will
show that it is Mobil, and then having one along the front I think would be perfectly
adequate.
MR. CRUMB-In that regard, we’re looking to follow Mobil’s template, if you will, for what
they generally like to see on a sign. I would be, I’d be happy if you reduced it to one and
said go ahead with the one. I would prefer the two, but if we’re here to make a
compromise, I would be willing to compromise to the single, but again, I’d prefer the two.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other comments anybody wants to make? I guess we’ll
open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence at all?
MR. URRICO-I do not see any. No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Just final comments here. I mean, we’ve dealt with the
canopies before. I think Sunoco was the last one we had up here, and I think on the
Sunoco one, I don’t think we allowed them anything up on there because they had their
multi-colored flavor, yellow, red, blue, you know, color change. Sunoco is just further up
the road there on the west side of Route 9, as you go up there, and I don’t ever know
what happened to the Exxon one that was going to go in up where.
MR. URRICO-That’s still, that’s gone.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that history, that bit the dust completely, yes.
MR. CRUMB-The Exxon brand is actually gone. Come February it’s goodbye.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So that one’s not going to ever happen. I guess I’ll poll the Board
and see what people think. Do you want to give them two of these or one of these? It’s
your choice. They’re requesting two.
MR. URRICO-Well, I think since he generously offered to reduce it to one, I think we
should take him up on it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. URRICO-Anytime we can reduce signage, I think it’s a positive.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume you want to keep the one that’s on the front facing
Route 9, or do you want to keep the one coming off the Northway? I would think the one
on the front would be more effective.
MR. CRUMB-The one on the northwest corner would be preferable.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes.
MR. KUHL-You have product recognition. I mean, you could even go with no signs and
you’d be okay, too. I mean, you know your comment about going along with corporate,
you know, Wal-Mart isn’t always blue, depending on where it goes. You’ve got to adjust
to what the local municipalities allow, also.
MR. CRUMB-And I thoroughly agree with you, and that’s, you know, if your decision is
that there’s no signs, we’ll certainly abide by that, but again, I don’t think that we’re being
unreasonable, considering the past history.
MR. GARRAND-I’ve seen a lot of these places all over the east coast, and some areas
they don’t allow the pylon sign and I have seen the two signs on the canopy being the
primary fixture with an On The Run on the building. The pylon sign is kind of an anomaly
in some of the areas. Some of the areas don’t want them because they interfere with
ingress and egress through the parking lots.
MR. CRUMB-Yes, and even in this Town, in the other, in the case of Upper Glen, at 9
and 254, and Exit 19, they request that we put in monument signs, which we’ve abided
with, and specifically they asked that we not put anything on the canopy at 19 because of
the residential area, and, you know, we’re agreeable to that. I understand that. This
area being Highway Commercial Intensive, it’s a busy area. I didn’t feel that it was
unreasonable, and again, in light of past history, and that was brought up with the
Planning Board as well, but obviously the Planning Board doesn’t oversee all of the sign
regulations. So I understand where you’re coming from.
MR. UNDERWOOD-In essence, I’m polling you to see what you think.
MR. GARRAND-I’d be in favor of one sign, as Mr. Urrico said.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Roy was in favor of one. Joyce, one or two?
MRS. HUNT-I think one.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I think in this instance I’d be, I’d go along with everyone else and
say I’d be in favor of one sign. Because it’s not a, I mean, you can see it coming either
way, as Joan said.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and so, Ron and Joan, you’re on board with that, too?
MR. KUHL-Sure, one.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll along with the one as being fine. They’re
pretty minimal. I mean, it’s not like they’re something we don’t recognize.
MR. CRUMB-Right. They’re 13.35 square feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Pretty small to begin with. So I guess I’ll have somebody make the
resolution to approve one single sign on the northwest side.
MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 46-2008 JOLLEY
ASSOCIATES/MOBIL, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Joan Jenkin:
1412 State Route 9. Exit 20 of I-87. The applicant proposes to install one wall sign
totaling 14 square feet. The sign would face directly on Route 9. The applicant is
requesting 100% relief for the addition of one wall sign. On the balancing test, can the
benefit be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? This is the most logical
choice for the applicant, seeing that it is still a 100% request for relief here. They do
want the visibility, and this seems like the most logical way to get it. Will this produce an
undesirable change in the neighborhood or the character to nearby properties? No, it
will not. It will fit right in with the character. This request may be deemed as substantial,
given the percentage amount. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental
impacts? No, it will not. It will have absolutely no environmental impacts, and this may
be interpreted as self-created. So I move that we approve Sign Variance No. 46-2008.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess you’re all set.
MR. CRUMB-Great. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We’ve just got a little bit of housekeeping to do. We’ve got
two sets of meetings to approve here, and we’ll do those real quick.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 18, 2008
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2008, Introduced by James Underwood who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of July 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
June 25, 2008
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/08)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2008, Introduced by James Underwood who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II GREGG BROWN AGENT(S):
STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): GREGG BROWN ZONING: WR-1A
LOCATION: 31 KNOX ROAD & 29 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A
BOUNDARY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TRANSFER
180.88 SQ. FT. OF PROPERTY TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. TABLED FOR
RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING BOARD. TO DATE NO RECOMMENDATION
HAS BEEN RENDERED BY THE PLANNING BOARD . CROSS REF.: SUBD. NO. 11-
1991 SUNSET HILL FARM/MODIFICATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH
12, 2008 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.63 AC.; 0.62 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-7; 239.7-1-6 SECTION: 179-4-030
MRS. JENKIN-Do we have to table this?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, we don’t need to do that until that, do we want to do the
tabling motion on that one that we got from? I mean, I’ve got it here. I guess we can
read it in, but no one’s going to know, right, unless they call up.
MR. OBORNE-I would do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. I’ll table Area Variance. I’ll read this letter in. “Dear
Chairman Underwood: It is our understanding that the Brown matter was tabled until the
August agenda for the Zoning Board of Appeals. We have been advised by Staff that the
Zoning Board will only be having one meeting in August, specifically on August 20, 2008.
Unfortunately I have another meeting scheduled for that night, in another town, and
Stephanie Bitter will be out on maternity leave. As a result, we would request that due to
this conflict that this matter be tabled until September.” And again, that’s the Gregg
Brown on Knox Road appeal. I don’t have the appeal number on there. So, I’ll just have
you guys record that as such, and make sure that you send notice out to all the people in
the neighborhood, so they don’t show up unnecessarily. ]
MS. HEMINGWAY-Do you want to vote on that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I guess, do we need to vote on that?
MS. HEMINGWAY-You made a motion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2008 GREGG BROWN, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
31 Knox Road and 29 Knox Road. Tabled until the September meeting.
rd
Duly adopted this 23 day of July, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would remind everybody to hang on to your K-Twin Holdings stuff.
Don’t toss those out, because they’re coming back.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
49