2010.01.20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 20, 2010
INDEX
Sign Variance No. 1-2009 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc./Craig Steinfeldt 1.
EXTENSION Tax Map No. 303.15-1-25
Area Variance No. 1-2010 Frank & Joanna DeNardo, Jr. 2.
Tax Map No. 240.00-1-47
Sign Variance No. 2-2010 Artur Ismailey d/b/a I Love NY Pizza 7.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-18
Sign Variance No. 3-2010 Ray Signs, Inc. (Game Stop) 12.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-22
Area Variance No. 4-2010 Irene Marshall 18.
Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28
Area Variance No. 5-2010 J & D Marina/Castaway Marina 30.
Tax Map No. 279.00-1-63
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 1/20/10)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 20, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOYCE HUNT
RICHARD GARRAND
BRIAN CLEMENTS
RONALD KUHL
MEMBERS ABSENT
JOAN JENKIN
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’m going to call the January 20, 2010 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, Staff Notes and 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, and then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing’s 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, but it does not make the decision for the Board
members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will allow speakers to
speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three
minutes, and only if after listening to other speakers, a speaker believes that they have
new information to present, and, Board members, I’d suggest that because we have the
five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking.
Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask
the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the
record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public
comment. Board members then will discuss the variance 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, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or disapprove will follow.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-2009 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED WAL-MART STORES,
INC./CRAIG STEINFELDT AGENT(S): BERGMANN ASSOCIATES/MARK PETROSKI
OWNER(S): FOREST ENTERPRISES MANAGEMENT ZONING: HC-INT.
LOCATION: CORNER OF QUAKER RIDGE BOULEVARD AND QUAKER ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES 4 WALL SIGNS IN EXCESS OF NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE
SIGNS PER THE SIGN ORDINANCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS AND MAXIMUM SIZE OF SIGNS. REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF APPROVAL.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Again, this is the Wal-Mart project that’s proposed over on the
corner of Quaker Ridge Boulevard and Quaker Road. We heard this a couple of times
before we narrowed it down to what we ended up with. In the interim, I think they’re still
working out things with the Army Corps of Engineers before they start the project and
break ground over there. So they need more time. Anybody here representing them this
evening?
MR. OBORNE-No, nobody’s here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we can just go ahead and do that, then.
MR. OBORNE-If that is the Board’s will.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that, based upon what we had done previously, this is an
Unlisted action and we did SEQRA on this, and we had previously granted SEQRA
review that it was a negative dec on that, and at the same time we did the approvals, and
I think that I would just propose that we give them another year on this.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. What you’d want to do is you’d want to re-affirm your previous
SEQRA findings, which was a Negative dec.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So I think what we’ll do is re-affirm the SEQRA finding as a
Negative dec, and I guess we need to re-vote on it again.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. URRICO-I’ll second it.
MOTION TO RE-AFFIRM THE SEQRA FINDING AS A NEGATIVE DEC FOR SIGN
VARIANCE NO. 1-2009 WAL-MART STORES, INC./CRAIG STEINFELDT, Introduced
by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right, and I think the last time I did the variances for the various
signs on there, and I think we can include the same language. There’s no need to re-
hash it and read through the whole thing a second time again. So, I’ll need a second on
that.
MRS. HUNT-Second.
MOTION TO EXTEND SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-2009 WAL-MART STORES,
INC./CRAIG STEINFELDT FOR ONE YEAR, Introduced by James Underwood who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II FRANK & JOANNA DE NARDO, JR.
AGENT(S): STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): FRANK & JOANNA DE
NARDO, JR. ZONING: RR-5A & LC-10A LOCATION: RIDGE ROAD AND BARTHEL
LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 14.05+/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 2-
LOTS OF 6.25+/- ACRES AND 7.80+/- ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SUB.
NO. 2-2010, SUB. NO. 10-2005, AV 7-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
JANUARY 13, 2010 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 14.05 +/-
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.00-1-47 SECTION: 179-4-050; 179-4-030
STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-2010, Frank & Joanna De Nardo, Jr., Meeting
Date: January 20, 2010 “Project Location: Ridge Road and Barthel Lane Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 14.05 acre parcel located in the
Town of Queensbury into two lots of 6.25 and 7.80 acres respectively. The project lies
within two zoning districts; Land Conservation 10 acres (LC-10A) and the Rural
Residential 5 acres (RR-5A). Further, the parcel is bifercated between the Towns of
Queensbury and Fort Ann.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
Relief Required:
Applicant seeks relief from minimum lot size requirements for both lots A and B per
§179-4-030 and road frontage requirements for Lot B per §179-4-050.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result
of the granting of this area variance.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The nature of the
subdivision in regards to the zoning districts is as such that area variances for lot size
and road frontage are unavoidable.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 3.7 acres or
37% relief from the 10 acre requirement per §179-4-030 of the portion of Lot A
residing in the LC-10A zone may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
Further, the request for 2.20 acres or 22% relief from the 10 acre requirement per
§179-4-030 of the portion of lot B residing in the LC-10A zone may be considered
minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 50 feet or 100%
relief from the 50 foot Frontage on Public Streets requirement per §179-4-050 may
be considered severe relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Moderate impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as
the potential build out of lot A relative to the wetlands on the parcel may result in
environmental degradation. However, a properly devised site plan with E&S and
stormwater controls may mitigate any concerns.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
A.V. 7-2005 Lot size and road frontage relief Approved 1/26/05
SUB 10-2005 Two (2) lot subdivision Approved 6/21/05
Staff comments:
As denoted in the above Parcel History, this parcel had been given lot size and road
frontage relief in 2005. The subdivision was also approved in 2005. According to the
applicant’s agent, the subdivision was not recorded with the county and as such the
applicant must undertake the process again.
Lot A has 563 feet of road frontage on State Route 9L. Lot B fronts on Barthel Road, a
private road, necessitating the need for road frontage relief.
According to the applicant, Lot A is the only building lot proposed as Lot B would be part
of existing lands in the Town of Fort Ann.
The total size of the parcel is 25.48 acres of which 14.05 acres are located in
Queensbury.
The Planning Board has issued a recommendation concerning this application dated
January 19, 2010 (see handout).
SEQR Status:
Type II – No further review required.”
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 13, 2010
Project Name: DeNardo, Jr., Frank & Joanna Owner(s): Frank & Joanna DeNardo, Jr.
ID Number: QBY-10-AV-1 County Project#: Jan10-10 Current Zoning: RR-5A & LC-
10A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide a
14.05 +/- acre parcel into 2 lots of 6.25 +/- acres and 7.80 +/- acres. Relief requested
from minimum lot size and road frontage requirements. Site Location: Ridge Road and
Barthel Lane Tax Map Number(s): 240.00-1-47 Staff Notes: The property straddles the
County line with Fort Ann and the portion in Warren county can not meet the lot width
requirements. Proposed use if for a single family residence. The availability of 6.25
acres for one dwelling will not impact County resources. The issues are local in nature.
County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Tim Lawson,
Warren County Planning Board 1/15/10.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It appears that, even though we had previously granted the relief for
these two parcels that were going to be created here, the Planning Board had reviewed
this and I think they had given all their approvals, but for some reason this didn’t get filed
or something? That’s what the hold up was.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So we do have to go back through the process for a second time
here. Do you want us to read everything in again, or do you want to summarize for us?
MS. BITTER-I can summarize, if it would be easier.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, I think, in lieu of doing that, I think everybody here,
with I think the exception of Mr. Kuhl I think maybe wasn’t on at that time, but if you want
to just summarize, that would be fine.
MS. BITTER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Stefanie Bitter, for the record. I’m here this
evening with Frank DeNardo. As you’d indicated, we’re proposing a two lot subdivision
that was before this Board in 2005. Unfortunate circumstances bring us here today
because the mylar wasn’t completed. The property is unique in that it sits in the Town of
Queensbury, the Town of Fort Ann, the County of Warren, the County of Washington,
and also straddles two zones, the RR-5A zone and the LC-10A zone. We are proposing
two lots. Lot A is 6.25 acres in size, and that will actually be a buildable lot. Lot B, which
is really the subject of the variances this evening, is a 7.80 acre lot. It is not going to be
developed. There’s no house proposed on that lot, but unfortunately that lot is located
on a private drive, which the DeNardo’s actually own, which is considered not to have
road frontage, as well as the fact that it’s considered to be in the LC-10 zone, and we’ll
only maintain 7.8 acres. However, the DeNardo’s also own property in Fort Ann, which
this property, Lot B, will be land hooked to. So that property will total 25.48 acres, once
it’s completed with its merger. We feel, when looking at all of these circumstances, that
these two variances are minor at best and the benefit to the applicant would outweigh
any detriment that could be created by this. Although the mylar wasn’t necessarily filed,
the APA permit for this project was obtained and filed in both Counties. The APA permit
was necessary due to the wetlands that exist on this project. That permit requires Lot A
to be conveyed by March of 2010 for that permit to still be valid, which is why we’re kind
of here rushing around trying to complete everything, because we do have an individual
to transfer that lot to.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So is that a reflection that the APA doesn’t give you extensions or?
MS. BITTER-They probably would, under the circumstances.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure, but you’d have to jump through all the hoops again.
MS. BITTER-Yes, exactly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys have any questions, you’d want anymore detail
than that on this?
MR. URRICO-The first time that you got the variances, back in 2005, the APA just did
review that at that point and they approved it?
MS. BITTER-Yes. Complete review. Yes.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. OBORNE-I will say that they also hold an active permit which expires in March.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So as far as that goes, then, as long as this is in the works
before the expiration date, you’re not going to get in trouble with that.
MS. BITTER-Right, exactly, and I actually submitted a letter that went out today
demonstrating the circumstances, a copy of the map telling them that this is what
happened, but we’re doing exactly what we told you we were going to do five years ago.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. And the status with the Planning Board, you don’t need to go
back to them because you’ve already been?
MS. BITTER-No, we actually have to go back next Tuesday to obtain the subdivision
approval.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, they’ll be going back on Tuesday for Preliminary and Final.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is this going to stimulate, because it was already in the works, this
is going to be based upon old Code guidelines? We’re not going to be getting into a
situation with?
MR. OBORNE-No, this is under new Code.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Under new Code.
MR. OBORNE-It is under new Code.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MS. BITTER-And that was the only modification to this map is that the setbacks in the
front house had to be modified slightly and the house itself, but it still had to be 75 feet
from the wetlands, which was maintained, and it’s still in that same west, southwesterly
corner of the property.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So Planning Board will be following up on like runoff and all those
things, and those issues?
MR. OBORNE-Well, my notes state, at least what the Planning Department’s looking for
is Site Plan Review, when that does get developed, obviously not at this point. This is
just subdivision.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, yes.
MS. BITTER-Right, which we’re willing to concede to.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions right now? Okay. Maybe what I’ll
do is this. I think I will re-open the public hearing, in case anybody from the public’s here
to speak on the matter. Is there anybody here from the public?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any kind of correspondence?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I have two letters. One is from Joe Roulier, and it says, Regarding
the DeNardo application, “The proposed request will have no significant or detrimental
effect on our neighborhood. The proposed variance should absolutely be permitted.
Sincerely, Joe Roulier” And the second one is from Joan Denton, 2297 Ridge Road.
“My only concern with the subdivision of the DeNardo’s property would be the blocking of
the stream that flows into my property across the street. I do not want any interruption of
the flow of water into my stream Joan Denton 2297 Ridge Road Queensbury, NY
12804”
MR. GARRAND-Could you elaborate on what caused the interruption of the stream?
MR. DE NARDO-At that time, my wife was going through treatments. I left everything in
the hands of my surveyor. Are you talking about why it wasn’t filed?
MR. GARRAND-Why the.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. DE NARDO-The stream thing?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. DE NARDO-I don’t know what her problem is. She has a junkyard across the road
from me still.
MR. OBORNE-I think she’s anticipating that there might be a problem and she wants to
make sure there isn’t a problem.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. Because the stream was cut off at one point, according to what
she said.
MR. OBORNE-I was not aware of that.
MR. DE NARDO-That stream has never been cut off on my property.
MS. BITTER-Yes, a future cut off.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s not an intermittent stream. It’s a whole, full fledged stream?
That’s what I assumed. It runs pretty much continuously. So it would be pretty hard to
cut it off unless you made a pond or something, but there’s nothing really that, and that’s
back behind the disturbed area anyway, it looks like to me, according to the map.
MR. OBORNE-It’s wetland back there, that stream.
MR. DE NARDO-It’s on the northern side of the property.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any questions from you guys at this time? I guess I’m going
to close the public hearing, then.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have, do you want me to poll you? Do you guys have
any concerns at all at this point in time?
MR. URRICO-I recommend we re-approve the variances that were approved in 2005 as
written.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess, then, it makes sense to do as Roy has said and re-
approve this as it was presented to us previously, with the same language in there,
subject to the Planning Board review that is going to occur, Site Plan review, and I’m
sure they’re going to make sure that everything is done properly at this point in time
going forward here, too. So, I’ll make the recommendation that we re-approve the
previously granted relief for this project, using the same language as is on the record,
and without any changes to it. So I’ll need a second on that.
MR. URRICO-Do we need to read in the read in the approval by the Planning Board, or
recommendation of the Planning Board?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, that’s something that they.
MR. OBORNE-It’s on the record in the Planning Board meeting. If you feel comfortable
reading that in, that’s fine. It wouldn’t hurt.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to read that, Roy?
MR. URRICO-Sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. URRICO-The Planning Board, because the project requires both Zoning Board of
Appeals and Planning Board approval, the following recommendation was provided to
the Zoning Board of Appeals by the Planning Board, and it’s a “MOTION TO MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE
NO. 1-2010 FRANK & JOANNA DE NARDO, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b.
requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of
Appeals; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the
relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on
the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2010 FRANK & JOANNA DE NARDO, Introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff, first three paragraphs. The Planning
Board has re-visited this application and re-affirmed SEQRA, and we recommend that
the Zoning Board of Appeals re-affirm their variances granted in January of 2005.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I think at this point in time I will move that we re-
approve this would be, I guess we’ll make a new resolution on this.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2010 FRANK & JOANNA DE
NARDO, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Joyce Hunt:
Ridge Road and Barthel Lane. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 14.05 +/- acre
lot into two parcels of 6.25 +/- acres and 7.80 +/- acres, and as far as the language of
that, I think we’re just going to basically have the record reflect that it’s the same
language that we previously had approved in 2005. We do not see that there will be any
critical changes that will occur on the property and because that large parcel in the back
is going to remain undeveloped and be attached to lands in Fort Ann, it will maintain its
status, in essence, as an LC-10 area there, even though it’s smaller than the 10 acres
that’s the minimum for that.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set.
MR. DE NARDO-Thank you.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2010 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED ARTUR ISMAILEY d/b/a
I LOVE NY PIZZA OWNER(S): RAYMOND HIPPELE ZONING: CI-1A LOCATION:
959 STATE ROUTE 9, UNIT K MOUNT ROYAL PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES
ATTACHING ONE (1) 5.5 SQ. FT. SIGN TO EACH SIDE OF EXISTING
FREESTANDING PYLON. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT LINE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS AND FOR OVERALL FREESTANDING SIGN SIZE. CROSS REF.:
BP 98-3286, SV 56-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JANUARY 13, 2010 LOT
SIZE: 5.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-18 SECTION: 140-6
ARTUR ISMAILEY, PRESENT
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 2-2010, Artur Ismailey d/b/a I Love NY Pizza,
Meeting Date: January 20, 2010 “Project Location: 959 State Route 9, Unit K Mount
Royal Plaza Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes attaching one (1) 5.5
square foot additional sign to each side of an existing 107 square foot non-conforming
freestanding pylon sign.
Relief Required:
Applicant seeks relief from the front line setback requirements as well as overall
freestanding sign size.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to the character of the surrounding properties may
be anticipated
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. With the non-
conforming nature of the sign and the setback issues confronting the applicant,
feasible alternatives appear to be limited.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional
5.5 square feet or 11 percent of the 50 square foot maximum for a free standing sign
per 140-6 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance.Note: Currently the
freestanding sign has 107 square feet of signage attached.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the surrounding properties may be
anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
S.V. 56-2008 Colortyme free standing sign Approved 12/30/08
BP 2007-284 Commercial Alteration (Colortyme) Approved 5/24/07
P 2007-322 Wall Sign (Colortyme) Approved 6/18/07
Currently 147 additional activities associated with this parcel beginning in 1993.
Staff comments:
The applicant has requested and received a waiver from the survey requirements for this
variance application.
The sign itself is an addition to the existing freestanding sign and there will not be any
changes to the existing attached signage as a result of this proposal. The existing sign
height appears to be in excess of 25 feet; however, this is a pre-existing condition. The
existing sign is non-conforming due to height, size, and setback issues.
SEQR Status:
Unlisted – The Zoning Board must make a determination concerning this application.”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 13, 2010
Project Name: Artur Ismailey d/b/a I Love NY Pizza Owner: Raymond Hippele ID
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
Number: QBY-10-SV-2 County Project#: Jan10-9 Current Zoning: CI-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes attaching one (1) 5 sq. ft. sign to
each side of existing freestanding pylon. Relief requested from front line setback
requirements and for overall freestanding sign size. Site Location: 959 State Route 9,
Unit K Mount Royal Plaza Tax Map Number(s): 296.13-1-18 Staff Notes: Signage will
be affixed to an existing pylon sign for Mount Royal Plaza. Signage would be 24 x 33
inches. There are no significant County issues present. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning
Board 1/15/10.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Ismailey, do you want to tell us anything else you want to
add?
MR. ISMAILEY-I think it’s vital for the business. It’s on the side of the road. Nobody can
see because we sit back in the Plaza. Another thing that I want to say, we’ve got a lease
for five years, plus three years. So we’re really going to stay, and we want to grow. I
don’t see where we can effect anybody else. The reason why, other businesses that are
visible on the side of the road. If you go further, you can see other places that they have
a big sign on the side, close to the side of the road. It would be nice if we have that. Do
you know what I’m saying? It’s vital for us.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Hippele owns the whole complex there.
MR. ISMAILEY-Yes, he does.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Did he give you feedback?
MR. ISMAILEY-To be honest with you, I should not even say this, but we’ve been having
a lot of back and forth, because one of the reasons, when we got the place, I told him I
need a sign in order for us, because the business is very set back and you can not see it.
He said okay, but I wanted a sign with a light also, but he said, no, you cannot have it,
and we’ve gone back and forth. He said, okay, you sign this, we ended up having this
thing that I present to you, and he said, well, if they approve it, you sign it also, it would
be fine. Other than that, I mean.
MR. URRICO-We knew we were going down this route. I mean, when the sign first got
put in there without any of these stores or businesses attached to it, we knew we were
going to get into this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Just to refresh everybody’s memory, and for everybody out in
the audience, too, the OTB Capital District Betting sign just appeared there, and my first
question was, well, how did this one get there? And the answer I got from Town Staff
was, well, they’re a State entity so they don’t need any approval to do anything. As we
know, the State is prone to be that way, but Colortyme was the next one that came in,
and I think we approved the Colortyme one last year for the same reasons that you’re
saying here, and we assumed at that time, and I think everybody made the same
commentary, that we were going to run into a whole host of other clients that utilize Mt.
Royal Plaza that aren’t seeing the business that they want to see, that they’re going to
need a sign out front so people can see where they are, and I think that, you know, when
they did the design up there, it was nice with all the trees in front, but as the trees mature
and the vegetation fills in, it becomes more and more difficult, and it’s not something that
you can look to the side when you’re driving down Route 9, you’ve got to be paying
attention. So it seems understandable to me, your request is not like out of a cloud like
we didn’t anticipate these were going to not occur in the future. Nonetheless, you know,
the Town has a Code, based upon signage, and as everybody knows, when they put that
first sign up there, the only thing on there was Mt. Royal Plaza. So, this sort of opened
up a Pandora’s Box for us. Where does it all end? Are we going to eventually have
everybody coming in wanting to put their signs on there? And I talked to Keith a little bit
about it. I said, you know, wouldn’t it be nice if they could come in and we could do a re-
design of that sign out front there, and maybe do a monument sign that was not 25 feet
high, kind of like we did with the gas stations at the Mobil station where everybody’s on
there so you know what services are available and it makes more sense that way. It’s
always a constant change of, you know, what we think is okay at one point may not be
okay in the future, and things like that. So, do you guys have any questions you want to
add or anymore commentary at this point?
MR. URRICO-No. Mr. Ismailey, I want to make sure. You passed this through your
landlord there and he’s okay with the sign there? He’s not going to?
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. ISMAILEY-He signed it, yes. Before I came here I had to have his agreement, and
actually I got also his signature here if you want everybody to see that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it was something, it was included in our packets.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, he would not be before you without that signature.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Yes, I don’t know, you know, it would be nice, but to make
him re-do the sign out front, as I said with Keith, you know, it’s going to be a lot of money
to do that at this point in time, and I don’t know how we’re going to say no to some
people and not say yes to everybody once we’ve said yes to somebody else in there at
the same time.
MR. CLEMENTS-Didn’t we have the discussion also that we knew that there were going
to be more signs on there. When Colortyme put their sign on there, we were talking
about the size of it and how many other places there were in there, and I believe at that
point we said, well, you know, if people want to put their signs up there, but to make that
larger, we wouldn’t go along with that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-And it looks like you have your sign smaller than Colortyme, and it’s
going to fit on that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So at least it’s there in some semblance of a sign. Right.
MRS. HUNT-I have a question. This sheet shows it 24 inches by 33 inches, and you’re
asking for a 5.5 square foot. So where does the other?
MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s got two.
MRS. HUNT-I see.
MR. ISMAILEY-Because there’s no other way, you know, to do it.
MRS. HUNT-Right. I get it.
MR. ISMAILEY-So one side and one side, basically, but there was no way you could do
it on one.
MRS. HUNT-Right.
MR. KUHL-And what is you’re feeling? You’re afraid that everybody’s going to want to
put their name on that and before you know it you’re going to have to build it or grow it?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Exactly. We knew this was going to happen, you know, when we
approved this the last time. So, you know, it’s a matter of, you know, we don’t have the
ability to tell an owner of a property, hey, you’ve got to re-do your sign now, and bring it
into compliance.
MR. URRICO-But each sign they get smaller and smaller, they run out of space on there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. I mean, it’s not a win/lose situation here.
MRS. HUNT-Well, then I do have a question here, because it says attaching one 5.5
square foot additional sign.
MR. UNDERWOOD-To each side.
MR. OBORNE-To each side.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It says to each side.
MRS. HUNT-Well, 5.5 to each side? That’s what it sounds like.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, in any case, if we approve this, we can put the measurements
in there specifically and do it at that point. All right. Why don’t I do this. Let’s open up
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
the public hearing and see if anybody from the public wants to comment on this. Or do
we have any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-I don’t see any correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Everybody understands the situation, you know, and how we
got here. What do you guys want to do? Have you got any suggestions or anything
practical? I mean, ultimately the only thing I can think of is it would be nice if they came
in and re-did the sign, but with the business climate today and the money being as tight
as it is, it’s going to be hard for anybody to justify doing that.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, having given that thought, I think the only way that any change
would happen would be from the actual tenants themselves to go ahead and force that
change. The Town can.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We did see that change occur up in the miracle mile, you know, on
the signage at the one complex up there, where we completely changed tact of what we
originally used to be, but, you know, Price Chopper just did it with their store. They’re in
the works of doing it. It looks like all their signage is done down there.
MR. URRICO-I think, all things considered, it’s not intruding on anything other than
what’s there already. I mean, he’s basically using space that’s already occupied by the
use sign. It just as well might hold some useful information there, than just some blank
space. So I would he needs a sign. I think it’s the right thing to do.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. CLEMENTS-And I would agree.
MR. KUHL-It’s really good use of blank space.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think, you know, it’s not something that we would wish
upon ourselves, but given the situation here, I don’t see what else you can do. Like you
say, your businesses are setback underneath the frontage there. It’s awful difficult to see
anything unless you pull in there, you know, to see what’s located there, and I think over
the years, design wise, I’m just thinking like for the mall owner there, it would make
sense for him to have those hanging signs like we just approved down at Price Chopper,
you know, so it’s more, there is more visibility there.
MR. OBORNE-Well, the applicant certainly can increase the size of his wall sign up to
100 square feet, and again, that’s a cost you would have to incur, but he’s got that tree
right there, and for six months out of the year.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s bushy, you can’t see a thing. It’s like you’re camouflaged, your
business. I really have to say I would agree with you guys that it makes sense to allow
this to be there, even though it’s something that we don’t want to see, I don’t really see
that there’s any practical solution, other than cutting down trees or, you know, I don’t
think we want to go there either with what we’re trying to achieve here. One can only
hope that at some point in the future maybe as businesses come and go up there, you
know, people put their life savings into a business, and it doesn’t make any sense for me
to say to some guy, well, tough luck, you know, you’ve got to stick it out for five years
with no business and be bankrupt when you’re done. I don’t think that’s where we want
to go with it, either, realistically speaking, but at some point in the future, maybe the mall,
maybe when things start swinging up again, that maybe they can consider re-doing a
sign and making a compliant sign out there, some time down the road, but I don’t think
that’s going to happen anytime soon. Does somebody want to take this one? I guess
we’ve got to do SEQRA on this because we’re going out of bounds here. Okay.
MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE CRITERIA FOR THE SEQRA REVIEW OF THIS
PARCEL, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD NOTE THAT WE DON’T SEE ANY REAL
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THE
ADDITION OF THIS SIGN OUT HERE. HOWEVER, IT IS A DEVIATION FROM THE
SIGN CODE AS IT EXISTS, AND SO I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE
WILL ANTICIPATE IS PROBABLY WE’RE GOING TO SEE NOT ONLY THIS I LOVE
NY PIZZA SIGN OUT HERE, BUT WE’RE PROBABLY GOING TO SEE ADDITIONAL
REQUESTS FOR SIGNAGE HERE, AND THAT I THINK THAT THE SIGN AS IT
EXISTS IN ITS SIZE OF 33 BY 24 INCHES ON EACH SIDE OF THIS PYLON SIGN AS
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
IT EXISTS HERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A DETRIMENT, ALTHOUGH IT IS
SOMETHING THAT WE NORMALLY WOULD NOT ALLOW IF IT WERE A NEW
PROJECT BEING PRESENTED TO US FOR THE FIRST TIME HERE. I THINK THAT,
OTHER THAN THE ADDITION OF THE SIGN ON THAT PYLON SIGN OUT THERE, IT
IS GOING TO ALLOW, AND I THINK THE RATIONALE FOR THIS IS THAT, YOU
KNOW, ANY BUSINESS OWNER WHO’S TRYING TO BUILD A BUSINESS IS GOING
TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF SIGNAGE OUT FRONT TO IDENTIFY HIS
BUSINESS AND IT’S GOING TO HELP HIS BUSINESS MAKE ENDS MEET,
OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, WHY START A BUSINESS IF YOU’RE UNSEEN. THERE
ARE MITIGATING FACTORS HERE, TOO, BECAUSE OF THE VEGETATION THAT’S
ON THE PLAZA. THERE’S A TREE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THIS BUSINESS THAT
MAKES THE SIGN BASICALLY UNVIEWABLE IN THE SUMMERTIME SEASON,
ALTHOUGH YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE WINTERTIME AS IT EXISTS NOW. SO,
BASED UPON THAT, I WOULD GIVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SEQRA,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard
Garrand:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
MR. UNDERWOOD-Does somebody want to take this one?
MR. GARRAND-I’ll do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, I believe you need to close the public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2010 ARTUR ISMAILEY d/b/a I
LOVE NY PIZZA, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Kuhl:
959 State Route 9, Unit K, Mount Royal Plaza. The applicant proposes attaching two
signs to the freestanding pylon sign for a total of 5.5 square feet. On the balancing test,
whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. At this point,
without the property owner doing a serious re-design on this sign, this is the only means
feasible to the applicant. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or
to the character of nearby properties? It won’t produce any whatsoever. Whether this
request is substantial. Given the size of the signs, I’d say it’s minimal. Whether this
request will have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood. I don’t
believe it’ll have any adverse environmental or physical effects on the neighborhood. Is
this difficulty self-created? It may be deemed as self-created, but also there’s mitigating
factors here with the design of the sign. So I move we approve Sign Variance No. 2-
2010.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. ISMAILEY-All set. Thank you very much.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2010 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED RAY SIGN, INC. (GAME
STOP) AGENT(S): GAME STOP OWNER(S): NIGRO COMPANIES ZONING: HC
LOCATION: 792 GLEN STREET – PRICE RITE PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
ADD AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN ON THE ROUTE 9 SIDE OF THE PLAZA. RELIEF
REQUESTED FOR A SECOND WALL SIGN FOR THE SAME TENANT. CROSS REF.:
SP 44-2009, SP 47-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JANUARY 13, 2010 LOT
SIZE: 11.98 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-22 SECTION: 140
TIM PRESCOTT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 3-2010, Ray Sign, Inc. (Game Stop), Meeting Date:
January 20, 2010 “Project Location: 792 Glen Street – Price Rite Plaza Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to add an additional 33 square foot wall sign for
the Gamestop store on the Route 9 side of plaza.
Relief Required:
Relief requested for a second wall sign for the same tenant in a business complex. The
business is allowed one (1) 100 square foot wall sign and the business complex is
allowed one (1) freestanding sign per Chapter 140.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to nearby properties may be anticipated as a result
of this request. However, this proposal may initiate additional sign variance requests
from other businesses in the future.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. There appears to
be little alternative for this proposal short of a sign variance request.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional
wall sign or 100% relief may be considered severe relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the surrounding properties may be
.
anticipated
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History
SP 44-2009 Patio addition and site reconfiguration Approved 8/18/09
S.P. 47-2009 6,546 sq. ft. store renovation Approved 11/18/09
Staff comments:
The tenant has an existing wall sign and has visibility on an existing freestanding sign
fronting on State Route 9. The size of the existing wall sign is 33 square feet and the
size of the portion of the freestanding sign dedicated to Game Stop is 12.5 square feet.
SEQR Status
Unlisted - The Zoning Board of Appeals must make a determination concerning this
application.”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 13, 2010
Project Name: Ray Sign, Inc. (Game Stop) Owner(s): Nigro Companies ID Number:
QBY-10-SV-3 County Project#: Jan10-15 Current Zoning: HC Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to add an additional wall sign on
the Route 9 side of the plaza. Relief requested for a second wall sign for the same
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
tenant. Site Location: 792 Glen Street – Price Rite Plaza Tax Map Number(s): 302-6-1-
22 Staff Notes: Signage internal to a plaza are generally not deemed by staff to have a
serious impact on County resources. This use is on the end of a plaza building with the
sign proposed on the building façade facing Rte 9. The proposed signage is internally lit.
A copy of the proposed sign is included with the summaries. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning
Board 1/15/10.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess you’re all set. Do you want to tell us who you are?
MR. PRESCOTT-Yes. My name is Tim Prescott. I’m here representing Ray Sign, my
company. We’re going to be the installers. We installed the existing signs on the walls
there. My customer got in touch with us to represent them for this sign. They feel that
because they’re on a corner location, a lot of times in different towns if you’re on a corner
they sometimes allow you to have signs on both corners of the building, and they don’t
get a lot of visibility out of the road sign because they’re tucked in low and towards the
wall. So they’re trying to get another sign on that Route 9 side, just to catch the traffic
heading north, because you really can’t tell that they’re in there that way.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions?
MR. URRICO-Well, technically they’re not on a corner. You’re not on a corner. You’re in
the middle of a street and have signs on, you have visibility on both sides.
MR. PRESCOTT-Right.
MR. URRICO-You only use one side of the building for access, right?
MR. PRESCOTT-Yes, the side where the existing sign is is the entrance of the building.
I didn’t mean that they were on the corner of a street, but rather the corner business of
the plaza.
MR. OBORNE-In the building, right.
MR. URRICO-And in that building, they’re the only ones that have, well, Five Guys has
access from the other side of the building as well, from the plaza side of the building.
MR. PRESCOTT-That’s correct.
MR. URRICO-So they can conceivably want a sign on their side also when they?
MR. PRESCOTT-Well, a sign on their side of the building is going to be facing the back
parking lot and out towards the woods.
MR. URRICO-It faces a pretty big parking lot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m trying to remember back when Hollywood was in there. Did they
have a sign on?
MR. URRICO-Hollywood Video had a sign on that side.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. KUHL-Why not just take the existing sign and put it on the Route 9 side?
MR. PRESCOTT-Well, I don’t know if it’s a Town code that the sign has to be over the
entrance of the business. In some towns that is the code where the sign does get placed
over the entrance. I don’t know if that’ll confuse people getting out of their vehicles and
going around to the front not to find the door.
MR. KUHL-I did notice that Olive Garden’s got two signs, one over the main door and
one heading north.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. PRESCOTT-Right.
MR. KUHL-So your request is not out of bounds.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. UNDERWOOD-They are on a corner. It’s defined by if you’re on a road, you know,
an official road, road. Not like the access to the plaza.
MR. KUHL-So Olive Garden is different, then?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, because they’re on Quaker Road and they’re on Route 9. So
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So that is considered two separate sides. I think in the past, you
know, when we’ve dealt with these, it’s understandable why people want more exposure
and more signs, but at the same time, I think my suggestion, and my first thought that
popped into my mind was, when we’ve had these requests before, and we’ve been
unable to give them, based upon the Code as it exists, it is a large request if we do grant
a second sign on a building, but one of the things we’ve done before is you can put a
neon sign in the window, you know, and I don’t think you need any kind of permission to
do that. Is that correct? I know we’ve done that with Dunkin Donuts.
MR. OBORNE-I think it depends on the size of the sign.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I’m pretty sure that that would be a feasible alternative
here in this case here. I don’t recall that we’ve not done that in the past. You didn’t need
any permission, as far as I know, to do that, subject to maybe you would want to check
with the Town to see, and I don’t know if you guys do neon or anything like that.
MR. PRESCOTT-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I assume that you probably would. The only other suggestion would
be, I think is the practicable one, and that is moving the sign around onto that side
because all the traffic goes by on Route 9, and everybody would see it going north or
south, and it would mean having to put some kind of a neon sign or something over by
the entrance inside the window, you know, and I think that that would be usable, too.
MR. CLEMENTS-That would have been my suggestion, also.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have anything you want to add or any other
suggestions you guys want to make?
MR. CLEMENTS-I think your suggestion is good. I think that probably if they put that
sign out there where they’re proposing it and take the other one and just put it in a
window where the entrance is, I think that I would agree with something like that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If you guys don’t have any other questions, then I think what
I’ll do is open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the
matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No correspondence.
MR. PRESCOTT-I had one more question, if I could.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. PRESCOTT-You said that you would allow me to take the existing sign and put it on
Route 9, and put something on the interior of the windows.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would think that would be an allowable thing to do. I think
that in many instances in Town we’ve done that with, I know Price Chopper used to have
a lot of neon on the inside of their windows. I forget what they were now since they’re
long gone, but at the same time, I don’t think that people find that offensive. It’s not
another wall sign. It’s a window.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that would certainly be a determination Craig would make. Also
he’d have to make a determination if that is, in fact, subject to Site Plan Review, in order
for them to move that sign over.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-My kneejerk reaction is that it wouldn’t be, it would just be a change in
copy over to a different location.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-But that’s not my call, that’s Craig’s call. You certainly would want to talk
to Craig about that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. PRESCOTT-Okay.
MR. CLEMENTS-Is that sign that’s over the door right now the same dimensions as the
one you’re proposing.
MR. PRESCOTT-I believe somebody said the sign that was existing is 31 square feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And this is 33. So it’s close.
MR. PRESCOTT-Yes, it may be the same, but it’s close.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-One hundred.
MR. UNDERWOOD-One hundred. So it’s way under, and I think if you were going to put
something in one of the windows right by the access doors there that said Game Stop,
as long as it fit in one of those partitions, you know, I don’t think you want to make it like
two partitions wide. It’s going to be something that’s more internal, like I think we got into
these issues when we did Wal-Mart, too, where we said they’re more for when you get in
your car and you park your car, and you’re saying, where is Game Stop. There’s a little
sign in the window or something there that identifies it.
MR. PRESCOTT-Okay. Is part of the decision based on some of the other tenants not
being able to have their sign out in the front as well?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think so, because I think there would be even more of a case
made for like Five Guys that are further back in there. They don’t have any exposure on
that side at all either. You might have everybody else, you know, making the same
claims here, but I mean, it still allows you to have your one sign that’s compliant, you
know.
MR. PRESCOTT-Would they be allowed, just throwing it out there, if we were to put a
tenant box on the front with the three businesses in it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think you’d have to go for a variance on that for sure, you know,
because that would be considered a second sign.
MR. PRESCOTT-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, it’s understandable, we have to be careful that we don’t do
like we did on this last one here where we allow one and then we, you know, no one
assumes that anybody else is going to do it, and you’ve got a possibility of two other
ones adding on there, too.
MR. OBORNE-Everything is site specific.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. What do you guys want to do? Should I poll you? Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I agree with your suggestion. I think that, as far as they’re
concerned, I think that they would have more people seeing that out on Route 9. So
move the sign over to the front, and put a neon one in the window. That would be my
suggestion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron, what do you think?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. KUHL-Yes, I think you’d get more visibility if you moved that existing sign around to
Route 9, and then did a neon by the entrance. That would solve the problem.
MR. PRESCOTT-Now that doesn’t have to be neon in that window. If we were to put a
single faced little sign box, it can be an internally lit little box.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As long as it’s inside the building, it’s internal signage, as far as I’m
concerned.
MR. PRESCOTT-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And as long as you get the Zoning Administrator’s blessing.
MR. PRESCOTT-Yes, right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But, I mean, if it were hanging from the ceiling and it was four
inches from the window, it’s inside the building. So I don’t think that anybody can make a
beef about that.
MR. PRESCOTT-Okay. I don’t know if they do their logo in neons.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. URRICO-There is a limit as to how much of the window that can be.
MR. OBORNE-I believe so.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I went by there, had dinner at Five Guys, and basically Game Stop still
stuck out more than Five Guys and the other business in there that did. I think your
suggestion is right on the money.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. That would be my suggestion as well. I would not be in favor of the
second sign.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think you need one out front on Route 9. I, myself, was looking for
Super Cuts, and trying to find where it is, so I think the one on 9 is good, and then putting
something in the window would be good.
MR. PRESCOTT-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess this is an Unlisted action, so we’re going to go
through this anyway, but in lieu of the fact that we’re moving the sign, we’re not going to
need any relief, are we?
MR. OBORNE-You’re denying this application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m basically denying this application, and I think what we’re
doing is suggesting, at this point in time, that you’re only going to have to go in and apply
to move the sign around onto the Route 9 side.
MR. OBORNE-The only way that he’s going to be able to do that is if it is a compliant
process.
MR. URRICO-Can we just allow him to withdraw the application?
MR. OBORNE-You can withdraw. That’s fine, too, or deny, however you want to do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want to withdraw with no prejudice, and that way if
something gets hung up with Craig, you can come back to us, and we can continue on
from that point?
MR. OBORNE-It would be a new application.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. PRESCOTT-I just want to make it as easy on everybody as possible.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, there’s really no, nothing for us to do as far as, you
know, we can deny it or you can just withdraw the application and go move the sign.
MR. PRESCOTT-Okay, and then I’d have to submit a permit to re-locate the sign.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. OBORNE-I think that that would be the process you would at least start at.
MR. PRESCOTT-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Give Craig a call.
MR. PRESCOTT-I’ll do that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess what we’re going to do here is, this is Sign
Variance No. 3-2010, Ray Sign, for the Game Stop at 792 Glen Street, and they’re
withdrawing the application and pursuing it by other means.
MR. OBORNE-That’s it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. PRESCOTT-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure thing.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II IRENE MARSHALL AGENT(S):
STEVE ALHEIM OWNER(S): IRENE MARSHALL ZONING: WR LOCATION: 101
FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF
EXISTING DECKS AND STAIRWAYS AND THE ADDITION OF A 216 SQ. FT. DECK
ADJACENT TO SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE
AND SIDELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: SP 3-
2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
289.14-1-28 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-6-050
STEVE ALHEIM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I am going to also have Roy, at some point, or else I can, read
in the resolution from the Planning Board. They discussed this last evening, and Maria
was good enough to type up all the minutes so we could read through them, albeit it
quickly, before the meeting.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2010, Irene Marshall, Meeting Date: January 20,
2009 “Project Location: 101 Fitzgerald Road Description of Proposed Project: The
applicant proposes to remove a total of approximately 176 square feet of access decking
and stairs and install in its stead a total of approximately 265 square feet of access
decking, stairs and stair landings. Further, the applicant proposes approximately 216
square feet of new decking attached to the dwelling adjacent to the shoreline.
Relief Required:
Applicant seeks relief from the minimum shoreline and setback requirements per §179-4-
030 as follows:
1.45 feet of shoreline relief requested for proposed deck adjacent to shoreline
2.13 feet of west sideline relief requested for proposed deck adjacent to the
shoreline
3.38 feet of shoreline relief requested for dwelling access deck
4.7 feet of east sideline relief requested for northern portion of dwelling access
deck stair landing
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
5.14 feet of west sideline relief requested for southern portion of proposed
replacement stairs
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be created by the
granting this area variance.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Alternatives to the
multiple area variances appear to be limited due to the constraints of the lot.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 45 feet or 90%
relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement for the proposed deck adjacent
to the shoreline may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the
request for 13 feet or 65% relief from the 20 foot sideline setback requirement for the
proposed deck adjacent to the shoreline may be considered moderate to severe
relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 38 feet or 76% relief from the 50
foot shoreline setback requirement for the dwelling access deck may be considered
severe relative to the ordinance. The penultimate request for 7 feet or 35% relief for
the east sideline setback for the northern portion of dwelling access deck stair
landing may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request
for 14 feet or 70% relief for west sideline setback relief for the southern portion of
proposed replacement stairs may be considered moderate to severe relative to the
ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Moderate impacts on
the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated
as the project proximity to the shoreline and the existing slopes may result in
environmental degradation.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The non conforming nature of the
parcel appears to contribute to the need for multiple area variances.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Cottage built in 1967
Staff comments:
The applicant has an on-hold building permit application (B.P. 2006-572) for a 160
square foot deck that appears to be obsolete with the submittal of the new plans.
The existing access decking and stairs appear to be in poor shape and in need of
replacement.
The Planning Board has issued a recommendation concerning this application dated
January 19, 2010 (see handout).
SEQR Status:
Type II – No action necessary”
MR. URRICO-And in the Planning Board recommendation, because the project does
require both Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board approval, the following
recommendation was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. “MOTION TO MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE
NO. 4-2010 FOR IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b.
requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of
Appeals; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the
relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on
the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2010 FOR IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by Gretchen
Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option Two.
The Planning Board, based on limited review, has identified the following areas of
concern:
A.Quantity and scope of the vegetative removal adjacent to Glen Lake.
B.Shoreline protection proposed for installing a deck within five feet of the
shoreline.
C.The need to describe the deck post installation details.
D.The functionality of the wastewater system which is currently unknown.
E.The adverse environmental impacts regarding runoff from the new deck and
wastewater system and removal of vegetation.
F.Encroachment on the lake.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Keith, you were there at the Planning Board meeting last
night. Maybe you can fill us in a little bit. Looking at what you’ve got there on the
screen, you could just keep going on the slideshow. I’ll tell you which one to stop at.
Okay. You’ve got the stairs there, right there, as they exist now, currently. Okay. So
this is the same area where we’re proposing the deck that’s going to come down.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that deck would be up here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. OBORNE-I have a better shot from above, right there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think everybody understands the severity of the grade leading
down to the lake there. You’re perched on the hillside there. Anybody that’s been by the
property probably has seen that pretty readily. If you look at the drawings, I think the
drawings as proposed, you know, as far as new construction goes on new sites, I think
the recommendation usually is not to have a staircase like that that goes down all the
way from the top to the bottom in one long stretch there, because it’s an accident waiting
to happen, literally. There’s really, as I see it, two phases to what’s being proposed here.
You’ve got the access on sort of the north side there of the property, and then you’ve
also got the deck along the foreshore there. So those are the two major issues here, and
the Planning Board, I think, has identified that, you know, there’s, they have some severe
concerns here about the property, as well as the septic and things like that. So maybe
you guys, to initially, what I’d like from you is, I mean, I think we all understand where
you’re going and what you’re proposing here, but at the same time, if the Planning
Board’s throwing up a lot of red flags for you at this point in time, all those issues are
going to have to get addressed at Site Plan Review for this project, I would assume,
correct?
MR. OBORNE-I think that all but the septic issue. The septic issue really cannot be tied
to you or the Planning Board at this point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-To us, sure.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. OBORNE-It’s more, from my perspective, to see what the capability of that is and is
it functioning. It’s very close to the lake.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think everybody understands the importance of that, so
that’s not an issue that you should probably, as a property owner, avoid either. I think it’s
important for all of us to assume responsibility for our property.
MR. OBORNE-To reiterate, we can’t tie that to this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but we can’t.
MR. OBORNE-We can’t tie the septic to this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So why don’t we do this. Why don’t you talk us through what you’re
doing here, but let’s break it down into two parts, because the two components are sort o
separate from each other, although they’re both pretty important. There’s a lot of relief
being requested here, and I think a lot of it, based upon the fact that we’ve dealt with
Chris Mozal’s property next door before, everybody kind of understands the situation
here. One of the issues I think that we need to talk about is the property line issue, and I
think that, you know, the last time that Mozal’s were in before us, I think that it was pretty
clear to us that that was sort of an undefined issue, and it looks to me like the property
lines are going right through this building, you know, based upon the survey that’s been
presented to us here.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So do you guys want to just start and give us a general overview of
the issues.
MR. ALHEIM-Sure. I’m Steve Alheim from Eric and Eric, representing Irene. The first
part of the project encompasses mainly the access stairs. Coming down from the street
above, you can see from the pictures that it is a straight run. Irene has had a fall on
those stairs actually, and her husband who’s 71 can’t traverse the stairs as easily as he
used to. So we’re re-designing those stairs to incorporate a stair landing and a larger
platform at the end of the stair run, and also you can probably see from the pictures that
the stairs are really degraded after all these years. That would be the first part of this
project, and the second part of the project would be to add a deck on the shoreline side
of the project, and that would be for, you know, for the enjoyment of the couple that have
lived there, or utilized that space for the last 40 years and beyond, who have never had a
deck actually. So, doing that, we’re trying to cantilever the deck as far as possible.
We’re utilizing a new construction method. Hopefully, we’re hoping to use this new
construction method called Techno Metal Posts, which isn’t like the standard
construction method of digging large foundation holes for footings. It’s a little bit more of
an auger type drilling of a post and a post just is engineered to hold the weight without
the standard footings. The vegetation that you see in the pictures, with the trees that
have been cut down, those are and will be the only trees that have been removed. The
vegetation that’s currently shown in the pictures will remain. The decks will not encroach
on those trees.
MR. CLEMENTS-Is that as it is right now?
MR. ALHEIM-Yes, that’s what it looks like right now, except for a lot more snow.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, do you guys have any questions?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I’d like you to explain the post method you’re talking about. Because if
you’re going to go into the ground, you’re going to hit water.
MR. ALHEIM-The Techno Metal Post, it’s relatively new. There is a representative that
does this in the area, and I’ve done two other projects, using the Techno Metal Posts.
They’re treated in a way that they’ve been used in swamp lands and as a dock support.
So they’re degrading under water, when you think, you know, metal and rust and
everything. These are treated in a way that they won’t affect the stability of the structure.
MR. KUHL-They’re environmentally friendly? If they’re metal, because you’re going to
have moisture there. When you go down, what are you going to do about the push in the
wintertime?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. ALHEIM-These are engineered to be just like a regular footing that’s dug below frost
level, and then, you know, the standard pier footing and standard six by six pressure
treated posts.
MR. KUHL-Will be on top of it?
MR. ALHEIM-No. These are actually the posts. It’s one unit that they drill in using a
lawnmower sized auger that drills the posts in to, they have an engineer that figures out
how far they need to go down and the size of the post. They drill them down to where
they need to be and it’s a set and forget system.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I do want to, if I could, this area, as you know, Jim, is an esker, and there
are also a lot of, this area was highly glaciated at one point, obviously, and the concern
about getting the posts into the ground has to do with the boulders that are there, not so
much the water. That would be an issue if you’re using wood, obviously, but using a
different type, and that was the reasoning behind why the Planning Board asked for that
aspect of information in their recommendation. The boulders are at least this big and
rounded and, you know, there’s obviously dirt in between them. My concern is how are
you going to install them in there. You have to get them down to below the frost level, I
would imagine.
MR. ALHEIM-Yes, and unfortunately I don’t know how they engineer. I don’t know how
they deal with really rocky areas until I have a chance to sit and go over this particular
project with them, and perhaps have them come out and look at the site.
MR. OBORNE-Quite frankly, that is a Site Plan issue more than anything.
MR. GARRAND-From appearances, it looks like they just core drill them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it’s actually a terminal moraine there, and so it’s unsorted. It
can be anything from house sized boulders to peanut sized boulders, and as Chris Mozal
knows, when you start digging back around, it’s more than you think it is. So, it’s pretty
substantial. The big issues for us that I see are on the forefront are the deck that’s going
to go down on the waterside there, and if you look, the pictures that you’ve given us, and
the pictures that you’ve included in this latest submission here, too, I think you could,
everybody understands that, you know, it would be nice to have a deck on the front of a
house, but in the instance of what you’ve got on your property here, you can see that,
compared to Mozal’s, I mean, you’re out, the front of the house is out at the front of the
deck of the forefront of Mozal’s deck next door, and it’s a pretty extraordinary request to
ask us to give you a deck when you’re that that close to the lake, you know, because I
think the issue could be made that you could always put some kind of a patio down in
front there or something like that, and I think patios, you don’t even need permission to
do it.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline is a Site Plan Review
issue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It’s still going to have to have something as far as that goes,
although I can understand why it would be nice to walk out the top floor of the house
there onto a deck that’s, you know, looking out.
MR. OBORNE-Sure, the issue is not aesthetics, I mean, absolutely. Totally
understanding.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So the big issue, I think for us, is that, you know, like you guys did
not build this property, I would assume. You purchased it from somebody else who built
it previously, and there are other instances. I think this camp here, the one that’s over in
the bay there, that’s like in the lake, you know, for all intents and purposes, they do have
a deck that’s that close to the water. So there are examples around the lake that you can
see where it has been done before. So it wouldn’t be the first one, but nonetheless, I
think it’s our purview to make a determination is it reasonable or unreasonable. So I
would hope everybody’s going to think clearly on that issue, as far as that goes. My
comments on the issue of what you’re proposing for the access points. The access now
I would assume is more of what you have up on the back side of the camp towards the
road coming in there now. Is that how you access the property presently? And I think
that that’s one thing to consider. It’s nice if you want to have that access point for the
deck to come all the way down there to the waterfront with those little side decks out
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
there on the north side there, but at the same time, that is an encroachment,
nonetheless, and you do need relief if you want to do that, as you’ve proposed here. So
I don’t know if anybody’s got any feasible alternatives that they can think of as far as that
goes. Do you guys want to make any comments, at this point, as to the two? I mean, I
think we should keep them separate, the deck on the front and the access coming down
on the north side there. So, all right, if there’s no questions, then I think what I’m going to
do is open up the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public wishing to speak on
the matter? Do you want to come forward, please.
MR. CLEMENTS-Jim, it’s still all one application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it is.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS MOZAL
MRS. MOZAL-Hi, everybody. I’m Chris Mozal, as Jim Underwood has identified me a
couple of times. I own the property at 99 Fitzgerald Road, and I’ve lived there 27 years,
and I border the Marshall property on three sides, all except the lake. My property, as
some of you probably remember, just went through a successful subdivision and fully in
compliance as a building lot. My concern is, I brought a map, and the Marshall home is
partially on my property, and it’s on the west side. I heard west side mentioned in these
plans. I have not seen the plans, so I’m not sure what they’re proposing exactly, but my
concern is they’re looking for variances, and I feel that before you people grant or even
consider variances for this property, you should know about the property line issues, and
mainly that is that these people have been approached several times, once legally with
attorneys, and they chose not to show up for the meeting, and more recently Irene and I
have a lot of communications, and I don’t have any problem with the deck. I don’t know
where it’s going, I might have a problem with that, but, you know, they want to enjoy the
lake, just like I do, and I’m really concerned that they need to settle this dispute before
you consider any of these variances, and the place, since I’ve been there for 27 years,
has seen hardly any use until recently. They rent it out occasionally, a week here and
there, but I’m concerned with septic, too. I mean, I had to comply, and that thing has not
been disturbed in 27 years that I’ve been there, so, you know, this is an additional use,
so I would feel you’d consider that as something to look at.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to look at the map so you can see where they’re
proposing? I can show you quickly, just so you have an idea. We’ve got the survey, so
we can see where your property line crosses over. So everything that’s being proposed
is on this other side over here, where the current stairs come down, and this is what
they’re proposing, as far as the access on that side, and then the front, you know, you
can see that that’s on the lakeside there. So that’s really not going to get into the issue
of, you know, your dispute with them on the property line. I think everybody understands
it’s that upper corner there, towards your side. If you want to take this back and look at it,
too, as a reference point.
MRS. MOZAL-Okay. It looks great, and I see there’s nothing on my side.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think the only thing that would be on your side might be the
point of that front deck out there, that’s nearest to your house, so that it does look like it
wraps around slightly around the point out there.
MRS. MOZAL-It looks great. I have no problem with that whatsoever. My concern is, do
you entertain variances on properties like this where, or is that just a neighborhood thing
I have to settle with her?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, you know, my view is this, you know, it’s an ongoing thing
that’s been going on for many, many years, and we all understand the situation. I think
realistically they’re proposing the access, you know, to access the house, which would
be on the far side of your property, you know, from your home, not from that other lot
that’s been created from the subdivision, but at the same time, you know, our main issue
here, the septic thing, we can’t really tie it to anything. The property line thing is an issue
that’s beyond our control also because that’s, you know, we don’t get into those property
line disputes, so to speak. I think we’re all aware of it from what’s previously been done
with your properties, but at the same time, we’re here mainly just to discuss, amongst
ourselves, they came in requesting this project in totality here for the access point with
the new stairwell coming down, which seems reasonable, maybe not in its size and
shape or anything like that, but the deck on the front of the house, because of the
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
encroachment onto the waterfront there, I mean, I think everybody would be concerned
with that. I mean, I think the Planning Board’s already had concerns voiced about that
also. So, I think that we would have those concerns also, but, you know, we take
everything into account going forward. It’s still got to go through Site Plan Review with
the Planning Board and those issues can be brought up at that point in time, too, but I
don’t think it would be proper for us to tie it into those two issues, even though they’re
important to you, we understand that, but at the same time, a person who has a property,
even though it’s not been in full usage for many years, nonetheless, I don’t think that
there would be anything in the Code or anything in the Town’s statutes that would
suddenly tell us to say, you can’t use your property anymore because you’re in dispute
here. I mean, I think that’s a little bit beyond us.
MR. OBORNE-It is a civil matter, is what it would be.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MRS. MOZAL-Yes, I kind of understood that coming up to the microphone here, but my
question I guess is, it’s added use to this property.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It is and it isn’t. In other words, everybody’s, anybody can propose
anything on a property, and we have not given any approvals by any way, shape or
means, yet here, either, but at the same time, you can propose improvements to your
property. If you can gain the relief from the Zoning Board, that’s one step in the process,
but you’ve still got to go through the hoops of the Planning Board and everything else,
and I think that, with Waterfront Residential properties, everybody understands the
benefit of making sure everything is done properly, and not that we jump spaces and that
we hop, skip, and jump and deny that those things are important issues. All the issues
are important in this case here, but for us, I don’t think that we want to get into the legal
issues of property lines and things like that. That’s something that, you know, you’re
going to have to iron out.
MRS. MOZAL-Well, maybe that’s secondary. I think a bigger concern is septic. I mean,
with additional use to this property, you know, I think you’re the Board to look at that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, that’s more of a, I think it would be a Town Board of Health
issue, too. If someone made a complaint and said, well, hey, I think their septic system
has failed, I guess you could make that request to the Town Board of Health, and they
might have to go out and do a dye test or investigate or something like that to ensure that
it was working properly, but the decks, yes, I can understand your point of view where
the decks are going to add to add to the use of the property, but I don’t think that really
could be co-joined, you know, other than. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I think the question would be, you know, they’re not adding on an
addition to this. They’re adding decks on it, but there’s no, the Floor Area Ratio is the
same. Would that be correct?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. CLEMENTS-So, if they had put an addition on this, I think that the septic would
come into question because if you were adding another bedroom for example, you’d
need more septic, you know, that kind of thing. In this case, I think Jim is correct. It
doesn’t have anything to do with this application.
MRS. MOZAL-With the side line setbacks, though, which side lines are they using, the
ones they think they have?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It would primarily the side line, I think they’re going to need relief on,
they would need relief on that front deck from that point towards.
MR. OBORNE-They need relief all around.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All the way on all sides.
MR. OBORNE-Shoreline, west side line, east side line.
MRS. MOZAL-I realize that, but I want to know which side lines they’re using. Have they
supported all this with a survey?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we have a current survey.
MRS. MOZAL-Okay. So they’re using, does it concur with mine?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MRS. MOZAL-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a Van Dusen and Steves one, so it would be the same.
MRS. MOZAL-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s been quantified and qualified. They wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MRS. MOZAL-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And that side line dispute is a civil issue.
MRS. MOZAL-Yes, and that’s not my main reason for being here, it really isn’t. As I
prefaced this whole thing, I’m not against this deck, but I had to go through a lot of hoops
here, and this is next to my house, and I really feel it has to be looked at a little more
closely.
MR. OBORNE-And I do share your concerns with the septic, but it is not the purview of
this Board, nor the Planning Board. It is the Board of Health, which would be the Town
Board.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You would have to go to the Town Board if you really wanted that
issue addressed.
MR. OBORNE-That’s my understanding.
MRS. MOZAL-I won’t go to the Town Board, but, you know, that’s the problem with Glen
Lake because nobody’s taken responsibility for all these old septic systems.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. OBORNE-And as they come up, you know, the condition of this house, how much
longer is it going to be, you know, standing and will they retrofit, that’s the chance that
you get to go ahead and do that. I don’t think they could put a compliant septic on that
property, to be honest with you.
MRS. MOZAL-Well, that’s the problem with my whole road, nobody can.
MR. OBORNE-No, I know, I did your Site Plan.
MRS. MOZAL-I can.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I know you’re up on the hill behind, you own that hill.
MRS. MOZAL-Yes, I never thought owning that hill was a plus, but it is. Okay. Thank
you for your time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and thank you for your commentary, too.
MRS. MOZAL-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. What do you guys want to do as a Board? Do you want to
continue this? Do you want to table this for more information? Do you have enough
information to make a call this evening? Do you guys feel like you’ve got enough
knowledge to make a call on this this evening? All right, and the only question I was
going to ask you, Keith, is this. This has been presented to us as a total project?
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s an all or nothing deal?
MR. OBORNE-If you are going, if you want them to eliminate something, you have to
table them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. How do you guys feel? Are you happy with the project in
totality, or do you think it needs to be re-submitted in different size? If we’re going to do
that, I think, too, that we should make some positive suggestions to them. In other
words, are you leaning towards approval if, you know, you modified the project
somewhat?
MR. GARRAND-With the removal of the front deck, lake side.
MR. KUHL-What would be the difference if you take the deck and put it on the side,
instead of on the lake side? You’ve got more geography.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think that’s an issue for them to make a decision on. Why
don’t we do this, because I think the issue for most of us is the lake side deck because of
the encroachment into that buffer zone, and as far as having it extend that far across the
front of that property, it’s been many years, and I’ll just speak for myself. It’s been many
years that that house has not had a deck on the foreshore of the lake there. Certainly if
we went around the lake we would see that many decks have been created, some even
in closer proximity to the water than this one that’s being proposed here. Nonetheless,
the cumulative effect of all those decks on the lake is probably not a plus for the lake, as
everybody knows, with no vegetation, and I would assume, if you’re going to put this
deck on the front, that you’re going to have to take some of those trees down in front.
No, none are coming down?
MR. ALHEIM-None are coming down.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MAGGIE STEIN
MS. STEIN-And since the trees, I’m sorry, my name is Maggie. I’m with Eric and Eric.
Since the trees are hemlocks, evergreens, that are right along the shoreline, it really
blocks the view from the lake to the deck. You can see in some of the pictures. So it’s
not like a clear cutting situation where you just see this huge house and a deck.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the total width of the deck as proposed on the foreshore
there?
MR. ALHEIM-I don’t have my drawing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I looked at it before.
MR. KUHL-It’s 24 9.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s nine feet wide.
MR. KUHL-Twenty four feet, nine inches.
MR. CLEMENTS-It’s the length of the house side?
MS. STEIN-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So you’re looking at it being, is that eight feet wide out there?
MR. KUHL-The depth of it, off the house?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got.
MR. KUHL-Ten foot at the max, eight and a half, and then it bows out in that little
window.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got that bow part that sticks out further, right?
MR. KUHL-Yes.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. ALHEIM-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What would it be if it were straight across? What would the
dimensions be on it?
MR. KUHL-Eight foot one and a half inches.
MR. ALHEIM-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Because I think we’ve gotten into the issues of the usability
of the deck, and I was thinking on a deck, six foot would be probably about as minimal as
you could have on a deck. That would barely give you space to get past the chair there,
with people.
MS. STEIN-And the reason for the bump out on that one end is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you can have a table out there, with chairs around it.
MS. STEIN-Yes, so is to set up a table.
MR. KUHL-You don’t think it would be, you’d get more use if you put it on the side of the
building?
MR. ALHEIM-On the access side?
MR. KUHL-Yes, on the access side.
MR. ALHEIM-I can’t speak for Irene in this case. I do know that in that case larger and
more trees would have to be removed.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
IRENE MARSHALL
MRS. MARSHALL-And if I could say something, I’m Irene Marshall, the property owner.
We lived in the camper a couple of years when we were first married back in the middle
70’s, and we replaced some of the windows in the front, but we left a set of old windows
in the front, where one day we were going to put in a slider and have a deck. That was
quite a few years ago, and now that we are in a position where we can afford to do it, you
know, something we’ve wanted to do for a long time, we thought we could do that as well
as making the stairs safe. I have an 81 year old mother. I have fallen down those stairs.
They get really slippery when it’s wet, and I think having railings, there’s no railings right
now, and having railings and ballisters and landings, I’m hoping to have grandchildren
some day, and I guess my main concern is having those stairs and the landing be safe.
We have, over the years, the camp was not used a lot, and we occasionally, as we
raised our family, we did rent it out occasionally, many years ago, and just recently we’ve
been staying up there in the summers for three months. So, and it’s just my husband
and I. It’s a very small camp, you know, occasionally have visitors, but it’s not going to
increase the use of, in terms of the number of people who are using it. I also, we’ve
always kept the front wild. We probably have more vegetation in the front of our camp
than most of the camps on Glen Lake, and we intend to keep it that way. Also I think that
the ground in front there is really hard packed from this rain and snow coming off the
roof, and I actually think the deck would actually protect the shoreline, and I’m a green
person. I certainly don’t want to cut down trees. We had a tree last summer that it was
rotten at the top, and in the middle of the night it came crashing down on the lower set of
stairs, and so we looked at all the trees on the property, and had someone come and cut
down the ones that were hanging over the camp, and there were several other rotten
trees on the property, but I’ve seen people on the lake clear cut the property right down
to the water, and I would never do that. As far as the septic, I’m concerned about that as
well, and I don’t have a problem with having it inspected or talking about what we could
do if we needed to do something with that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. I think I’m going to do this, then. Do you guys want
to vote on this this evening, or do you want to table it? What do you want to do?
MR. CLEMENTS-It depends on whether they want to make changes or not, I think. If
they’re willing to make changes, I think we ought to table it. If they’re not, then we
probably should vote on it.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, as far as a tabling motion, do you want any deck out in front of
there? I mean, the general sense I get is that everybody doesn’t like the proposed deck
out on the front foreshore side there. Do you want no deck, do you want half that deck?
MR. GARRAND-There shouldn’t be any. There’s no buffer there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-You’ve got to stain the decks, okay, and there’s no buffer to absorb
when the stain and everything runs off. You’re going to have people eating out there,
stuff going in the lake, the runoff.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. One of the issues is that, now we’re talking bigger setbacks
than we used to have on the foreshore, too, right, for new construction?
MR. OBORNE-They’re still 50.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Still 50. Okay. Because we’re all just one zone there on waterfront.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it all depends on where you are. Up on the lake, there is 75 foot
area.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. What do you guys want to do, Roy?
MR. URRICO-Are you willing to move at all on the deck? Are you willing to shrink the
size of the deck at all?
MRS. MARSHALL-Yes, actually we’ve already done it once, but if it means that I could
still have a deck out there, yes, sure I’d be willing to do that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce, what do you think?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have a problem with the five feet from the shoreline. I have no
problem with the stairs. I think you really need the landings and the railings on there for
safety. So I have no problem with that, but I would like to see the deck smaller, and not
five feet from the water line.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich, how are you on the stair access and the decks on that side?
MR. GARRAND-The stair access is pretty much necessary. It’s always going to be
slippery with moss and everything that grows down there, but it is a safety issue. At least
you’re not going to fall as far if you do fall.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Can we go to requesting some kind of a catch at the end of the deck so that
the runoff off the roof, off the deck, doesn’t go into the lake?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that would be addressed by the Planning Board. They’re
probably going to have some kind of a trench with crushed stone in it or something.
MR. OBORNE-You can make it a condition of your approval that the Planning Board
looks at that.
MR. KUHL-Yes. My concern is the permeability we’re adding. We’re adding more solid
area, and the runoff of the roof is going to runoff to your deck, and from the deck it’s
going to run off into the lake.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m sure they’re going to require that the stairs coming down and the
decking on those little landings there, you know, have big enough spacing so the water
can drain through, so it doesn’t just sheet flow all the way down and come flying off at the
end of it onto the foreshore there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I think I’m in agreement with the rest of the Board. I think that the
stairs are needed there. I think that Ron’s right about the runoff there. So I agree with
that, and I also agree with Roy about making it smaller.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I think this is what we’re going to do. Because of what
you presented to us this evening here, we’re going to ask that you modify your proposal
for the deck on the front of there, you know, maybe make it half as long as what you
have, you know, that’s going to decrease what you’ve got out there. I’m going to ask that
you probably take off that bump out part that you wanted out there, that’s towards the
shore, because that does encroach even further than what’s necessary, as far as that
goes, too. So I think what we’ll do is table you for the time period you need to come back
with a re-design on that. I’m in agreement with everybody else that the stair access is
going to be a minimal intrusion. I think the Planning Board can deal with the issues of
the runoff from that, and the increased impermeability over on that side of the building
there, but as far as the foreshore goes, I think there are some mitigating factors here. If
it were my home, I certainly would want a deck on the deck, on the lakeside shore there,
and I think it’s not any different than any other request. It is too close to the water, but if
we get the size of that deck cut in half, maybe cut it off at the edge of the door over there
or something, so where the slider’s going to come out the front there, that’s as wide as it
is. So maybe it’s 12 feet wide or something like that, as opposed to the full 24 foot, I
think is what you had on there initially, and I think I could buy into that at that point there.
The other thing is is that there isn’t going to be any vegetation cut on the foreshore. So
it’s still going to be pretty well hidden from the lake.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I do want to make sure that the rest of the Board is in agreement
with what you’re saying, obviously.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m just throwing out the idea, but I don’t know what you guys
are thinking on that. Is that the direction that you would think would be reasonable, or do
you want no deck? I mean, that’s your choice, too, that’s up to you, and when you come
back with that, you know, you’re going to probably have a full Board sitting with seven
members. So I don’t know what the seventh member’s going to think on it either. So, do
you guys think that’s a reasonable suggestion?
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MRS. MARSHALL-I have one question. If we remove the bump out and reduce the
length of the deck, what width of the deck would you be comfortable with, the eight feet?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think eight feet would be reasonable. I think that would still give
you use of your property. You couldn’t have a huge party out there with a zillion people
out on there, but at the same time, I think the construction as you’re proposing it, if that’s
something that you don’t have to dig the footers and disturb the shoreline, as much down
there. It is a flat area down on the shoreline there, and I don’t know how long that’s been
there. There’s sort of a bench along that whole side of the lake there, because I live on
that side of the lake, too, but what we’re trying to do is give you enough so that you can
enjoy it, but don’t ask for the moon, you know, because everybody wants the moon, too.
MR. OBORNE-So if the deck is running 24 feet along the length. You want that cut in
half to twelve, and then an eight foot out.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Eight foot out, yes.
MR. OBORNE-So that’s basically an eight foot by twelve, I think, is what the Board is
looking for, and is comfortable with?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So, I mean, you can go draw it on the ground so you know
how big that is and see whether it’s going to fit for you, but I think it’s reasonable based
upon the constraints of the property, being as small as it is, and the other issues that
have been brought up here are all important for you, too. I think if you’re going to start to
use that property as a year round usage, I’m going to suggest to you that you get your
water and your septic system, and you may end up with a holding tank for all I know.
MRS. MARSHALL-We’re not using it year round.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. You’re not using it is year round. It is seasonal use, and
there are lots of seasonal use properties on the lake that are, you know, that close to the
water, but, nonetheless, you have a responsibility.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. OBORNE-I do want to just add one thing. I think the applicant definitely has fair
warning that there are septic issues that probably need to be addressed at this point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-The Planning Board or the Zoning Board cannot do anything about that at
this point, but it is on the record that it is an issue that the Town is concerned with.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-And that’s about all I can leave it at. No threats, nothing like that. It’s on
the record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I think what we’re going to do is table you for up to 60
days and allow you to come back with something. I mean, you can come back, if you
th
can submit by the 15 of next month, it’ll get you on the following month. So that’ll put
you on for March. Right?
MR. OBORNE-That would be correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we’ll put you on for the first meeting in March.
MR. OBORNE-First meeting?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. So I’ll need a second on the tabling motion.
MRS. HUNT-Second.
MS. GAGLIARDI-And are you going to leave the public hearing open?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll leave the public hearing open, yes.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
101 Fitzgerald Road. Tabled for up to 60 days, to allow the applicant to come back with
something. To modify their proposal for the deck on the front. Maybe make it half as
long as what they have. That they probably take off that bump out part that they wanted
out there that’s towards the shore because that does encroach even further than what’s
th
necessary as far as that goes, too. They can submit by the 15 of next month, to get on
st
for the 1 meeting in March.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’ll see you then.
MRS. MARSHALL-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2010 J & D MARINA/CASTAWAY MARINA AGENT(S):
LONNY CHASE – CHASE ENGINEERING, PLLC OWNER(S): J & D MARINA/JOHN
P. MATTHEWS ZONING: NC LOCATION: 1212 BAY ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONVERT AND EXPAND EXISTING 1,050 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE
INTO A 1,600 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
FRONT SETBACK AND TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: SP 51-200, SP 6-2010 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: JANUARY 13, 2010 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT
SIZE: 6.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.00-1-63 SECTION: 179-3-040
JOHN MATTHEWS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2010, J & D Marina/Castaway Marina, Meeting
Date: January 20, 2010 “Project Location: 1212 Bay Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes to convert and expand existing 1,050 square foot residence
into a 1,600 square foot commercial office space.
Relief Required:
Relief requested from front setback and Travel Corridor Overlay zone setback
requirements per §179-4-030. Further relief requested for the expansion of a non-
conforming structure per §179-13-010.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a
result of this area variance request.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The pre-existing
non-conforming nature of the structure dictates the need for this area variance
request.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 38 feet or 51%
relief from the 75 foot travel corridor setback requirement per §179-4-030 may be
considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 3 feet or 7.5% relief
from the 40 foot front setback requirement per §179-4-030 for the neighborhood
commercial zone may be considered minor relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Minor impacts to the
.
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
S.P. 51-2001 Marina and Boat Storage Approved 11/27/01
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to expand and convert an existing single family dwelling into a
professional office. The structure is currently a pre-existing none conforming structure
built in 1959. Professional office is an allowable use in the Neighborhood Commercial
zone.
The expansion portion of the project involves the raising of the roof over what is now the
garage. Please see pages A1 and A2 of application packet for further clarification.
The plan includes the addition of stormwater controls and a new wastewater system.
The Planning Board has issued a recommendation concerning this application dated
January 19, 2010 (see handout).
SEQR Status:
Type II - No action required”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 13, 2010
Project Name: J & D Marina/Castaway Marina Owner(s): J & D Marina/John P.
Matthews ID Number: QBY-10-AV-5 County Project#: Jan10-13 Current Zoning: NC
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to convert and
expand existing 1,050 sq. ft. residence into a 1,600 sq. ft. commercial office space.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
Relief requested from front setback and Travel Corridor Overlay zone setback
requirements and relief requested from expansion of a nonconfoming structure. Site
Location: 1212 Bay Road Tax Map Number(s): 279.00-1-63 Staff Notes: See
included applicant’s project description. Staff does not find any issues impacting County
resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by
Tim Larson, Warren County Planning Board 1/15/10.
MR. URRICO-Whereas the project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals and
Planning Board approvals, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the
Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals for Area Variance No. 5-2010, J & D Marina. It was introduced by
Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford. “MOTION TO
MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA
VARIANCE NO. 5-2010 J & D MARINA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b.
requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval; and
Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board
approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of
Appeals; and
Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the
relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on
the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2010 J & D MARINA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board selects Option One.
The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Krebs”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Matthews.
MR. MATTHEWS-Good evening.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think everybody understands you’re going to take this and convert
it into a useful purpose for the future, from what it currently exists as.
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you own the building now or?
MR. MATTHEWS-We own the building. It’s part of the total property.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. MATTHEWS-We have had it rented in the past as a residence. As of late, we have
had very poor success with tenants. Can’t deal with power being shut off and what not,
and transiency of the people. So in lieu of the fact that it is in a commercial area, we feel
that its best use would be to convert it to a small office.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So a more purposeful existence for the house as it exists, and I
assume you’re going to do some upgrades on the façade and everything else, as you
showed us?
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. What we plan to do is remove the walls, and the structure which
the garage is part of, because it’s just, it’s not the right height for the ceilings and what
not, and put a larger gable end on that section, and re-build the connecting ridgeline
between the main house and the garage so that it doesn’t leak, and open it up inside so
that it has a handicap bathroom and everything is accessible. The main entrance will be
in the back. We’re going to remove the driveway as it exists to the garage off of Bay
Road and eliminate a curb cut at that point, seed it all in, and so what they’ll do is pull in
and continue towards the rear of the property, and there’ll be parking spaces there with a
handicap ramp and what not to get into the back door. We will keep the front door as a
secondary exit, and basically the façade and what not, we’ll upgrade and there’ll be new
windows in the addition portion and some in the rest of the house. New heating system.
Basically we’re going to go through it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This is going to become offices, then, primarily, and just retail sales
for the?
MR. MATTHEWS-No. I would say we’re looking more towards a professional office, you
know, a lawyer, doctor or engineer or something along that line, real estate agent or
something like that.
MR. KUHL-So you’re converting it not for personal use?
MR. MATTHEWS-Correct.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from you guys? Okay. Why don’t we do this, then.
I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak or any
correspondence, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-I do not see any correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think everybody recognizes that it’s gotten busier out there, as
time goes on, now that it’s going to be the new beltway with all the improvements on 149,
people are going to be zipping by there. It’s perfectly within the realm of reality, as far as
I’m concerned, that you convert it into an office space or something like that. It makes
more sense, and as you said, renting out a downtrodden building to people that are
unreliable clients is always an issue if you’re the landlord. So it makes more sense to get
somebody steady in there and the improvements as you’ve proposed look pretty
reasonable to me. So, I don’t really have any concerns. Do you guys have any
concerns or problems with it?
MR. CLEMENTS-It looks like a good project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We don’t need to do any SEQRA review on here because it’s a two
on this one. So we’re all squared away with that. So I guess the layout, the Planning
Board’s going to look at this, I would assume you’ve got to do Site Plan Review because
it’s a change in use.
MR. OBORNE-They’re back on Tuesday of next week.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and for us it’s not any change in use, other than it’s going to go
to commercial use from residential use, but it’s an allowable use within the zone.
MR. OBORNE-Right, it’s an allowable use.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess, does somebody want to take this one?
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’m going to close the public hearing, too.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2010 J & D MARINA/CASTAWAY
MARINA, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce
Hunt:
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
1212 Bay Road. Applicant proposes to convert and expand existing 1,050 square foot
residence into a 1600 square foot commercial office space. The relief required is the
relief requested from front setback and Travel Corridor Overlay Zone setback
requirements per Section 179-4-030. Further relief requested for the expansion of a
nonconforming structure per Section 179-13-010. In making the determination, the
Board shall consider, Number One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in
the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by
the granting of this Area Variance. Minor impacts may be anticipated. Number Two,
whether the benefit sought by the applicant may be achieved by some method feasible
for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. The pre-existing,
nonconforming nature of the structure dictates the need for this Area Variance request.
Number Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for 38
feet or 51 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor may be considered moderate to
the Ordinance. The request for three feet or 7.5% feet relief from the 40 foot front
setback per Section 179-4-030 for the Neighborhood Commercial zone may be
considered minor relative to the Ordinance. Whether the proposed variance will have an
adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood may be anticipated. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
However, it is a nonconforming structure as it was set up. I’d like to move for approval of
this application.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We have some minutes to approve, guys. So we’re going
to do that, and then we’ll get out of here.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 18, 2009
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2009, Introduced by James Underwood who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Kuhl
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
November 25, 2009
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25. 2009, Introduced by James Underwood who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
December 16, 2009
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/20/10)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16, 2009, Introduced by James Underwood who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Kuhl
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
35