Loading...
2011.08.24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2011 INDEX Area Variance No. 45-2011 David & Evelyn Dufresne 1. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-13 Area Variance No. 45-2010 Inwald Enterprises/Robin Inwald 1. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Sign Variance No. 53-2011 Hospitality Syracuse, Inc. 12. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-2, 3 Notice of Appeal No. 2-2011 John Salvador, Jr. 18. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-13 Notice of Appeal No. 3-2011 John Salvador, Jr. 23. Tax Map No. 239.19-1-8 and 9 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 08/24/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT JAMES UNDERWOOD BRIAN CLEMENTS JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. It’s seven o’clock. I’d like to call to order tonight’s Queensbury th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Today is Wednesday, August 24, and for those of you who haven’t been here before, on the back table is a general description of our processes and what to expect this evening. We will call each application to the front table here, and at this time I’d like to begin with Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2011 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ.; S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE ZONING WR LOCATION 24 BRAYTON ROAD APPLICANT HAS REMOVED A 665 SQ. FT. DECK AND PARTIALLY BUILT A NEW 647 SQ. FT. DECK IN ITS PLACE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDELINE REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RECOMMENDATION CROSS REF BP 2011-141 DECK; BP 2011-142 BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK; SP 47-2011; BP 99-469; AV 81-1998 AV 81-1999; BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 60,98 APPROVING SANITARY SEWAGE VARIANCE; BP 98-785 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 13, 2011 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-13 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 MR. JACKOSKI-And I believe we have a tabling motion. Is that correct? The applicant has requested a tabling motion. Would anyone like to make that motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll take it. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2011 DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: This application will need to be tabled due to the submittal of an updated application for the addition of a patio, and additional permeability relief is required, and as a result, the Planning Board may issue a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Staff recommends a tabling date of st September 21. th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: MR. URRICO-There is some public comment. Do you want to save that? MR. JACKOSKI-I’d say we save it. Yes. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II INWALD ENTERPRISES/ROBIN INWALD AGENT(S): STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): INWALD ENTERPRISES/ROBIN INWALD ZONING: WR LOCATION: 38 GUNN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOATHOUSE WITH A 697 SQ. FT. SUNDECK ADDITION WITH ACCESS RAMP BETWEEN 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) TWO EXISTING DOCKS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE GREATER THAN 100 SQ. FT. (ACCESS RAMP) WITHIN SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACKS. CROSS REF.: SP 6-2011, AV 68-2008; SP 39-2010; AV 26-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-16 SECTION: 179-5-060A7 STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-And we’ll turn it over to the applicant. If you could, for the record, state your name, please. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stephanie Bitter here for the applicant, together with Bill Springnether and Peter Loyola from CLA site. As most of you are aware, there’s been a great deal of time and effort that’s been placed in this application. We’ve been before you since last year working on this relative to the ramp that would be utilized to access the sundeck that was approved last summer. As described in the past meetings, Ms. Inwald has disabilities which severely limit her mobility and have her rendered her disabled. Specifically she has disk deterioration in both her neck and her back. She has fractured vertebrae and severe osteoporoses. The lakefront residence is her home, and she is seeking the ramp so that she can enjoy all aspects of her property. This is not like a second shed or an addition. This ramp is needed to accommodate her with her disability as a disabled individual, and if any of you have been to the site, you’ll know that the slope relative to accessing the lake is difficult to navigate, especially for a person that’s disabled. At the April meeting we had discussed the ways in which we had modified the ramp to mitigate the impacts and lessen the impacts to the surrounding land. There were concerns that were raised by this Board as well as concerns relative to the APA’s reaction to this matter. Since that time, we have submitted a jurisdictional inquiry and received a non-jurisdictional determination relative to the ramp from the APA which was provided to you in June. We have also provided you a modified proposal of the ramp, which I’m going to let the architect describe to you. We’ve also demonstrated to you the other alternatives that we’ve explored to get to this ramp, relative to ways in which we can, again, lessen the impacts to the surrounding areas. As a Zoning Board, you guys are in the position that you have to review this for the Area Variance’s standards. As we’ve described in the past, the first standard is the whether or not this will create an undesirable change. We’re going to go through a slideshow that demonstrates the ramps that are in existence in Harris Bay that exist today, similar to those that are, similar to which we’re proposing this evening. We’re going to be consistent with these other decks, and as was referenced in the last meeting, the ramp that we’re proposing is 900% better than the ramps that exist there today on the lake. The second factor being the benefit by some other alternative. Again, we’ve explored options, including those relative to a lift, which we feel would have a negative impact on the property and the surrounding areas. Since this is structure unlike any other structure, the lift specifically, that is evident on the lake, all together with the fact that the lift would rely on electricity and that would propose a component of security in the sense of if a storm came on very quickly like was present this weekend, it may render it difficult for Ms. Inwald to remove herself from the sundeck safely. The third element that you look at it whether or not the relief is substantial. As many of you know, any of the sundecks that exist there on the lake today are accessed by steps. We’re requesting a ramp in the sense that this disabled person can be accommodated so that she can access her sundeck. This ramp would be in lieu of steps. It would not be in addition to, and it’s similar to other structures in the area. Whether or not there’d be adverse effects. Again, we’ve looked at this design over the course of a year and have implemented ways in which we can mitigate any adverse effects that can exist. We’ve incorporated landscaping, which we’ll show you, as well as pavers, to do the best that we can to, again, limit those effects, and whether or not this would be considered self-created, unfortunately, any ramp would require a variance from this Board so we don’t believe it should be considered a self-created hardship. I’m going to turn it over to Bill and Peter now to go through the slideshow. PETER LOYOLA MR. LOYOLA-Peter Loyola here with CLA site, and Bill and I are going to possibly tag team on this to answer any questions here, but what we wanted to do here, just to show you the context of the property and the site in relationship to, you know, the rest of Lake George and obviously we are starting with the existing conditions. This is the property here, and, Craig, if you could just kind of go through these. I don’t want to spend too much time on the existing condition. Has everybody seen the property and know the site very well? Okay. So we’ll just go through it. Here’s the property in here. You can see to the south there’s an existing boathouse, here’s an existing boathouse. Both of these boathouses are accessed by ramps. This is a nonconforming shed that has been in existence, I’m not sure how long, 20 years, obviously is not something that’s desirable on the lake, but in any event is there and probably will be for a very long time. So we’re talking about the property in here, you can go ahead, Craig. This is kind of an overall view of all the boathouses that are just in the immediate vicinity of the bay. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) BILL SPRINGNETHER MR. SPRINGNETHER-Three of these boathouses to the south of her are all accessed by ramps. MR. LOYOLA-Ramps on either side, and then again, this is just to show kind of the character of what we have here. The boathouse that we’re proposing, the actual front of the boathouse is going to be in line with this boathouse here. So you’ll see the boathouse, and this all would be behind this actual structure, and the ramp would be back in along this property, on this side. So views from the north would be completely mitigated by all of the boathouses and any of the amenities that other people are enjoying in front to the north. This is an existing view of the property. Here’s the fence line, the northern property. This is the boathouse from the north property with the shed, and here are the Inwalds docks. If you move to the next one, just wanted to show some context of where we are on the site. This is not like we’re on a peninsula. We’re in a little cove area, very limited access and views for our property. This is the Inwald property here. You can see that it is on Harris Bay. If this were out on the peninsula, and we were doing an extension of that peninsula, I think we’d have a much different context here, but we are very well hidden. If you keep moving in a little bit closer you can kind of see, anything that we’re talking about here is just a visual for just the immediate area on Harris Bay. Keep moving in and you can see the juxtaposition of this. We’re hidden into a cove. Again, it’s not a peninsula. The context is very well hidden. The character of what we’re proposing we feel is going to be absorbed completely into the character of what’s existing. Keep moving. Again, these are decks with ramp access. We wanted to show all the ramps that are present on the lake and in the surrounding area. Keep going. This is the existing property you can see to the south ramp. This is a boathouse, has a ramp and stairs. Ramp, and this looks like it’s fairly new. I don’t know what the enforcement piece of this is, whether this is a replacement, whether this was built actually in kind or whether this is just being built without a variance or without Code, without Code enforcement, whether it has a building permit or not. We see this all over the place. Keep moving. That’s just what’s being built. That was under construction, when was this photo taken, yes, this Spring. Keep going. Again, another ramp that we see with stairs going down, fairly new construction appears to be here, and new construction. Ramp, with railing, and we’ll talk about the railing in a minute, and we can keep going through these here, but again, something that is extremely typical, and we all know this. We see this on the lake. Another ramp with access. You can see this is a boathouse with a ramp that actually would be in very close context to what we’re talking about here with the existing vegetation in the front and the back. They have a retaining wall here. Our retaining wall would be much less and further back from the shoreline than what’s existing here, and I know some of this is existing condition, but we have a lot of new construction going on, and a lot of precedent that’s being set with the character of a ramp. You can keep going here. Hopefully our construction is going to be a little bit better than that. Keep moving. Again, more context of railing and what you see in terms of the opacity of the balusters and the railing system, which again we’ll talk about. This ramp seems to go right to the house. Again, is this a conforming situation? I don’t think so, but we have ramps all over the place on this particular boathouse. There’s a ramp for the one boathouse, a small little ramp to the other, and another ramp to the other, much higher. MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t know that project at all. MR. LOYOLA-Yes. Exactly, and again, more ramp, with railing, a ramp with more of a split rail type of rail. Again, we have ramps in all forms, shapes and sizes through here. That’s the point we’re trying to make. Some of this, again, is newer construction. Some of it’s older construction. Some of it is replacement. We understand that, but a lot of, this is with stairs and ramp, a lot of modification to the shoreline, ramp, ramp, ramp. That’s a good one. MR. JACKOSKI-That’s mine. MR. LOYOLA-And it’s beautiful, and it’s beautifully done. The split rail’s awesome. Keep moving. This is a very long expanse here that we see. The interesting one about this is we were talking at the County and we were talking at this Zoning Board meeting, the transparency of the railing and what you see here. This is a cable system. So you can see how different that actually looks than something that’s of a wood structure with the balustrades and it’s not as dense looking. You can go back and forth on the actual vernacular and what really fits into the character, but here’s some slides of the existing ramp and then the Inwald proposal. If you go to the next slide, this is what we’re proposing without vegetation. This would be the boathouse, and then this would be the ramp, and this would be with vegetation that we’re proposing. The land form that we’re coming out in here, and this is something that’s been discussed at the Staff level, that, you know, to minimize disturbance of the land, that would be something that we should consider. We considered, in the very first proposal, that we just extend the ramp all the way to the existing grade and we do some slight site modification out here, but in an effort to 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) minimize the length of the ramp, our proposal was to provide a land form and actually build out a little bit another 15 feet here with earth, plant it, and shorten the ramp to 50 feet as opposed to 65 feet, and then put significant amount of planting in and around it. We have some alternatives based on that. This is what we’re proposing. It’s in the same context as something that you see here. You can keep moving through the slides. You can see that our cable system of railing is very transparent. You can barely see with the posts, in this particular case, the posts that are holding up the cables are a light color. We’re proposing a dark color for the posts so that everything blends in and really all you’re going to see is just the actual deck line for the boathouse. So the architectural aspect of this is just to try and make it as transparent as possible. If we can keep going. Again, these are just some examples that are in the same context. We presented this site plan. This hasn’t changed. The one thing that I should point out here, even though this is all brown here, we have a ramp that begins here and comes over. So that’s the 50 feet here. Anything that’s from this point over would be the impermeable surface of the pavement, and then extensive planting, which, you know, we’ve gone through the plant list and, you know, made significant additions to the planting scheme. We’re in conformance with the 35 feet and the shoreline buffer. If we need to add some more plants, we’d be happy to do that to help mitigate, but this is what we’re proposing. At the last meeting, we presented several alternatives that at the Planning Board they got a little bit confused about the alternatives, almost as if we were giving them a choice on what we wanted to propose and, you know, making design decisions. I want to state that we don’t think this is a feasible solution for us. We wanted to provide it as an alternative to show that in order to get the grades that we need to get, we have to be, we have to take a circuitous route down, and then with a lift, come back up again, a mechanical lift that’s electrical. There’s footings. There’s a lot of disturbance that’s required here. The second alternative was a horizontal lift, and, again, this was another lift scheme that we found, and again, we don’t feel that these are feasible approaches here. We’re introducing metal. We’re introducing a mechanical system. We have some pictures that show what that lift could possibly look like. In our particular case, because we would need to make the cage that would be in this lift seven by, I think it’s five feet. MR. SPRINGNETHER-She needs to have a reclining wheelchair. MR. LOYOLA-To move in, but it would have, obviously it wouldn’t be as steep here, but our lift that we were looking at would be more of a horizontal because we don’t have that steep of a grade, but again, it’s another solution, but it doesn’t make any sense, and we’re trying to come up with some, at least some different alternatives here that the Zoning Board would take a look at, but we’re pretty adamant about the different context that this creates and the incompatibility that a solution like this would be to the rest of the surrounding properties. If you’d move to the next slide. One alternative that we did look at was, in an effort to reduce the soil disturbance we looked at, in our original proposal we have a retaining wall on two sides, and what we show is to eliminate some of the soil and eliminate some of the disturbance that’s happening in the main lawn area we were proposing a two and a half to three foot retaining wall on this side. So essentially what we would be doing here is just minimizing the disturbance just to the width of the path and a little bit beyond, two feet beyond, in an effort to minimize the disturbance. Obviously we are really adamant about this solution being the best solution, both from a compatibility standpoint, from a visual standpoint, from an accessibility standpoint, this would be in lieu of stairs. The bulkiness of the stairs, we can build that right now. She could build that right now. We’re saying instead of the bulkiness of the stairs we’re asking that a ramp be provided for accessibility. It’s as simple as that. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Okay. If you want to go to one last slide, here. It shows, this is a section view of what we’re proposing, the ramp coming down to meet a built up grade, and the original proposal that came before you last summer extended this ramp another 15 feet until it hit grade on zone. That was deemed to be too long of a ramp, so this is the compromise to shorten the ramp. Now, based on discussions with Staff and your suggestion from our last meeting that we look at additional alternatives, one of the alternatives, which was Number Three, proposed putting a wall in here that would contain some of the soil disturbance. So we’d reduce the amount of disturbance or the proximity of the disturbance to the lake from 25 feet 4 inches to 37 feet 8 inches by putting in the wall and wrapping that wall around both sides of the path. MR. LOYOLA-And we can just leave that slide up for discussion. That’s really what we’re proposing. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Now that we’ve had that presentation, if Roy could read into the record the motion that was passed by the Queensbury Planning Board last evening. MR. URRICO-Okay. The motion was on behalf of the Queensbury Planning Board to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Area Variance No. 45-2010 and Site Plan No. 39-2010 for Inwald Enterprises Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) Board selected Option B. The Planning Board based on limited review identified the following items of concern: After considerable discussion, replacing an existing environment with a manmade one, the Planning Board has concerns with the alternatives presented, and after considerable discussion recommends that the ZBA carefully consider the alternatives presented. Part of their discussion was the difference in longevity of a land bridge versus a lift and they felt that, at least some felt that the potential is there for a land bridge to be there forever, once approved, whereas a lift probably will be removed and stairs remain at some point in the future. And that was adopted on August 23, 2011. There were two in favor and four against. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and then on the next page the next resolution that the Queensbury Zoning Board undertook. MR. URRICO-And then the second one, According to the resolution prepared by Staff, they said that the existing environment. MR. JACKOSKI-There were four resolutions made that evening. MR. URRICO-I only have two of them. MR. JACKOSKI-I can read this page if you want. MR. URRICO-All right. Let me see what I have here. MR. BROWN-There was only one resolution. MR. JACKOSKI-That actually passed, right. MR. URRICO-Okay. After consideration they recommended that replacing an existing environment with a manmade one, the Planning Board had concerns with the alternatives presented, and after considerable discussion recommended that the ZBA consider the alternatives presented, and that was approved by four to two. Is that what you’re talking about? Because that’s all I’m seeing here. MR. LOYOLA-Yes, that was the only resolution that passed. I can clarify what happened at the Planning Board last night. The Board absolutely wanted to recommend and felt that they needed to recommend it to you folks. However, they were getting confused by, as I mentioned, the alternatives and couldn’t come to a consensus of which alternative they liked. It wasn’t really an option to choose one, although we did say that alternative three was a very feasible option for us. We’d be happy to put in a two and a half to three foot retaining wall to minimize disturbance, and this was based on comments from Keith. His recommendation, Staff’s recommendation was to minimize to the greatest extent possible disturbance. So, you know, we’d be happy to provide alternative three, but again, there was just considerable discussion about how to, what kind of resolution that they wanted to move and recommend to the Zoning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what we need, Craig, is, we’ve spent a lot of time, and I know you’ve spent a lot of time effort on this, too, and we were only provided these minutes from the Planning Board as we arrived here this evening. So I had to quickly go through them, but I think for the benefit of the Board and the benefit of the applicants also, it’s pretty important, one of the comments I’m reading here, and you just reiterated again in your presentation was, the question was asked, well, for the Inwald’s property they would require a carriage that would be a minimum of seven by five feet because they will have to have a reclining wheelchair, which is basically a gurney. So are you telling me that every day Mrs. Inwald has to spend her day on a gurney if she wants to move around anywhere, under normal circumstances? MR. SPRINGNETHER-Not now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Not now, but you’re talking this may occur in the near future? MR. SPRINGNETHER-It will occur in the future. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because of her deteriorating back condition, and I think everybody understands that. Because I think that the alternatives display the different possibilities, and as we suggested before, we have the ramp that was initially presented to us. I don’t think anybody on the Board preferred that ramp because it was so long and intrusive as far as that was. One of the comments I would make in your presentation was, as you can see, all those land bridges that you showed us, the significant number of them occur on steep hillsides adjacent to the lake, and one of the problems that I think that we have on this one is that you have basically near 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) level ground in comparison to many of those that you presented to us, and so the intrusiveness of a land bridge to me hasn’t changed. I think it’s a difficult move, and I think that as you presented your alternative that you like the best would be the one that you’re bringing fill in, and I don’t know if we can even discuss fill, can we, Craig, without, that close to the lake? Wouldn’t that require? MR. BROWN-Yes. Any placement of fill within 50 feet of the shore is a Planning Board issue, but it’s part of this project. So it’s in play. MS. BITTER-Well, I think a number of those ramps that were identified there had both stairs and a ramp. So they obviously were utilizing both functions when we’re asking for just one. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and I think everybody understands the fact that we have pre-existing conditions that pre-date zone. MS. BITTER-There’s a couple of questionable ones. MR. JACKOSKI-Can Staff go up there and look at those, the new ones? MR. UNDERWOOD-But, I mean, it’s not incumbent upon Staff to be out patrolling and writing up tickets for people that are doing illegal things. I mean, if somebody reports it, it’s a different story. Then they’re required by law to do that, but I think the issue that we have before us is you don’t have a land bridge presently. You wish to have some access to that boat, to the top of the boathouse, and I think that we’ve been tasked with deciding whether we want to have a land bridge or we want to have a lift, and I know you don’t want the lift. That was what we suggested to you the last time, and I think the Board has to decide, is the half land bridge camouflaged, you know, with the wall, etc., is that going to be more appropriate from what we originally considered, or do we still want to go with the actual electric lift? And you pointed out the drawbacks of that in electrical storms and the whole nine yards. I think that’s important for us, too, but I think the Board needs to consider what has come before us in this application and what’s happened before on the lake, what’s going to happen in the future on the lake. It’s important for us to make the proper decision in regards to that. We didn’t have a whole lot of time to read through here, but I’m reading a lot of concern on the part of the Planning Board that they don’t really like any of the proposals. I mean, some people like one or two, but there’s no consensus that everybody could buy into one of them, you know, that’s the concern, but I think that, you know, you’ve made your case. It’s up to us to decide. We haven’t heard any public comment either. MS. BITTER-And I wasn’t present at the Planning Board meeting, these gentlemen were, but I think you can recall as well, I think this was the third time we were before the Planning Board, and each time we’ve received a positive recommendation, relative to the concept. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Right. I think the confusion that happened last night, first of all there was an alternate that was present, and secondly I think, in our effort to provide this Board with some alternatives that you were asking for, more information that we provided, everybody started looking at it in different ways, more disturbance, less disturbance. The fact that we don’t have as steep of a grade as some of these other ramps that we see, it’s still too steep to navigate. In order to get the five percent without all the railings and the handicap, we have to make a circuitous route. It’s steep, it’s steeper than ADA allows. That’s the problem that we have here. MR. JACKOSKI-Why does that access need to be ADA? Isn’t just the lift structure ADA? MR. SPRINGNETHER-You have to get down to the lift structure. MR. LOYOLA-We have to get down to the lift structure in a positive manner, and it make sense to grade that out. MR. KOSKINAS-But this is not a public property. MR. LOYOLA-It doesn’t have to be public. It has to be accessible. We have two women that are accessing the property now that want to get down to the dock. It’s very difficult for them right now to walk down just to the dock. MR. JACKOSKI-They actually can walk down now? MR. LOYOLA-Well, they can to some degree, I guess, but the mom, I guess, who’s accessing the property, she needs help to physically get down to the dock. That’s what we’re saying. It’s an accessibility issue throughout. So they’re going to have to make improvements on the lawn area, regardless of whether this gets approved or not. I mean, they’re going to have to make 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) provisions and do grade disturbance on this in order for them to access it safely down to just the dock. So this is a, what we tried to do was minimize all of that over the open space and just push everything to the northern property and provide a very simple, direct route from the patio to the boathouse. MRS. HUNT-I’m confused what plan you’re proposing. MR. LOYOLA-The proposed site plan. MRS. HUNT-Alternate site plan three? MR. LOYOLA-The proposed site plan that was colored. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s the green one. MRS. HUNT-Alternate Site Plan One. Okay. MR. LOYOLA-No, not Alternate Site Plan One. That’s the proposed site plan. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, the colored one. MR. UNDERWOOD-The green one. MRS. HUNT-I have one other question. What is the height from the ground to where you have all those trellis, you know? MR. SPRINGNETHER-The boathouse is 11 feet from the water, the top of the water. MRS. HUNT-No, no. I’m talking about the height of the ramp from the ground. MR. SPRINGNETHER-At the highest point is going to be 11 feet. MRS. HUNT-Eleven feet. MR. LOYOLA-And then it goes considerably down from there as it ramps down. MR. JACKOSKI-My thought is, do we want to poll the Board first, or do we want to try to accept public comment and then have some more discussion? MR. GARRAND-Open the public hearing and see if the public wants to comment on it and then we’ll poll. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So I’d like to open up the public hearing again, if we could. It has been advertised. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, I am going to leave the public hearing open, and, Roy, have we received any additional written comment? MR. URRICO-No, not that I can find. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So at this point I’d like to actually poll Board members. Would anyone like to volunteer to go first? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Jim. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the bottom line for us is what’s reasonable for any person to have on their waterfront property, what’s unreasonable for any person to have, and that’s taking into account also the fact that as we all age we all become less mobile as time goes by, and I think that you’ve made the case that your client is currently able to access the waterfront, albeit not easily. I don’t think that there’s anything in the Code that suggests to us that we have to make every boathouse on the lake handicap accessible. I don’t think there’s anything in the Adirondack Park code that would allow for such a thing to occur either. The fact of the matter is, you don’t need to have a boathouse. You don’t need to have a dock, if you live on waterfront property. Some people choose to have one, but the fact that whether a person can access that, 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) or any person, even somebody who’s not a property owner can access the top of a boathouse via a land bridge or via a stairs, everyone’s going to get to the point where they’re unable to access certain parts of their home. Some people have to live on a single floor living. They can’t live with an upstairs where they have to go up and down stairs, and I think in this instance here I would agree with some of the comments in the Planning Board minutes last night. Because I think everybody understands the situation but everybody’s still sort of dumbfounded as to why you would go to all the trouble to do this for any person when there’s readily accessible public access to Lake George and I made that suggestion I think previously also, and I think that it’s important for us to remember that if we do this for one property, anybody could come in and say, look, I’m going to be old someday, I need the same thing on my house, and I think it’s important for us to consider it in the context of the greater effect on the lake, and I don’t think that you’re, this proposal is that different to me than what you presented to us. It’s more camouflage. You have more vegetation on. I think that the electric lift idea is a noble thing for someone, but I fail to understand why anybody would go to the expense of doing that, when you could easily wheelchair somebody down or gurney somebody down to the lake on a pathway and they could be on the dock. You’re on the water. You don’t have to be up above the water. There’s no requirement for your enjoyment to be up in the air above the water. I mean, that’s personal preference for some people, but the fact of the matter is I could go around the lake and take pictures of all the properties that don’t have boathouses, and I could say there’s probably more stick built docks on that lake and lower structures that are accessed by the people that own them, and I think that that argument would be enough to convince me, personally, that I don’t think you need these things. So, I’m not going to be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think Mr. Underwood said it very eloquently. I agree with him completely. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m going to take a different tact. I think we do have to consider every person’s application. We worry about precedent, and yet we look around the lake, as the applicant has shown us, there are examples of this type of structure already. So where do we draw the line? Do we go back and say those people that already have the ramp placed in there don’t deserve one, or do we say, you know, what’s one more? It’s not changing anything. The people that have their ramps there already are going to keep them, and I think this applicant has gone to the trouble and time to put a plan together that we can look at, that everybody can look at, the Planning Board as well as the Zoning Board. I think, in my mind, they’ve satisfied a lot of questions I had, particularly about how it’s going to change the character of the neighborhood, and we see the neighborhood is not really going to be changed very much. It already exists. These structures already exist there. So I’m going to be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Urrico and the applicant both spoke of precedent. In the time I’ve been here, this Board has never approved a land bridge, in the entire time I’ve been here. As a matter of fact, this Board filed an Article 78 action and prevailed on a property that incorporated a land bridge. I wouldn’t be in favor of this, but I also have to say that the applicant has shown examples of where land bridges have been installed, and I think Staff should make every effort to get out and investigate where these land bridges have been installed without the proper approvals. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Rick. John? MR. KOSKINAS-I was originally against this proposed site plan the first time it was presented to this Board, and if I understood the points of your presentation this evening, and I’ll condense what I heard you say, that zoning doesn’t apply if you’re in a cove, the Chairman of the Board might have a noncompliant land bridge, existing land bridge structures negate the applicability of waterfront zoning regulations, others have land bridges or ramps so we should have one, too, offering alternatives or schemes, as you called them that you do not feel are at all feasible, and I’m quoting you, are not by definition good faith alternatives. When grade elevations are severe, sometimes ramps are correct, in my view. Proposing a very substantial structure and a permanent change to the waterfront in Harris Bay, is in direct conflict with the zoning statutes is something I could not support. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. CLEMENTS-I think I’m going to have to side with Mr. Urrico on this. I see that they have made significant changes, shortened the ramp, talked about plantings, blending the rail so that it blends into the environment, putting up a retaining wall to shorten the ramp and doing plantings 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) around those. So it looked, in my mind, it’s environmentally looks like it would be not an undesirable change for the neighborhood. So I’m going to side with Roy, I think, and be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Brian. My opinion on this is that I am not in favor of adding any of the fill within 50 feet of the shoreline. I also feel that I would be in favor of the applicant using a lift. I don’t necessarily believe that we have to get down to the dock with such a complicated path, earthen pathway. So I’m not in favor of this very long ramp and I do agree with some of the fellow Board members that many of these land bridges were constructed to deal with topography issues to get to those sundecks. So I’m not in favor of this proposed application. MS. BITTER-Mr. Chairman, I was just going to correct some of the things that were mentioned during the discussions. I just want to re-state that the APA did provide a non-jurisdictional determination for this exact proposal, just recently, a few months ago, because I know that that was brought up by Mr. Underwood, and again, that, you know, we’re requesting this for the purposes of providing a disabled person a reasonable accommodation to the structure. I know that we’re looking at precedent and we’re worried about, you know, who’s going to come in next because we’re in an aging population. However, as this Board knows, some of the requests that are before you are, you know, we need an additional shed on our property because we need additional materials to be stored, you know, we need an additional garage, these things. I mean, these aren’t access issues. What we’re seeking tonight is an access issue for someone who has lakefront property and would like to enjoy the lake to the further benefit of her and her family, and I just want to distinguish that for you because of this concern of this precedent, and the fact that we had never seen a ramp before. Obviously we’ve presented conditions as to why the ramp is necessary, not to mention the fact that, yes, we might not have the topography of another person relative to the ramp, but we have topography that represents something that our client can’t access. So it presents a similar situation to someone who has the topography that you’re citing to. MR. LOYOLA-And if you have a steep slope going down to the waterfront, which prevents you from getting stairs in to access your ramp, that’s an access issue, the same way this is an access issue. In our mind, the precedent has been set already, perhaps not recently, perhaps not recently approved, but because you have the variance process, you have the ability to review each one of these individually and provide approval or disapproval based on each individual ramp that could possibly come before you in the future. MR. JACKOSKI-And I’m sure you can appreciate we fully have looked at this project, as counsel has suggested, many times. So we have individually reviewed this particular project. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think, you know, as the Chairman it’s up to you, but it’s not a debate club. MR. JACKOSKI-We polled our Board. We’re generally aware of where the Board sits, and this is the opportunity for the applicant to decide if they would like us to provide a motion, or if they would like to listen to what the Board has actually said. MR. LOYOLA-Well, we’re trying to understand, first of all, where in your Code is there a land bridge definition? Is there a land bridge definition? What is the definition of what you constitute as a land bridge? Can we get a definition on land bridge? MR. BROWN-There isn’t a definition in the Code, and I’m just curious? MR. LOYOLA-I’m just trying to get a definition of, you’ve never approved land bridges before. MR. JACKOSKI-No, I don’t believe Mr. Garrand said, while he’s been on the Board, he hasn’t been involved in approving a land bridge. MR. LOYOLA-Okay, and the definition of a land bridge is a ramp? MR. UNDERWOOD-We don’t have one. MR. LOYOLA-Okay. So there’s no definition of a land bridge, but it’s been thrown around at both Boards. I’m just wondering, again, I’m just trying to be clear on the definition. MR. GARRAND-If you want the particulars, we’ve never approved a ramp between a deck and the ground, between the upper deck of a boathouse and the ground, since I’ve been on this Board. MR. JACKOSKI-And I agree with fellow Board member Underwood that, you know, it’s, I think this is the fourth or the third time that you’ve been in front of us. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) MS. BITTER-Depends on which one we’re talking about. MR. JACKOSKI-I think that there are concerns and there have been concerns by both Boards. MR. LOYOLA-And is it in an aesthetic, visual, compatibility, character concern? Is that what’s? MRS. HUNT-I’ll tell you what my concern is. MR. LOYOLA-Yes, what’s the basis of it? MRS. HUNT-Is that you’re going to have a ramp that’s higher than this floor to this ceiling off the ground, when it really isn’t necessary. That’s what bothers me. MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s nothing in the Code that allows for ramps presently, and if you wanted to go to the Town Board and pursue that with the Town Board, I think the Town Board could draft a law to include this, if that was your prerogative to do that, but I don’t think that it’s incumbent upon the Board to make any decision going forward. We don’t have any allowance for it, for any reason. MS. BITTER-And that’s why I was making the distinguishing characteristic that we’re not seeking both a ramp and a stairs. All of you know that when a sundeck is before you, stairs accompanying that second sundeck go with it. So it’s that we want to be able to access the sundeck just as everybody else that comes before you for a sundeck. Unfortunately it’s by a different method. MR. JACKOSKI-And you’ve made your case. I mean, we’ve heard the argument, and I think the Board has provided you with their individual comments concerning this. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Well, I think we would need to table it, then. I mean, we’re going to see what we can do to put our heads together and see what we can come up with as far as an alternative that would be acceptable. Obviously, you know, we feel there’s a civil right here, quite frankly, to be able to access the top of that. I mean, she can build it now. The deck has been approved. The stairs, as long as it’s under 100 square feet, can be built today. So that’s, it’s not like we’re, you know, this Board can stop that process from going on. It’s just, it’s the accessibility issue, and having the right to access the top of that, which has been approved to be built, to us, that’s the issue. So, I mean, we’ll come back and we’ll do what we can to mitigate. MR. JACKOSKI-I think Staff does have a comment. MR. BROWN-Yes. Just a question on the process of this. I’m sure the applicant and the Board is sensitive of each other’s time here. So I would just have a question. Do you anticipate any future revisions to this particular application to include anything that’s similar to a ramp or a land bridge, and if so, it doesn’t sound like the Board would be willing to consider anything like that. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and I was going to go a little further and maybe try to offer some suggestions or guidance from this Board as to what they might feel is appropriate. I think I’ve said from the get go I still think the lift scenario is the least of an impact, and I think it can be easily camouflaged. I mean, I’ve driven around the lake and I’ve looked through these docks, and by the time you look through the skis and you look through the tubes and you look through the furniture, you don’t even see the structure. Now, this gondola-esque elevator structure that you’ve shown us seems a big extreme, and I don’t know that that’s an absolutely necessary structure to that degree, but I had been in favor of trying to establish the lift structure and camouflaging it within and that back side of that lakeshore side of the dock structure. MR. BROWN-Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just had a couple of other things, procedurally. I would just caution you and the Board, it’s not really, you know, it’s not incumbent upon you to design this for them. Certainly you can give them your feedback on the current plan that’s in front of you, but what you have now is an application for an over 100 square foot ramp within 50 feet of the shoreline. So you have a straw poll, basically. You can do one of two things, I guess. If the applicant wants to request a further tabling, you can consider that, or you can make a motion to act on the application that’s in front of you. MR. JACKOSKI-That’s fine. We just, that’s fine, and I think what I heard the applicant suggest was that they’d like us to table this. MS. BITTER-That’s correct. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) MR. BROWN-And I was just trying to get to the bottom of, if it’s going to be another ramp that comes back, are we going to do this again in a couple of months and not make any progress? I’m sure both sides of the table here want to make some progress, and if it’s back to the same discussion, it just looks a little different, I don’t really see that as progress, but I’m just putting that out there. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Well, and I guess my question is, with regard to the suggestion that possibly a lift, I mean, can I get other feedback from the rest of the Board? I mean, if we were to provide a lift, is that more of a compatible scenario? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, Number One, you’re going to have to go to the Planning Board and get their recommendation. They’re going to make a recommendation to us, and you can propose anything. MR. SPRINGNETHER-Right, but I’m just saying in general. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think that you’ve significantly proposed all the possible alternatives to us at one point or another, in our series of meetings that we’ve conducted so far, and I think it’s up to you to listen to the Board and what they’re saying, you know, and what I’m hearing tonight are ramps are out. You’re not going to garner enough votes for the ramp, and as I suggested to you, I think your alternative would be to go to the Town Board and present your application to the Town Board, and ask for a change in the Code, if you really want to pursue this. I don’t think you should place it on our shoulders, because as it stands now, if you proposed a ramp to us, we can’t even consider it because we don’t allow ramps for any reason. MR. KOSKINAS-Mr. Chairman. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, John. MR. KOSKINAS-I feel like I’d like to propose a motion to deny Area Variance 45-2010, and take the subject of ramp structure to access that boathouse and get a vote, yes or no. My motion would be to deny the variance. MS. BITTER-And we would request that it be tabled. MR. KOSKINAS-Because asking recommendations from us as to how you should build it, we’d have to see that another time. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So my fellow Board members have made is fairly clear that they would prefer that, if you are going to ask to table it, then I won’t entertain a motion because procedurally you’ve asked to have it tabled. Given that, and what I’m hearing from fellow Board members is that they would prefer that the record speak for itself, that you’ve heard their comments and the polling of the Board members concerning land bridges and ramps, and Staff has one more comment. MR. BROWN-Yes. If the proposal that comes back doesn’t include a ramp, and it sounds like you don’t want to see another ramp, they may not need a variance. MR. JACKOSKI-And we understand that. MR. BROWN-So there may be, you know, to decide on the ramp, and if, you know, a motion is offered and passes to deny the ramp, and they come back with another proposal that’s a lift, they may not even have to come back to this Board. MR. URRICO-Technically speaking, we’re not denying the ramp. We’re denying the accessory structure. MR. JACKOSKI-But denying the accessory structure, that’s correct. Again, I think in fairness to the applicant, they have asked us to table this motion. So I think we are going to table this motion, and when would we like to table it to? Do we have room in September? MR. UNDERWOOD-You’d have to make submittals. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think you’d probably want to look for an October date, with a September submittal. th MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Could October 26 work? Okay. Could I have a motion, please, from someone? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES/ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th 38 Gunn Lane. We’d table it until the October 26 meeting, with submittals in September. th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Koskinas MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. LOYOLA-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 53-2011 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE, INC. AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, BPSR/BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) FRANK PARILLO ZONING CI LOCATION 199 & 203 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE PLACEMENT OF 4 WALL SIGNS AND 1 FREESTANDING SIGN ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TACO BELL RESTAURANT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS AND SIZE AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FREESTANDING SIGN. CROSS REF SP 54-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 10, 2011 LOT SIZE 4.62 AND 0.31 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-2, 3 SECTION CHAPTER 140 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I should note that we have been asked to table this application, but we do have a public hearing scheduled, and so. MR. URRICO-And there was another note saying that they may show up, and forget the tabling motion. MR. JACKOSKI-And she’s here. Okay. That’s fine. MS. BITTER-Yes, it was distinguished that the Planning Board was tabled last night, not the Sign Variance that was scheduled tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 53-2011, Hospitality Syracuse, Inc., Meeting Date: August 24, 2011 “Project Location: 199 & 203 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the placement of 4 wall signs and 1 freestanding sign associated with the construction of a Taco Bell restaurant on Corinth Road adjacent to the Motel Eight. Relief Required: Relief requested from maximum allowable wall signs and size and height requirements for the freestanding sign in the CLI District. Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1.Wall Signs – Request for three (3) additional wall signs from the one (1) allowable as per Chapter 140. 2.Freestanding Sign – Request for three (3) feet of height relief from the 20 foot maximum height requirement for the 23 foot freestanding sign as per Chapter 140. 3.Freestanding Sign – Request for four (4) square feet of size relief from the 45 foot maximum allowable square footage requirement for the 49 square foot freestanding sign as per Chapter 140. Criteria for considering an Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) 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. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to comply with the requirements of Chapter 140. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for three (3) additional wall signs or 300% relief from the one (1) allowable wall sign may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for three (3) feet or 15% of height relief from the 20 foot maximum height requirement for the 23 foot freestanding sign may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for four (4) square feet or 8% of size relief from the 45 foot maximum allowable square footage requirement for the 49 square foot freestanding sign 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 on the physical or environmental conditions of the district may be expected. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 54-2011 2,800 Square Foot Taco Bell Pending Staff comments: Clarification to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the potential of additional signage should be forth coming at this point. Staff notes the presence of signage in the form of two (2) “Painted Panels” as denoted on Page 4, Appurtenances Schedule Number 6. Relief has not been request by the applicant at this time. SEQR Status: Type – Unlisted, Short Form attached.” MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and if you could identify yourselves for the record, please. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter here on behalf of the applicant, together with Jim Gallepsie from Bohler Engineering. As was discussed, we’re seeking sign variances for proposed Taco Bell’s 2800 square foot restaurant which would be located on Corinth Road. Specifically, I’m going to let Jim go through the elevation drawings and the signage, but we’re seeking one freestanding sign which would be 23 feet in height, 49 square feet in size, two wall signs facing Corinth Road, which would be one being the Bell and the other being the Taco Bell wordage, which together would be 30 square feet in size, and two wall signs, again, facing Big Bay, which would be the same, one bell and the other being the Taco Bell wording, again being 30 square feet in size. We’re seeking a height and size variance for the freestanding sign and the number of signs for the wall sign. The freestanding sign that we are proposing is similar to the other freestanding signs that exist in that corridor, specifically McDonalds, Super 8 and Stewarts, which we’ll demonstrate the pictures of. The number of wall signs, although Staff doesn’t consider this to be a corner lot, there is access on Big Bay Road from this parcel that’s owned by Frank Parillo. It’s approximately seven acres in size. The portion that’s going to be the Taco Bell is a little over an acre, and obviously the remaining area of the parcel will be developed commercially. We’re hoping that there’ll be a great deal of internal circulation once the rest of it is developed, and that’s the reasoning for those side signs on Big Bay. The signage that we’re proposing is similar to the Taco Bell that exists on Glen Street, with the bell and the Taco Bell being separate signs. In addition, although we’re seeking a number of signs, as recognized by Staff, the total square footage of signage that we would be allowed on this parcel is 145, and the total square footage of signage that we’re proposing in this package is 109 square feet, so we’re considerably under. So, I’ll turn it over to Jim. JIM GALLEPSIE MR. GALLEPSIE-Yes, I just wanted to, I’ll start with, just to give you a look at the survey and the total property. Corinth Road, obviously I-87 is over here. This is the Super 8 Motel. McDonalds is across the street. The total property is 4.9 acres. Taco Bell is looking for a little over an acre. This parcel on this portion of the lot next to the Super 8. So there is access to Big Bay. There’s 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) a possibility, a good possibility of this being further developed in the future. So, one of the main reasons that they’re looking for this additional signage is, you know, when this does get further developed, they’d like some internal recognition in this plaza, and they’re also looking to just be comparable to the surrounding businesses, specifically McDonalds. One of the important things to consider here is, you know, looking at the aerial, this being the Northway, McDonalds, Super 8, and this is the proposed location of the Taco Bell. This is, you know, from the corporate standpoint, from Taco Bell’s standpoint, this is sort of a B lot. They’re, you know, obviously looking to compete with McDonalds. This would be an A lot, obviously very much more visible. So these two would certainly be primary lots. So they’re coming into this deal kind of a step below McDonalds, and they’re really just asking to have, to be on the same playing field, as far as signage, knowing that they’re a little bit behind the game. So the freestanding sign they’re requesting is 49 square feet, 23 feet high, which is identical to McDonalds. I’ve got a picture of that. This is a seven by seven sign, 49 square feet, 23 feet high. They’re asking for the same one. Super 8 obviously is much larger, but they’re not a competitor, but just to give you an idea of the surrounding signs, Stewarts, very large sign, two, you know, they’ve got a canopy sign. They’ve got a building sign, and a large freestanding sign. McDonalds actually has six M’s on their building. So certainly we would consider those M’s signage in today’s day and age. So we’re really looking for four signs, and it’s somewhat of a stretch even, you know, looking at the elevations. Certainly if the bell and the logo were together you could consider that one sign, but I think it looks much better the way they’re proposing it. Obviously this is, you know, intended to be a bell, and a bell tower, so the fact that these are separated from each other, it’s considered two separate signs, but I think they’re pretty, they’re not really asking for much here. These are each combined these are 30 square feet. So the total wall signage is only 60 square feet. Where one sign you could have up to 100 square feet for just one sign. So it’s not a huge request, and certainly the relief from the freestanding sign is not a huge request. They’re just looking to be compatible with McDonalds, and equal to them. So that’s basically it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions from Board members? MR. UNDERWOOD-The Taco Bell on Route 9, how does that compare? Do you want to give us a comparison with the one that we have on Route 9? MR. GALLEPSIE-Yes. It’s identical. They’ve got signage, the same configuration, basically. Both sides, the bell and the Taco Bell. MR. GARRAND-These are the pictures from Route 9 in our packet? MR. GALLEPSIE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional questions from Board members? Hearing none, I’m going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who’d like to address the Board regarding this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment, Roy? MR. URRICO-No, none, other than the Warren County Planning Board, which reviewed it and they had No County Impact as a recommendation. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. At this point, does the Board feel comfortable moving forward with SEQRA? I’m seeing no one object to moving forward with SEQRA. So would someone like to lead that process? HAVING CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SEQRA REGULATIONS IN THE DISTRICT IN REGARDS TO THIS REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE NO. 53-2011 HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE, INC., THAT WE CAN NEGATIVE DEC IT, THAT WE HAVE NO CONCERNS WITH THESE SIGNS, BECAUSE IT WILL BE SIMILAR TO OTHER TACO BELLS THAT EXIST ALREADY IN TOWN HERE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-I guess at this point we should close the public hearing, correct? I don’t think I did that, yet. MR. GARRAND-Are we going to table this, as per the Staff Notes? MR. JACKOSKI-No, that was for the Planning Board, apparently. MS. BITTER-That was because of the traffic report. Planning will see it next. MR. JACKOSKI-So would anyone like to put forth a motion? Joyce? Thank you. MR. KOSKINAS-Could I ask a question first? MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead. MR. KOSKINAS-Personally I have no problem with the number of signs you’re asking. I think that everyone knows what Taco Bell looks like and I think the signage is appropriate, but this is adjacent to the new Main Street corridor, and the signage zoning in the Town of Queensbury has been slow evolving, but they’ve made some headway this past year with the new zoning regulations, and I’m a little uncomfortable when we just, out of hand, want to forgo the height and area. Is there any way in your standard signage that you could conform with the height and the, you know, it’s only four feet relief that you’re looking for, but is there any way that your standard sign package could conform for height and area and the freestanding sign? Because that would really be a lot more comfortable for us today and going forward, particularly in this corridor on Main Street which is trying to get a fresh start over there, and you’re right abutting that avenue, and I understand about competition, but. MR. GALLEPSIE-That’s the name of the game, unfortunately. They’ve looked at a lot, you know, considering that they’re going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into this property. They know that McDonalds has a leg up on them, having such great visibility from 87. So the only way they, I mean, they’ve given us pretty strict marching orders that, you know, for this deal it’ll work. This is the bare bones sign package that we can even consider. We have to at least be on the same playing field as McDonalds, and the only, that freestanding sign is the only sign that’s visible from the Northway. MR. GARRAND-But you can’t stop on the Northway. So it has no effect on business. MR. GALLEPSIE-But to them it does. I mean, to them, that’s critical. MR. GARRAND-You have to cross into another county and then double back to go back to a Taco Bell. So that’s pretty impractical. MR. GALLEPSIE-Well, that visibility to the Northway is critical to them. That’s all I can tell you. To be on the same playing field as McDonalds is critical, the same height. MR. GARRAND-Yes, but McDonalds is close enough in proximity to the Northway, and their sign is close enough, whereas people can see that sign from a distance, slow down and pull over just because they see that sign. Taco Bell is not going to be in enough proximity. It’s two different circumstances there. MS. BITTER-Well, you also aren’t taking into consideration a lot of those commuters, people that live around here. So it’s not necessarily that one person that’s going from Lake George to New Jersey. It’s that person that keeps going back and forth and is like, look at that, there’s a Taco Bell over there. I had no idea that that was there. So the visibility from the Northway does play a role in the customers coming in. MR. KOSKINAS-Well, specific to my question, because we’re supposed to grant the minimum relief that’ll get the job for you, and as I said, I have no reservations about the Taco Bell and the bells on both sides of the building. That makes perfect sense. Is there anything in your standard sign package that’ll allow you to conform to the zoning regulation for height and area? Are those signs available? Is it possible? MR. GALLESPIE-Well, you’d have to make the sign. MR. KOSKINAS-So is this a standard? I mean, height I can see we can ask you to conform to the height, without a problem. MR. GALLEPSIE-That is the standard, prototypical, that is one of their prototypical signs. Yes. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) MR. URRICO-But in various communities you have different standards, right? And certain communities are stricter than Queensbury is. MS. BITTER-And in those communities McDonalds has the same signage. MR. URRICO-You would have to present a different sized sign to those communities, right? MR. GALLEPSIE-Again, right. Her point is that, you know, in those communities, McDonalds would have the same signs. MR. URRICO-But again, this pre-dates the sign variance. We have new regulations now, and we can’t go back and fix McDonalds, but we can control this one here. MS. BITTER-And unfortunately I think what Jim had mentioned is that we’re dealing with a, for Taco Bell’s consideration, what’s considered to be a B lot. So we’re trying to encourage them to come to the site, as is the whole corridor there. That Main Street, obviously we’ve invested a great deal of money in Main Street. We’re looking for as much commercial as can be, from all these municipal expenditures that have been provided. MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, do we still have all those signs on the Northway that direct, before the exit ramps, don’t they put up all the signs of all the vendors? MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean, we don’t. It’s a State, the thruway authority would do that, yes. The blue signs that tell about lodging and food, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So your sign is going to be on there, too, I assume. MS. BITTER-I’m not sure if that always happens, though. Because you have to take a poll to find out how many. MR. URRICO-What kind of a relationship do you have with Super 8? Is there a symbiotic relationship there with them? MS. BITTER-I don’t believe so. MR. URRICO-Not to the point where you can share the sign? MR. GALLESPIE-No. MR. URRICO-It’s pretty visible. MR. JACKOSKI-Listening to the comments of the Board, I think I’m going to poll the Board on the three areas associated with this variance. The request for the three signs, the three feet in height, and the four square feet of square footage. So why don’t I start with Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. I don’t have a problem with the wall signs, the additional signs. I look at that as one sign anyway, the bell and the lettering. For the freestanding sign, I think that three feet of height relief could come down to the 20 foot requirement. As far as the size of the sign, to have to make one yourself, I wouldn’t, you know, try to make you do that. I would say that the size would be okay for the freestanding sign, but I’d like to see it, the footage come down to 20 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Brian. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in agreement with that. I would like to see the height come down. I’m not sure that we really need 23 feet of sign there. I’m also a little concerned about the four feet of side relief from the 45 foot maximum on the freestanding sign as well. So I think we need some scale back on this. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. John? MR. KOSKINAS-I also would support the three additional wall signs, but I would prefer to see any motion for approval not include relief for height or square foot. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I would agree with my fellow Board members that the height could come down to 20 feet. I have no problem with the three wall signs or the 45 foot maximum. I think four feet is a very small difference. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I have some concerns about going from 49 to 45 feet, especially with the design issues that may be involved, given their logos and their signage. I’m not sure, maybe you can answer that for me. What would involve, taking that from 49 to 45? I mean, would that significantly alter the design of this sign and its layout? MR. GALLEPSIE-I can’t answer that. I don’t know. MR. KOSKINAS-The sign company’s computer will spit that out in eight seconds. They scale it down and print it out. MR. GARRAND-Okay. I did not know that. I think they can definitely come down the three feet and I think it would look a lot better, especially given you’re going to go up the road a few feet and you’re going to see a Stewarts sign that’s nowhere near 23 feet. So I’d be in favor of the additional wall signs, given that this is dropped down three feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree with everybody else. I think we just had the issue on the other side of the Northway, just a meeting or two ago, where we had a sign put up that was over height and we made them bring that sign into compliance. So we may as well keep the corridor flat for everybody. So when McDonalds comes in for their new sign some day, they’re going to have to probably make their sign be compliant also. I would imagine. MR. BROWN-Yes, well, just as part of the revisions to the Sign Code that Mr. Koskinas mentioned there, there’s a provision here that talks about current nonconforming signs. If there’s a sign that went in under the requirements, say the requirement used to be 50 square feet, if a 49 square foot sign went in, it was compliant at the time, didn’t need a variance. Within five years of the adoption of this Code, all those signs that are technically now nonconforming have to come into compliance. So the McDonalds sign at 49 square feet, by Code, in five years, has to be 45 square feet. MR. GARRAND-So you’ll be taking this one down anyway. MR. BROWN-So just something else to think about. MR. JACKOSKI-Unless they get a variance. MR. BROWN-Right, unless there’s a variance. MR. JACKOSKI-So I was okay with all three parameters, but I don’t think it matters anymore. MS. BITTER-Well, we’re going to request a tabling, Mr. Chairman, so that we can go back to our client and provide the concerns that were represented this evening, and see if they’re willing to concede the freestanding sign, since that appeared to be what most of the Board members were concerned with. The wall signs it appears that everybody were okay with as the number. So we will discuss that with them and see how they feel. MR. URRICO-Can I ask an additional question? On the access to Big Boom, is there going to be a directional sign there of some sort that says? MS. BITTER-Big Bay? MR. URRICO-Big Bay. I’m sorry. MR. GALLEPSIE-There’s not one proposed at this time. MR. URRICO-There’s going to be a driveway there but no? MR. GALLEPSIE-There won’t be a driveway. MS. BITTER-The driveway’s not going to be, right, not until the rest of it is developed. MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s one question I had, I forgot to bring it up, too. Has this property been subdivided, or is it in the process of being subdivided? MR. BROWN-No, it’s a land lease, I think. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. BROWN-Yes, so it’s all going to be one ownership. They’re just going to lease it. MR. URRICO-So there’s not going to be any access to Big Bay at this time? MR. GALLEPSIE-No, what I meant is the actual property line has frontage on Big Bay. MR. URRICO-But you’re not going to have access to it from there. MR. GALLESPIE-Not at this time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Probably anything else that would be proposed there would have to be interconnected anyway by the design code anyway. MR. JACKOSKI-So, given where we are, should we have not closed the public hearing? I think we’re going to have it left open, right? Okay. So would anyone like to put forth a tabling motion? MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll do it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 53-2011 HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE, INC., Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Koskinas: th 199 & 203 Corinth Road. Tabled until September 28, 2011, for submittal by September 9. th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: stth MR. BROWN-If you pick a September date, they are 21 and 28, and ideally we’d get a relatively quick turnaround time from the applicant for information so we can process and get it back to you. MS. BITTER-Yes, that would be ideal, please. th MR. JACKOSKI-So the 28. th MR. CLEMENTS-Until 28. th MR. BROWN-Say by a September 9 submittal, which is a couple of weeks. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is that okay? MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Great. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. GALLEPSIE-Thank you. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2011 SEQRA TYPE N/A JOHN SALVADOR, JR. OWNER(S) SUSAN CLERMONT ZONING WR LOCATION OLD ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING CHAPTER 179, ZONING ORDINANCE, ARTICLE 5 – SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 179-5-020 B3, “NO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MAY BE ERECTED WITHOUT A PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE AND/OR USE”. CROSS REF AV 20-2011; SP 28-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-13 SECTION 179-5-020 B3 JOHN SALVADOR, PRESENT 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) MR. SALVADOR-Point of order, Mr. Chairman. After appearing at your June session on the thth 29, and filing, in less than 60 days later, a Notice of Appeal on July 26, I received a communication from the Zoning Administrator notifying me of the time and place as to when and where my administrative appeal was to be heard. In that communication of August 3, 2011, the Zoning Administrator advised me of the Board’s format which, quote, allows me to make a brief presentation outlining the key elements of the project or the requested approval. Further that this Board, quote, will conduct a public hearing where members of the public are invited to provide comments on the merits of the appeal and finally, quote, this is your opportunity to dialogue with the ZBA regarding your appeal. Instead, the Zoning Administrator has pre-empted this Board’s stated hearing process with the issuance of his so called Staff comments which you have received, you all have received last week. The timing of Staff comments was meant to create an unreasonable bias against my Appeal and for that reason should be set aside until such time as I have been allowed the opportunity to dialogue with this Board concerning the merits of my Appeal. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. At this time, if you wouldn’t mind, I would like to have Roy read into the record your Appeal Notice, if that’s acceptable. Thank you. MR. URRICO-The request by Mr. Salvador is regarding Chapter 179, Zoning Ordinances, Article 5, Supplemental Regulations, Section 179-5-020 B3 No accessory structure may be erected without a principle structure and/or use. Okay, and these are the Staff Notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 2-2011, John Salvador, Jr., Meeting Date: August 24, 2011 “Project Location: Old Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Appellant has filed an appeal application which references section 179-5-020, B, 3 – “No accessory structure may be erected without a principle structure and/or use.” Staff comments: Standing: Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing party aggrieved? ? The application was signed and filed with the Town on July 18, 2011. ? The appellant has not demonstrated that he is the property owner, immediate neighbor or a party of interest in the subject property. As the appeal paperwork does not reference, as required, a specific Zoning Administrator decision from which he is appealing it appears as though the filed paperwork is untimely and unfounded. The only date referenced in the appeal paperwork is a June 29, 2011 Zoning Board meeting to which a reference to the public hearing is made. An appeal of an action or decision rendered by the Zoning Board of Appeals is not appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Note: The decision made by the Zoning Administrator on this property was issued on March 11, 2011 which is well over the allowable 60 day timeframe for appeals. Further, the appellant is not a property owner of the parcel in question, nor is he an immediate neighbor or even a property owner within an arguable “zone of influence.” Merely being subject to the same code as the owner of the property of interest does not create standing. There does not appear to be adequate standing for this appeal to move forward. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. So, Mr. Salvador, we have read into the record the application, have noted Staff comments. I have consulted with legal counsel and I would like to address the th timing issue of the 60 day notice concerning the date of March 11, which was the date that the Zoning Administrator made his decision concerning this property. I do believe it is correct to th state that the Appeal application was dated July 18? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And I do believe that the Zoning Administrator’s decision on the property was th March 11? MR. SALVADOR-I’m not aware of that. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, sir, well, you haven’t presented anything else to the contrary. So from what I have from Staff Notes and what I have in my paperwork, those are the dates that I’m going by. So we do have a public hearing published this evening. I’d like to give you some reasonable time to make your argument for us, but I have to tell you, unless I’m understanding something different from your presentation, we do have an untimely filing of a Notice of Appeal. th MR. SALVADOR-Okay. This Appeal arises out of Mr. Oborne’s June 29 answer to Mr. Jackoski’s question concerning the Zoning Ordinance requirement that principle use or structure precede accessory use or structure. Quote, there has not been any determination made by the Zoning Administrator that would preclude the application from being part of any agenda. The application before the Board for Area Variance 20-2011, if you will recall, was for side setback for both the dock and the deck as well as the shoreline relief for the deck. Pursuant to Town Code Chapter 179, neither a deck nor a dock can qualify as a principle use or structure in a Waterfront Residential Two acre zone. It is for this reason that a dock and a deck are treated as accessory uses or structures. The Town Zoning Code, Chapter 179 Section 179-5-020 B3 states unequivocally no accessory structure may be erected without a principle structure and/or th use. Mr. Oborne’s June 29 response to Mr. Jackoski that there has not been any determination made by the Zoning Administrator with respect to the applicability of Section 179-5-020 B3 amounts to an admission that the Zoning Administrator has failed to enforce the Zoning Administrator as is his duty. We had, no one had any idea that he had made any decision until th we heard this at the June 29 meeting. We were not aware of any decision or lack of decision th on the part of the Zoning Administrator. We heard that on the 29. That was the first notice that we heard. Area Variances have recently been approved for what was a pre-existing, nonconforming dock and a deck which was being modified without a building permit. These Area Variances have no validity without a companion use variance to address the issue of accessory structures being allowed before a principle structure is in place. A site plan approval is not a substitute for a use variance, and we are doing that repeatedly. With regard to the standing, the Staff comments continue to use the criteria for standing as established by the judicial branch of our State government and with that of the executive branch. This is an administrative appeal, not a judicial appeal. You’ll recall I read to you a statement from a publication put out by the State of New York, local government technical series, in which they talk about the Zoning Administrator and in this I read to you the basic powers of the ZBA fall into two areas, original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. We are here tonight in your role as the appellate jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction allows an aggrieved party to bring an appeal of a decision of the Zoning Administrator to the ZBA for review. Aggrieved parties may include the recipient of an enforcement action, an unsuccessful permit applicant or a third party. I am the third party, and there are no restrictions on who a third party might be, where he lives, what he does, no restrictions, a third party has standing. I am familiar with the judicial requirements for standing in an Article 78 proceeding before the State Supreme Court. These are all these standards that have been quoted in Staff Notes. They apply, in an Article 78 proceeding, if you are before the State Supreme Court. I am before you as an administrative tribunal, not the Supreme Court, and I have standing. With regard to the timeliness, I mentioned the fact that we heard about this at that late, what was it, June, July meeting. This issue came up with, if you recall, the Schermerhorn property. That was an issue about the timeliness of the appeal, and it was recognized by the Zoning Board at that time that when the appellants were first on constructive notice of the decision, that’s when the 60 day period started, and we were on constructive notice when Mr. Oborne made that statement that the Zoning Administrator had not made any decisions, and it is his duty to make a decision. One other, and also, I mean, think of, there’s a reason why this is in the Code, that no accessory structure may be erected without a principle structure and/or use. Somebody buys a vacant piece of land up on Lake George, okay, and begins to build boat docks. Pretty soon he’s got a marina. That’s what we don’t want. We don’t want that, but that’s what can happen if you allow an accessory use before the principle use. So that’s the reason that’s in the Code. I know where that comes from. So that it’s residential zoning and the primary use has to be put in place first. Any questions? MR. JACKOSKI-If you wouldn’t mind, I do want to just read from Town law the specifics concerning an appeal taken within 60 days after filing by administrative enforcement official. An appeal shall be taken within 60 days after the filing of any order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination of the administrative official. By filing with such administrative official and with the Board of Appeals a Notice of Appeal specifying the grounds thereof and the relief sought. The administrative official from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the Board of Appeals all the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. MR. SALVADOR-May I address that? MR. JACKOSKI-Actually I’d like to finish if I could. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-I do want to look at the application itself. I do not see on this application the specifics of what was being appealed, the date of the decision that was being appealed and therefore I continue to recommend that under guidance by counsel we have an untimely filing of an application for an appeal. I don’t think, at this point, merit of the appeal itself needs to be brought forward because we have a timing issue. MR. SALVADOR-May I address your comments? MR. JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. SALVADOR-You read from Town law, and I understand what Town law says, but that isn’t what our Zoning Code says. The Zoning Code says that I must file that appeal on a form supplied by this Board, and that’s the form that’s available, and I understand that that form is not designed to address what I am doing here tonight. I understand that, and that’s why it’s not complete. MR. JACKOSKI-Sir, I do see Item Eight on this form and it specifically says please attach additional documents, letters, maps that may support this application for an appeal, which gives you the opportunity to put anything and everything in there that you want and not. MR. SALVADOR-I did. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, I believe we have an untimely filing here. I do not see a Zoning th Administrator’s determination, other than on June 29, that thus would have required. th MR. SALVADOR-Yes, we were on constructive notice on June 29 that the Zoning Administrator had failed to make a determination. This point was never considered. MR. KOSKINAS-Mr. Chairman, if I could. New York law has upheld the fact that, the date’s notwithstanding, that the 60 days actually runs from when the person reasonably had the opportunity to know, and that has actually extended to months, in cases that have stood the test of New York State appellate law. So, the issue is Mr. Salvador wants to be heard, and I don’t see any problem hearing him. I don’t know what remedy you’re seeking, sir, and I’d like to hear you, in a sentence, say what it is. MR. JACKOSKI-And again, I think I need to poll this Board. We have a timely filing of the Appeal. We know the 60 day clock. I will ask fellow Board members what their opinion is on continuing with the merits, which would then require us to get into standing, and then into additional merits, and what you would like to do to move forward. It is my recommendation, based on counsel, that we have an untimely filing of a Notice of Appeal, and I haven’t yet heard anything that I understand to change that time line. Would anyone like to speak first? MR. CLEMENTS-I agree with that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Brian. John, I think I know what you have just spoken. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I’d like to hear from Craig. At what point did your office respond to Mr. Salvador’s request? MR. BROWN-He didn’t provide any request to my office. He filed an appeal to this Board for an interpretation or to appeal some phantom decision, I guess, that I had made, or lack of decision that I had made. MR. JACKOSKI-The absence of a decision does not constitute standing. MR. BROWN-That’s correct, an omission is not an appealable thing. My position is the time line is the March date that the letter was written and published. It’s filed in my office. There’s certainly a reasonable time for the applicant to learn of that. Everything is public record. I realize the logistics of coming and seeking to review each letter that I publish, it may not be feasible, but they’re certainly public documents. The notice for the variance that was held by the Zoning Board was certainly plenty of reasonable notice for the applicant to challenge this decision. So, I agree, I think it’s just too late. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, Rick, do you want, based on that discussion from Staff, do you have an opinion on moving forward with an untimely? MR. GARRAND-According to what Staff has provided, the information he provided, it doesn’t mean he has standing. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Before we get into the standing issue, do you have an opinion on whether or not this is an untimely notice of appeal? MR. GARRAND-Yes, it seems untimely. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in agreement with John. I see no harm in listening to what he would argue because I think he did attach the fact that, he has attached the June 29, 2011 ZBA meeting minutes here that he printed out, and I think that’s the basis of your argument you’re trying to make, and I think, based upon that, there was no determination on your part, obviously, because you weren’t even privy to that meeting, but I think he was taking notice with something that Mr. Oborne said, who’s the representative of the Zoning Administrator. I don’t know if that would apply at this point or not. I think the subject came up afterwards, and I think that, you know, if there’s some point of information about the accessory structures that you have on the appeal, I think we’re all privy to the information about accessory structures because we’ve dealt with them on numerous occasions, but if it’s something short that you want to inform us of, I assume that it’s for informative purposes. MR. SALVADOR-Repeat the question please. MR. JACKOSKI-I think he already made that point. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think you made the point that you were looking at the supplemental regulations on there. You say no accessory structures without a principle structure and/or use, and I think the Board understands what that means, in normality, and I think in the context of this project that the Claremont’s brought in for approval, you had a dock and you had a deck and then it was a rebuild of the dock and deck in essence, a shrinking down of the size of that deck, I think we understand that, too, and I think we understand that they have no property that adjoins with a principle structure. MR. SALVADOR-Both of those structures, as they existed, as they exist today, are nonconforming. They are accessory structures on a residential lot without a principle use in place. They are nonconforming for that reason, okay, and if you’re going to move ahead with this project, they should first seek a use variance, a use variance to bring the use of the property in conformance, a variance for those structures, a use variance would do the job. MR. KOSKINAS-Before you continue, I think the Chairman had asked about the timeliness, and maybe we should continue that. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, if the timeliness issue is based upon the statements that were made in that ZBA meeting of June 29, 2011, certainly anybody could appeal a decision, but we have not reached a decision in regards to that. MR. BROWN-Well, you can’t appeal a decision of the Zoning Board to the Zoning Board, and at the meeting in question there was no determination that I made, and is a decision or a statement from our Land Use Planner about something that I may or may not have done, is that appealable to this Board? No, it’s not. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, and I don’t think the issue of the accessory structures was ever part of the appeal of the applicant’s initially anyway. MR. BROWN-Yes, regardless about the topic of the appeal I guess we’ll call it, the timeliness is the thing. When was the decision made on this property that says, you need a variance, you need site plan, you need use variance , you don’t need a use variance. When was that decision made? And from the date the decision was made until 60 days after that, that’s your window to challenge it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I guess I would be in agreement with Rick that it’s passed the 60 days. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I think based on the legal advice that we were given, it was not filed in a timely manner. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) MR. URRICO-I think I’m going to side with John. There seems to be some question as to the timeliness of it, but it’s not an exact date. So I would be in favor of hearing what he has to say. MR. JACKOSKI-And I will, as I mention how I feel about this, I think we have heard the Appeal. I think we’ve given him time to explain his position on this Appeal concerning the paperwork along with specific code. I haven’t heard anything yet that tells me that there is a decision by the Zoning Administrator, other than that which was in March, that is being appealed within the 60 day time period. So I say this is an untimely filing of an appeal, and I think we take no action. MR. GARRAND-Confirm the Zoning Administrator’s decision that it’s an untimely appeal. MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t believe the Zoning Administrator made that decision. MR. BROWN-Yes, I think procedurally you could do one of two things. Pass a resolution, I guess one thing, based on what I’m hearing, make a motion to deny the appeal based on untimeliness, if that’s the tenor of the Board that I was hearing. MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to put forth such a resolution? Brian? MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2011 JOHN SALVADOR, JR., Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Claremont – Assembly Point. Based on untimeliness. th Duly adopted this 24 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-2011 SEQRA TYPE N/A JOHN SALVADOR, JR. OWNER(S) SHARON DAVIES, ET AL/JOSHUA’S ROCK CORP. ZONING WR LOCATION 12 JOSHUA’S ROCK ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING TOWN CODE CHAPTER 179 – ZONING; ARTICLE 16 – ADMINISTRATION, SECTION 179-16-010A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. CROSS REF AV 22-2011; AV 23-2011; SP 31 & 32-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.19-1-8 AND 9 SECTION 179-16-010A JOHN SALVADOR, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-And again, I’d like to follow the same format, just in general, Mr. Salvador, I certainly feel it’s reasonable to give you some time to explain your Notice of Appeal, and I do have, again, I believe, issues with counsel concerning timeliness. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Chairman, point of order. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, sir. MR. SALVADOR-I would like to withdraw this Appeal. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I see no reason to not accept your withdrawal. Thank you. Mr. Salvador has also asked, on tonight’s agenda, to be added to address the Board again on another matter. Mr. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I’d like to explain why I withdrew my Appeal. A lot of things have been happening with that project since you approved your variances and the Planning Board approved the site plan. Most significantly, for two months in a row now, the applicant has asked the Lake George Park Commission to table their application for the dock and boathouse permit that they need. That’s Number One. Number Two, I understand that the National Park Service is undertaking an investigation into what’s going on on the project with regard to changes and that sort of thing. I don’t know the details of it, but I do know that it’s going on. In that regard, I have copies for you tonight of a letter that I addressed to Mr. Brown, I addressed to Mr. Brown, concerning the procedure that this project should have followed. By the way, I should mention the fact that our Town Code does include in the Definitions section a definition of a historic building or a historic site. It’s in the Code, and it talks about any project that’s registered in either the New York State Historic sites or specifically the National Historic landmarks. I can tell you that in discussions I’ve had with New York State Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation, a national historic landmark, quote, is in the category with the Brooklyn Bridge, and that was what Mellowstone was or is. Mellowstone is registered in the National Register of Historic Landmarks, okay. Nowhere in any of the applications presented by the applicants for 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) that project for the wastewater, the dock, the site plan and the variances, before the Commission before this Town, nowhere did they mention the fact that this property is a national historic landmark. MR. GARRAND-You can see why. It would get a different SEQRA status, wouldn’t it, if it was a national landmark? MR. JACKOSKI-No. I mean, go ahead, Craig. MR. BROWN-The only way that National Registry or State Registry, historical classifications affect the SEQRA processing of an application or the SEQRA review of an application if there are State, local or town funding involved with the undertaking of the project. In this case, that’s not the issue at hand, so the listing on any registry doesn’t affect SEQRA at all. MR. SALVADOR-It also says that if any State or Federal permits are required. MR. BROWN-We can’t require them to go get the State and Federal permits and require them to follow the rules of their process. We just have them follow our process. MR. SALVADOR-A building permit is a State permit. It’s a State permit, and that puts it in to SEQRA. It’s a State permit that’s required. Now, if you’re going to restore a room, a building or something, and it’s, you know, wall paper and it’s window dressing and that kind of stuff, you don’t normally need a building permit, but these people, because of a structure aspect of what they were doing, required a building permit. That’s a State permit, and that puts it in SEQRA. In any case, this letter that I’m going to leave with you, I’ve attached to it a section from the Building Code, entitled historic buildings, and I’m just going to read one paragraph here. A historic building undergoing repair, renovation, repair, alteration, reconstruction or change in occupancy shall be investigated and evaluated, if the historic designation shall be retained, a written report shall be prepared for such a building and filed with the code enforcement official by a registered design professional. That’s where this project should have started, and it didn’t, and that’s why we’re in the soup, but anyway, I’ll leave this with you. The other thing I have here is a letter, written to Mr. Brown, concerning the historic preservation, and I’ll pass these out to you. The other thing I have for you, Mr. Jackoski, is a copy of the zoning enforcement, what would you call it, report. You asked me for a copy of it the last time I referred to it. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I remember that. MR. SALVADOR-I have a copy for you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. SALVADOR-Any questions? I really don’t know where the project stands. I understand they’re not working. I don’t know why, but these people, if you study what they’ve done over the years, have done everything in their power to mask, to mask the fact that this is in the National Register of Historic, that it’s a national landmark. The only way we know, the only way we knew was that Mr. Traver on the Planning Board had visited the site for purposes of the site plan approval, or I think initially for the recommendation you asked them for. He visited the site and he saw the plaque, the plaque, it’s mounted in the causeway, okay. Not everybody can see it. You have to trespass to go see it, okay, and no one is aware of it, no one is aware of it, but since 1971 it’s been in the, it was first nominated and then it was accepted as a national historic landmark. What bothers me about this whole thing is that we got involved in a Crandall Library tax years ago, okay, and we had a library up there in North Queensbury, the Mountainside Library, right there, okay. The Mountainside Library precedes the Crandall Library. It’s older than the Crandall Library by a few years, okay, and it was just left to go away, fall away, to now where New York State will not keep it in the Southern Adirondack Library System. It’s taken out of that. Now it’s run by the friends of Mountainside Library, and this national historic landmark has been just, I don’t know if any of you have visited the site, but it’s in terrible, terrible condition. It’s not been kept up, and the gentleman who put the, who filed the nomination petition, purported to be, he’s passed away, of course, but in 1971 he purported to be the president of the Joshua’s Rock Corporation, and he stated in the application that the, actually put three buildings in the National Historic Register. There are three buildings in there, Mellowstone being the centerpiece. He stated that they were owned by the Joshua’s Rock Corporation. That’s what the basis was, and nobody knows who’s doing what. MR. JACKOSKI-You’re going to hand out those letters to us? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-And you’ve already provided those to Staff as well, the one that was addressed to Craig? And was one addressed to Staff? MR. SALVADOR-He’s already gotten, these are your copies. Craig has already gotten his. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else this evening who would like to address the Board on miscellaneous matters? Seeing no one else in the audience, is there anyone on the Board who would like to bring to the attention of this Board any particular matter? Seeing no one on the Board, can I have a motion to adjourn? MRS. HUNT-So moved. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. A second? MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll second it. MR. JACKOSKI-All those in favor. All those opposed. We’re adjourned. 8:15. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 25