08-20-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 20,2014
INDEX
Area Variance No. 34-2014 Diane&Craig Goodman 1.
Tax Map No. 227.18-1-21
Area Variance No. 25-2014 William&Pamela Roberts 2.
Tax Map No. 239.12-1-64
Area Variance No. 61-2014 Joseph Leuci 2.
ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY STATUS Tax Map No.
Sign Variance No. 54-2014 Steve Hawkins - O'Toole's 3.
Tax Map No. 302.7-1-12
Area Variance No. 55-2014 Kyle&Rella Getty 8.
Tax Map No. 278.20-1-19
Sign Variance No. 5 6-2 014 Northway Outlets, LLC 11.
(The Outlets at Lake George West)
Tax Map No. 288.00-1-53
Area Variance No. 57-2014 Kirk Roberts 17.
Tax Map No. 295.6-1-8
Area Variance No. 58-2014 Ed Hermance&Cynthia Robertson 22.
Tax Map No. 309.7-1-27
Area Variance No. 59-2014 John Breyo, Marilyn Breyo&Aston Goldberg, LLC 27.
Tax Map No. 239.17-1-2,4, 1,and 3
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 08/20/2014)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 20,2014
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
RICHARD GARRAND
RONALD KUHL
JOHN HENKEL
MICHAEL MC CABE
HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting for the Town
of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals here at seven o'clock in the Town Activity Center. For
those who haven't been here in the past, it's quite a simple process. We'll call each applicant up to
the small table here. We'll read the application into the record when appropriate. We'll address
the applicant, have them answer some questions for the Board, and then if public comment period
has been advertised we'll open up for public comment, and then we'll take action from that point
forward. We do have some housekeeping to do this evening, and a couple of things to address as a
Board. So I believe the first item on the agenda is approval of the July 16th meeting minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 16, 2014
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 16,
2014, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-The next item is the approval of the July 23rd meeting minutes.
July 23, 2014
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 23,
2014, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Under Administrative Items we do have a further tabling request of the Goodman
project.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2014 DIANE&CRAIG GOODMAN: FURTHER TABLING REQUEST TO
A SEPTEMBER 2014 MEETING AGENDA.
MRS. MOORE-Can I interrupt you with that? The applicant has indicated that they cannot get
information in for the September meeting,so they've asked to be tabled until October.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR. JACKOSKI-So we do have an applicant's request to table their application until the October
agendas.
RESOLUTION TO: TABLE Area Variance No. 34-2014. Diane and Craig Goodman, 95 Pilot
Knob Road, Tax Map No. 227.18-1-21 at the request of the applicant to an October, 2014
meeting with paperwork to be submitted by the mid-September filing date, Introduced by
Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel:
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Diane
and Craig Goodman for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town
of Queensbury. Applicant has installed a 6,307 sq. ft. tennis court. Relief requested from
setback requirements for the WR zoning district.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 18, 2014. The public hearing
remains open.
Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-We have another further tabling request.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 2 5-2 014 WILLIAM&PAMELA ROBERTS: FURTHER TABLING REQUEST
TO A SEPTEMBER 2014 MEETING AGENDA.
MRS. MOORE-Can I let you know that the Planning Board has tabled it to their second meeting in
October. So the Zoning Board could table it to the October 22nd meeting with a deadline of
September 15th.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Staff. Can I have a motion?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William and
Pamela Roberts for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040A of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury
in order for construction of two cottages. These structures were previoulsy approved for replacement
within the existing footprint area via Area Variance No.2-2014. Relief requested from minimum front
yard and shoreline setback requirements of the WR zoning district. Relief required to allow for two
residences on the same parcel.
SEQR Type II-no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,April 16,2014 and left open;
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.25-2014 WILLIAM&PAMELA ROBERTS,Introduced by Ronald
Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer:
Until the October 22, 2014 meeting with a deadline for submission of material by Monday, September 15,
2014.
Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr.McCabe,Mr.Henkel,Mr.Garrand,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Freer,Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-And finally we have one more Administrative Item.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2014 JOSEPH LEUCI
ZBA TO ACCEPT PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENT FOR THE PROJECT.
MR.JACKOSKI-And we should have some dialogue on this.
MRS. MOORE-I could indicate that the project is for an 18 lot residential subdivision of a 14.8 acre
parcel. The project includes a single cul de sac with lots ranging from .58 acres to 1.46 and the
project is subject to variances. Therefore coordinated review is being sought with the Zoning
Board of Appeals for the SEQR process.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is everyone okay with the Planning Board becoming the Lead Agent? Or do
we want to take on Lead Agency ourselves?
MR. HENKEL-I favor the Planning Board.
MR. GARRAND-I think if the Board sees fit to make the Planning Board Lead Agency, the Planning
Board should learn about the history of that neighborhood and the problems that they've had down
there with overdevelopment as far as water problems, and the fact that the Town taxpayers have
spent nearly a million dollars to remediate the problems down there from overdevelopment. So, if
the Board sees fit to transfer Lead Agency to the Planning Board, I think the Planning Board should
be aware of those things before they do SEQR.
MR.JACKOSKI-Seems fair to me. Can I have a motion,please.
RESOLUTION for the Zoning Board to accept the Planning Board as Lead Agent for the
project , Area Variance No. 61-2014, Joseph Leuci, south side of Peggy Ann Road, between
Quail Run to the west and Ferris Drive to the east, Tax Map No. 301.15-1-19 Introduced by:
Michael McCabe with the condition that they be aware of some of the problems that have arisen
with this area in the past. Seconded by: John Henkel.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Joseph
Leuci for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury.
The application proposes a subdivision for the creation of lots with less than the minimum area of
2-acres as required within the Moderate Density Residential; (MDR) zoning district; relief required
for density and lot size. Additionally, relief is necessary from the 100 ft. minimum lot width
requirement.
Duly adopted this 20th day of August,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-And finally a new item to address here with the Board is there are 13 items for the
September agendas. I spent quite a bit of time this afternoon with Staff. Staff was very well
prepared, very organized with trying to determine how best to allocate the 13 applications for the
September meetings. With a little bit of, actually considerable thought, we probably need a third
meeting. There's just too many complicated projects to put on two agendas with six and seven
each. So right now we're contemplating adding a meeting for September 10th. Are Board
members available for September 10th, and the reason we need to know this evening is so that Staff
can get it advertised properly, in order for us to conduct those meetings on the 10th. The other
choice would be October 1St,but we would prefer September 10th.
MR. MC CABE-I'm available September 10th.
MR.URRICO-I'm available on the 10th,not the 17th.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. John?
MR. HENKEL-I'm available.
MR. GARRAND-I am.
MR. KUHL-I am.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So September 10th it is for the third meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
And we'll check with Kyle,but it looks to me like we'll definitely have a quorum for the 10th. Thank
you, everyone. It was better than trying to do seven meetings until three a.m.
NEW BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 54-2014 STEVE HAWKINS - O'TOOLE'S AGENT(S) MIKE BAIRD
SIGNS OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY QUAKER LLC - ANTHONY AUDI, JR. ZONING CI
LOCATION 118 QUAKER ROAD (QUAKER PLAZA) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL
A 24 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN ON THE O'TOOLE'S RESTAURANT WALL FACING NORTH ON
QUAKER ROAD OVER DECK DOOR. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
ALLOWABLE SIGNS FOR THE BUSINESS IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. CROSS REF BP
2013-356 COWL ALT O'TOOLE'S; BP 91-1431 WALL SIGN O'TOOLE'S; MULTIPLE PERMITS
FOR OTHER TENANTS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2014 LOT SIZE 4.22
ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-12 SECTION CHAPTER 140
MIKE BAIRD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 54-2014, Steve Hawkins - O'Toole's, Meeting Date:
August 20, 2014 "Project Location: 118 Quaker Road (Quaker Plaza) Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a 24 sq. ft. wall sign on the O'Toole's Restaurant
wall facing north on Quaker Road over deck door.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require sign variance from Section 140 signs:
Maximum number of allowable signs in business complex(Cl)
Allowed One wall sign per tenant
Proposed Two wall signs
Relief One additional wall sign
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.
Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible
for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may exist to
adjust the existing wall sign so it visible to Quaker Road as the tenant is included in the
freestanding sign on the site.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts to the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
BP 13-356: Commercial alterations
BP 91-1431: Wall sign
Multiple permits for other tenants
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to place a 24 sq. ft. second wall sign on an existing restaurant business. The
location will be on the north side of the building facing Quaker Road. The applicant has indicated
clients have a hard time locating the restaurant and an additional wall sign will be helpful. The
existing wall sign is not visible to clients traveling east and difficult to see traveling west as
explained by the applicant. The plans show the location and description of the sign to be installed.
SEQR Status:
SEQR Type Unlisted"
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. If the applicant could join us at the table. Welcome. If you could state your
name for the record,please.
STEVE HAWKINS
MR. HAWKINS-Steve Hawkins. I'm owner of O'Toole's Restaurant.
MR. BAIRD-Mike Baird, Mike Baird Signs.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. It's a pretty straightforward application. So I suspect you just want the
Board to ask you some questions.
MR. HAWKINS-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-Any questions at this time from Board members?
MR. HENKEL-Is that sign the same size as the sign that's in front over the doorway?
MR. HAWKINS-The one in front is eight by four feet. This is eight by three. So it's smaller.
MR. HENKEL-Is there any way of making that sign a little bit smaller on the side?
MR. BAIRD-The sign that's in the Plaza is actually a lot longer than eight feet. It's basically almost
16 foot long by three foot,which is a lot more than,you know,that's what was allowed with the old
Sign Codes and everything with all the large sites in the Plaza. The relief that Steve's looking for is
basically because I caught one thing that you said, being the sign maker I'm always in the middle,
which is fine. If he gave up that one for inside the Plaza, and that would be a hardship because
when people pull in from that direction they wouldn't know where to go. That's his entrance sign,
which is definitely hidden,you know, looking west. He's looking for the relief for the north side of
the building only, and the sign is about as small as we could get it, which is basically the three by
eight foot with the same logo on it, for the purpose of being able to be visible from Quaker Road
because the fact is, just Steve and one other business are the only two businesses who don't have
Quaker Road visibility. That's his hardship, and to give up one for the other, he wouldn't have an
entrance sign, as far as, and, you know, the thing that we went through was that there's no
neighbors. There's no homes as far as having an adverse effect on it. That's about the smallest
that one can fabricate anything worthwhile to correct on the building is what we came up with
when you're asking about size.
MR. GARRAND-That sign is going to be lit?
MR. BAIRD-It is. It's going to be lit, such as all the rest. That's actually a Plaza requirement, as per
the owners of the Plaza.
MR. GARRAND-Okay, because basically when you're heading south on Country Club Road it's going
to be the first thing that's staring you right in the face is an O'Toole's sign.
MR. BAIRD-You can actually see the entire Plaza and the freestanding pylon sign when you head
that way from Country Club. You can actually see everybody's sign on the wall inside the Plaza, and
if you glance to the right you can see the sign over Steve's main entrance. This sign from that
direction would actually be farther to the right. Is that whole front of the building,as you see in the
picture, where, you know, he has a deck out there and there's just grass and some trees and
whatnot. So that whole building is blank, and for the size of the building this is probably going to
look like a business small in proportion. When Steve came to me and I suggested it would be a
variance situation, we talked about size and I said, look, just try to get something that says your
restaurant's there. Try not to go to the max, because the 24 is in fact smaller than the allowable
single wall sign max, and we tried to be, you know, responsible in that respect. Not seeking the
greatest size for the building space.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. KUHL-I think it's a good request. We also, we allowed the bank to do a second sign on theirs
for the same reason. They wanted to get people heading west. I can understand your request,but
it's going to be lit.
MR. HAWKINS-Yes.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. BAIRD-It'll look very similar to the one that's over his main entrance now. It's about, it's going
to be about half the size.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any further questions from the Board members? We do have a public hearing
scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board
concerning this particular application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment?
MR.URRICO-There's no written comment.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I think I'm going to poll the Board and then we can close the public comment
period,if appropriate,and then do SEQR,and then look for motions. So I'll start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-I do not have any problems with the Sign Variance. I think something is needed there
to help the business owner.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I think it's fair also. I come down there quite a bit, and of course I know the place is
there, but if you didn't, it would be hard to distinguish it, and that's probably the majority of the
traffic that comes from the north.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with the need for the sign. No problem.
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I went by the site and decided to take some measurements of the monument
portion of the sign,the small sign, and it's about the size of my arm. As a matter of fact, until I was
looking for it I never saw it,and I've been by there thousands of times. So I'd be in favor of this.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Was that the size of your arm before you lifted weights? I have no issue with it. I think
it's a valid request because of the people that don't know you're there.
MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes. I don't think it's going to have any adverse effect on the neighborhood or the
environment and it's good for business and it's reasonable and I have no problem with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a SEQR motion
from Rick.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. GARRAND-All right. Thank you.
MOTION regarding Sign Variance No. 54-2014, Steve Hawkins - O'Toole's based upon the
information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the
applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental
impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its
adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 20th day of August.2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Can I have a motion,please,to approve this Sign Variance.
RESOLUTION TO: Approve Sign Variance No. 54-2014, Steve Hawkins - O'Toole's, Tax Map
No. 302.7-1-12.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Steve
Hawkins. O'Toole's for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury.
Applicant proposes to install a 24 sq. ft. wall sign on the O'Toole's Restaurant wall facing
north on Quaker Road over deck door. Relief requested from maximum number of
allowable signs for the business in a Business Complex.
SEQR Type: Unlisted;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,August 20,2014;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and
Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a
detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance?
No.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant
to pursue,other than a sign variance? We suppose but it's not really practical.
3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Not really.
4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? We believe not.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Of course it is.
In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community;
The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 54-2014,
Steve Hawkins - O'Toole's, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Roy Urrico:
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an
extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires;
B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to
review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any
action until the APA's review is completed;
C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator
or Building&codes personnel'
D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of
these final plans;
E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project
requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack
Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
Duly adopted this 20th day of August,2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations,good luck.
MR. BAIRD-Thank you,gentlemen.
MR. HAWKINS-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2014 KYLE & RELLA GETTY SEQRA TYPE II AGENT(S) GARY
HUGHES OWNER(S) KYLE & RELLA GETTY ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 37 SUNNYSIDE
NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 864 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
TO INCLUDE 2-CAR GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT, SIDE AND REAR
YARD PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS FOR THE RR-3A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 88-447
SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2014 LOT SIZE 0.66 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO.
278.20-1-19 SECTION 179-3-040
GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT; RELLA GETTY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2014, Kyle & Rella Getty, Meeting Date: August 20, 2014
"Project Location: 37 Sunnyside North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of an 864 sq.ft.residential addition to include 2 car garage.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances from Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts setbacks for
the RR-3A zone.
Front setback Side setback-S
Required 100 ft. 75 ft.
Proposed 40.8 ft. 44.5 ft.
Relief 59.2 ft. 30.5 ft.
Criteria for considering as Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.
Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible
for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be
considered limited due to lot size in the RR-3A zone as the current home does not meet the
setback requirements.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate relevant to the code requirements.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts to the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered not self-
created due to lot size and the zoning requirements of the RR-3A zone
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
BP 88-447: Single family dwelling
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct an 864 sq.ft. addition to an existing home with a 2 car attached
garage. The addition will allow for a different floor plan with one of the bedrooms to be over the
garage. The applicant has provided a survey of the site with the setbacks for the new addition.
Floor plans and elevations are also included showing the appearance of the home with addition.
SEQR Status:
SEQR Type II"
MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome,if you could identify yourselves for the record,please.
MR. HUGHES-Yes. My name is Gary Hughes. I'm the agent for Rella Getty.
MRS. GETTY-Rella Getty. I'm the property owner.
MR. JACKOSKI-Pretty straightforward application. Would you like us to just ask questions, or
would you like to?
MR. HUGHES-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-Are there any Board member questions at this time concerning this application?
MR. KUHL-It seems pretty straightforward.
MR. HENKEL-The only problem I can see is you've got that one shed that's looking pretty ratty there
in the back part there. Is that going to comedown with this project?
MRS. GETTY-We can take it down.
MR. HENKEL-I see you have a screened in porch.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any further questions at this time before I open the public hearing? We do
have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to
address this Board concerning this particular application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment?
MR.URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to poll the Board. Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes. I think that this makes sense. I don't see that, if there was some hidden problems
with neighbors, etc.,that hopefully they would be advised, and I don't hear any of that, and it makes
logical sense to me. So I would support this variance.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I have no problem with it. I think it's straightforward. It surprises me, though, that
when they were building those houses, it wasn't back further with all the property there but, no I
have no problem with way it's presented.
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I think it's a logical thing to do with somebody that wants a garage on this property.
Aesthetically I think it's fitting.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think with the setbacks that they're asking for,there's really not that much relief
that we're giving I think it's fair as long as they take the shed down there.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I have no problem.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR.URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of it also.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion?
MR.JACKOSKI-You may,thank you.
RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 55-2014, Kyle & Rella Getty, 37 Sunnyside
North,Tax Map No. 302.7-1-12.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kyle &
Rella Getty for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of
Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 864 sq. ft. residential addition to include
2-car garage. Relief requested from minimum front, side, and rear yard property line
setbacks for the RR-3A zoning district.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,August 20,2014;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and
Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a
detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area
variance? Minor impact to the neighborhood is anticipated.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? I don't think there are any; it looks
good the way it's laid out and it will blend in with the current home.
3. Is the requested area variance substantial? I do not believe it is substantial.
4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? Minor to no impact is anticipated.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes.
Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 55-2014, Kyle
& Rella Getty, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison
Freer: With the following condition: removal of the shed that is closer to Juniper Drive.
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request
an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires;
B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building&Codes personnel;
C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on
receipt of these final plans;
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed
project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the
Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or
department.
Duly adopted this 20th day of August,2014 by the following vote:
MR. FREER-We were going to put a caveat that the shed be removed.
MR.JACKOSKI-So it's being requested that an addition to this is the condition of removal of the shed
closest to Juniper Drive. I agree with that as well. Ron,are you okay with that?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I was just expecting the applicant to live up to their word, but, no, we so can put it
in the proposed motion.
MR.JACKOSKI-In the motion. Thank you. As amended.
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED NORTHWAY OUTLETS, LLC (THE
OUTLETS AT LAKE GEORGE WEST) AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ. & S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR
OWNER(S) NORTHWAY OUTLETS, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 1415 STATE ROUTE 9 (THE
OUTLETS AT LAKE GEORGE WEST) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL AN 84 SQ. FT. NON-
TENANT WALL SIGN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING TO IDENTIFY THE PLAZA NAME.
APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FOR A SECOND NON-TENANT SIGN FOR PLAZA IDENTIFICATION.
CROSS REF SV 32-2014; BP 2013-464 NEW BUILDING COM'L/INDUS; BP 2013-528 DEMO OF
MONTCALM REST.; BP 2013-499 DEMO GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST
2014 LOT SIZE 6.21 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-53 SECTION CHAPTER 140
JON LAPPER&COREY SHAMUS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 56-2014, Northway Outlets, LLC (The Outlets at Lake George
West), Meeting Date: August 20, 2014, "'Project Location: 1415 State Route 9 (The Outlets at Lake
George West), Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install an 84 sq. ft. non-
tenant wall sign on the north side of the building to identify the plaza name.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require sign variance relief from Section 140 Signs.
2nd non-tenant wall sign (CI)
Allowed None
Proposed 2nd non tenant wall sign
Relief 1 additional beyond one previously approved
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.
Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible
for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be
limited due to the applicant's desire to provide information to the visitor about additional
stores availability and to limit vehicle traffic movement.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts to the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
SV 32-14: 100 sq. ft. wall sign with sign copy to read: "The Outlets at Lake George West". Relief
requested for non-tenant wall sign. 4-23-14
SP 35-13: 49,615 sq. ft. retail plaza with associated site work for parking, stormwater and
landscaping, 7-23-13
BP 13-464: New building
BP 13-528: Demo of Montcalm Rest.
BP 13-499: Demo of garage
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to install an 84 sq. ft. sign listing the tenants of the building and the Plaza
Name. The signage will inform visitors using the ramp from the adjoining French Mountain
Commons plaza about the stores at "The Outlets at Lake George West". The applicant intends for
the signage to encourage pedestrian traffic through the outlets in the area and discourage vehicle
traffic. The plans show signage for 12 tenants with 6 inch letters as required by the code. The
signage is to be consistent with the other signage of the plaza in color and lettering.
SEQR Status:
SEQR Type Unlisted"
MR.JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourselves for the record,please.
MR. LAPPER-Sure. Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Corey Shanus, principle of the
owner.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. It's a pretty straightforward application. Do you want to continue to address
the Board with it or would you just like to answer questions?
MR. LAPPER-I'd like to address the Board. I know you've all been there and are completely familiar
with the site. I'm very proud to have been on this project team as all the design professionals are.
This was the case where Corey went out to investigate who are really top quality architects in the
outlet industry and found these architects in Baltimore who modeled this after The Sagamore in
terms of the colors and materials and we're just all really pleased with how it came out, both the
site plan and the architecture. Corey went out of his way to really spend the money to do this right
and one example of that is the ramp. When we were at the Planning Board one of the issue, access
management is always an issue with the Queensbury Code where you try to connect commercial
properties, and it wasn't possible to connect it with a vehicular connection because of the grade
change, so we proposed a pedestrian connection, and that was a condition of the Planning Board
without it being specified how we were going to do it, and when we looked into it with the
engineers and the architects, there were a couple of choices, and the less expensive alternative was
to put in stairs, which would have been okay with the ADA because there's a level grade sidewalk
on the front. So there'd be an alternative for people to walk for handicap. So that could have been
done and that was, you know, less than a third of the cost of the ramp, but when we had this all
designed out, it was clear that this was the better alternative, although it cost $85,000 to build the
ramp,but to do it right. One of the advantages of this design is that the top of the ramp is where the
pedestrians would be at French Mountain Commons by J. Crew because that's set back so far, and
where the stores are here would be at the bottom of the ramp. So it works really well to encourage
people to use it, and the goal,like any access management,but especially in this congested corridor,
is to encourage people to walk so that if they parked at either French Mountain or at this Outlet,
they can leave their car and not get back into the traffic and make left turns or right turns as the
case may be,just to keep everybody in one spot to go to both shopping centers. So there's really a
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
mutual benefit to the two centers, but also to people driving on the road. So that was agreed, and
that was agreed with Ed Moore the owner of the plaza next door, and we worked it out with a
mutual reciprocal easement, and it was constructed. At that point what Corey was concerned with
was that if you're trying to encourage people to walk from the center next door because of the way
this lays out,and I did submit a small copy of the site plan,all of the stores are in front of the bottom
of the ramp. So you can't see any of the stores, and you can't really see the pylon sign along Route 9
because it's so far from the ramp. So this wasn't the case where we're trying to get an extra sign
that isn't needed. It's a case of getting an extra sign that isn't going to hardly be visible for anyone
driving on Route 9. It's only visible if you're heading south, and we've got the gas station right in
front of us so it's not a question of visual clutter or excess sign. You can see the way the building is
tilted towards the southwest. So it's really just aimed at French Mountain and the goal here is just
to encourage people to use the ramp, not to get more people to drive in with their cars. So we felt
that it was really important to accomplish the purpose. Otherwise you just see the side of a
building with without knowing who's there, and in terms of impact on the neighborhood, it's really
only visible from French Mountain and not from anywhere else. That's really the thought pattern
that went into this,and I'd just like to ask Corey to say a few words.
MR. SHAMUS-Good evening. As Jon mentioned, the objective with this sign is to reduce vehicular
traffic on Route 9, and when we looked at options, as Jon said,between stairs and ramp,we decided
to go the whole nine yards and the ramp, and it's been used quite a bit. The problem with it is that
if people are coming from French Mountain into the Outlets of Lake George West, they're not going
to know what tenants are there, and without the sign, the way that they're going to figure it out is
they would take their car and go in there. Do we want to do it the easy way by driving or is it worth
walking to something that we don't know that's there. So we think the sign's been tastefully
designed. It's not intended to be viewed from the street. It's simply intended to encourage people
to use the ramp.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before
I open the public hearing?
MR. FREER-Yes. How wide is the ramp, and are people on bikes using it to get around or is it just
walking?
MR. LAPPER-It's five feet wide.
MR. SHAMUS-We can find that out. I'm not sure how wide it is. I mean, it's ADA compliant. I
haven't noticed people on bikes using it, although I will mention to you that we plan to, this is still
being done,to construct a bike rack in the Outlets of Lake George East. When I was there the other
day I noticed some bikes parked outside of some of the stores. So we're going to address that, but
it is getting extensive use by families with strollers,which is what we intended.
MR. LAPPER-Bicycles can use it if it's gentle enough.
MR. SHAMUS-And we have a railing. I mean, it's really, I mean, I can, as I said, find out the width,
but it is pretty wide.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Hopefully we'll see more bikes, you know, for transportation and I
just want to make sure, if it's useful for them, we should let them know. If not, we should make
them do whatever is the correct and safe thing for in the mall or in the outlets on bicycle transport.
MR. SHAMUS-We want to encourage that, too, and that's why we're going to put this bike rack in
one of the centers.
MR. KUHL-Mr. Lapper, is there any reason you didn't come to us with this request when you came
for the last Sign Variance?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. This was something that only came up this summer after the ramp was under
construction.
MR. KUHL-The Baltimore architects missed it?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, well,yes, and us. Because Corey hadn't even committed to the ramp. We didn't
have the ramp design until he worked it out with the neighbor.
MR. KUHL-I personally was against this until I heard your explanation, Mr. Lapper.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. KUHL-And very honestly, I mean, all kidding aside, the people from French Mountain walking,
it's a good thing that they know what you have there, but I was definitely not in favor of this until I
heard the reason for it.
MR. FREER-Well,because we already incrementally gave you one,right? Is that your logic?
MR. KUHL-Well, I mean, I think you should have come with everything the first time, but if you
didn't know,things change. I understand that.
MR. LAPPER-And this is sort of an iterative process. I mean,they,you can see by what was created
here that Corey's really going out of his way to try and do it right, and there's some finesse things
that you don't figure out up front,and this was certainly one of them.
MR. HENKEL-But is there a need to have another sign that says The Outlets at Lake George West? I
mean, there's no problem with the tenants to have another sign that says, that's a big sign you're
talking about. If you cut that down to an eight by six, forty-eight square feet, if you took out The
Outlets,or can you make that smaller? Does it need to be that big?
MR. LAPPER-We wanted it to be readable,so,you know,it was really the smallest that it could be.
MR. HENKEL-But aren't you worried more about the tenants that are there, when you said people
leaving French Mountain to come to the other outlet, aren't you worried about advertising the
tenants more than the, I mean, your lettering's bigger than the tenants. What are you advertising,
The Outlets at Lake George West or are you advertising Adidas or different tenants?
MR. LAPPER-John, I think that's a valid question and I think the goal, because it's really not visible
from passengers, it's just for the people that are walking, and I guess Corey would like to identify
the center as well as the tenants just to,you know,that's sort of the logo.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I would definitely be in favor of the tenant sign,but not the other.
MR. LAPPER-And I want to point out, too, that this isn't the case of a back lit sign. This has got the
surface mounted sign above shining down. So this isn't trying to be garish. It's very tasteful.
MR. HENKEL-It is. It looks great. They did a nice job.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks.
MR. HENKEL-Very nice.
MR. URRICO-Was consideration given, instead of a wall sign, a directional sign where the top of the
ramp is?
MR. LAPPER-That would be on the neighbor's property. So we don't have control of that.
MR.URRICO-Okay.
MR. SHAMUS-I also think, too, that sometimes people decide whether they want to use the ramp,
not when they're at that directional sign,but when they're leaving the stores. They wouldn't be in a
position to really identify the tenants at that point.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any further questions before I open the public hearing? We do have a public
hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this
Board concerning this particular application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment?
MR.URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR.JACKOSKI-Having no written comment,we're going to poll the Board before we close the public
comment and do SEQR. Rick?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR. GARRAND-Do you want to do SEQR first?
MR. JACKOSKI-No, we're going to poll the Board first to see what we think we're doing, if we're
going to move forward or not.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. I agree with Mr. Henkel. I think The Outlets at Lake George West is kind of
unnecessary for that side of the building. The whole idea of a sign is to draw people in to see what
you have there, and I also think the applicant understands that, you know, if they'd asked for
another sign out front they probably would have been told to stuff it by the Board because there's
way too many signs out on that section of Route 9 and people going through there tend to get head
fire, and you have a lot of pedestrian traffic through there that, you know, looking left and looking
right at signs is not conducive to safe traffic patterns. I would like to see this without The Outlets at
Lake George West,but I do agree that there needs to be something on that side of the building,since
there is a ramp there, and it will not impact traffic or the field of view at all. At this point I might be
opposed to it.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. Like I said before, I have no problem with the tenant signs,even if you wanted to
leave the small lettering with The Outlets of Lake George West, but no reason to have an 80 square
feet, 84 square foot sign to advertise yourself.
MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-I don't have any problem with the sign as proposed,and I would support it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I would like to see a smaller sign. I think we're already granting an extra sign here.
It can be made smaller. It does not have to be as intrusive as it is. So if it remains the same size, I
would be against it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I understand signage and I understand you're trying to identify it and keep it consistent,
and as I said, I had a different opinion until I heard Mr. Lapper, but also think about up by the Log
Jam they wanted to put the tenant's names on their bell tower and we allowed that, and I think if
we're going to be consistent in there without too much signage, I think it's a valid request that you
should take the top off and just put your tenants on there. So the way it's presented, I would not
be in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I like the idea. I'm pleased that they're encouraging foot traffic and myself, because
I'm old, my eyes aren't so good, I can relate to the plaza sign or the identification of the plaza and
use that to know what the tenants are in the plaza. So I'm in favor of the sign as proposed.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Unfortunately we have four noes at this point. I think that the sign can get
smaller, to be honest, and I think that my fellow Board members have brought up a good point
about the tenants being advertised more than the name of the outlet, because quite frankly, other
than French Mountain Commons, I'm not sure I even know all the different names of all the
different outlet places up there. So I don't know how important that really is in order to grant this
second sign.
MR. LAPPER-Just to speak about that for a second, what Corey did was to re-name the other plaza,
so that, and I think we discussed this when we were here for the monument signs, The Outlets at
Lake George West and East, so they're going to be advertised together as The Outlets at Lake
George. So there is something to the name here that hopefully people will grow to identify with
when it's fully tenanted. So they would like that. I'm looking at this, and without having discussed
it in advance with Corey, I mean, what I could see is that a compromise might be to keep The
Outlets at Lake George West, but to take off, there's an area above it that is probably not necessary
that's somewhat of a flourish done by the architect, but a compromise could be that we could
probably take off 18 inches above the top so it would be a considerably smaller sign, but still have
both messages, if that's something that you would consider and Corey could live with,just squeeze
that. To take off the top there and to just squeeze The Outlets at Lake George West smaller, to
make it an overall smaller sign. We had originally started off with a smaller sign and it's really the
1s
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
Queensbury Code that says that the letters have to be at least six inches high. So another
alternative would be to take the whole thing as,you know,because you can always grant less relief,
would be to shrink the whole sign, let him keep the outlets to identify it, but to shrink all of the
letters so it would be,overall,a smaller sign.
MR. HENKEL-How big are the letters? You're talking about The Outlets of Lake George at Lake
George West.
MR. LAPPER-The signs,like Adidas.
MR. HENKEL-Well there's a six inch sign. I understand that.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Just by looking at this,the at Lake George West looks the same size, and the word
Outlets,because that's their logo,is bigger,but I think we could shrink the whole thing.
MR. SHAMUS-I mean, there's a certain brand identification we're trying to establish for these
outlets, and how we designed this with the logo and the lettering,where the outlets is in proportion
to the Lake George West or East,and we're trying to maintain that proportion in all our signage,and
all our marketing for it,but we could just try to shrink the whole thing. We'd be receptive to that.
MR. HENKEL-It's definitely a nice looking sign. That's not the problem, but like I said, we've
already given you relief of another sign, and,you know, I just think the tenants are more important
in this case because the plaza's already being identified in the front.
MR. SHAMUS-I respect that, but this is how we're marketing. It has also been presented to us that
we have an obligation to try to reduce car traffic and this is what we've done to address it. We've
really gone the whole nine yards in this ramp, and the purpose of this is to get people to use the
ramp and not use Route 9. We can come back or we can right now agree on something that shrinks
the whole thing. We did it this way because we were told that the lettering,the tenant lettering had
to be a certain size.
MR. HENKEL-Well there's no doubt the pedestrian walkway is going to be a smart way to reduce
the traffic, but like I say, they're going to be walking from plaza to plaza, going for the stores, you
know, not for, if they see Adidas or Sketchers or Loft, that's what they're going to go for. They're
not going to go to the plaza,The Outlets of Lake George West.
MR.JACKOSKI-Would the Board maybe be willing to offer to the applicant a 45 square foot sign that
only identified on premise tenants?
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-That's fair. That's a compromise.
MR. LAPPER-So what Corey is asking, as an alternative, is if we can agree to 45 square feet,would it
be okay if it also said The Outlets at Lake George West with the tenants?
MR.JACKOSKI-I think the lettering's too small for all the tenants.
MR. HENKEL-I agree with that, definitely. It's more important tome, if I owned a plaza, it would be
more important for me to advertise my tenants that are there paying high rents, than me
advertising my building.
MR. JACKOSKI-On this one section. The rest of the building identifies The Outlets at Lake George
West.
MR. LAPPER-We could go back and draw it out and come back and see what it looks like, or we
could agree to what they're offering. It's up to you. Okay. Corey would like if we table it and we'll
have the architect draw it up and we'll see what it looks like and we'll come back and talk about it.
MR.JACKOSKI-So at this time the applicant has requested a tabling. May I have a motion to table?
MOTION TO TABLE Sign Variance No. 56-2014, Northway Outlets, LLC (The Outlets at Lake
George West) at the request of the applicant, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its
adoption,seconded by John Henkel:
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
The application is tabled to an October, 2014 meeting with a submission deadline date of
Monday,September 15,2014.
Duly adopted this 20th day of August.2014,by the following vote:
MR.JACKOSKI-Any further discussion?
MR. KUHL-Yes,just, now we have three meetings in September. If they can get the information in,
can we get them in September?
MR.JACKOSKI-No.
MR. KUHL-September's full?
MR.JACKOSKI-No.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR.JACKOSKI-God no,and just a note, I did leave the public hearing open.
AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2014 SEQRA TYPE II KIRK ROBERTS AGENT(S) JARRETT
ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) KIRK ROBERTS ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 11 OLD WEST
MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,500 SQ. FT. SINGLE-
FAMILY DWELLING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM
SIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RR-5A ZONING DISTRICT.
CROSS REF SP 62-2012 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2014 LOT SIZE 5.87 ACRE(S)
TAX MAP NO. 295.6-1-8 SECTION 179-3-040
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2014, Kirk Roberts, Meeting Date: August 20, 2014
"Project Location: 11 Old West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 1,500 sq.ft.single family dwelling and associated site work.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances from section 179-3-040 establishment of districts setback
requirements for the RR-5A zone:
Front setback Side setback
Required 100 ft. 75 ft.
Proposed 3 7.0 6 ft. 22.7 ft.
Relief 62.94 ft. 52.3 ft.
Criteria for considering as Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.
Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible
for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be
considered limited due to the topographical constraints on the property and the requirements
of the RR-5A zone.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has
located the home and stormwater measurers to minimize the amount of disturbance needed to
develop the site where only 0.3 acres of the 5.87 acres is to be disturbed.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
SP 62-12: Pending
BP 12-362: Pending
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a 1,500 sq. ft. home on a 5.87 acre parcel. The applicant has
indicated the site has steep slopes and a non-jurisdictional stream on the site. The location of the
home and site development has taken into account the stormwater measures needed for the site as
shown on the plans. In addition the home's location is proposed to minimize overall disturbance on
the site where only 0.3 acres is the site development area and outside of that area is to remain as is.
The plans show the site development with house, septic,well, driveway and other site details. Also
included is a sample floor plan and house design.
SEQR Status:
SEQR Type II"
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board for this
variance. Per the resolution prepared by Staff,the Planning Board,based on its limited review,has
not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project
proposal,and that was adopted August 19, 2014,and that was a unanimous vote.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record,please.
MR.JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers.
MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome,Tom.
MR.JARRETT-Kirk Roberts was not able to join me tonight. So I will sit in in his stead.
MR. JACKOSKI-It's a pretty straightforward application. Do you want us to simply ask you
questions concerning,or would you like to expand upon it.
MR.JARRETT-I think everybody's clear on the application. That works for me.
MR.JACKOSKI-It's a pretty steep site.
MR.JARRETT-It is that.
MR.JACKOSKI-So Board members,are there any particular questions we want to ask at this time.
MR. GARRAND-A couple.
MR.JACKOSKI-Go ahead.
MR. GARRAND-You're going to use part of the existing gravel as part of the driveway? I'm
wondering why you can't move the house towards the middle of the lot a little bit more, instead of
being 23 feet from the adjoining property line,if somebody chooses to build a house on that?
MR.JARRETT-If I keep the house that far back from Old West Mountain Road,which provides some
privacy for the neighbors and for Mr. Roberts, then the grade of the driveway gets steeper. What
I'm able to do is soften the driveway by pushing it farther north. Since the neighbor to the north is
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
not right against that property line, I thought it was a reasonable compromise. Doing it the way
we've done it, we've been able to get the grade down to about eight percent, whereas the original
proposal that the Planning Board saw had a driveway of almost 25%. So we've been able to cut it
down.
MR. GARRAND-Who can get in a driveway like that in the wintertime.
MR.JARRETT-You wouldn't want to,that's for sure.
MR. HENKEL-There is a flat area up there.
MR.JARRETT-Correct.
MR. HENKEL-You couldn't make the driveway go?
MR. JARRETT-There's not enough room, with that stream on the site, to do it as a serpentine
driveway, and frankly the lot is so narrow, especially with that stream, that we could not put a
serpentine driveway in, fit all the stormwater management in there, put the house where now the
septic is proposed. That's the flattest area for the septic system. So it seems to work out quite well
for the current proposal.
MR. HENKEL-I know our concerns are the septic, the leach field, but that's awful close to the other
lot, 10 feet away.
MR.JARRETT-Well,that's the Department of Health Code. That's the standard.
MR. HENKEL-They're narrow lots.
MR.JARRETT-Very narrow lots.
MR. HENKEL-If someone goes next door.
MR.JARRETT-Now,with that steepness, I would have loved to have seen a lot quite a bit wider,but
we have what we have.
MR. GARRAND-I have one more question for Staff. Why does it trigger a variance necessary for
amount of area needed for a variance cleared, I mean,they hit that one acre or a half acre?
MRS.MOORE-That's in reference to stormwater.
MR. GARRAND-Because they're clearing a third of an acre. I mean, if they decide to go farther back
or to the side or anything, as far as cutting and clearing, do they have to get another variance if they
clear a half an acre?
MRS. MOORE-It depends on how, their presentation to the Planning Board. If they're looking at
more than an acre, it would trigger additional stormwater details for a stormwater pollution
prevention plan. I'm not quite sure I'm answering your question.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. My concern here is with the steep slopes and the clearing that's going to be
done,you run the risk of problems with heavy rains that we've been having over the last couple of
years,washouts and that type of thing.
MRS. MOORE-This project, through the Planning Board review process, it already has been
forwarded to the Town Engineer.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-And the Town Engineer's comments came back and there were two comments, I
believe, and previously the Planning Board had seen this back in 2012, and it was a significantly
different project where it moved to the location that you saw had cleared,and the applicant realized
that setting up a driveway would not be conducive, due to the steep slopes. So that's when they
started working with this engineer and relocating that home and all the measures that needed to
be,so there was minimal disturbance on the site.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, I wish we'd had privy to that information before reviewing, before the meeting
so we could review that with regards to environmental effects. So,thank you.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR.JACKOSKI-Any further questions before we open up the public comment period?
MR. KUHL-Tom,are you going to put a generator in this house?
MR.JARRETT-And emergency generator?
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR.JARRETT-I don't think one is planned at the moment.
MR. KUHL-You have a grinder pump,right? You're blowing your waste up the hill,right?
MR.JARRETT-We have an effluent pump, and there actually is extra storage in that pump station in
case of a power outage. We would normally put an alarm on it with a water supply shutoff. So we
lose power we only need a limited amount of storage. If we lose a pump, if the pump fails,then the
alarm would kick the water supply off.
MR. KUHL-Right, but if you have a holding tank on the other side of your pump, then it's got more
volume then the bottom of your pump, right? You could have more water coming at the pump and
overflow it.
MR.JARRETT-You lost me there.
MR. KUHL-Well,if you pump and you've got a well,right?
MR.JARRETT-No,it's actually public water supply.
MR. KUHL-It is? Then I'm going to be quiet.
MR.JARRETT-It's Queensbury water supply.
MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the
audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment?
MR.URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR.JACKOSKI-Having no written comment and seeing no one in the audience, I'll poll the Board.
MR. JARRETT-May I make one comment before you poll? On the erosion and sediment control
plans,which I believe you have in your packet,we provided a construction sequence which calls for
the upper site work to be completed first and close that off, stabilize it before we work below,
which means that we will probably minimize the effects of runoff by doing that rather than having
the whole site open at one time. So that may address part of your concern.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. I just wish we'd get this information earlier on so we could see what's going
to be done to prevent washouts and that type of thing.
MR. JARRETT-Well, that was in your packet, I believe. The history of the site you probably did not
get. That was a Planning Board issue at that time only, I believe. Right?
MRS.MOORE-Correct.
MR. GARRAND-No, what we get is usually like a minimal idea of what stormwater protection is
done during the course of construction. That was in the packet.
MR.JARRETT-Actually,construction sequence is in your packet.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR.JARRETT-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. We'll poll the Board. Mike?
MR. MC CABE-It's kind of a remote site. It's pretty steep. There's limited options here. It looks
like a reasonable plan to me and I would approve it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-No, I think it's a good use of the property. My concern is, you know, the septic, and I
would encourage a generator for backup power in case of failures, but I can't make that an issue,
but I have no problem the way it's stated.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR.URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the application as presented.
MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-I, too, am in favor. I don't think it's going to impact the neighborhood adversely or the
environment adversely, and that, you know, you obviously have looked at all feasible alternatives,
given the property. So I'd support it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-Looking at the other houses in that area, they're all built in pretty much a similar
fashion, similar driveways. I just hope the homeowner maintains it as designed here, and doesn't
decide to do any modifications down the road,but as it is, I'd be in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I would say that if you went with the setbacks that are required, it would
definitely cause more of an environmental problem and other problems. So I think they're asking
for minimal relief in this case. I'd be in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.JACKOSKI-And I'll seek a motion.
MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman?
MR.JACKOSKI-You may. Thank you, Ron.
RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 57-2014,Kirk Roberts,Tax Map No. 295.6-1-8
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kirk
Roberts for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of
Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,500 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and
associated site work. Relief requested from minimum side and front yard setback
requirements for the RR-5A zoning district.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,August 20,2014;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and
Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a
detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area
variance? I believe minor impacts to the neighborhood would be anticipated.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Feasible alternatives are limited
because of the topographical constraints of the property.
3. Is the requested area variance substantial? The relief may be considered moderate; not
really substantial.
4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? Minor impacts to the physical and
environmental conditions of the neighborhood are anticipated.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes.
Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 57-2014, Kirk
Roberts, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe.
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request
an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires;
B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building&Codes personnel;
C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on
receipt of these final plans;
D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed
project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the
Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or
department.
Duly adopted this 20th day of August,2014,by the following vote:
MR. KUHL-The relief required from the front setback 100 foot is required, proposed is 37.6, relief is
62.94. Side setback,required is 75,proposed is 22.7,relief requested is 52.3 feet.
MR.JACKOSKI-Any further discussion?
MR. FREER-I just want to, I thought I heard him say 37.6,and it's really 37.06.
MR. KUHL-I stand corrected.
MR. JACKOSKI-Let's just make sure, Staff, that's correct, 37.06. Okay. As amended. Thank you,
Harrison.
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JARRETT-Thank you much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2014 SEQRA TYPE II ED HERMANCE & CYNTHIA ROBERTSON
AGENT(S) LARRY CLUTE OWNER(S) REDTAIL HAWK HOLDINGS ZONING NR LOCATION
13 COLUMBIA AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 873 SQ. FT. SINGLE-
FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT AND REAR YARD MINIMUM
ALLOWABLE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP
2009-003 DEMOLITION; BP 92-043 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT
SIZE 0.11 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.7-1-27 SECTION 179-3-040
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CYNTHIA ROBERTSON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-2014, Ed Hermance & Cynthia Robertson, Meeting Date:
August 20, 2014 "Project Location: 13 Columbia Avenue Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of an 873 sq.ft.single family dwelling.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances from section 179-3-040 establishment of districts setback
requirements for the NR zone.
Front setback-North, Columbia Ave. Rear setback-South
Required 20 ft. 15 ft.
Proposed 10 ft. 8 ft.
Relief 10 ft. 7 ft.
Criteria for considering as Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.
Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible
for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be
limited due to the size of the lot and the requirements of the NR zone. The applicant has
indicated the house size is 873 sq.ft.this includes a front porch of 9 sq.ft.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
BP 09-003: Demolition
BP 92-045: Septic alteration
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct an 873 sq.ft.home on a 0.11 acre parcel. The parcel is a corner
lot where the relief requested is for the front on Columbia and the other front on Feld Avenue is
greater than the setback requirement. The plans show the location of the home and the proposed
front elevation without the porch.
SEQR Status:
SEQR Type II"
MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record,please.
MS. ROBERTSON-Cynthia Robertson.
ED HERMANCE
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR. HERMANCE-Ed Hermance.
MR. CLUTE-Larry Clute.
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Don't be nervous. All right.Anything, Mr. Clute,you'd like to add at this
time?
MR. CLUTE-No, I think the project's pretty straightforward. The neighborhood,the condition of the
lot,it's a smaller lot,but the original subdivision,which was Sunset,was all 45 foot lots, and this one
here, the odd man left out. They attempted to try and put a single wide back on it, but that
particular area is no longer a mobile home overlay. So the Town Board was not in favor of that at
all,and that's how we ended up in front of you guys.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions from Board members?
MR. KUHL-So you're suggesting, Mr. Clute, that you're going to put a three foot front porch, is that
what you're doing? I mean,the front of the house is towards Columbia,right?
MR. CLUTE-Yes,sir.
MR. KUHL-So you're going to just,because it's not on the drawing.
MR. CLUTE-It's a requirement. When I put this, the blueprints I have for this simple ranch didn't
have a stoop on it,but a New York State requirement is you've got to have a three by three landing.
MR. KUHL-So you're going to run them towards Feld Avenue? Is that what,your steps are going to
run towards Feld Avenue?
MR. CLUTE-Yes,sir.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-The driveway is not coming off Columbia?
MR. CLUTE-My vision, actually, would be to do a loop. It would actually come off of both. You've
got so much property on the corner that I think it would behoove to do a loop, come in off of
Columbia and come out on Feld, or vice versa,come in on Feld and come out on Columbia.
MR. GARRAND-There's going to be no pavement on there,no pavement just crushed stone?
MR. CLUTE-Just crushed stone.
MR. GARRAND-Okay, because that'll, if they pave it from there to there, it's going to do a lot to
increase the impermeability in that area.
MR.JACKOSKI-But it is crushed stone.
MR. GARRAND-No garage proposed for this at all?
MR. CLUTE-No, sir. The septic,there's a pre-existing septic in there that Ed and Cindy have already
had the Building Department approve or accept,and I don't, I'm not extremely comfortable with the
exact location. So if this is approved, I'll know what we're doing at that time, but without knowing
what's happening,no,no garages.
MR. HENKEL-So you don't know where the septic is?
MR. CLUTE-I do,yes,roughly.
MRS. ROBERTSON-The septic is,what is it 15 feet off the?
MR. HERMANCE-Off of Feld.
MRS. ROBERTSON-Off of Feld to,inward,and then what it is, 10 from the line.
MR. HENKEL-So there's no way of really actually moving the house over closer to Feld, so you could
maybe in the future use it.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR. CLUTE-If, indeed, this application is approved, I would try to push the house further down, so
it's not all on one end of the lot so to speak.
MR. HENKEL-Because that would be a nice place to put the garage on that one side, on the west
side.
MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir. Another reason for no garage proposed at this point is price point, trying to
encourage affordability. Obviously this is just an additional expense. So,hence no garage.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any further discussion?
MR. GARRAND-Not much space for it.
MS. ROBERTSON-There is none.
MR. GARRAND-This was bought at County auction,right?
MS. ROBERTSON-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the
audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment?
MR.URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR.JACKOSKI-Having no written comment,having no one here in the audience, is there any further
discussion by the Board before I poll the Board? I'll poll the Board. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Well, Mr. Clute, if you build this building right where you lay it out on this print,because
you didn't bring us the whole story, even with the septic and the driveway, it'll be fine, but if you
come back when this is finished and you need a variance for three more feet,you're not going to get
it.
MR. CLUTE-Yes,sir.
MR. KUHL-Okay, but I agree with the way it is. I think in the future you should bring the whole
story.
MR. CLUTE-I understand.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I can see his concern there. I have no problem with it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, this is a tough little lot, but I guess Ron makes a good information that there's
information that would have been useful for considering this, and that I, too, would look partially
upon any future requests,but I will support it as presented.
MR. CLUTE-Thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I support the project.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-On the application before us today, with the information provided to us, I would be in
favor of the project.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I thought Mr. Kuhl made a great summation and I agree with him.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. After polling the Board, I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.JACKOSKI-And I'll seek a motion.
MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion.
RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 58-2014, Ed Hermance & Cynthia Robertson,
Tax Map No. 309.7-1-27
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ed
Hermance and Cynthia Robertson for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code
of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of an 873 sq. ft. single-family
dwelling. Relief requested from the front and rear yard minimim allowable setback
requirements for the NR zoning district.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,August 20,2014;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and
Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a
detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area
variance? We find not.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Not really. There is not really much
area available here.
3. Is the requested area variance substantial? Not really with respect to the rest of the
neighborhood.
4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? We think not.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is but we find no problem.
Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 58-2014, Ed
Hermance and Cynthia Robertson, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Richard Garrand:
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request
an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires;
B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building&Codes personnel;
C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on
receipt of these final plans;
D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed
project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or
department.
Duly adopted this 20th day of August,2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-Good luck.
MS. ROBERTSON-Thank you.
MR. HERMANCE-Thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-You're welcome.
MR. JACKOSKI-Before we have the next, I know we've done quite a few applications here this
evening. Does anyone want to take a break, or do we just want to go into the next application?
MR. HENKEL-We're on a roll.
MR.URRICO-We're good to go.
MR.JACKOSKI-Everyone's good to go,no break? Okay.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2014 SEQRA TYPE II JOHN BREYO, MARILYN BREYO & ASTON
GOLDBERG, LLC AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. ZONING WR LOCATION: 3430
STATE ROUTE 9L, 5 ANTIGUA ROAD, AND 0 ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
INSTALLATION OF A 538 LINEAR FEET, 8 FT. TALL DEER-PROTECTION FENCE ALONG FOUR
CONTIGUOUS PARCELS PARALLEL TO ROUTE 9L AND ANTIGUA ROAD. THE 8 FT. FENCE
WILL RUN ON THE FRONT AND SIDE BOUNDARY LINES TO THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE
BOUNDARY. RELIEF REQUESTED IS FOR MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF A FENCE.
CROSS REF BP 90-468 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 90-079 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 85-420 SEPTIC ALT.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE
0.72; 0.03; 0.02; 0.15 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-2,4, 1 AND 3 SECTION 179-5-070
MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-2014, John Breyo, Marilyn Breyo & Aston Goldberg, LLC,
Meeting Date: August 20, 2014 "Project Location: 3430 State Route 9L, 5 Antigua Road, and 0
Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a 538 linear
feet, 8 foot tall deer-protection fence along their contiguous parcels parallel to Route 9 and Antigua
Road. The 8 foot fence will run on the front & side boundary lines to the Town of Lake George
boundary.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require an area variance from section 179-5-070 fences:
Fence Height Side Fence Height Front Yard (470.78 ft.)
Yard including architectural front(75 ft.)
Required 6 ft. 4 ft.
Proposed 8 ft. 8 ft.
Relief 2 ft. 4 ft.
Criteria for considering as Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
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 may be
available to lower the height to the required six feet however the applicant has indicate the
fence height is to deter wildlife destroying the landscape on the property.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has
indicated the fencing would be placed within the existing vegetative cover.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
BP 90-468: Septic alteration
BP 90-079: Septic alteration
BP 85-420: Septic alteration
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to install 538 feet of fencing at 8 feet in height along four properties on
Antigua Road and Route 9L along the Queensbury side of the properties. This includes
approximately 545.78 feet of front yard fence of which 75 feet may be considered architectural
front required to be at 4 feet in height. The remainder of the 80 foot side yard is required to be no
more than 6 feet. The applicant has explained that it is a deer protection fence to deter deer from
eating the landscaping on the site. The plans show the location of the fence on all portions of the
properties as they are split by the town line of Queensbury and Lake George. The applicant has
indicated they have attempted to discourage the deer from eating with lights, sounds, and
temporary fencing and was not successful. The applicant has explained that the fencing would not
be seen off the property as it would be screened by existing plantings.
SEQR Status:
SEQR Type II"
MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. For the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law
firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicants, John and Marilyn Breyo, and Aston Goldberg,
LLC, and with me at the table is Kyle Stevens who is with AFSCO Fence Supply Company who is the
contractor that will do the fencing if we go forward. Part of this project is in the Town of Lake
George and part is in the Town of Queensbury. We have applied for an Area Variance for height in
the Town of Lake George, and we will have to apply for Site Plan approval for the construction
within the Town of Lake George because it's within 300 feet of the lake. In Queensbury, if you start
on New York State Route 9L boundary, 30 feet from our southeast corner, that's where the Town
line crosses the property, or intersects the property, and what we're talking about along 9L is
constructing an eight foot fence. Because this property is on the Town highway as well as on the
lake, both the lake frontage and the back highway is considered frontage. The requirement is that
we have a four foot fence. If you take a look at the photos that I've passed out, you will see that
there is existing shrubbery along almost all of 9L, and then as you start down Antigua Road,there's
additional shrubbery. That shrubbery is probably in excess of 10 feet. There's a picture of me
standing by the stop sign where Antigua Road starts and goes down, where the property then runs
along Antigua Road. You can see by my height which is probably, used to be six feet, that the
shrubbery is well above it. The other photo, I think it's the third photo in the stack that you will
see, you can see the back of the shrubbery. The property actually falls off behind the shrubbery
that's there. Along Antigua Road and along Route 9L, the plan is to put the fencing behind the
shrubbery, so that it will not be visible from 9L or from Antigua Road. I think that's the easiest part
of the application that we have. You actually are not looking at anything on the south boundary
here in the Town of Queensbury. The south boundary is in the Town of Lake George. After we,
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
and I will say this, too. If you look at the sketch that was drawn by the fence supply company,you
will see, and I didn't catch this until afterwards, after it was submitted, the surveyor did not show
the parking area, that is at the far northerly end of the property. That parking area would also be
fenced, the same as along Antigua Drive. Along the northerly boundary, a six foot fence is
permitted, and we're asking for a variance to build an eight foot fence there. We have recently
planted a hedgerow of hydrangea, which are presently about four feet high. The fence would be
put on the outside of those hydrangea, but the hydrangea are situated so that they will grow into
the fence and they are a species, according to Dick Mead from Mead's Landscaping, that will reach
eight feet or higher. So we look at them as being the background for that fence. The fencing
material that we are going to utilize is going to be a black fence. It is a chain link fence, but it is
coated with material that is a lasting cover, and they tell me, from different things that I've read and
what not,that the black is the most invisible when you put it against your shrubberies. The owner,
in the past,has tried repellants and he's tried motion activated noise items,lights that are activated
by motion. He's tried internal fencing. He has about six areas on his property, the combined
properties, that they have put in substantial fencing around during the wintertime. They used
netting, they used mesh, and the individual shrubs he actually either covers with canvas or burlap
from the stalk to the top. He's tried wireless electronic shock items. It's something that you stick
out and you put something on it to attract the deer to it and when they touch it they get a shock. All
those things have not been very successful. He has sprayed repellant, a very smell substance, on a
lot of the shrubbery, a lot of the flowers and the beds and all that stuff, and then they put, they
broadcast another item on it, malloright, and again,that has not been overly successful. He used to
have daylilies on the property, and he fought that battle for years, and has discontinued that
because he just wasn't successful. Hostas was the same thing. He has discontinued that. They
just, there's no way of protecting them from the deer. I probably learned more about deer than I
needed to learn in the last few days because different questions came up in Lake George,but hungry
deer will eat anything. There is not something that you're going to do that's going to protect them.
He has replaced cedar trees. He's replaced yews. The yews last about three years. He's almost
given up on arborvitae because the deer like them as well. The yews, as I said, he replaces every
three or four years. Just trying to stay even with the deer, and this is his maintenance people that
do maintenance only, not the yard work or re-planting plants, and putting in the temporary fencing
around his property, doing the spraying. They actually sprayed, I think, last year four different
times to keep the spray active, if you will. It cost him about$5,000 a year. I don't have a figure as
to what Mead costs each year when he goes in and replaces shrubbery or flowers or whatever that
have been destroyed by the deer. It's expensive, and that's what he's trying to do. If you read the
material that you get on deer, one of the other benefits of keeping the deer out is that you cut down
drastically on deer ticks and the possibility of Lyme Disease. After a few years, actually your
property becomes free of those. Which is something I was a little bit surprised to learn. In Lake
George when we appeared, the variance was tabled so that we could get some of the information
that I'm actually giving to you. One of the arguments on opposition was that an eight foot fence is
not effective because deer can jump higher than eight feet. They can jump higher than eight feet. I
think the USDA agricultural department says white tail deer can jump 15 feet, but they don't often
jump, and in the same material it says that they don't often jump. If they're getting chased by a
coyote or if there are a bunch of dogs or something like that,you may see them do that jump. Deer
typically will try to go around something, or go under something, and a fence, when it's put up, has
to be maintained. So that if other small animals have made holes underneath it, the deer don't go
through those holes as well. Deer also will break a fence, if you use a plastic fencing. They will
actually pound against it and they will find a weak spot and they will be in the yard. That is one of
the reasons that this fencing was chosen. When we were in Lake George, people were talking
about,well,you're not fencing,you're only fencing three sides and you're not doing anything on the
lake, and will the deer come from the lake. There's a four foot seawall at the lake, four to five feet,
and on top of that there is juniper all along the seawall,the entire width of the property. Juniper is
a very prickly type shrubbery. That's maybe three feet. So you almost have your eight feet from
the ice, depending upon what the level of the lake is, when the lake freezes. They also use ice
management during the winter, and they have two bubblers, one on each side of their dock system.
so there's going to be open water in front of most of that property. So they won't be jumping from
the ice for most of that property. They would be jumping from the water, which I think is unlikely.
So I think we are covering all four sides. The driveways that are open, and are shown open on the
plan, will be closed with fabric material, not solid fencing. There's no plan to install gates on those
driveways at this point, but we can get fabric material and we can close it with that. So that's
basically what we're proposing to do. This is property that is very heavily treed, very heavily
landscaped, and although we know it's in the Adirondacks and we know that deer are in the
Adirondacks, we don't know why we should not be allowed to attempt to keep the deer off the
property. I've heard arguments that you've got to accept them as a fact of life, part of living in
Adirondacks. I don't think you have to, not if they're troublesome, not if they're doing damage to
your property. That's basically what we have. We'd be glad to answer questions that you have. I
think the Staff Notes were good. They talk about minor impacts to the neighborhood may be
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
anticipated, and I say that in a sense that all the fencing along 9L and Antigua Drive is going to be
hidden by that existing shrubbery that's there. The fencing on the north, which is going to be
visible for some time until that,those hydrangea get to the eight foot or higher level, we could have
six feet there now,without coming for a variance. That's a side line fence. The difference between
six and eight I don't think is significant. As to alternatives,they've tried just about everything as far
as deer control, and they haven't been successful, and that's the main purpose of doing the fence. Is
it substantial? I think Staff said that it may be considered moderate relative to the Code, and will it
produce an adverse impact physically on environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district?
Minor impacts may be anticipated. If you've been up to the property, and I presume that you have,
they do, they try to do a very nice job with their property. They will do the same thing with the
vegetation that they're going to plant and that they're going to maintain to soften the existence of
the fence. Although it's not your part, the fencing will be eight feet on the sides and eight feet on
the rear towards 9L and Antigua Drive, and at the lake it will be four feet. We think that we can get
by with that. Lake George has told us that if we have a problem,we can put temporary fabric above
the four feet during the Spring or early winter when the deer seem to cause most of the problem.
That's it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. Any questions from Board members at this time?
MR. FREER-Yes, I have a couple of questions. The first is what's the total acreage of the property
they will be trying to keep deer out of?
MR. O'CONNOR-2.03 acres I believe. That includes all of the different lots.
MR. FREER-And then has anybody questioned the idea the you would be funneling deer onto Route
9L as an unintended consequence of having this fence?
MR. O'CONNOR-I don't believe the deer come across the lake and go through the property in that
sense. The deer come, we believe, from the mountain, which is behind us on the opposite side of
9L. The length along 9L is probably maybe 400 feet total, maybe 450 feet. So I don't know, if we
put a wall up, if that's going to create a traffic jam of deer. I think deer will adapt to that. They
typically do. I'm told that it's very difficult to get them to change their habits.
MR. GARRAND-That's precisely what I think Mr. Freer was alluding to was is deer are creatures of
habit. They use the same trails all the time. I used to hunt,and they would be using the same trails
year after year. Like he was saying,though,there is a strong possibility you get a deer and a couple
of fawns crossing 9L, a car coming down the road, the deer have no place to go but back across the
road and that presents a hazard to drivers going up and down Route 9L.
MR. O'CONNOR-There's some pretty good size, if you look in the photos I gave you, where I was
standing, there's a pretty good strip of land between the hedges and 9L. Those hedges aren't out
right on 9L, and the fencing that we're talking about will be behind those hedges, so the fencing will
probably,maybe 30 feet or better,maybe 40 feet back from the 9L pavement.
MR. MC CABE-I,too,have this concern, and I guess my question is,did we ask ENCON for an opinion
on what blocking this route for the deer might do? Is it going to drive, you know, because the
road's curved there, and if the deer try to go back up the mountain, which is I believe where they
come from, they're natural tendency is going to go back across 9L. I've hit a deer. It's about zero
fun. I wouldn't wish that on anybody.
MR. O'CONNOR-Go up and down Country Club Road on a regular basis, you hit them there. I have
hit one there. I talked to Jed Hayden. He is the Wildlife Biologist for DEC Region Five. He's the
one that supplied me some of that material that I've submitted to you. He did not have any concern
about that being a hazard, but, you know, I can only tell you what my telephone conversation with
him was.
MR. URRICO-Mr. O'Connor, the material that you handed out, going through it really quick, it says
that it really doesn't matter what height the fence is, that deer are reluctant to jump it unless they
are threatened in someway,they usually don't jump this fencing of any height. So why not put it at
the height that you're allowed? It won't make a difference if it's higher or lower.
MR. O'CONNOR-Based upon the recommendation from Dick Mead,who was involved with a project
like this down near the Albany area, and based upon what we had as a report for a piece of property
up on the Bolton Road, owned by a fellow by the name of Jack Daniels, he has an eight foot fence
and has found it to be effective. Dick Mead has said that you need eight feet to be effective.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR.URRICO-Yet this material you just handed out says it doesn't matter.
MR. O'CONNOR-I understand that, and I'm not trying to dance around that. When you go on line,
there are three different companies that I.
MR.URRICO-It seems to be the color of the fence has more of an effect than the height.
MR. HENKEL-We have neighbors that have them around their pool and from a distance,you cannot
see that fence. That would create more of a problem, wouldn't it? The deer running into it and
breaking their necks?
MR. O'CONNOR-It discourages them. It's the color that's suggested. I went through critter fencing.
They recommended seven and a half feet. Brender's Gardens, they recommended eight feet, and
Deer Busters recommended eight feet for fencing. It seems to be in the industry the height
recommendation is eight feet. It's like, and then that material that I handed out to you also said
they can jump above the eight feet,but they're unlikely to jump the eight feet.
MR. URRICO-It says here, what I'm reading it says they don't normally jump deer fencing of any
height.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think everybody has seen them jump.
MR. URRICO-They're reluctant to jump high. They're reluctant to discourage them from vaulting
even ordinary deer fencing.
MR. HENKEL-I know I built a house about 20 years ago up on West Mountain there and the first
year we were there we had quite a few deer running through our yard, and after we put a six foot
fence up, stockade fence. One time there were three deer that jumped over, and they jumped back
out and we haven't had a problem since, and that's always a common area where they used to run
through there. So I think even that six foot fence took care of that.
MR. FREER-I saw three deer in Columbia Airport that has an eight foot fence, spiked barbed wire
around the whole airport. I don't know how they got in there, whether they jumped the fence or
something, but there is a problem, and my concern is the unintended consequences of starting the
fence off for deer that is a known issue here in Queensbury.
MR. KUHL-Mike, is it your contention by the fence that you have Antigua going down to the lake
blocking off the neighbor's two story house, that in the wintertime the deer are coming across the
lake coming in the property that way?
MR. O'CONNOR-No,but if you only blocked off along the highway,they'd come around the side of it.
MR. KUHL-Yes,but, I mean,you're proposing fencing,and you've got driveways open.
MR. O'CONNOR-We will close those. This is a seasonal house,believe it or not.
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-And when they are not there,they will close the driveways off.
MR. KUHL-With what?
MR. O'CONNOR-With fabric,eight foot fabric.
MR. KUHL-They're not going to do that. They're going to drive down and go to Jersey or wherever
they come from and leave it wide open.
MR. O'CONNOR-I wouldn't spend that amount of money on fencing and leave the driveways open. I
have to admit that that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
MR. KUHL-Well, if they would power gates in it, I would be more in agreement with you, Mike,but I
think as long as they have openings, and I don't see, I don't see it down here. I mean, I guess if I
asked you you'd probably give me a head count on how many deer came on their property because
of your presentation of everything they say they did before. It just seems, I don't know, as long as
there's openings, Mike, the deer are going to come in, and your pictures with you along the tree
lines, a four foot fence behind there would do just as good as an eight foot because the trees are
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
stopping them, slowing them down, and if they bang against the fence, they're going to stop.
They're not going to try to jump through, excuse me, I'm not a deer expert. I'm just going as a
homeowner, and my assumption here is that when they see that tree line, you know, they're going
to poke their head, and if they can't get it through they're going to walk around, and as long as
there's no gates, they're going to get around it. Okay. I mean, that's the way I see it, and I don't
understand why blocking out towards the lake. I really don't,towards the neighbor,but,you know,
put the fence on the other side of the tree line and let the neighbor endure trees rather than looking
at the fence,but I think eight foot is a lot of request. I think it's.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, can we just go back and confirm what we're dealing with here, because as
you look at the survey, the lakeside portion of this parcel is in the Town of Lake George and the
roadside portion of this parcel is generally in the Town of Queensbury, and if we did a motion this
evening, I would like to make a notation that, would we be able to condition it that if they did get
approval from the Town of Lake George,so that there were no additional holes,meaning side on the
south and side on the north, if they didn't get the approval from Lake George,then they wouldn't be
allowed to put the eight feet along the road either, because there'd be too many holes at that point.
Does that make sense? Okay. So the next thing is,can you go over again what is currently allowed
by Code that would not require a variance for the Queensbury subject parcel? It is a six foot side
yard fence?
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-And is that six foot height side yard fence allowed forward of the facade of the house
toward the road, or would that then have to be four feet in height at that point? In other words,
does the fence have to be four feet in height from Antigua to the point in which it is no longer the
front yard?
MRS.MOORE-If I'm pointing correctly,the house is somewhere in here.
MR.JACKOSKI-Right.
MRS. MOORE-And you're wondering if, wherever the architectural front is, and I think I've
described it as 75 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right, and that is the point where the fence would then be allowed at four feet in
height.
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-And then because it is on the lakeside.
MRS. MOORE-It's limited. That next piece that would be allowed at six feet is limited to the Town
of Queensbury's property and it's only,it's not as long.
MR.JACKOSKI-Because technically this parcel's not lakefront.
MRS.MOORE-Correct.
MR.JACKOSKI-If it were lakefront,how tall could the fence be,how far off the lake?
MRS.MOORE-It would still be four feet.
MR.JACKOSKI-Fifty feet off the shoreline,right? Okay.
MRS.MOORE-No,it could only be four feet within 50 feet of the shoreline.
MR.JACKOSKI-Correct, and then after that it would be six feet and then,but if it was front yard then
it would be back down to four feet.
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. And along the road is four feet.
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-And along the south boundary would be four feet because it's considered in the front
yard.
MR. O'CONNOR-The south boundary is entirely in the Town of Lake George.
MRS.MOORE-Yes,Town of Lake George.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Right. Correct. Okay. Any further discussion from Board members? I have
a feeling we have public comment. Any more discussion about this? Okay. We do have a public
comment period scheduled for this evening. I'd like to open up the public comment period.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.JACKOSKI- Is there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "Dear Sir: I have received John and Marilyn Breyo's proposal for a 538
ft. by 8 ft. fence. After review, I must oppose this project. The deer can easily jump the 4 ft.
sections near the lake so I don't think the 8 ft.section will do any good. My main concern is that the
fence will create a gated compound that is not compatible with the open space nature of Antigua
road and other neighborhoods on the east side of Lake George. Sincerely, Craig Brown" And one
other one.
MR.JACKOSKI-And just for the record, Roy, Craig Brown would be an adjoining property owner, no,
would not be adjoining,but they are at the end of Antigua at the corner. Okay.
MR.URRICO-He's at 27 Antigua.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR.URRICO-"We oppose the approval of this variance for the following reasons: •UNSIGHTLY and
a DETRIMENT to Neighborhood & will not solve the problem • DRIVEWAYS are not gated and
there are other entrances that will not be fenced • Unfenced surrounding properties have had
MINIMAL damage done to the plants by deer In closing, this is not a HARDSHIP, which is the
primary reason for approving a variance. Sincerely, Daniel and Pamela Valente 23 Antigua Road
Lake George, NY"
MR.JACKOSKI-And that's it for written comment?
MR.URRICO-That's it for written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I believe there are people here in the audience this evening. Can I have a
show of hands,please, of who'd like to address the Board concerning this application?
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me get,the consensus is that this is not something that you're going to support?
MR.JACKOSKI-I don't know that. I'd like to have the public comment period first.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would table it and take them back.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I've already opened the public comment and I feel that we've advertised it for
public comment. So I think I need to take the public comment. Ma'am, are you looking to address
the Board as well? Okay. Mr. Lapper,we'll let you go first.
JON LAPPER
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. For the record, Jon Lapper on behalf of Howard and Jen Nadler who are
on your left. Howard and Jen have been close friends of mine for, since they built their house
probably a dozen years ago. They're the immediate neighbors to the north and this is just their,
and I think any property owner's worst nightmare to have somebody propose an eight foot tall
chain link industrial fence in a residential neighborhood anywhere, let alone on lake property
where views are so important, but for them this is just something they never could have imagined
that a neighbor would propose this. I've got a number of things that I want to put in the record.
Looking at the fence code, under Industrial Commercial zones, which I think is really significant D-
2, generally fences should be no more than six feet high in the Industrial zone unless fences are
necessary for security purposes, in which case a fence may be erected to eight feet high. So you
can't even do this unless you have a special reason in an industrial park, and we're talking about
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
lakefront property. Howard and Jen took some photos, which I'll pass out. Their view over the
neighbor's property with the hydrangeas. Jen's picture just to show what eight feet is, just how
significant that would be along the side property line,just unbelievable, and she's a tall person and
it's still not even close. So I want to put these in the record. Also in the fence code, just so that
we're clear, and I think Laura said this, but the architectural front yard is also the side yard up to
the front facade of the house. So it can only be four feet along 9L and Antigua Road, but also on
Howard and Jen's property line, all the way up there's a large part of the side of their property that
can only be four feet. So a six foot fence is,you know,almost as bad as an eight foot fence,to have a
chain link fence six feet along their property line. If they want to put shrubs in or more, a hedge,
anything, you know, natural stuff is fine. That's their prerogative, but to put a chain link fence, it
just seems so inappropriate in this neighborhood and I think, you know, I'm here all the time, and
we always have discussions and we always hear from people talking about precedent, and in most
cases we say that it's unique to the lot so it's not a precedent situation, but in this case I'm sure for
all of you, I know for me, I live right behind Town Hall at Hiland, and, you know, we have deer all
winter and I'm looking out my window watching them jumping up on the cherry trees, you know,
you feel bad. They're hungry, but that's just every lot in Queensbury we have deer. So if it's okay
to, you know, if the remedy is to put up an eight foot chain link fence then, you know, all of us and
everyone else could do that too if that's appropriate, and I'm saying that knowing that that's not
appropriate and it's not appropriate on any lot. It's like trying to get rid of your rabbit problem
with a machine gun. It's just overkill. An eight foot chain link fence is just not neighborly. It's not
attractive, not a good situation, and,you know, I'm not even talking about property value yet. I did
get a letter from Dan Davies who's very familiar with their property, where he determines that it
will affect their property value likely in excess of $100,000, but it's really, it's the change in the
character of the neighborhood that's worse than that. I'd like to put this in the record as well.
Mike had some discussion about Lake George, but what didn't come out was that the Lake George
Zoning Board was five to nothing opposed to this. They allowed him to table it for more
information, but it didn't seem like there was any possibility that Lake George was going to go for
this, and I know that you guys are all very careful with variances, and I hope you won't either. The
discussions about whether there are openings, if there's an opening at the driveways, that seems
obvious. If there's an opening at the lake,that seems obvious. If it's going to be four feet along the
lake, that seems obvious. So in terms of that balancing test of the benefit to the applicant, I don't
think this is going to provide a benefit. The way to address this is to change the plant material to
something that deer don't like. If that is such a big deal to these people that they don't want deer,
you know, they could remove vegetation, but as well all know, it's a fact of life, and, you know, to
put up an eight foot fence to try and keep deer out just really overkill and just really not nice. So
I'm just hoping that this isn't something that you'll consider. Thank you.
MR.JAC KOSKI-Perfectly timed,Jonathan. Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd
like to address the Board?
MARGARET BISHOP MAYNARD
MRS. MAYNARD-I'm Margaret Bishop Maynard. We have a property that is 90 years old as of this
year, at the very end of Antigua Road. It's been in my family that long. It is, I am also someone
who knows something about planting, and I happen to know that the hydrangeas that you spoke of,
since I have planted them and got them from Mead Nursery also may get to be eight feet tall, but
subjected to the rains that we have had recently, and subjected to wind from the lake, that is
probably not going to happen. They are probably, from what I see walking along the road, peachy
hydrangeas. They will be subjected, they droop. They will not cover that fence without question.
There are other plantings, I know from our own property. I've had deer just decimate the daylilies.
I've had deer take, during the winter we have a large pussy willow bush,just strip it. It's the fact of
life. I've had Lyme Disease three times. You cannot isolate a property from deer, deer ticks, the
mice that are related to that. It's impossible. I agree totally with Mr. Lapper about the look. You
drive in Antigua Road, you have the trees there that Mr. Breyo's put up. They're fine. You get a
little further and you see the lake. It would change that whole perspective, for all of us. It would
change the look of the neighborhood. Where you have the driveway, even if you put fabric up
during the winter, and during the spring,we had deer problems late June. The daylilies,they get to
pop early July. You're going to keep fabric up to deter that,and how is that going to look? It is just
not in keeping with everyone. I am sorry two of our other neighbors who I contacted today did not
get their facts in. We know them well. They're our two next door neighbors, Dr. Chapados and Dr.
Farber,they are both opposed to the fence. There's one part of the driveway, one part of one of the
parking areas where it goes down and they've planted hydrangea bushes, I can't understand how
you could put this eight foot around the hydrangea bushes, and the hydrangea bushes, which the
level of where they are is below the level of the road, those bushes are going to have to grow
another four feet higher than eight. It just doesn't make sense nor look good. You have all of the
neighbors opposing it. Thanks very much.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to? Sir,please.
DAVE MONTANA
MR. MONTANA-Hi. I'm Dave Montana. I live at 19 Antigua Road, on the other side of Nadler's. So
I'm two down from Mr. Breyo. The triangular piece you see, if she moves her arrow further to the
right,that piece right there, almost three acres, I own that also, and,you know, the deer spend a lot
of time in there, and they're on our property all the time. The fact that the deer, as has been said,
are only here in the winter, and the spring and all that is baloney. They're there all the time.
They're there all year round, except during hunting season, when you want to find them and then
they're not around, but I can tell you they're there all the time, and my wife has torn her hair out
with the flowers and all the rest of that stuff, and we finally just had to bite the bullet and change
the plantings,just to something that they don't bother with,and that reduces the problem,by about,
I'd say 90%. They're still going to come on your property looking, but,you know, it's just a fact of
life they're going to be there. I agree with everything that Jon Lapper said and my other neighbors.
That road wasn't even paved until about maybe 12 or 15 years ago. It was a dirt road. It was very,
very rural. Just like everything else around the lake, everything is being built new. We've been
there since 1957,but, so,you know,we like to think of it as a rural area,you know, residential. It's
not something where we want to be looking at a fence when we drive down the road. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to addrses the Board?
Seeing no one, Mr. O'Connor, if you could come back. At this time,would you like to address any of
the public comment?
MR. O'CONNOR-Just for the record, one. I, too, have talked to Dan Davies, and he wrote the letter
without an understanding where the fence was going to be placed with regard to the existing
shrubbery, or this shrubbery that was to grow. He kind of apologized for it. I would like to table
the application, and for the purpose of contacting my client with a recommendation that he
withdraw the application. I don't have authority to withdraw it this evening, but I think I've heard
enough questions from Board members that says that this is not, in its present form, something
that's going to get approved.
MR.JACKOSKI-Would you like me to at least poll the Board for you?
MR. O'CONNOR-Fine. Yes, and the other comment was, there was no vote taken in Lake George.
There were comments. One Board member was insistent that deer could jump higher than eight
feet. I said I didn't know at that point, until I read some of the material. Another Board member
insisted that the deer would come from the lake without knowing of the retaining wall or the
shrubbery above it or the fact that it's open water during the time that they're most likely to
frequent the property. So we tabled it so that we could get some more information, but those are
the two comments that I would make for the record.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll start with Harrison.
MR. FREER-So I don't support this variance, based on the input from the public and neighbors, and
also my concern that fences near the road will divert deer on to the road and cause motor vehicle
hazards,and I agree that this is a precedence issue that we need to go very slowly.
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I agree with some of the people who've spoken tonight that benefits can be achieved
by other means. By, i.e. altering plantings. I also think that this is a change to the character of the
neighborhood. To start fencing off properties in this area is, I don't want to say a blight on the
landscape, but,you know, it goes against what's been up there for the last,you know, 50, 70 years.
Also I agree with Harrison. It might have the effect of funneling deer back into 9L, and God forbid
we cause a serious accident by our actions here.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I don't like the project. I'm afraid of the effect of driving the deer back onto 9L. I'll
make a couple of tips. Deer like yews. They don't like Boxwood. So I'd replace the yews with the
Boxwood. Deer hate garlic, and so you can protect your flowers with garlic cloves or a garlic spray.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
MR.URRICO-Yes, I think the project is a bad idea, I think, for a number of reasons,the impact on the
neighborhood, the amount of variance that's requested, and I think also there's dangerous
precedent we could set if we allow this and everybody would be fencing off their yards to keep out
various wildlife,and I don't think we can do that.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I would not want to set a precedent with this eight foot,and because of the way it's being
presented, with the voids, I don't see the value at all, Mike, I mean, excuse me, Mr. Chairman, so I'd
be against it.
MR.JACKOSKI-And John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with my fellow Board members that as the application is presented, I'm
not in favor of it at this time.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So,the applicant has requested a tabling of the application with the potential
for withdrawal.
MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John and
Marilyn Breyo for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-070 of the Zoning Code of The Town of
Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of an 538 linear feet, 8 ft. tall deer-protection
fence along four continguous parcels parallel to Route 9L and Antigua Road. The 8 ft. fence
will run on the front and side boundary lines to the Town of Lake George boundary. Relief
requested is for maximum allowable height of a fence.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,August 20,2014 and left open;
RESOLUTION TO: Table Area Variance No. 59-2014, John & Marilyn Breyo, and Aston
Goldberg, LLC, Route 9L and Antigua Road,Tax Map No. 239.17-1-1, 2, 3,and 4 at the request
of the applicant. Introduced by Michael McCabe,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald
Kuhl:
The application will be placed on an October, 2014 meeting agenda with the required paperwork to
be submitted by Monday, September 15, 2014.
Duly adopted this 20th day of August,2014,by the following vote:
MRS.MOORE-Would October's meeting be sufficient time for you to gather information?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any additional matters to be brought in front of the Board this evening by
anyone? We do have one matter with Staff,please.
MRS. MOORE-There is a new zoning map that has been provided, and I'll either mail them to you or
bring them to the next meeting,and I do have the copies in the office if you wish to pick them up.
MR.JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you. Any further matters? Can I have a motion to adjourn?
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST
20,2014, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer:
Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/20/2014)
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-Goodnight everyone. Thank you.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
37