09-11-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 11,2014
INDEX
Area Variance No. 63-2014 William&Wendy Smith 1.
Tax Map No. 290.6-1-14
Area Variance No. 64-2014 William G. Gedney 7.
Tax Map No. 289.9-1-23; 289.9-1-22
Area Variance No. 65-2014 Stephen&Patricia Metivier 15.
Tax Map No. 308.17-1-27
Area Variance No. 66-2014 Raymond Every 19.
Tax Map No. 290.00-1-82.1
Area Variance No. 62-2014 Paul G. DesLauriers 24.
Tax Map No. 297.10-1-45
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 09/11/2014)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 11,2014
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
RONALD KUHL
MICHAEL MC CABE
RICHARD GARRAND
HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to start this evening's Zoning Board of Appeals meeting
for the Town of Queensbury. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it is actually quite
an easy process. On the back table is a little explanation sheet if you'd like to use that, and an
agenda. For each item that we have scheduled for this evening and we have a public comment
period we will, of course, open the public comment period accordingly. What will happen is we'll
have Roy read the applications into the record as I call them forward. The applicant can join us
here at the small table. Once Roy has completed with reading the application into the record,we'll
ask the applicant some questions if they'd like to expand on the application. We'll then continue
our deliberations. We'll ask for public comment, and then depending on where the Board decides
to move with the application,we'll take action accordingly. So I'd like to get started right away,and
the good thing for this evening is we have no housekeeping. So that's kind of nice for all of you in
attendance,and most of these are all New Business. That's even better.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2014 SEQRA TYPE II WILLIAM & WENDY SMITH OWNER(S)
WILLIAM &WENDY SMITH ZONING MDR LOCATION 1 STONEHURST DRIVE STONEHURST
SUBDIVISION, SECTION 1 APPLICANT HAS BEGUN CONSTRUCTION F A PRIVACY FENCE IN
THE FRONT YARDS OF A RESIDENCE LOCATED ON A CORNER LOT. FENCING PANELS RANGE
IN SIZE FROM 5 FT. TO 9 FT. IN HEIGHT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT
RESTRICTIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARDS. CROSS REF BP 99-555
SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.05 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.6-1-14
SECTION 179-5-070
WILLIAM &WENDY SMITH, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-2014, William & Wendy Smith, Meeting Date: September
11, 2014 "Project Location: 1 Stonehurst Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
has begun construction of a privacy fence in the front yard of a residence located on a corner lot.
Fencing panels range in size from 5 feet to 9 feet in height.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances from: Relief is requested for fence height and style of fence in the
front yard. Section 179-5-070 Fences.
Height(fence placement in front yard)
Required Up to 4 ft. in the front and architectural
front yard
Proposed Between 6 ft.and 9 ft.in height
Relief Between 2 ft.and 5 ft.in height
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.
Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
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 are available
to lower the fence to a compliant height. The applicant has indicated the fence height allows for
privacy of the home and store items that are not in the garage including boat and camper.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate to 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 impact 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 99-555: Single Family dwelling
Staff comments:
The applicant requests approval of an already constructed 157 ft. length privacy fence at varying
heights from 6 ft. to 9 ft. in height. The applicant was informed by the code compliance officer the
fence did not comply with the height and type of fence. The applicant has indicated the fence is not
complete yet as they would like to stain it and place decorative trim on it. The applicant's letter
explains the fence will minimize the amount of dust from the neighboring property from blowing
onto our home,vehicles and plantings. The code allows for a four foot high fence in the front yard
and it is not to be a privacy fence. The plans show the fence location, length and height as well as
photos. The applicant submitted a petition of support from neighbors in the area. The applicant's
request for a waiver from a survey was granted by the ZBA Chair as the request was not for
dimensional relief.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR. JACKOSKI-Hello and welcome. It's a pretty straightforward application. So do you want to
add anything at this time,or would you like us just to ask you some questions?
MRS. SMITH-Hello. I would just like to add that the height is at, or the fence is at different heights
because our yard off of east Sunnyside dips down. So it's very low compared to the roadside on
East Sunnyside.
MR. SMITH-There's elevation from the road to where the fence and the house sits down. So it's
about a five foot drop which requires us to make the fence a little bit higher just to make it more
tidy,more pleasing for on goers that pass by on the road.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public
comment period?
MR. KUHL-I have one, Mr. Chairman.
MR.JACKOSKI-Sure, Ron.
MR. KUHL-When did you construct the fence?
MR. SMITH-The fence was constructed last year.
MRS. SMITH-Last Fall.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR. SMITH-Last Fall.
MR. KUHL-Okay,and what's inside the area?
MR. SMITH-We have a yard trailer that we have in there. I have a motorcycle and enclosed trailer
in there. There's a storage tarp also,a storage tent, inside that area.
MR. KUHL-And what do you put in the tent?
MR. SMITH-There's a lawnmower in there. There's a snow blower in there. There's,you know, a
table saw and just stuff.
MR. KUHL-Stuff.
MR. KUHL-And you don't run a business out of it?
MR. SMITH-No,absolutely not.
MR. KUHL-I went by it last year and I looked and I said,wow,is that coyote ugly or what.
MR. SMITH-Yes,we had a lot of construction going on last year, and a lot of moving of material that
had to be transferred out. We change our business around a lot. There were some trucks there
that I kept, actually I kept one truck there for my business. The trucks would stop in there
periodically. They'd get their workload sheets and customers that they needed to, you know, see.
That's all changed. All that happens at Lowes now because we're a big subcontractor for Lowes
stores. So we arranged everything. Everyone has their own work truck now. All the work trucks
we just, the guys take them. We all meet at Lowes in the morning. So there's no interaction at all,
really at the house. There is the five minute thing that maybe happens once every two weeks. So
that has been alleviated a little bit. I think last year we had some major reconstruction,you know,
renovations done to the outside of our house. We put new siding on, new stone on. We've done a
lot of upgrades to the house and the guys were there a lot last year. So their cars were parked all
over the side of the roads and our driveway was used for,you know, materials being delivered and
taken away, and that may have created a little bit of friction with,you know, may have caused this,
the whole complaint to start. That's all been alleviated, and that doesn't exist at all over there
anymore. The renovation has all been complete except for the fence is about 85% complete, and
that was the last thing that we had on our list to do.
MR.URRICO-Before you constructed the fence, did you speak with anybody at the Town about what
was allowed and what wasn't allowed?
MR. SMITH-I started constructing the fence and I was kind of brainstorming. I walked out onto the
road and I'm trying to look, I'm like,what elevation are we at where everything looks nice and trim
across the top and clean and, you know, that's where we got our height variations from, and I
honestly thought, being that the setbacks on the fence are so far from the road, it's not even
remotely close to, you know, as a site deterrent at all for anybody going around the corners or
anything. It's just tight to the house. I didn't think that there would bean issue with anything.
MRS. SMITH-And there was an existing fence there that it's not, was not four feet. So we didn't
have a, I mean,it wasn't as high in some spots as this fence is,but it wasn't four feet.
MR. SMITH-And I have seen corner lots in the Town of Queensbury, and I looked at it more after
this started happening. There's quite a few out there. They may have different circumstances than
we do, but they are out there, so I didn't really think that it was going to be an issue, especially
being that far away from the road. A lot of those privacy fences were up a lot tighter to the road
than what were. So I didn't think that we were infringing on anything.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time from Board members? Hearing none, I will open
the public comment period at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy,are there any written comments?
MR.URRICO-There are no written comments that I can find.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who would like to address
this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'm going to leave the public
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
hearing open, and I'm going to poll the Board as to what their thoughts are on this particular
application.
MR.URRICO-Can I ask one more question?
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,of course.
MR.URRICO-How much further would you have to go to complete the fence?
MR. SMITH-I'm about 85% complete on the fence. We wanted to do some decorative trim on the
front, put some support wheels on,there's a little gate in the front. We wanted to take care of that.
We want to stain the fence and then do some landscaping around the corners to dress it up with
some landscaping.
MR.URRICO-You figure another 25 feet, 40 feet?
MR. SMITH-Building?
MR. SMITH-No,it's totally.
MR.URRICO-You're done with?
MRS. SMITH-Yes.
MR. SMITH-We've gotten, I mean, we've had so many comments on the house and specifically the
fence also from passer byers and neighbors and said we did a really nice job on the fence and, you
know,there was a lot of positive feedback that I got from the neighbors and stuff.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So at this time I'll poll the various Board members to get their opinions
before we can move forward. So I think I'll start with Rick.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think nine feet is a little high on East Sunnyside Road.
Pretty much the same effect can be achieved by a six foot fence. I don't see the need for the
additional three foot. It seems very obtrusive for that area, especially on Sunnyside Road.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with Rich. I think six foot, I would hate to start a precedence of nine foot
fences,and, I mean,the item about dust in the house, I think six foot is more than enough.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, unfortunately I agree. The problem we have is if we set a precedent by allowing
you to do this, then nine feet becomes the standard for that area, and it's really something that
doesn't belong in that neighborhood. So I would recommend at least lowering the nine foot
sections to six feet.
MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-I agree with my fellow Board members. The precedence that we would be establishing
is not one that I want to buy into.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-When I first looked at it I didn't like it,but I agree with the slope requires some more
height there than would be normal,but I have to admit,nine feet is a bit much.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I have to agree with my Board members also. I think that, you know, it's not
giving any better curb appeal, which is going to kind of hurt the value of your neighbors also. It
would probably almost be better to build a garage if you've got to hide that much stuff, and it's not
acceptable to me. I would not be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, in one way you've got a unanimous Board because I, too, disagree with the
overall height and the location of it. So I think it does affect the neighborhood. It may be just
because right now it needs to be stained and stuff, but I think the height is a serious concern. So I
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
wouldn't be in favor of it either, as it's constructed. So, hearing the comments of the Board, and
having the public comment period still open, I can't suggest to you what to do at this time. I can tell
you that in situations like this, other applicants have requested that the Board table the application
until they've figured out they might want to do,but we could certainly take a vote if you want us to.
It's just that that puts you in a precarious situation.
MRS. SMITH-I guess I don't understand. Are you guys, it sounded like most of you had said you're
okay if it's six foot. If we got it down to six foot, is that something that's feasible, or how does that
work?
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,for me it's not. I mean, I would prefer to stay within the guidelines of the Town,
especially as it relates to the front yards of that particular neighborhood. I am concerned with the
amount of stuff that's in there. I assume you, that neighborhood has restrictions about running
businesses and stuff like that out of the, I mean, to keep the character of the neighborhood as it is,
but I can't certainly speak for the other Board members. I mean,you could end up with a split vote,
and that's perfectly fine. Would other Board members like to comment on that? I mean, it's not
generally our practice to tell you what we might or might not do. We usually have to ask you to go
back and take the fact that you know height was a big issue and you could try it again at six feet,but
I can't guarantee you it would pass. Would anybody else want to comment at this time, or we
pretty much have to.
MR. SMITH-Would you guys be a little bit more, I mean, if I video'd what is actually inside that fence
line or any of that? There's not really that.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think Mr. Henkel, it was interesting, because it's certainly a very small lot, but it's
almost like if you did a garage addition to hide all that stuff,you wouldn't have to have that big, ugly
fence.
MR. MC CABE-I'll make a suggestion that you ask for more time, and sit down and think about it a
little bit. We can do that. We can say put this off for another couple of months and then you guys
can think it over and make your decision then.
MR.JACKOSKI-My concern is that this has been going on for this neighborhood for a year.
MR. SMITH-And we've heard nothing but positive things from our neighbors.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but we do need to clean things up. If there's a violation, we need to
address it and deal with it,not just allow process to allow it to stay,you know,inappropriately.
MR. HENKEL-Did I see a few axels on the other side of the house? Wasn't there some sort of axels
exposed there?
MR. SMITH-There's two axels over there,yes.
MR. HENKEL-If you're trying to hide things,wouldn't you want to put those axels back there,too?
MR. SMITH-I very well can do that. I mean, we've made the place look a ton better than it was
when we first bought the house. We've put miles of stamped concrete in. We've put a 20 by 40
pool in. We've done the siding. We've put stone on the front of the house.
MR. HENKEL-It's definitely better than it was, because it was kind of a contractor nightmare.
Wasn't there a problem there with a?
MRS. SMITH-Yes.
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MRS. SMITH-Well,that's totally, it was inside the house,but,yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-But you don't need a nine foot fence to hide axels. You can do it with a four foot
fence,and landscaping. It may be better to come up with a landscaping plan instead of a fence plan,
but again, it's at your convenience. I mean, we can certainly close the public hearing and take a
vote,or you can request the Board table the matter until you give it some more time.
MRS. MOORE-If the Board, if the applicant chooses to table, then I would suggest tabling it to the
November meetings,which would be an October submission time.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, the Board has the, they do have the option of granting less relief than was
currently requested. If you want to try to put forward a motion for six foot fencing instead, it's up
to the Board members.
MR. SMITH-Now we could postpone this and request a variance for a six foot fence in this area, and
just?
MR. JACKOSKI-If there were a motion made by any Board member at this time for a six foot fence,
we could grant that, because it's actually granting you less relief, and we wouldn't have to re-
advertise,but I'm not hearing any.
MRS.MOORE-You,as the applicants,have the opportunity to request less relief from the Board.
MR.JACKOSKI-And that's what they were saying. They asked us if we'd be interested in six feet.
MRS. SMITH-I don't know if they really answered that.
MR.JACKOSKI-But no one has put forth that resolution. So I think that's a clear indication that that
may not happen.
MRS. SMITH-Okay. I didn't know if that was what was.
MRS. MOORE-As Staff, I'm more than welcome to work with you again, similar to the first
application. So if you come in with some suggestions, whether you're landscaping or changing the
height of the fence,we can work through those details so that you can package another.
MR. SMITH-I think I'd like to do that at this time.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. SMITH-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the applicant has requested a tabling of this application until the
November meetings. We don't know exactly which November meeting, but we'll table it to a
November meeting with an application submittal deadline of the October deadline which I believe
is the 15th.
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MRS. SMITH-October 15th?
MR.JACKOSKI-Is the submission deadline.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William
and Wendy Smith for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-070 of the Zoning Code of The Town of
Queensbury.
Applicant has begun construction of a privacy fence in the front yards of a residence located on a
corner lot. Fencing panels range in size from 5 ft.to 9 ft. in height. Relief requested from maximum
height restrictions for placement of a fence in the front yards.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday, September 11, 2014 and left open;
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:
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2014 WILLIAM & WENDY SMITH, Introduced by
Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Until the November meetings,with the appropriate paperwork to be submitted by mid-October.
Duly adopted this 11th day of September, 2014, by the following vote:
MR.JACKOSKI-I do want to make a note that I have left the public comment period open.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-All right. Good luck.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2014 SEQRA TYPE II WILLIAM G. GEDNEY AGENT(S) GEORGE W.
GEDNEY OWNER(S) WILLIAM G. GEDNEY ZONING WR LOCATION 33 SULLIVAN ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,080 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AT A HEIGHT
OF 25 FT. 6 IN. PARCELS ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING COMBINED. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MINIMUM FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN
THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 88-915 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A
LOT SIZE 0.19 AND 0.14 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-23; 289.9-1-22 SECTION 179-4-
030P; 179-5-020
GEORGE GEDNEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. URRICO-I just want to read a note that the Gedney application is for height relief in the
Waterfront Zone where 16 feet is the maximum allowed and the applicant proposes a structure that
is 25.6 feet.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64-2014, William G. Gedney, Meeting Date: September 11,
2014 "Project Location: 33 Sullivan Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 1,080 sq. ft. detached garage at a height of 25 feet 6 inches. Parcels are
in the process of being combined.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief is requested for the construction of garage that
does not meet the setback requirements. Section 179-5-020 Accessory structure-garage.
CORNER LOT Front (WR) Sullivan Rear (WR)west Height(WR)
Place
Required 30 ft. 30 ft. 16 ft.max
Proposed 5 ft. 25 ft. 25.6 ft.
Relief 25 ft. 5 ft. 9.6 ft.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.
Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
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 width of the parcel at 60 ft. and the requirements for a corner lot
setbacks,as well as height in the WR zone.
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. The project may be considered
to have limited or no impact on the environment of the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
BP 88-915: Single Family dwelling
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a 1,080 sq. ft. detached garage to be 25.6 ft. in height. The
structure does not meet the required setbacks for a corner lot and does not meet the height
requirement of the waterfront residential zone. The applicant has indicated that garage will be
used for vehicles that currently stored offsite. The height of the garage is needed as the applicant
has indicated for storage of items not able to store in the home. The applicant has explained work
being completed to clean up the property including working with the neighbor. The plans show the
location of the garage, elevation and information about a shed to be relocated. The survey identifies
the required setbacks for the corner lot where a 30 ft. setback is required for each front and the
parcel is only 60 ft.wide.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR.JACKOSKI-Good evening.
MR. GEDNEY-Good evening. I'm Will's dad and I was the one as the agent for this and he called me
this morning and he has to go down to Michigan. He's a ship's pilot on the Great Lakes, and he rode
that storm out last night in his 900 foot boat. So a couple of things. I'd like to update you on the
issue with the deed. That was a complete mistake on my interpretation. When we closed on the
property last October we had researched out the possibility of putting a garage up, and both parcels
were put on one deed. I misunderstood that, that there is another process to take that deed,
combine the parcels and also go through the tax office at the County. So that, I talked to his lawyer
this morning. She's about halfway through the metes and bounds. The gentleman who did the
survey did not provide that. So she's going to take care of that for him. I would say, she promised
me next week I would be able to meet that requirement, because it clearly was an oversight on our
part. The survey map was done and it shows. Will also called me this morning and thank you for
listening up on this and hopefully we can come up with something that would be workable. We
spent a lot of time coming up with a design and trying to figure out a way to fit this in. What's not
indicated on the drawing is that there's quite a large hill there. That is the back part of his
property. So the placement of the garage, in working with the styling on it,would allow us to do it,
basically what would happen if a house was put there. Obviously the lot that is behind where his
house is is larger than the lot where his house is placed. Another thing is is,you know,Will could
have lived anywhere in the country. He's 22 years old. He's very accomplished at his job. He has
a very unique job. He chose to move back to this area. He worked with a local real estate agent
quite extensively. He fell in love with the house, and the idea was is it does need a garage.
Currently he's renting a space in South Glens Falls. He has in that space his, believe it or not,
collection of motorcycles, his truck, his other things. He has stuff at my house everywhere, and he
works approximately 170 days a year. That's about what a Great Lakes individual works due to the
lakes being closed during wintertime, and then he normally has, he works 60 days, 30 days,
vacation. So he is home full-time. So the idea was is to try and set this up and then also have a safe
keeping for the items that he has scattered all over the place. He basically shuts down his home life
when he leaves, and,you know, returns to it. With regards to the height, he would like to be able
to have some type of tow behind or possibly a travel trailer, because he is off in the wintertime,but
he would need a place to store that. I work for V& H Construction. We're a pretty accomplished
builder in this area. So I worked with our design guy, and to be able to do this, and to be able to
have some aesthetic look to the building,we had to go up with a pitched roof, and we went with the
lowest pitch. We looked at 4/12. That didn't look very good. So we ended up with the other one
that raised it up. It still will be below the height of this house by a couple of feet, and it also is lower
than two other detached garages that are on Sullivan Place just around the corner. So we did look
at that. The other issue that we have, with trying to place it on the lot, is we are a long ways from
the road. Actually there's more space that the Town of Queensbury owns from his lot line to the
road, than he has to the front of the garage, and we looked, after last year's snow, and the way the
plows come around, it leaves an absolutely enormous pile of snow. So the idea was is with that hill
there and trying to position the garage any other way,we were going to have issues with just trying
to keep a driveway clear. So the five feet was something that we came in and I discussed with,this
gal here was a huge help with getting this done because I was in a little over my head trying to get
this prepared. We went with the five feet on the front, trying to consider that we were going to
have a very large driveway out to get to the road. So we tried to mitigate that. There is actually
more space that the Town of Queensbury has in front of the garage than he does. So at that stage
I'll respectively take the questions. Hopefully I can answer them all on Will's behalf.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gedney. Are there any questions at this time from Board
members? I mean, I have a couple.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR. HENKEL-Now,if you parked a vehicle on the outside of that garage,would that be in the road?
MR. GEDNEY-No,not even close.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So you have approximately how many feet?
MR. GEDNEY-There's five to the lot line, and I would say there's, up against the hillside,which is as
far as we can get, which is what we placed, I would say there's approximately 18 more, but
remember now, there's a pretty sharp curve there. So if you're on, which would be the house side
of the curve, it's a little bit closer,but still within the vehicle range, and I think you worked with me
on that, to try to help. So there is room, but remember, now, Will has a place to park in the front.
He has a driveway that is not covered that he would normally use. So it wouldn't be a normal place
for him to leave a vehicle, just in general, because he has a place. So there is not a need for a big
driveway, okay, and that is an issue, plus the cost of putting something in there, which would be
mostly on Queensbury's property. It would be pretty prohibitive when it just is not going to get
used for that,and when he's home he parks in front of his front door.
MR. HENKEL-Right,but for the future if someone else the house, someone would want to be able to
park in their driveway.
MR. GEDNEY-Right, yes. If, you know, we went with five. It was just a number off the lot line.
What we're trying to do, also, is work with Mr. Shambo in back to try to clean up which would be
behind the garage which is really right now an unmitigated disaster. There's a problem with
retaining walls and other things. There's a lot of space there that belongs to Will he has no access
to. We've figured that we can actually create a nice lawn, lose some bad trees, and also be able to
join up with Mr. Shambo's project which I think has gone through several approvals here. So we're
trying to just strike a happy medium on a 60 foot wide piece.
MR.JACKOSKI-Your current deeds,they do not restrict any kind of building on that, I'm going to call
it the back lot, the garage lot. So you could technically, if you don't combine those parcels, build
this,a single family residence there. Correct?
MR. GEDNEY-That is correct. We are taking that option off by obviously, he would never sell the
lot. He actually bought the lot with the idea of putting a garage on. We did quite a bit of research
on that before we actually put the offer in, understanding that we'd have to go through the
approvals process,but,you know,that was the goal.
MR. HENKEL-You have looked at putting a garage attached to the house?
MR. GEDNEY-It is impossible. It is. It wouldn't be allowed by you, and also if there was any space
at all, it would be between the house and the yard that would run east/west that's not going to
work, and there's no possible way to put it in the front due to the design of the house. So there is
no way at all even to put a shed roof to put a car underneath on that house.
MR. JACKOSKI-And you're okay with the Board making it part of the approval process that you
would have to combine those parcels into one large parcel and not two?
MR. GEDNEY-We were always under the understanding it would have to be done. That is my
understanding. The Code, Mr. Brown informed us of that before we purchased the house and we
had him come out, and it should have been done before I came in here tonight. It's a one-time shot,
I'm to understand, once it's done you can't take it apart, and both properties were purchased at the
same time. They were originally listed separately and we presented an offer for both. Actually
Will did,and the realtor actually is here tonight.
MR. KUHL-So what you're saying,Will's dad,is that Will doesn't own an RV?
MR. GEDNEY-No,but if you knew my son.
MR. KUHL-That's okay, and the stakes that are in the ground, is that the starting of the garage going
north? You've got two stakes.
MR. GEDNEY-Actually there's four. And they're one by one wood stakes that I freshened up before
you came, because I know that because they were done the day I submitted it. There is actually
four, and they are probably within a foot of,you know, they're just pulled tape with squaring them
off.
MR. KUHL-No, I just saw two on the south side.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR. GEDNEY-I'm sorry about that.
MR. KUHL-It's not your fault. It's my eyes, but it's going to be into where the shed is now. Is that
where the garage is?
MR. GEDNEY-Yes. If you were to use the shed as a footprint, we're actually two feet towards the
hillside,and one foot in from the front corner that faces the road.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. GEDNEY-So,yes,you're real close.
MR. KUHL-And you're going to take that shed away, or you're going to relocate it on the property?
MR. GEDNEY-On the drawing you will see it relocated. If you look at the map.
MR. KUHL-And the two troughs where the wood is in, I mean, why don't you connect them all and
make one?
MR. GEDNEY-Honestly we were told that based, I've spent a lot of time at this, that probably the
shed would be okay, and that we would probably have to make some changes to the wood sheds.
Obviously Will has been in the house a short period of time and he's done quite a bit of work, you
know, he's trying to spruce it up, and you've also got to understand he's 22 years old and not too
many kids spend this kind of money on something like this.
MR. KUHL-Well, I mean, you put a lean to off the back of your new garage and you stack, I mean, I
realize you're going to stack some wood right close to the house. I got that, but the long term
storage of wood could be behind this new garage.
MR. GEDNEY-Well, Mr. Kuhl, the one thing that we're trying to work on is in the WR region we can
only have a certain percentage of lands covered. So we are, anything that we do we have to be very
careful within that computation, and we are very close to it now. So any adjustments, these are
going to come from what you're going to recommend to us, what we're going to be forced to in the
WR zone. Because our total square footage of coverage also includes a porch. It includes the
driveway area has to be calculated. There's a lot of things that go into it. So I don't even know if we
could put a shed roof on the back of the garage and be in compliance at this time. With the existing
two wood sheds and the yard barn which I'll call it, we are within compliance of a WR zone. Okay.
I have re-done the math that the surveyor did and I think it's also been checked here to make sure
that our computations are correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-But if you combined the roof square footages or non-permeability shadows of those
three sheds,and you attach those to the back of this garage,you would still be in compliance?
MR. GEDNEY-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members before I open the public comment
period? Hearing none, I'll open the public comment period at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy,is there any written comment?
MR.URRICO-I do not see any written comment.
MR.JACKOSKI-Having no written comment at this time, is there anyone here in the audience who'd
like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I suspect
everyone's here for the next application. So, Board members, I guess we'll poll the Board and see
what we want to do. Mike, I think I started with you last,or,no, I started with John last tonight. So,
John,you can go first this time.
MR. HENKEL-I'm not super good with the height of it. I really have no problem with the setback,
but I'd like to see the height dropped a little bit. So that's kind of seesawing on the whole project,
but I'd have to say the height would be my drawback right now.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mike?
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR. MC CABE-I feel the same as John. I have no problem with the setbacks,but I'm a little nervous
about granting 50%relief for the height.
MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes. I think you gave a pretty good explanation of some of the constraints and that's
what we're here to sort of make sure we that don't try to make a cookie cutter of all of the Code,but
I think the height is something that you have control over and that, in this area, there's a concern
about that kind of stuff. So I would probably approve it as is, but I would like to see the height
come down.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm going to be in agreement with that as well. I appreciate your explanation
and the details you gave as far as the reasoning for it, but it's still excessive relief I would believe,
and I would not be in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I think you could accomplish inside storage or covered storage with a lower garage
peak. We can talk about it later, but, I mean, if you did 16 foot in the middle and had your high
door, you could get an RV, but if I were you, I would just 16 foot this way and hang one that way
with it open,then you could drop curtains,but the height hurts you. I wouldn't be in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-It would be one of the taller structures in the area. This neighborhood is mostly
ranch homes and all the garages fit the homes. They're all single story. The setback relief isn't
major,but the height is.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I kind of feel the same way, and it's surprising that in two applications we're all
in unanimous agreement here. We'll see what the next application tells us. So the height is a
concern.
MR. GEDNEY-If I can address the height in a couple of ways. A,there's two on that road that are the
same height,detached. I took pictures of them. We scaled them at.
MR. GARRAND-Sullivan Place. That's built into the hillside. So it doesn't appear large at all.
MR. GEDNEY-Well,it faces the road,and it does,from the road facing,which is the height,you know,
we turned this so the height would face the house. If you saw the drawings, the actual height will
be looked at as Will looks out his back, the peak will face that direction. Okay. So we were trying
to mitigate that by looking not at the styling that they did with the barn style on the two other ones
there,and we were going to face the other way. We also looked at the potential,because we'd have
to go with a shingled roof, you know, to try to have something look nice because we can't put a
metal roof obviously because of the shed issues with the snow. The snow's got to go somewhere
and it can't be plunking down in the front because we're going to have snow banks and other things.
So we tried to mitigate that. We tried to consider that, if somebody put a two story house in it's
probably a little less than what would be there,and I'm looking,like I said, at the two like properties
around that are the newest approved garages there, it was similar and probably a little bit less
intrusive because it's not going to be seen. The only people that would ever see it would be the
ones that would be driving around Sullivan the other way. So it's kind of tucked as far back out of
what we generally consider as far as we can go without excavating, and that would create an issue
with the property that's between he and the road. So we did consider that. We looked at the
construction of it to try and make it work, and the thing was is if we were to go with the height that
would be generally used, we're talking about about four feet, and if we were to lower to a 4/12 it
actually had a serious ugly factor to it and we were trying to look at how steep Will's roof is. The
adjoining properties, which everybody has quite either from 6/12 or more steepness to the roofs
and what he has on his house, that aesthetically it would look more like his house than the way the
barns were done out on Sullivan Place, because these two took barn format. So even though we
could go with a truss system similar to what they used here,we felt that it would look like a scab on
to what his house looks like, which is kind of sharp with the cape look to it and a very steep roof.
So we're looking, down the line, at some aesthetics, because we know that if we squatted it down
like this, you'd probably approve it, but truthfully it's going to look like hell on that property
because it's not going to look like his house, and we're trying to consider that, and to get down to
4/12 to flatten out the roof,yes, we'd lose a few feet, but honestly our drawings that were done by
our draftsman at our office, it just didn't look nice, considering how steep his roof is. I understand
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
we're asking for quite a bit of relief over the, over what's required there,but looking at all the other
houses and all the other structures, except for the older ranch style houses, his would be more in
line with what the newer stuff is,the older ranch houses being 60's and 70's which were more camp
style than the more modern houses,including the one across the street,his, Mr. Shambo's,and some
of the ones around the corner. So in line with the neighborhood, this is definitely a more upscale
project than what you would be comparing to the other ranch styles. The other ones are small.
Some of them are only 8, 900 foot houses. So we took that into account. I mean, we know that
someday he's going to be selling this. He's a young man, and,you know, 10, 12 years down the line
with everything it's got to be aesthetically pleasing. So that's my argument on the height. A lot of
thought was put into that, and, you know, in trying to keep like it would have looked if somebody
had built a house there, which was the intent of the people selling it. They didn't want to, they
wanted to sell it as a building lot,not to the adjoining property,but in this market it didn't work. So
that's,you know,trying to compare apples to apples which is in the neighborhood and what's going
on. Obviously I kind of have a few more resources to me with regards to some of the design and
what we build in our thing. So that's kind of where we ended up, and I don't know if it's too clear
on the drawing that the roof does face the road, like the roof faces his house faces the other way.
So obviously the front elevation would be off of Will's back porch.
MR.JACKOSKI-How tall is it from the ground on the roadside to the eaves?
MR. GEDNEY-Trying to go as low as we possibly can. We're coming up with trying to get the proper
door in there and I think the eaves height should probably be just over 16, but we're trying to see
what we can do there to try and, you know, if we can, get it down, but we're just trying to work
with, you know, within the constraints of what you folks are going to do here. Obviously, you
know,we had to ask for the maximum when we approached this. This was a little rough,you know,
this was done on, we don't have super design software. That schematic there was just as a way to
kind of present a concept. More so of where it's going to face, I think it's a little out of perspective
because as you drive down the least traveled part, as you're coming, that's what you're going to
face. When you come along the road the other way it's going to be positioned more like Will's
house is, and we're also going to try to keep the angles the same on the house and everything
looked like, like I said, it wasn't scabbed on and it looked it was part of, you know, part of the
neighborhood.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, at this time the Board is suggesting that if we continue with the application as
submitted,the Board has unanimously suggested no. If you, as the applicant,wish to suggest some
alternative for less relief,we can certainly debate that,but at this point the Board is saying no.
MR. GEDNEY-Obviously we can come up with less pitch on the roof. I mean, roofs are what they
are. Their internal truss system's going to hold it up. So as you said it can only be X number of
feet. I mean, obviously I believe it's going to reduce the aesthetics of it,but the idea is,if that's what
it is,it is. I mean, I can't push the rock up the hill here.
MR.JACKOSKI-Is it possible to build that structure from the bottom of the eaves with a flat roof?
MR. GEDNEY-With a flat roof?
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm not saying it would be aesthetically pleasing in any way shape or form, but you
could get that overall height of all those four walls with a flat roof. Correct?
MR. GEDNEY-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-So you could build a structure. It would look awful, but, in my opinion, but you
could build it.
MR. GARRAND-You're constrained by the zone you're in. You're in the Waterfront Residential
zone.
MR. GEDNEY-You know, I don't know how the other folks got theirs approved, because off of the
grade height they're the same.
MR. GARRAND-Yes,that cinderblock garage has been there a long time.
MR. GEDNEY-And the other one is, I don't know how, I have no idea. We were trying to look at, off
of, you know, Mr. Brown suggested if we were able to dig down a little bit or any other options to
get a couple of feet here and there. Obviously we can change the pitch of the roof.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR. JACKOSKI-How many feet would you reduce the overall height of the structure if you did
change the pitch of the roof to the 4/12 pitch?
MR. GEDNEY-I didn't bring it. I want to say it was three, in that range. That's, as I recall. I wish I
could do the math. I'm just not, I just can't do that in my head.
MR.JACKOSKI-How wide is the garage?
MR. GARRAND-It's 30 by 36?
MR. GEDNEY-Yes. See, we looked at turning it to be able to say that the entrance was going to
come from what would be Will's backyard, and we looked at all the logistics. There's no place to
put the snow. There was all kinds of other objectives. Of course then people would be looking at
the gable end, which I think in a lot of cases, looking at the gable end from a road tends to detract,
you know. As a matter of fact, if we came in with this idea of putting it on the house,you wouldn't
even let us. We've looked at all the math on it. It doesn't work.
MR.JACKOSKI-It's drawn at a 6/12,correct?
MR. GEDNEY-That one is,yes. We just tried to give it a little more peak.
MR.JACKOSKI-So if you go from a 6/12 to a 4/12,you'd gain back 30 inches.
MR. GEDNEY-I was thinking three feet. I'm just going off the top of my head. I'm trying to do the
math. I'm sorry I'm not as quick on that. So, I mean, if that's what it is, you know, there's truss
options. There's other things, I mean, obviously, you know, we could go with lower eaves heights.
There's other options if that's what it needs to be.
MR.URRICO-Steve,it seems to me he needs some time to come back with another plan.
MR.JACKOSKI-I agree,but I can only do what the applicant's asking at this point. So either you can
request the Board grant you less relief this evening and try to see if a motion would go forward on
that,or you can ask to have the application tabled until you can go back to the drawing board.
MR. GEDNEY-Okay. If we granted less relief and then had further issue with it where we just
couldn't come up,would we just re-apply, or if you just say you want three feet less and we go with
it, it's fine. I mean, truthfully I'd like to come out of here with something. I mean, we're really
trying to,you've got to understand the limitations of only having him around here a short period of
time. He should be due off the ship around October 5th. So it would give us a leg up to be able to
start the project.
MR.JACKOSKI-If it were me, I would be okay with a couple of feet of relief,but not nine feet of relief.
MR. GEDNEY-Okay. So what we're asking,we're at 26 and what?
MR.JACKOSKI-You have to come to us, 25 and 6.
MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, why don't we table it and let him go outside and then come back at the
end.
MR. GEDNEY-So we're asking 25 6 and you want 23 6.
MR.JACKOSKI-No, I'm saying I want 18.
MR. HENKEL-Is there a way of turning that peak around so it's?
MR.JACKOSKI-Again, I think we can't design a project here at the table.
MR. GEDNEY-So basically you're saying you're going to grant no relief from the height variance.
MR.JACKOSKI-At this time no motion has been put forth to give you any other alternative. If you'd
like to table the application until you can try to figure out something else and work with Staff to do
so,that's perfectly fine.
MR. GEDNEY-Okay. So if I ask, right now, for,you're saying, I'm a little misunderstanding. You're
not subtracting for 25 6. You're only adding two feet to 16?
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm granting two feet of relief. That's my opinion. I mean, we can sit here all night
debating a project like that. I mean, if you want to try one more time to suggest something to the
Board, I can poll the Board again,but I'd also want to keep the public hearing open as well.
MR. GEDNEY-So I can't ask for six feet?
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. The applicant has modified their request to suggest to the Board would we be
willing to grant them six feet of relief for a total height of the building of 22 feet.
MR. GEDNEY-I think that would take us right around to 4/12.
MR.JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board quickly. John?
MR. HENKEL-I'll say no.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I'll agree to six.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR.URRICO-I will not agree to six.
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I still think it's a little high.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-No.
MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-No.
MR. GEDNEY-What was the number on that,then?
MR.JACKOSKI-Six and one I think.
MR.URRICO-I'm really uncomfortable with this process.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I agree with you. So we've already polled the Board again. We've said no.
Either we can table the application or take our vote. It's up to you.
MR. GEDNEY-I guess table it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. We have a request from the applicant to table the application.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William
G. Gedney for a variance from Section(s): 179-4-030; 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of
Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,080 sq. ft. detached garage at a height of 25 ft.
6 in. Parcels are in the process of being combined. Relief requested from minimum front and rear
yard setback requirements. Also, relief requested from maximum height restrictions for an
accessory structure in the WR zoning district.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday, September 11, 2014 and left open;
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:
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2014 WILLIAM G. GEDNEY, Introduced by Michael
McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel:
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
Until the November meeting, Paperwork to be submitted by the middle of October.
Duly adopted this 11th day of September, 2014,by the following vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a motion to table this application to be heard at the earliest of the
November meeting with application submittal deadlines of October 15th.
AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Good luck.
MR. GEDNEY-So just to clarify, my process is to come up with some more garage drawings that
would show a different roof design and whatever that would be able to fit within what we're
looking for? I mean I'm not familiar with this process.
MR. JACKOSKI-You can work with Staff to re-submit the application. You may want to move the
building back. You may want to move the building left or right.
MR. GEDNEY-Well,we're only,the only issue is the height I grant, it doesn't appear that I have to do
anything else at this time.
MR. JACKOSKI-But you can come back to us, but just keep in mind the Board did suggest no to six
feet.
MR. GEDNEY-All right.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you,sir.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2014 SEQRA TYPE II STEPHEN & PATRICIA METIVIER AGENT(S)
TRAVIS KLINE OWNER(S) STEPHEN & PATRICIA METIVIER ZONING R-2 (YR. 1967)
NORTHWEST VILLAGE, SECTION 2 LOCATION 125 NORTHWEST VILLAGE, SECTION 2
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 528 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE ONTO
EXISTING 2,641.15 SQ. FT. HOME. PROJECT INCLUDES A SECOND STORY ADDITION OF
1,421.15 SQ. FT. AND 505.95 SQ. FT. DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM
FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE NORTHWEST VILLAGE, SECTION 2
SUBDIVISION. CROSS REF BP 14-309 RES. ADD.; BP 6687 YR. 1980 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.80 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.17-1-27 SECTION 179-3-040
TRAVIS KLINE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-2014, Stephen & Patricia Metivier, Meeting Date:
September 11, 2014 "Project Location: 125 Northwest Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 528 sq. ft. attached garage onto existing 2,641.15 sq. ft. home.
Project includes a second story addition of 1,421.15 sq.ft.,and a 505.95 sq.ft.deck.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief is requested to construct an addition that does
not meet the required setback. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts -R-2 zoning of
Northwest Village Section 2 approved subdivision.
Front yard setback(Northwest Village, Sect. 2 subdivision- R-2)
Required 30 ft.
Proposed 18 ft.4 in.
Relief 11 ft. 8 in.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
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
possible to reduce the size of the garage addition. The plans show the parcel is a corner lot,the
existing structure is non-compliant,and the project area contains steep slopes. The disturbance
is limited to areas at each end of the existing home as shown on the plan.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief 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. The project may be considered
to have limited or no adverse impact. The applicant has indicated that stormwater measures
are being implemented with the proposed project that improves the integrity of the building.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
BP 14-309: Residential addition,pending
BP 6687: 1980
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct residential additions to an existing structure one is 528 sq. ft.
attached garage and above will be a den. The southern end addition is to be 809 +/- sq. ft. includes
a wine cellar at the basement level and a master bedroom area above. The third addition is 165 sq.
ft. sports storage area with a deck above. The representative of the applicant has indicated the new
additions and internal alterations will make the home more efficient with useable space. The plans
show the location of the additions and the floor plan of the entire home including existing and
proposed.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome.
MR. KLINE-Good evening. My name's Travis Kline. I'm the applicant's agent. We're also doing
the construction on the house, and the easy way to describe this is that the house that they have
right now is kind of a mess. What happened is in 1980 when the house was constructed the
contractor did not really take into account how much water runoff will be coming off of West
Mountain, and so the west side of the house is in pretty rough shape. What we've proposed,which
has already been approved and we've already started construction on the south end of the house,
we've completely dug out and created a new industrial French drain around the entire house, and
we're also mitigating the stormwater by creating a rainwater capture system. That's going to be
used in irrigation and it's going to make the water that's captured on site usable for that property.
One of the big issues that was addressed was the impermeability, and we're actually not increasing
the impermeability more than about a percent and a half, I believe, and that's because we're going
over the existing driveway. So the only thing that's really increasing that is the eaves lines that
stick out just a little bit for the roof. Other things that we're doing with the property, we're taking
out all the insulation and doing new spray foam. The big component of that, for efficiency, is that
the existing garage was never insulated at all, and there's living space above that, and they
wondered why they have high energy bills. So what we're doing is spray foaming the entire
exterior, creating a new building envelope, and what we're hoping to do is just extend that out on
the north side. It is self-inflicted because it is an addition that we're doing, and what it does do is it
will change the look of the house a little bit. I believe, and it's my personal opinion, we did design
it, so I'm biased, but I believe that it is going to improve the aesthetic of that house and ultimately
the curb that it exists on. The neighbor's property is pretty darn close,and he's been wonderful the
whole time so far,and he loves the idea that the house next door is getting a facelift.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time
before I open the public hearing?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR. GARRAND-Yes. Will there be any re-direction of stormwater on this property?
MR. KLINE-The existing stormwater, there is one pipe, and that comes on the west side of the
garage and comes down into the road. What we've done is channeled the stormwater and the
surface drain both directions. So we're alleviating that by about 50%. So our high point on the
drain is in the middle of the west side of the house. So half of it goes south and half of it goes to the
road. So we're actually taking out,in theory,we're taking out stormwater that goes to the road.
MR. GARRAND-I know a lot of these properties they're wet into the summertime. They're very wet.
MR. KLINE-Absolutely, and we're re-grading the entire property to channel surface water, and the
whole design, we're doing the master plan for it, too, with the landscaping, and so the idea is really
to take everything into consideration and maintain as much water on the property as possible.
MR. GARRAND-I think capturing and re-using that water is going to be huge.
MR. KLINE-Yes. So we're doing an entirely new gutter system with buried cisterns, solar pumps to
get the water back out for the landscaping. So we're really trying to minimize the impact on the
property,and maximize the rainwater usage.
MR. JACKOSKI-Hearing no other questions, we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening,
a public comment period. I'm going to open that public comment period. Is there any written
comment, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.URRICO-There is none.
MR.JACKOSKI-Having no written comment,is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd
like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'm going to poll
the Board. Mike, I'll start with you.
MR. MC CABE-I think it's a unique project. I have no problem with the relief. I'll support the
project.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I think because of the location with the two road fronts,that's the only reason you're
here,you've got two front yards. I think it's a good project. I'd be in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, I too, would support this. It seems like they've taken a lot into consideration and
that it makes sense to move forward.
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I think what they're asking for here is rather moderate. So I'd be in favor.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's also a very minimal relief that they're asking for and they're definitely
going to better the environment situation with the stormwater. So,yes, I'd be in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-I've got to vote no just to not be unanimous,but we're all saying yes.
MR.URRICO-I'm in favor of it also.
MR. JACKOSKI-Did I not poll you, Roy? I apologize. My apologies, Roy. Having the polling of the
Board as it is, I'm going to close the public comment period.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.JACKOSKI-And seek a motion.
MR. GARRAND-I'll make it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 65-2014, Stephen Metivier, 125 Northwest
Village,Section 2,Tax Map No. 308.17-1-27
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stephen
Metivier for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury.
Applicant proposes construction of a 528 sq. ft. attached garage onto existing 2,641.15 sq. ft. home.
Project includes a second story addition of 1,421.15 sq. ft., and a 505.95 sq. ft. deck. Relief
requested from the minimum front yard setback requirement for the Northwest Village, Section 2
Subdivision. Relief requested is 11 feet 8 inches from the required 30 foot setback for the front
yard.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday, September 11, 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?
I don't think it'll produce any change in the character of the neighborhood at all.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant
to pursue, other than an area variance? Short of moving the house or moving the road, I
don't think benefits can be achieved by other means feasible.
3. Is the requested area variance substantial? We deem this request as moderate.
4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? The contractor has stated that they've taken
steps to mitigate any potential environmental impacts. Re-using the water would be a
positive impact on this neighborhood.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It may be deemed as self-created.
6. 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 Area Variance No. 65-2014,
Stephen Metivier, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Harrison Freer:
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 11th day of September 11, 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR. KLINE-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2014 SEQRA TYPE II RAYMOND EVERY AGENT(S) GEORGE
LUDWIG OWNER(S) RAYMOND EVERY ZONING SR-1A,STONEHURST,PHASE 2 LOCATION
24 STONEHURST DRIVE STONEHURST, PHASE 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF
A 672 SQ. FT. GARAGE WITH BONUS ROOM ABOVE FOR STORAGE. PROJECT INCLUDES 73.44
+/- ENTRYWAY AREA AND A 164.07 +/- SQ. FT. BREEZEWAY THAT WILL CONNECT THE
EXISTING GARAGE TO THE NEW GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE
WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. CROSS REF BP 12-122; BP 09-388 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.13 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.00-1-82.1 SECTION 179-5-
020
GEORGE LUDWIG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RAYMOND EVERY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 66-2014, Raymond Every, Meeting Date: September 11, 2014
"Project Location: 24 Stonehurst Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 672 sq. ft. garage with bonus room above for storage. Project includes 73.44 +/-
sq.ft.entryway and a 164.07 +/-breezeway that will connect the existing garage to the new garage.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief is requested to have a second garage where
only one is allowed per code. Section 179-5-020 Accessory Structures -garage.
2nd Garage
Required 1
Proposed 2
Relief 1
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.
Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
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 to enlarge the existing garage or convert the existing garage to a non-garage
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 impact 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 12-122: Bilco Door&20 sf room, CC issued 3-21-12
BP 09-388: In-ground Pool, CC issued 8-23-10
BP 04-622: 2,300 sq.ft.single family dwelling, CO issued 6-13-05
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a second garage that is located via a breezeway from the
existing home. The applicant has indicated the primary use of the 2nd garage is for storage
including patio furniture and boxes. The applicant's request for a waiver from a survey was
granted by the ZBA Chair as the request was not for dimensional relief.The plans show the location
of the new garage and include elevation drawings. Upon review of the property using aerial
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
mapping the surrounding properties do not have existing detached garages. The proposed garage
is considered a detached garage.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record, and if you'd like to add
anything at this time or just go right to questions from the Board members.
MR. EVERY-Raymond Every.
MR. LUDWIG-I'm George Ludwig,the agent for the applicant.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Do you want to add anything at this time or would you just like to field
questions?
MR. LUDWIG-Field questions is fine.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Board members,do you have any questions at this time?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. There's going to be no business run there?
MR. EVERY-No.
MR. HENKEL-There's no vehicles stored there, other than your own vehicles? You're in the
plumbing business?
MR. EVERY-Plumbing and heating business, yes. All my guys bring their own vehicles home, and
we meet up at a place in Glens Falls every morning.
MR. HENKEL-So you're not going to be running an office or anything upstairs there?
MR. EVERY-No.
MR.JACKOSKI-Do you have an office elsewhere?
MR. EVERY-We own Security Supply. We have a little spot inside there. That's where we meet up
in the morning, and my wife answers the phones. We have one, it's considered a two car garage
now,but when it was built,you could only get one car in there, and barely get one car in there. I do
have another truck also, my own personal vehicle, and I'd like to keep it in the garage as well, and
we have no room for it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members at this time before I open the public
comment period?
MR. KUHL-No,it seems straightforward.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, I have a question. If the garage that is currently there was heated, and the
breezeway was heated,would this be considered a second garage?
MRS.MOORE-It's still attached. I mean,yes,it's still considered a second garage.
MR. JACKOSKI-It would still be? Okay. We do have a public comment period scheduled and
advertised for this evening. I'm going to open the public comment period and ask Roy if there's any
written comment at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is one comment. It says received a phone call from a neighbor of Raymond
Every, wished to express concern regarding use of a second garage, does not want a business run
out of garage, concern with trucks coming in and out of property, also caller states an
advertisement for Raymond Every's business shows an address of 24 Stonehurst on paper. There's
no name attached to this. This is from Sue took the call, Sue Hemingway.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you Sue, Is there anyone herein the audience this evening who'd like
to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'm going to leave the
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
public comment period open. I am going to poll the Board, I guess, at this time if there's nothing
else the applicant would like to add?
MR. LUDWIG-No,that's fine. Thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy, I'll start with you.
MR. URRICO-Yes, I think in some cases when the lot can support it, a second garage might make
sense, but in this case, this is not a big lot, and to me a second garage of any type does not fit, and I
would not support it.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with that. It's also a minimal size lot. I'd be all right with a smaller
garage,but not a second garage of that size.
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I think adding something on to the existing garage is a feasible alternative. I think
a second garage on parcels of less than five acres that don't have any farming on the property is a
lot of relief to ask for.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, my comrade has convinced me that four or five acres is probably the minimum
that we should be approving second garages for. So I don't support it with this size lot.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I don't think it's a bad lot. I support it. I think it's a good deal. I like the fact that you
took and added a breezeway where that other garage was, and I can see the need for this many
garages. I'm in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think I could actually be in favor of it if it was a little bit smaller. Simply because
of the breezeway in between is what's bothering me and making it a second garage. So it looks a
little awkward, to me, for the neighborhood, but if maybe it was smaller I'd be okay with it, even
with that breezeway concept. It just looks a little strange as you look at that picture,but that's,you
know,that aesthetic's not going to change the character of the neighborhood that much.
MR. EVERY-I show my neighbors the prints and they were all in favor of it. I'm sure you've been
out to my home or driven by it at least. I do take care of my home, and it wouldn't be an eyesore. I
wouldn't do anything to make it an eyesore for the neighborhood at all. I am asking for that size
garage so you can pull vehicles in there.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't disagree. I'm saying, I mean, I understand it. It just feels a little bit big for
that little lot.
MR. LUDWIG-Let me ask you a question. If we took the breezeway out, and we connected this
garage directly to the house, then it wouldn't be a second garage. We'd be in compliance as far as
size is concerned.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, that's what I was trying to ask Staff before I spoke with, and listened to public
comment. I really did believe that if, I think it has to share a common,heated wall,but if the garage
was, if the garage itself, the new garage layout, was irregularly shaped, it still would share a wall
with the house.
MR. LUDWIG-Correct,there would be a common wall, and if we put heat.
MR.JACKOSKI-Correct,no, I understand.
MR. LUDWIG-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-I was worried that maybe there was like three garage doors that triggered it to be a
second garage. I was trying to understand what might,because that is the solution, I think, Staff, is
if they took the breezeway out completely, and just those two garages connected as open, common
space.
MRS.MOORE-Right. I was just looking for the size maximum that he could have.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-Right,of a garage.
MR. LUDWIG-1100.
MR. EVERY-1100.
MR. LUDWIG-Yes,we're at six.
MRS.MOORE-Six,but then you're adding it to the existing garage.
MR. LUDWIG-Half,well, not quite half,but a little bit more than half of the existing garage,but it still
falls under the 1100 square foot.
MR. EVERY-1100 square foot.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, don't get me wrong, I mean, I like the aesthetic of, the shape and stuff. It just
seems big,but I get the concept,but we also have five other Board members who are saying no. So,
I'm talking too much.
MR. EVERY-I just thought it would look nicer having a little breezeway there. It would make it a
little bit more characteristic. That's all. I mean, if that was, I can eliminate it. I have no problem
with that.
MR. LUDWIG-There's an elevation change from the existing garage to where this would be. So the
breezeway makes it, aesthetically, look a lot better because there's about an 18 to 20 inch grade
difference. So if you brought the garage up to match that,you're going to have the concrete sticking
out of the garage on the one side,and it's not going to look as nice.
MR. EVERY-Quite a bit.
MR. LUDWIG-I mean, aesthetically if you see the full view and the porch, you only have a half of
view here, it looks really aesthetically nice. I mean, I don't think that's going to have any impact on
the neighborhood at all.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, at this moment we have, the application as it stands is such that there is not
enough votes to pass it.
MR. LUDWIG-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-So other than, is there any more input that the Board members would like to give at
this time? Or would it behoove the applicant to talk to Staff and see if there's a way to come back
with something a little bit different that would maybe not require this much of a variance?
MR. LUDWIG-Could we ask the Board to approve it if we remove the breezeway and attach the
garage to the house and add heat?
MR. JACKOSKI-No, it's less relief, correct? I don't even think it would require a variance at that
time. Would it?
MR. EVERY-No. I was told it would not. I was told that I wouldn't have to get a variance at all.
MR. JACKOSKI-You wouldn't even need us. There you go. If the Town Code Compliance Officer
says it can be done,then you're all set. You don't need us.
MR. EVERY-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you. So the applicant has requested that they withdraw their
application, is what I'm understanding. Correct? Or would you like to just table it just in case you
need us?
MR. EVERY-Table it,yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the applicant has requested a tabling of this application to the November
meeting,with an October submittal deadline. Are we getting full of November, Staff?
MRS.MOORE-You have three here. I don't have a schedule yet for November.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we'll go to November again. We can always do a three meeting
November as well. Right?
MR. HENKEL-If needed.
MR.JACKOSKI-If needed. Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Raymond Every for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of
Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 672 sq. ft. garage with bonus room above for
storage. Project includes 73.44 +/- entryway area and a 164.07 +/- sq. ft. breezeway that will
connect the existing garage to the new garage. Relief requested for a second garage where only one
is allowed.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday, September 11, 2014 and left open;
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:
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2014 RAYMOND EVERY, Introduced by Ronald
Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe:
Until the November meeting with an October 15th submittal date.
Duly adopted this 11th day of September, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-But good luck. I think the design was pretty cool.
MR. EVERY-Thank you very much. Have a nice evening.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2014 SEQRA TYPE II PAUL G. DESLAURIERS OWNER(S) PAUL G.
DESLAURIERS ZONING R-3 YR. 1967 ROLLING RIDGE, SECTION 3/4 LOCATION WINCOMA
DRIVE - ROLLING RIDGE ESTATES APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,565 SQ.
FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. PROJECT INCLUDES A 252 SQ. FT. PORCH AND 363 SQ. FT.
DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF AV 46-14; SP 40-14 FWW 3-14; BOH SEPTIC VARIANCE
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.15 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 297.10-45
SECTION 179-3-040
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; PAUL DESLAURIERS, PRESENT
MR.JACKOSKI-We have seen this project before.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-2014, Paul G. Deslauriers, Meeting Date: September 11,
2014 "Project Location: Wincoma Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 2,565 sq. ft. single family dwelling. Project includes a 252 sq. ft. porch and 363 sq.
ft.deck.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief is requested for the construction of a single
family home that does not the setback requirements. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts
zoning requirements of the MDR zone and the approved Subdivision of Rolling Ridge Estates.
Front Setback(MDR)
Required 30 ft.
Proposed (minimum) 23 ft.
Relief 7 ft.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.
Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
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 as the applicant has received variance for the house location to the wetland;
reducing the front porch size may reduce the relief requested. The applicant had received a
variance for distance to the wetland.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered minimal 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. The project may have minimal
to no impact on the environment. The applicant has received a permit from the Army Corp for
wetlands disturbance, a Local Board of Health approval for location of the septic system in the
front yard, and has indicated that plantings and stormwater measures to minimize any adverse
impacts to the environmental conditions of the site.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
SP 40-14&FW 3-14: Pending
AV 46-14: Approved, 7-16-14
BOH Septic Variance: Approved
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling on a 1.148 acre
vacant parcel. The project received a variance for construction of a home to be no closer than 50 ft.
to the wetland (shoreline) and a height variance. The applicant has explained the house location
needed to be moved forward to meet the wetlands variance where the main home is 30 ft. but the
porch is 23 ft. from the front property line. The garage was also reduced in size to address the
wetlands variance. The applicant has explained the process for this project began over a year ago
with discussion with the Army Corp and received a permit for limited wetland disturbance, the
local board of health recently granted a septic variance for location. The applicant has indicated the
site and house design were developed to minimize impacts to the site.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Welcome back. If you could identify yourselves for the record, please
and add anything if you wish.
MR. DESLAURIERS-Paul Deslauriers.
MR. HUTCHINS-And I'm Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. I did the site layout. I'm not going
to go through all the history again. We all know it. I do want to point out just a few things. When
you last heard this project, to my knowledge it was the request of this Board that we look to
reconfigure the site and the building such that we maintain the 50 feet from the wetlands in lieu of
the 40 feet which had been requested.
MR.JACKOSKI-And the 30 feet in the front.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR. HUTCHINS-We have reduced the size of the house. We have shifted it to the south as best we
can, and in order to keep the 50 feet we still had to move the house closer to the west toward the
road, and where we end up is with the front porch, which then is seven feet over the thirty foot
setback from the property line. I want to talk about the unique, it's not completely unique, but it
hurts us as the applicant a little bit, this is a 50 foot highway right of way. It's a 20 foot pavement
width. The edge of pavement to the property line is 23 feet from the edge of pavement. Normally
with a 20 foot drive and a 50 foot right of way that distance would be 15 feet. So, and I notice you
can see it when you're on the site, if you locate the corners. The corners are a long ways from the
road, and again, and the way that happened is the road and the right of way are not occupying the
same centerline. The road is further from, if the road is constructed, in the far side of the right of
way. So we end up with 23 feet of right of way from the edge of road to the property line, which
normally would be about 15 feet, with this geometry. The property line is the property line, and
that's where it is, but in terms of appearance from the road, this is not going to appear that it's
closer to the road because that property line is so far from the edge of the road, and it actually
works out they're about the same, there's seven feet and eight feet. So that's a little bit of a
difficulty here because that right of way is so far from the road. We've, again, we've looked at
reconfiguring the house and we have reconfigured it to some extent. The porch is nine feet, it's a
nine foot deep porch. So less than that, we certainly can't reduce that very much and have it be a
functional porch. The porch is, if you look at the elevation of the house, the porch really, in the
owner's opinion the porch is necessary. It would harm the aesthetics of the house without the
front porch. So,with that, Paul,do you want to add anything?
MR. DESLAURIERS-No.
MR. HUTCHINS-So I guess we're seeking your support for seven feet of relief so we can move
forward with this one,and again,we'd still have to go to Site Plan Review.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Tom. Are there any Board member questions at this time before
I open the public comment period?
MR. KUHL-I guess,yes. You're explanation you're saying that really the porch is going to be 46 feet
from the road. Is that what you're saying,the edge of the porch,the front edge of the porch?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-To the macadam.
MR. KUHL-To the macadam,yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. KUHL-46 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-And, Tom, is that a paper street or, when you say right of way, is that actually a
neighbor's lands that it's a road by use,or is it actually a true paper street?
MR. HUTCHINS-No,that's a Town road.
MR.JACKOSKI-It's a paper street.
MR. HUTCHINS-It's a Town road. It's a 50 foot Town right of way,yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Having any other questions from Board members before we open the public
comment period? We do have a public comment period scheduled for this evening. I will open
the public comment period at this time. I remind those who may want address the Board that we
will take your comments for about three minutes I believe is the time we allow for up to a half an
hour of discussion. Roy,is there any written comment at this time?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.URRICO-No,there is not.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anybody here in the audience this evening who would like to
address this Board concerning this particular application? I see one person, if you would, please,
feel free. You have to come up to the table. No, we need you on the microphone if you wouldn't
mind.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
BONNIE MAC LEAN
MRS.MAC LEAN-I have some paperwork to give to you. Who do I give it to?
MR.JACKOSKI-To Roy,please.
MRS. MAC LEAN-Good evening. My name is Bonnie MacLean and I live in Rolling Ridge on
Sheraton Lane South. I am submitting several exhibits to the Board which support the following.
This meeting for additional zoning consideration is just one of several meetings that have taken
place asking for variances. This owner of the wetland lot on Wincoma has disregarded most, if not
all,of the covenants required to build in Rolling Ridge subdivision of Queensbury. These covenants
and restrictions would have been disclosed to him by the seller or the real estate listing and sales
agents before the sale. They are listed as a permanent part of his deed. That's Exhibit A that I gave
you. So far, and I say so far, he has requested the following: One, to build on wetlands, including
an area with a running meadow stream. To fill wetlands, to discharge wastewater into the
wetlands on a continuous basis, against the law to do this. To install an experimental septic
system. This is against the specifications of the septic system required by the covenants,
specifically Covenant Number 12. To not have a house setback from the road the distance
required. The distance required for Rolling Ridge is 35 feet. This includes any porches or
additions on the front and back of the structure, and this is Covenant Number 5 in the Exhibit. To
not have the well drilled and positioned the required distance from the experimental septic system.
To build a higher than the maximum allowed height for an MDR area. To not have the house
setback the minimum amount from the side and back properties, which in Rolling Ridge is 10 feet.
It appears the list will be added to and more variances will be requested. The Town of Queensbury
is setting a dangerous and disrespectful precedent if they allow this project to proceed. We run the
risk of significant pollution to the aquifer supplying our wells if his septic system malfunctions.
There is a real possibility of flooding due to the tree removal and the wetland filling. Because it
positions the Town for significant litigation from injured property owners, it is a dangerous
precedent. The 50 or more taxpaying Rolling Ridge property owners who have built according to
the covenants, lived and loved Rolling Ridge for decades, disrespectful to the neighbors' property
values,frontage setback from the road and side setbacks,disrespectful to the environment. Most of
us live in Rolling Ridge because we enjoy nature. The Zoning Board has to function as the
conscience for the people in the Town. When a project is this full of variance requests,there is a lot
wrong with it. This is not a hardship case. To grant variances on a whim because of a foolish
purchase and a lack of due diligence on the part of the buyer is poor policy for Queensbury or any
town. This project should not get more consideration than the people who already reside in
Rolling Ridge. We request that the project be halted and all of the variances be denied. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board
concerning this application? Sir,if you would like to,please.
TRAVIS WHITEHEAD
MR. WHITEHEAD-Travis Whitehead, Brookshire Trace, Queensbury. As indicated earlier, this is
not the first variance requested,yet this is a virgin building lot, and I know that your job is to bend
the rules where it makes sense, but, you know, we are a nation of rules, and I think most of the
cases that come before you, someone has an existing lot, and trying to work with it. Perhaps the
rules were different in the past, etc.,but that's not the case here, and I think a lot of people pass that
lot by, realizing there were issues with it, and for you to grant permits, yet another permit, would
be a very poor precedent, and would make people just wonder,you know, why do we have rules at
all. So I ask you to consider this carefully,that's all. So,thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Sir?
CHRISTOPHER LYNCH
MR. LYNCH-My name is Christopher Lynch. I live contiguous to the wetlands that you keep
discussing. You guys all know me. I think everybody familiar with this set of plans and variances
and debacles knows exactly what happened. This lot should never have been approved in the first
place. It never should have been sold, and I feel really bad for Mr. Deslauriers. He reminds me of a
worm when your put on the hook. You go every single which way, but you can't, you know, we'd
have to be jerks to say you can't have seven feet worth of variance,but my God, anybody here think
this'll be the last variance? So far too wide, too tall, too close to the road, too close to the wetland,
too close to a couple of wetlands, actually I feel still he's putting it in the middle of a, well, he is
putting it in the middle of a DEC delineated wetland, although it goes back and forth. We actually
got a four to four vote broken by the Chairman on this issue last time around. Clear cutting. The
place is basically a dump site. Siting in the middle, whatever. There's so many things going on
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
here. The experimental sewer system, I think that's apiece of junk. I think it's dangerous. It's
experimental. It's only been around for a few years. No septic system will fail in the first few years.
You've got to wait until,you know, eight,ten years into it. It reminds me of,what's the old Chinese
torture, death from a thousand cuts. It's each one, you know, each one. You'd have to be a jerk,
two,well, three, four, five, six, seven. At some point in time you've just got to say no, this is wrong.
It never should have been approved in the first place. As far as speaking in zone-ese, which I'm
starting to get really good at,you know, undesirable change,yes, most of the people that live in that
area say, yes, there will be an undesirable change, A to Z, top to bottom, not even looking at the
environmental impact. Whether the benefit can be achieved by some method? Yes, shrink the
damn thing. It's real simple. Or just pass on the bad mistake. Feel for him. I was in the same
position about 20 years ago. We've got more laws and more rules in this silly Town than you can
count. Whether the variance is substantial. Yes, damn straight it's substantial. Yes. This
variance and every single one, this is massive. This is a sore thumb in an otherwise pretty damn
nice neighborhood. Whether the variance will have an adverse effect on the physical or
environmental conditions in the district. There's so many,you know, whether it's runoff, whether
it's the experimental sewer system, whether it's the devastation of the wetlands or the short-siting
to the other wetlands. Good God,you know,how many ways do I hate this project,let me count the
ways,and it's self-created. Thank you very much for listening.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Lynch. Sir,if you wouldn't mind.
DAVE COLLINS
MR. COLLINS-My name is Dave Collins. I live in Rolling Ridge, three doors down from the
deplorable wetland,which I really have a problem understanding. It's my understanding that each
variance granted is granted or not granted on its own merits. So the number of variances that have
been asked for and approved here before, I just don't see the relevance. I really don't,and I thought
we were here to talk about granting a seven foot variance from the road to the edge of the
Deslauriers' porch, but this has turned into a re-hash, a re-living of all of the past events that have
taken place with this whole property. I can't understand that. Can we not just keep this discussion
to that seven foot variance? And what went on before, everything, to my knowledge, has been
approved positively and the only thing that we're here to discuss tonight is that seven foot variance,
and yet we're going through past sins. It doesn't make sense. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here this evening? You've already had your
three minutes,if you don't mind. Is there anyone else here this evening? Yes,sir.
JERRY LEONE
MR. LEONE-Hi. Jerry Leone, Rolling Ridge resident. It's interesting that this is the first variance
that any of the people in the neighborhood have heard about. We finally got a notice. We had no
idea that there were other variances prior to this one, or maybe many of us would have been here
already, and I think what many of us are looking at here is that the whole is the sum of its parts. All
of these variances speak to the fact that this project should never have been put through. What our
concerns are is that if they pollute our well water, what do we do as a community? We have all
lived up to the covenants in this agreement as homes were built in this development, all 51 homes.
Why shouldn't these people be held to the same covenant, that's what this Zoning Board is here for
is to look after our rights as a community. That's what I'm here to say.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Seeing no one else, I'm going to ask the applicant to re-join the
table if they could and maybe address some of the public comment if they choose to.
MR. HUTCHINS-Sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-Maybe, Tom, you could start with what is being termed as the experimental
wastewater system.
MR. HUTCHINS-It's not an experimental wastewater system. It is listed within DOH's design
handbook. In fact, it is a very good, it's an enhanced wastewater treatment system. We chose this
because it's one of a few systems that the Health Department has actually recognized that provide
treatment to a higher degree than a typical conventional septic system. I've done a number of
them. We've been very happy with them. It actually was Paul's idea. Paul had researched it
before I even became involved and he came to me with it and I agreed with him. It's not an
experimental septic system. A variance has been achieved. We've absolutely maximized the
distance from the wetlands that can be achieved with the septic system because we've moved it at,
our original location was considering saving a few trees that Paul was trying to save, but through
the process of the wastewater variance, we ended up re-locating the wastewater system to that
front property. The location is shown, which also is the location that is shown for the septic
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
system on the approved subdivision map for this lot. So it's not an experimental system. There's a
picture of these systems within the DOH design manual. I have a letter in my office from DOH in
Albany with regard to specific use of this system and allowable design criteria.
MR.JACKOSKI-And the Town of Queensbury Board of Health approved this system,correct?
MR. HUTCHINS-And the Town of Queensbury Board of Health had approved this system, and other
systems of this type. So, the reason we're here is we're trying to maintain this Board's request to
keep the 50 feet from the wetland, which we were able to do, and there were considerable changes
made in order to do that, and as a note, I have met with the Highway Superintendent with regards
to this right of way and the grading shown in this right of way. He's fine with it. He has no issues.
He has no issues with what's shown with respect to Queensbury Highway's infrastructure. Again, I
think it's an important point, the porch, with this variance, will be 46 feet from the road, which is
just about what the normal separation would be if the road were centered on the right of way and it
was 30 feet setback from the property line. So from an appearance standpoint it will not appear
closer, unusually close to the road because that property line is so far from the edge of the road.
MR.JACKOSKI-And so you're saying that's in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I think I maybe saying that. Yes.
MR. GARRAND-It's going to be the same distance back from the road as the house immediately
farther into the subdivision,the house next door?
MR. HUTCHINS-I have a location of it actually on my plan,and you can see it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-35 feet is the covenants.
MR. JACKOSKI-Please, we are conducting the meeting and we need to move forward with our
process. We are not in charge of covenants here. We are in charge of Code of the Town of
Queensbury. We do not enforce covenants.
MR. HUTCHINS-That's the neighbor's house that the surveyor picked up. The neighbor's
wastewater system is here from Queensbury record drawing.
MR. JACKOSKI-How far is the neighbor's wastewater system, do you believe, from the wetlands'
boundary? Is it more or less than this wastewater system? It seems to me that it's closer.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well,from our project,it would be about,here's the 100 foot arc.
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, I see that.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay,and you carry it over here. So it's,this one is a little bit closer to the wetland.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. But to the current wetlands it's about the same or closer.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes,it's 70 or 80 feet from here to here.
MR.JACKOSKI-And those permits were granted by the Army Corps of Engineers as well,correct?
MR. HUTCH INS-This permit was granted by the Army Corps of Engineers. The DEC wetland is right
here.
MR.JACKOSKI-I see.
MR. HUTCHINS-And through the Town, when we were at the Town Board, they had double and
triple checked with both Agencies that the delineation shown were indeed more than what came
from those engineers.
MR. DESLAURIERS-I'd like to address a couple of things. The 35 foot from the road in the
covenants it says 35 feet from the road, it doesn't say from the property line. It says from the road.
My setbacks are more than the 10 feet required in the covenants. Septic system is newer,but it's in
the same place where the original plan designed it for.
MR.JACKOSKI-Is there a minimum square footage covenant in that deed by chance?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR. DESLAURIERS-For the house? 2200 square feet. Originally that was 1500 square feet in the
original covenant and it was changed to 2200 square feet later.
MR.JACKOSKI-Are there any other Board member comments at this time or questions?
MR.URRICO-The question I have is,do you anticipate any more variance requests?
MR. DESLAURIERS-No.
MR. KUHL-Is this the last time, Staff?
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. KUHL-Is this the last time, or is this just another round? I mean, is this, you know, the 12th
round of a 12 round fight?
MRS.MOORE-No,it is not a 12 round fight.
MR.JACKOSKI-I have to tell you, I'm frustrated,because I'm the one who offered the olive branch so
to speak in going from the 50 feet to the 40 feet of relief, and I specifically saying as long as you
could maintain that front setback and that you would have no other variances. So I'm frustrated
that we're here for seven feet.
MR. HUTCHINS-There is discussion in the minutes, when that, and I wasn't here, but about moving
it closer to the road.
MR. JACKOSKI-As long as they stayed within, no more variances. I mean, I think it was a, in the
sum of the whole, I think it was a big opportunity to move forward with the project because we
found a solution, but to come back for more relief, I think it's self-created. I think it's segmented.
It's feeling segmented to me, but the Board has,we'll poll the Board and see what the Board thinks,
but we have the public comment period open. So I guess I'll poll the Board. Rick?
MR. GARRAND-Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by saying I think it's disturbing that the
public may not have been notified about the previous relief requests from the applicant. I'm
hoping that they were notified,but if they weren't,it's.
MR.JACKOSKI-Well, Rick,we've had people here from the public in the past.
MR. GARRAND-Not this many,but it would be disturbing to think that people were not notified. In
the first application I thought the size of the house should have been significantly reduced in order
to fit a lot with a lot of wetlands on it. A lot of the relief could have been eliminated with a much
smaller house. There are smaller houses in the neighborhood. This lot, it just isn't conducive to a
house that's, you know, 2565 square foot. The impact could have been minimized by a smaller
house. I'm also against the segmentation of this project with the two appeals. I was against it the
last time, and this time I think it's just more substantial with the previous requests for relief. So I'd
be against it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-I'm confused, Mr. Chairman, about the fact that you offered a 40 foot. I must have
missed that class. Can you elaborate for me just a little?
MR. JACKOSKI-What happened in the past was that they wanted 10 more feet of relief to be closer
to the wetlands, and we offered that, we offered up what we granted them. So we gained back, so
to speak, 10 feet. We granted them 10 feet less. That was the compromise, provided they didn't
need any more variances, and now they're back in front of us for seven more feet. We're going to
keep polling the Board.
MR. FREER-I thought I heard them say that they did keep the whole 50 feet,they didn't take your 40
foot offer.
MR.JACKOSKI-No. They had requested 40 feet of setback. We asked for 50.
MR. FREER-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-In order to do that, we had to move seven feet to the west, in combination with
geometry changes and the location change.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR. FREER-But it sounded like the agreement was not to come back with any more variances.
MR. JACKOSKI-That was how I understood it. I mean, you know, it feels segmented, but anyway,
what's in front of us right now is they have those variances already granted. They're asking for this
one. This is the one we're focusing on.
MR. FREER-Right,and from what I've heard, I could support this seven foot variance.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I think they moved the house doing that,and I think for,aesthetically because of that
extra 23 feet that's between their property line and the road, I don't think it's going to look out of
place if the house lines up with the neighbor's house, and I don't think it's substantial, and I'd be in
favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I really wasn't in favor of this project in the beginning, but I think they, I think it
was overwhelming, the impacts to the neighborhood and the environment, but I think they've gone
through the Agencies, you know, pretty much all approval, the Board of Health. I think they've
tried to do everything they possibly can. I mean, if they still want to build this, I have no problem
with it, as long as you guys won't be mad about not being invited to any parties in the
neighborhood, but I think it's going to be tough getting along with the neighborhood, but I'd go
along with the project.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Normally the seven foot would be no big deal for me, but I was not in favor of this
project from the beginning, and I don't like the idea of a second attempt to get further variances,
and so I will not support the project.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I think, in looking at this solely as a variance means not looking at the project as a
whole, and I agree with the segmentation. I agree that we're incrementally granting more and
more relief, and had this been part of the original relief request,we would not have, at least I would
not have been in favor of this portion of it as part of the original request, but it's here now, and I
think we've granted enough relief on this project already, and I do agree this is self-created at this
point. So I would not be in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-You know what that means? It comes down to me,Tom. So, I've got to think about,
and this is going to be very difficult, but if, when we granted all these variances, the compromise
was to protect more of the wetlands buffer, and I emphasize we're not building in, the house isn't
being built in the wetlands. It's being built within 50 feet of the buffer, I should say that it's 50 feet
closer than the 100, right,but the Town of Queensbury does, and it is a porch, and that the Board of
Health has gone through and looked at this in detail, and it's still got to go to the Planning Board,
and I have to believe that our Planning Board would see this as a very significant development of a
very delicate property, I don't think those wetlands are new, and I think that when this was
subdivided and clearly was given covenants that even then folks knew it was going to be a building
lot. Is there any way you can reduce that porch at all? I have to tell you, I mean, I remember
sitting here and saying and coming up with a solution that would allow you to build something 50
feet off the wetlands and 30 feet off the road,something can be built there. This is self-created. It's
this house that is self-created. It does not have to be this house. It could be a 28 foot wide ranch.
It wouldn't fit the character of the neighborhood necessarily, but a different house could be built
here without more relief.
MR. DESLAURIERS-It was my understanding, we had this discussion before, that, given the 50 feet,
if I agreed to that, that I would go back and see if I could, in fact, reduce the size of the house to
come within that basis, if not, I was allowed to come back again with what we had done and were
trying to do. To change the design of the house, I had to go back to see Ground Zero with the house.
We put a lot of thought into this house, a lot of thought into this property, and I think we've gone a
long ways to accommodate everybody in this system. The fact that I've come back another time
was only created because I could not,in fact,do as I said I would try to do.
MR.JACKOSKI-And you are back in front of us. We've given you that opportunity.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
MR. DESLAURIERS-Had I realized that you were going to ask for the 50 feet, then I would have
asked for this variance at the same time and not come back again, and I'm not going for any other
variance. I have nothing else to go for,and I don't think I have gone against any of the covenants.
MR. JACKOSKI-The covenants I can't deal with, yes. I mean, it does affect the character of the
neighborhood and I understand all of that, but I'm looking at the project as I understand the
character of the neighborhood, and as I see the development or what's been the over-development
of the parcel. Again, if I go back to that evening that we sat here and think about what I, personally,
was trying to achieve when I suggested the 50 feet instead of the 40 feet, I believe that I would have
probably accepted the seven feet on the porch, but I'd be in favor of the application as it sits. I'm
going to close the public hearing and seek a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. KUHL-I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman.
RESOLUTION TO: Approve,Area Variance No. 62-2014, Paul G. DesLauriers,Wincoma Drive
-Rolling Ridge Estates,Tax Map No. 297.10-1-45
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Paul G.
DesLauriers for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of
Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,565 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Project
includes a 252 sq. ft. porch and 363 sq. ft. deck. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback
requirements for the MDR zone. Requirements for the front setback is 30 feet; proposed is 23 and
relief is 7 feet.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday, September 11, 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 impacts are 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? We've discussed many others. I think the
applicant has done his utmost to satisfy everybody. There are minor areas.
3. Is the requested area variance substantial? My belief is that it's minor.
4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? We have discussed this. The Army Corps of
Engineers has given its blessings and I think the answer to this is no.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Although it is because these people are trying to build
the proper size house in this lot,I recommend we approve Area Variance No. 62-2014.
6. 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 Area Variance No. 62-2014, Paul G.
DesLauriers, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer:
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;
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/11/2014)
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 11th day of September 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand
MR.JACKOSKI-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? Can I have
a motion to adjourn,please?
MR. KUHL-I'll make that motion.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 11, 2014, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Harrison Freer:
Duly adopted this 11th day of September, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-Good night everyone.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
32