2008.12.30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 30, 2008
INDEX
Area Variance No. 83-2008 Joseph Riitano 1.
Tax Map No. 226.19-1-9
Sign Variance No. 87-2008 The Sign Center 2.
Tax Map No. 308.5-1-92.11
Sign Variance No. 56-2008 Colortyme Rentals/Thomas Glogowski 2.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-18
Area Variance No. 82-2008 Penelope and Edmond Derocker 8.
Tax Map No. 239.7-1-11
Area Variance No. 84-2008 Lucile Lucas 15.
Tax Map No. 239.8-1-51
Area Variance No. 85-2008 Anne S. Mason Revocable Trust (Bill Mason) 27.
Tax Map No. 239.8-1-52
Area Variance No. 86-2008 Howard Denison 32.
Tax Map No. 302.8-2-4
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 12/30/08)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 30, 2008
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOAN JENKIN
RICHARD GARRAND
JOYCE HUNT
GEORGE DRELLOS
BRIAN CLEMENTS
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’ll call to order this meeting of the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals for December 30, 2008. First off let me do a quick review of
our procedures in general. For each case I’ll call the application by name and number.
The Secretary will read in the pertinent parts of the application, the Staff Notes as well as
the Warren County Planning Board decision, if applicable. The applicant, then, will be
invited to the table and be asked to provide any information that they wish to add to their
application. The Board then will ask questions of the applicant. Following that we’ll open
the public hearing. I’d caution that the public hearing is not a vote. It’s a way to gather
information about concerns, real or perceived, and it’s a way to gather information,
insight in general, about the issue at hand. It should function to help the Board
members make a wise, informed decision, but it does not make the decision for the
Board members. As always, we’ll have a five minute limit on each speaker. So that
basically tells us everything they want us to know in that five minutes. A speaker may
speak again, if, after listening to other speakers, a speaker believes they have new
information to present. Following that, we’ll read correspondence into the record, and
then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment,
and Board members will then discuss the variance with the applicant. Following that, the
Board members will be polled to explain their positions on the application, then we’ll
close the public hearing, unless there’s a reason to leave it open, if it looks like the
application will be continued to another meeting, and finally we’ll have a motion to
approve, disapprove or table and a vote. Just a few items of interest for people that are
here this evening. We did receive some correspondence regarding some of the items on
the agenda this evening that have been asked to be tabled. The first one that would be
applicable would be Area Variance No. 83-2008, and that’s Joseph Riitano.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II JOSEPH RIITANO AGENT(S):
JONATHAN LAPPER; STEFANIE BITTER OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR-1A
LOCATION: 16 SUNSET LANE APPLICANT HAS RENOVATED HIS HOME AND IS
SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE FRONT & SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ANDFOR
THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: SP ; NOA
4-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 12/10/08 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY:
YES LOT SIZE: 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-9 SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-
13-010
MR. UNDERWOOD-His representation is by Jon Lapper or Stephanie Bitter. That
project location is 16 Sunset Lane, and I’ll read that letter in. “Please be advised that we
th
have just learned that Mr. Riitano’s application would be heard on December 30, 2008,
which is a special meeting for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Unfortunately due to
already made plans, Karla Buettner, an Associate in my office, who has been very much
involved in this matter will be out of town for the holiday. Due to her knowledge and
understanding of the file, it is necessary for her to attend the Zoning Board of Appeals
st
meeting. As a result, we would request that this matter be tabled until the January 21,
2009 meeting. We would very much appreciate your cooperation. Please advise at your
earliest convenience if this would be possible. Sincerely, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart &
Rhodes, P.C. Stefanie DiLallo Bitter” So I’ll make a motion that we put this off until the
January 21, 2009, and I think we only have three items on that evening anyway.
MR. OBORNE-That’s correct, sir.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So that’s not going to add that much to us.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 83-2008 JOSEPH RIITANO, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
16 Sunset Lane. Tabled until January 21, 2009.
th
Duly adopted this 30 day of December, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. The second one was the last item on the agenda this
evening, and that was the Sign Center.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED THE SIGN CENTER
AGENT(S): THE SIGN CENTER OWNER(S): PYRAMID MALL OF GF NEWCO
ZONING: ESC-25A LOCATION: 578 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN
ADDITIONAL 47.3 SF SIGN ABOVE THE ENTRANCE TO FRIENDLY’S
RESTAURANT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
NUMBER OF SINS FOR THIS BUSINESS. CROSS REF.: BP 08-351, 348, 350, 349
WARRE COUNTY PLANNING: 12/10/08 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: N/A LOT
SIZE: 37.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.5-1-92.11 SECTION: 140-6
MR. UNDERWOOD-The owners are Pyramid Mall of GF, NEWCO company. Their
agent is the Sign Center at 578 Aviation Road. This was the sign, the changing of a sign
on Friendly’s restaurant up there, and they’ve also sent us in a letter requesting a tabling.
“The Sign Center is requesting a continuation of the variance meeting scheduled to take
th
place on December 30, 2008 to the following month of January. If there are any
questions/issues please do not hesitate to contact me at 978-372-3721. Sincerely,
Neeka Smart” So, I guess we want to do them for the second meeting also?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2008 THE SIGN CENTER, Introduced
by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos:
578 Aviation Road. Tabled until the second meeting in January, January 28, 2009.
th
Duly adopted this 30 day of December, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
OLD BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED COLORTYME
RENTALS/THOMAS GLOGOWSKI AGENT(S): THOMAS GLOGOWSKI OWNER(S):
RAYMOND HIPPLE ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 959 STATE ROUTE 9, MOUNT
ROYAL PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES THE ADDITION OF A 32 SF COLORTYME
SIGN TO EXISTING ROAD SIGN PYLON. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SIGN IN
EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN SIZE FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN
PER SECTION 140-6 OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE. CROSS REF.: MANY WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: 9/10/08 LOT SIZE: 5.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-18
SECTION: CHAPTER 140-6
THOMAS GLOGOWSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-We had previously heard this back in September and requested
some information regarding the origins of one of the signs out front, that specifically was
the OTB, Off Track Betting sign, and how that came into being, and also we requested
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
some information from the Planning Board regarding their recommendation about the
sign and what they had perceived the sign to be in the front of that operation there.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 56-2008, Colortyme Rentals/Thomas Glogowski,
Meeting Date: December 30, 2008 “Project Location: 959 State Route 9, Mount Royal
Plaza Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the installation of a 32
square foot additional sign to an existing 75 square foot non-conforming freestanding
pylon sign. The proposed total square footage of signage would be 107 square feet.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 32 square feet of additional relief as well as relief
from the setback requirements per Chapter 140 of the Town of Queensbury Sign
Ordinance.
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 change in the character of the surrounding properties may
be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. With the non-
conforming nature of the sign and the setback issues confronting the applicant,
feasible alternatives appear to be limited.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional 32
square feet or 64 percent of the 50 square foot maximum for a free standing sign per
140-6 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the surrounding properties may be
anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2007-284 Commercial Alteration (Colortyme) Approved 5/24/07
P 2007-322 Wall Sign (Colortyme) Approved 6/18/07
Currently 147 additional activities associated with this parcel beginning in 1993.
Staff comments:
A survey would quantify the setback relief required. The applicant stated he attempted to
procure a survey from the owner but was unable to do so. The cost associated with
hiring a surveyor for a business complex not owned by the applicant was not practical.
The applicant requested and received a waiver from the Zoning Board of Appeals
Chairman from the survey requirement associated with this sign variance.
The sign itself is an addition to the existing freestanding sign and there will not be any
changes to the existing attached signage as a result of this proposal. The existing sign
height appears to be in excess of 25 feet, however, this is a pre-existing condition. The
existing sign is non-conforming due to height, size, and setback issues.
This application was tabled on September 17, 2008 with the following conditions
(Comments to conditions in bold):
1. A Planning Board recommendation concerning the intent of the Mount Royal
Plaza sign when it was erected back in 1994. See attached Planning Board
recommendation.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
2. Clarification as to the legality of the OTB sign placed on the existing pylon sign
from the Zoning Administrator. See attached Zoning Administrator’s
Memorandum.
3. A Planning Board recommendation as to whether the two signs (OTB and
Colortyme) are appropriate and if so, can something be done for all the tenants in
the mall? See attached Planning Board recommendation.
SEQR Status:
Unlisted”
MR. URRICO-In a memorandum from the Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown, as to the
history of the OTB sign, it says, “At the time of the construction of the OTB sign currently
located on the freestanding sign at the Mount Royal Plaza it was determined that such
sign was exempt from local zoning requirements as the NYS OTB was subject to
applicable governmental immunity provisions. As such, no sign permit was necessary
and the construction of the sign was not required to meet the requirements of the Town
of Queensbury Sign Code.” Then there was a motion from the Queensbury Planning
Board Recommending to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding
Colortyme Rentals, “MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
REGARDING COLORTYME RENTALS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: That we’ve reviewed their sign material and
we would be in favor of the addition of the Colortyme sign to the Mt. Royal Plaza sign.
Further modifications of this sign should require an application from the landlord.” And I
think that should cover everything.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any changes from last time?
MR. GLOGOWSKI-No, pretty much left it as was.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Anything you would like to add at this time?
MR. GLOGOWSKI-No. I just appreciate everybody’s time, and, you know, consideration
on this project. We are trying to be a valued asset here in the community, and as a small
business, it is very hard to get established. We’ve been open for just about a year now,
and the visibility, you know, is an issue, being tucked away in the corner, and, you know,
the sign would help immensely. When we were here before, one of the members had
asked if anybody else in the Plaza had written into their lease where they could have,
you know, sign access, and to my knowledge, we are the only one that has that, but as
the Planning Board had stated, if anybody else, or the landlord, wanted to do something
different with the sign, they would have to go through the application process as well.
So, you know, I appreciate everybody’s consideration and your recommendation on it.
MR. URRICO-You’ve obviously been in touch with the landlord and they know that the
sign’s going, the sign proposal is being made.
MR. GLOGOWSKI-Correct.
MR. URRICO-Are they aware that anybody else that comes forward will have to go
through a similar process?
MR. GLOGOWSKI-I think, and you can correct me on this, but the landlord’s being
copied pretty much on every communication that I’m getting. So I’m pretty sure that he is
aware.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Thanks.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. As I recall, this was part of your lease arrangement that this
sign was going to go in?
MR. GLOGOWSKI-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. GLOGOWSKI-I mean, we took up three spaces originally in the Plaza.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. He considers you to be the major tenant?
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MR. GLOGOWSKI-The anchor, correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Any other questions from Board members?
MRS. JENKIN-Have you considered a bit of a smaller sign? There’s not much space in
there.
MR. GLOGOWSKI-Yes. I did, after the last meeting, take some pictures, and I’m sorry if
you didn’t all have copies of this. The Northway Plaza that has the Home Depot sign in
there, and I think that, you know, if the landlord was going to modify their sign, you know,
maybe just label the Plaza on the top and then chop up, you know, some of their sign to
have smaller signs in there for the other tenants, but again, like the Home Depot plaza,
you know, we’re considered the anchor. So I do think that having a large sign, I mean,
we rely on the visibility. Somebody else had mentioned, you know, the competitors in
the area that do a similar type of business, they’re part of 3,000 store chains, and they
have huge advertising budgets. We’re basically a mom and pop. So visibility is
everything to us.
MRS. JENKIN-I definitely agree about the visibility, because before you came up, I didn’t
even realize it was there, and then you have a good size sign on your building, but it is
down at the end, and I.
MR. GLOGOWSKI-Right. If you’re coming south, you don’t even see it.
MRS. JENKIN-Right, but I just wondered if you could, because in the future, if they try to
put more signs up, if yours was a little smaller or a little narrower, then probably it
wouldn’t be as difficult to put other signs on.
MR. GLOGOWSKI-Yes, and again, right now timing is an issue definitely. I mean, if
anybody else was going to make recommendations or modifications, the landlord or any
other tenants, to go through the different steps of the process, you know, it’s been two,
three months, and I’d like to be able to get our sign up rather quickly, as opposed to, you
know, if you’d recommend we use a smaller sign, then does it have to go back through
Planning Board? I mean, what are the steps in that process, would be my question.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think as far as the sign goes, once we give you the variance,
you’ve got the go ahead, if we give it to you.
MR. GLOGOWSKI-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set at that point.
MR. GLOGOWSKI-So it doesn’t matter whether, what size it is?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think the Planning Board, in essence, has signed off that they
don’t have a problem with it. So, my question to them was based upon the fact that I was
unsure, when Mount Royal Plaza went in, if they ever wanted anymore signage out front,
and, you know, it was my understanding that initially no other signs were going to go on
that sign, and then the OTB one appeared, and now this one. So I would think that,
going forward, like you said, if they wanted to modify in the future and put all the other
people that are using the mall on there, they would have to change the size of the
signage and reconfigure at some future date, but it doesn’t look like that’s going to
happen.
MR. GLOGOWSKI-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll open the public hearing, then. Anybody from the
public wishing to speak on this matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess I’ll poll the Board on this one. Why don’t I start with you,
Rich.
MR. GARRAND-Well, basically this application doesn’t strike me as being anything a
business owner wouldn’t normally want. He’s not really adding anything, size wise, to
the sign, height wise, or he’s not increasing the setback in any way, shape, or form. I’d
be in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George?
MR. DRELLOS-Yes, I’d be in favor, too, and according to Staff Notes, there really isn’t
another alternative anyway. So, I’d be in favor of this variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I’d be in favor as well. I made my recommendation, but I think the
sign is fine, and it’s a nice looking sign.
MR. GLOGOWSKI-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I agree with the rest of the Board. I’d be in favor of this application
also.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I go past there every day, and I didn’t know about you until you came
to us, so you certainly need the sign out there.
MR. GLOGOWSKI-Thank you.
MRS. HUNT-And we’re not increasing the overall size of the sign for the Plaza. So I’d be
in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I have no objection to this sign. I don’t think it’s going to change
anything about that sign. I mean, the sign’s huge. It does beg the question as to when
the rest of the businesses are going to come forward because, in lieu of their having
signs on that sign, they’ve, instead, put lawn signs on the grass, when you can see the
grass, and there’s so many of them out there, it actually looks worse than any sign on
this pedestal sign can look. So I’d be in favor of this, but for the record, I want to
recommend Staff take a look at those lawn signs. There must be about 10 of them out
there right now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll also go along with the other Board members. I would make the
comment, too, you know, in attempting to landscape that well, as those trees mature, it’s
going to get even more difficult to see what’s on the façade of that building, and at that
point in time, I think probably it’s going to make sense for them to come back and try and
do something that puts everybody out there on the sign, but, you know, that’s some time
in the future. So for now we can do this.
MR. GLOGOWSKI-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll go along with it, too. Does somebody want to make a motion on
that?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. It is an Unlisted action. So I’ve got to go through the SEQRA
form real quick on that. The Short Environmental Assessment Form, based upon what
we’ve got here, it’s Colortyme Rentals. It’s the Colortyme Sign Variance that we’re
giving here, and the project location is 959 State Route 9, the Mount Royal Plaza in
Queensbury, New York. The proposed action is a modification/alteration of a current
sign that exists on there. Describing the project briefly. It’s going to add a 32 square foot
sign to the existing pylon sign, and that’s on two sides, too, right? Okay. Amount of land
effected. No land is really effected by this. Will the proposed action comply with the
existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions. The Plaza sign is at a zoning
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
maximum of 50 square feet. Okay. So I guess that’s fine. What is the present land use
in the vicinity of the project? It’s all commercial businesses along Route 9. Does the
action involve a permit approval funding now or ultimately from any other governmental
agency? The only thing is requires is the Town of Queensbury Zoning Variance for this
signage that’s being requested here, and does any aspect of the action have a currently
valid permit or approval? Would you say yes, the current sign?
MR. OBORNE-The current sign does, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the current sign does. This one will require it, and that’s why
they’re requesting the variance.
MR. OBORNE-That’s correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As a result of the proposed action, will the existing permit or
approval require modification? I would say no. Okay. Part II. -“Does the action exceed
any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” I would say no. “Will the action receive
coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” I would
say no.
MR. DRELLOS-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the
following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?” I would say no.
MRS. HUNT-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources; or community or neighborhood character?” I would say no.
MR. DRELLOS-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant
habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” No.
MR. DRELLOS-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or
a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” I would say no.
MR. DRELLOS-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to
be induced by the proposed action?” No.
MR. DRELLOS-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not
identified above?” I would say no.
MR. DRELLOS-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or
energy)?” I would say no.
MR. DRELLOS-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental
characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” I would
say no.
MR. DRELLOS-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential
adverse environmental impacts?” No.
MR. DRELLOS-No.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE READING OF THE SEQRA FORM, A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS GIVEN, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
th
Duly adopted this 30 day of December, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2008 COLORTYME
RENTALS/THOMAS GLOGOWSKI, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
959 State Route 9, Mount Royal Plaza. The applicant proposes the installation of a 32
square foot additional sign to an existing 75 square foot nonconforming freestanding
pylon sign. The proposed total square footage of signage would be 107 square feet.
The applicant requests 32 square feet of additional relief, as well as relief from the
setback requirements per Chapter 140 of the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance. In
making the determination, 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 Sign Variance, I think there’d be minor changes. The overall sign is not
going to be any larger. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved
by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the Sign Variance.
With the nonconforming nature of the sign and the setback issues, the feasible
alternatives seem to be limited to the applicant. Whether the Sign Variance is
substantial. The request for 32 square feet or 64% of the 50 square foot maximum for a
freestanding sign per Section 140-6 may be considered moderate to severe. Whether
the proposed variance will have adverse effects or impacts on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and I think there would be minor
physical or environmental changes, and the difficulty is self-created because the people
who run Colortyme Rentals feel they need the sign out there for their business, and I
think that’s a viable reason, and so I request that we pass Sign Variance No. 56-2008.
th
Duly adopted this 30 day of December, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set. Thanks.
MR. GLOGOWSKI-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II PENELOPE AND EDMOND
DEROCKER AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR-
1A LOCATION: 53 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 0.95
ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.40 ACRES AND 0.55 ACRES. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE MINIMUM
LOT WIDTH AND LOT SIZE AND SHORELINE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS.
CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 12/10/08 ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-11 SECTION: 179-4-
080, 179-4-030
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 82-2008, Penelope and Edmond Derocker, Meeting
Date: December 30, 2008 “Project Location: 53 Knox Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposed to subdivide a 0.95 acre parcel into two lots of 0.40 acres
and 0.55 acres on Knox Road.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief of 0.45 acres for lot 1 and 0.60 acres for lot two. Further,
the applicant requests 38.2 feet of water frontage relief for lot 1 and 49.3 feet of water
frontage relief for lot 2. Finally, the applicant requests 24.4 feet of lot width relief for lot 1
and 69.8 feet of lot width relief for lot 2
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. Moderate changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a
result of this proposal as an increase in area variance requests may result if this
application is approved.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant has
no recourse but an area variance as the property is currently non compliant.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 0.45 acres or 45
percent of relief for lot one and 0.60 acres or 60 percent of relief for lot two from the
one (1) acre minimum lot size requirement for the Waterfront residential 1 acre zone
may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request
for 38.2 feet or 25.9 percent relief for lot 1 and 49.3 or 32.9 percent of relief for lot two
from the 150 foot minimum water frontage requirement for lots in the Waterfront
Residential 1 acre zone may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
Finally, the request for 24.4 feet or 16.3 percent of relief for lot 1 and 69.8 feet of
relief or 46.5 percent of relief for lot 2 from the 150 foot minimum lot width
requirement for the Waterfront Residential 1 acre zone may be considered moderate
to severe relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as lot
density will increase if this application is approved.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None since 1950
Staff comments:
The surrounding parcels are either similar in size or smaller. The existing lot is a non-
conforming lot in regards to the 1 acre zoning. The proposed subdivision of this lot will
result in two non-conforming lots instead if one.
The Zoning Board of Appeals shall seek a recommendation from the Planning Board
concerning this application per §270 of Town Law.
SEQR Status:
Type II-No SEQR Determination required.”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 10, 2008
Project Name: Derocker, Penelope and Edmond Owner(s): Penelope and Edmond
Derocker ID Number: QBY-AV-08-82 County Project#: Dec08-17 Current Zoning:
WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision
of a 0.95 acre parcel into two lots of 0.40 and 0.55 acres. Relief requested from the
density requirements as well as the minimum lot width and lot size and shoreline
frontage requirements. Site Location: 53 Knox Road Tax Map Number(s): 239.7-1-11
Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 0.95 acre parcel into
two lots one 0.40 acres and the other 0.55. Relief is requested for lot size where 1 acre
is required lot width where 150 ft is required, and relief requested for existing building
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
setbacks. The plans show the location of the subdivision line with a shared driveway.
The information did not include the applicant’s response to the variance questions. Staff
recommends no county impact with the condition there is documentation including the
applicant’s responses to the variance questions and there are compliant septic and water
systems for each site. This is based on the information submitted according to the
suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the
proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with
Stipulation The Warren County Planning Board recommends County Impact with the
condition that there is documentation including the applicant’s responses to the variance
questions and there are compliant septic and water systems for each site, also will these
be seasonal or year round.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys want to come up.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design,
representing Penny and Ed DeRocker. Ed is with me to my right. The application as
presented as indicated is for the subdivision, and therefore the necessary relief required
to create a second lot where one exists currently. That .95 acre lot has been in the
DeRocker/Peck family for 100 years. That existing lot supports a single story camp
structure with two out buildings or sleeping cottages, within that property and the water
frontage of the existing lot is about 210 feet. Now as indicated, the variances required
are density related. The two lots each would be less than the one acre zoning that’s
required in this area. The lot width would be nonconforming in both situations, and the
water frontage, separate from the lot width, but another criteria, is also nonconforming
with this request. Another point, it’s relatively minor, but in the creation of that second lot
there is also a side setback variance for the existing carport on there. That’s a lesser
point, but I think one that still would be part of the, is part of the application. As
somewhat mentioned in the summary, both by Staff and in our application, the nature of
the lots along Knox Road, there are 16 waterfront lots that are accessed, served off of
Knox Road. Twelve of them are less than the one acre size that is required by current
zoning. Eight are a half acre or less. So half of the existing lots on that area are less
than a half an acre. Five of them are less than .4 tenths of an acre, which is the smaller
of the two lots that we’re, the application requests, and five are larger than the .55 acre
lot that is being proposed as part of this. So these two lots sort of are in the median
range. They are in the middle of what the existing character of the neighborhood is. The
plan that was presented as part of the variance gives an example of the development of
that lot. It isn’t the proposal at this point. This is for a variance to allow the subdivision of
two nonconforming lots, but that gives an example of how that lot, the .4 tenths of an
acre lot, could be developed. The existing house would remain with the .55 acre. The
two out buildings would be removed from the, they lie within the smaller of the two lots.
Those would be removed, but again, as demonstrated on the plan, we used a generic
footprint of the house, fits within the setbacks, can be supported by a septic system,
which I’ve done the soils work for on that site, adequate soils. We would share the
driveway so there wouldn’t be an additional curb cut, as it were, on Knox Road. I think
the important point that I get from discussing this with the owners, it’s their desire, it’s not
their preference to subdivide their property. It’s out of necessity is what it may come
down to. The property values along the lakeshore, and therefore the resulting
assessments in taxes have created a situation in general where a lot of these properties
have been turned over. You’ve seen probably many applications before you that are a
result of sales, and then someone wanting to build a new house, tear down and rebuild,
and those, some of those result in variance requests. Well, this is sort of a different take
on that, where the existing long term owners want to retain that property as best they
can, but the only way they understand or see that they can do that is, unfortunately, to
subdivide, so that, two things, there’s some income that results from that property, and
there’s an ability to then maintain their property, the existing one, and perhaps there
would be a lesser assessment on the remaining land as well. So it may result in a
reduction in that tax levy from two perspectives.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I understand your train of thought, but the question I think is going to
pop up in all of our minds here tonight if we’re going to use this argument going forward
for all Waterfront Residential properties, are we going to put ourselves in a position
where everybody who has an oversized lot compared to their neighbors, comes in and
wants to subdivide, because the thought of that sort of scares me and frightens me in the
long term. I mean, it’s understandable the position you’re in. I mean, I live on
Waterfront Residential property. I know what you’re up against, too, but at the same time
I think we have to keep in mind, you know, what’s reasonable. If you look at the lots
there, I mean, I went back and read your deed, too, and it says that, you know, originally
it was Lots Four, Five and Six, or something like that. So obviously they were smaller
lots in the initial purchase of the property back in the 30’s, or whenever it was, or how
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
long ago that was. Obviously those people wanted more land, instead of just a tiny little
thin lot like a lot of those ones are on the waterfront up on Lake George, but at the same
time, you know, we have to keep in mind what we’re doing here, because if we do it
once, you know, what’s going to prevent us, going forward, from having to honor every
request that comes before us?
MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Well, that’s obviously a good point, an important point, and a
precedent that something could set, and what we’re specifically dealing here with is one
lot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. No, I understand that.
MR. MAC ELROY-And the demonstration that, in spite of that zoning requirement of one
acre, and I’m not dismissing that, but somewhere along the line, someone came along
and decided that one acre zoning was the appropriate zoning in this section. Another
section of the lake has three acre zoning. Now very few of those existing lots that were
in either of those zones meet that criteria.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and I buy your argument there, too. I think, you know, in past
instances we’ve come up against this because, basically everybody’s nonconforming in
some degree, but at the same time, do we ultimately create more nonconformity, or do
we look at something, I mean, is it a reasonable request or is it something that’s way
over the top? I mean, that’s what we’ve got to, you’ve made your point. I mean, I think
we all understand that.
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s your challenge.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do Board members have any questions at this time?
MR. DRELLOS-This has to go to the Planning Board, right?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, ultimately, because it’s a subdivision, yes, it does, but
in other words, we’re sort of the gateway, too. In other words, we don’t have to defer to
them. You have to rationalize in your own mind what’s being requested versus what the
outcome’s going to be in general terms. I mean, you’re going to look at it in a single
instance in this request here, but also in the greater scheme of things, too. You’ve got to
think about, for every action, there’s another reaction you don’t consider if you don’t think
thoroughly through the problem. Anybody else have a question?
MRS. HUNT-You did say those two cottages were coming down?
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s correct.
MRS. HUNT-On that property.
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s correct. They would be removed from that. Correct.
MR. DRELLOS-Why wouldn’t you take the carport down and just draw the line straight?
MR. MAC ELROY-I think it was trying to use that existing driveway, George, that we
could share then, coming down through that.
MRS. JENKIN-You actually have two entrances? Because you have a circular driveway
now. So you do have two entrances on the road right now.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That does circle around, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-So you were saying that you wouldn’t add any other entrances, but you
really don’t have to because you already have two entrances.
MR. MAC ELROY-As it exists, correct.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, right. My comments, or my questions I guess, too, it’s a pristine lot.
It’s an absolutely gorgeous lot. It’s all treed. It’s got very steep slopes, as most of that
area in there, it is sloping. To subdivide it, somebody’s going to come, want to come in,
and build a house, and most of the building that goes on now is bigger and bigger and
better and better, and they don’t want just small camps, and it’s a consideration, if you’re
going to maintain your small old camp, what will you have beside you? It might not add
to the pristine quality of that area, really, to put another home in there. We have to
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
consider the Lake George and the quality of life that’s there, too, and this is already a
nonconforming lot. It’s not an acre. So it’s not, you’re dividing a nonconforming lot into
even smaller sections, and with new septic systems going in and everything, it might
cause a lot of problems. I just think it would be a shame to, even with taxes, and it’s a
huge consideration with taxes, but it’s a shame to divide this property more. We want to
keep the quality of Lake George. We want to maintain that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from Board members? Okay. I’ll open up the
public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak in this matter? Sir?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN COLLINS
MR. COLLINS-My name is John Collins. I live at 35 Knox Road. I know the applicant. I
know the agent. Unfortunately, nobody came to speak to us beforehand. So what
they’re going to hear from us is of first impression, but when you look at Assembly Point,
the last area of Assembly Point that has the natural feel is the area around Knox Road
that comes really starting from our property through to MacElroy’s property, and after
that, the density begins to get much larger, with the exception of one or two homes that
are under controversy right now, and from our standpoint, to grant the variance is going
to push Assembly Point to look more and more like Cleverdale and Rockhurst, where the
density overtakes the beauty of the land and puts stress on the property, and as a result I
have to disagree with Dennis’ characterization that it doesn’t impact the neighborhood. I
do believe it does because of the actions that have taken place on Assembly Point
further down the Point, and now are beginning to encroach upon the last area where
there’s a more natural feel, and unfortunately, what I heard tonight is the driving factor is
financial related, and it’s the real estate taxes, and when you look at the assessed value
of the property, almost 100% of the assessed value is related to the land. So there isn’t
an easy solution here. It’s not like they overbuilt the property, that they’ve got too much
value associated in the buildings. It is the land, and the land is the crux of the issue
here, and whether we want to impact what we’ve been trying to preserve on the lake and
keep Assembly Point, what’s left of it, intact, and for that, we request that the variance be
denied. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Sure.
KATHY BOZONY
MS. BOZONY-Good evening. My name is Kathy Bozony, and I live in the Town of
Greenfield in Saratoga County. I work full-time for the Lake George Water Keeper,
which is a program of the Fund for Lake George, and we’re headquartered in Lake
George in Warren County. These organizations are dedicated to the protection and
restoration of Lake George and we work to speak for the lake and its environment
representing all ecology which has no voice of its own. The Fund has been in existence
for almost 40 years, and has invested millions in lake protection programs and projects.
We represent hundreds of property owners around Lake George and within the
watershed, including the Town of Queensbury. Tonight I make my comments on behalf
of the Lake George Water Keeper. I just wanted to make that for the record. The
requested subdivision of .95 acres within the WR-1A zoning is substantial, as the
existing lot is already nonconforming. Subdivision of this lot is significant because the
cumulative impacts of increased density within close proximity to Lake George can be
substantial. The Town of Queensbury zoning requires one acre zoning on Knox Road,
and this should not be compromised in order to maximize density on the shoreline. The
magnitude of the variance will only facilitate additional development on undersized lots,
and create the need for future variance requests. Town of Queensbury Chapter A183,
Subdivision of Land, requires that proper provision be made for sanitary sewage. The
existing on site wastewater treatment is not shown on the plan. The system should be
detailed and certified. Design information for the proposed on site wastewater treatment
should be provided, including percolation, deep test pit, and a layout to determine if
adequate treatment can be provided, as well as required compliance with local and State
regulation. Dennis had mentioned that there was some soils test done. I did not see
that. Floor Area Ratio calculations have not been submitted to determine if a variance
would also be required if the lots are further developed. Subdivision of this parcel would
encourage more construction on an otherwise densely populated peninsula. Thank you
for discussing the important issues, as each variance is decided on its own merit, and
expectations change as variances are granted. Pre-existing nonconforming lots should
not become more nonconforming. Therefore this variance to subdivide should not be
approved. Thank you.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on this
matter? Any correspondence, Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. There’s one letter. This is, it says, “Gentlemen: My immediate
neighbor to the South, the DeRockers (239.7-1-11), have asked me to give consent for
them to subdivide their lot. I understand their intention is to sell 80 to 100 feet of their
land adjoining my property as a building lot. Although I would not object to their
subdividing their property, I would respectfully request that no building be permitted less
than 25 feet from my adjoining property line as I have only a 50 foot lot and when my
house was built (I believe about 100 years ago), it was sited very close to my Southern
lot line. Most of my land not occupied by my house is on the Northern side of my
property. My neighbor’s home to the north (Victoria and Robert Glandon 239.7-1-13) is
built very close to my property line. The positioning of a new house on the DeRocker’s
subdivided lot would be critical to me. I would very much appreciate consideration be
given to my request of a 25 foot setback for any planned building from my property line.
Sincerely, Roberta Harris Kahan (239.7-1-12) 61 Knox Road”. That’s it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any comments you want to make in regards to the public
commentary?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, just one clarification, the comment that Kathy had made about
the Floor Area Ratio. We did provide an example of a development of that lot with a
footprint of a house, and within the application materials there is Floor Area Ratio
information that shows a compliant Floor Area Ratio or house compliant with the Floor
Area Ratio standard could be proposed there. That’s what’s shown there. So, just for
clarification.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The new Comprehensive Land Use Plan, I mean, is there any
attempt to recognize the average lot size in any neighborhoods on Waterfront
Residential? I don’t see that they’ve made any modifications to what we have, one acre
or three acre zoning on Waterfront now.
MR. OBORNE-No, that’s true. I think what they mostly talk about are the aesthetics of
the area, usually in broad strokes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other comments from Board members? All right, then, I guess
what we’ll do is I will poll down through the Board and see what the sentiment of the
Board is. Joyce, do you want to go first?
MRS. HUNT-While I can understand the desire of the DeRockers to subdivide the
property, I have mixed feelings about it. I think it’s too bad to keep dividing things
smaller and smaller. Even though this would be a medium amount of property, I really
don’t know at this point, but I’m mixed in my feelings.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Well, I think, yes, I do understand the intent and the purpose of what’s
happening, but getting it done this way, I don’t know as that’s the right move. We have
to consider the balancing test, and the balancing test tells us we have to look at
everything in terms of detriment to health, safety and welfare of the community, as
compared to the applicant’s benefit, and while the benefit to the applicant is obvious, I
mean, if it can’t be achieved by any other feasible means, if the benefit is to create
another lot, that’s the only way you can do it is subdivide this property, but we definitely
are going to see an undesirable change in the neighborhood characteristics. We have a
one acre lot, less than a one acre lot. It’s already nonconforming, and we’re being asked
to subdivide it and make two nonconforming lots, and that’s the wrong direction in terms
of what the Town wants to do in that area. As a result, the request is substantial, and in
terms of physical or environmental effects, we don’t know. Obviously it’s not going to get
better. It can only get worse by having another lot there, and definitely this is self-
created. So I would be against this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I’m afraid I’d have to agree with Mr. Urrico. I think that it’s definitely an
undesirable change. I know, I can understand the family’s wanting to keep the property.
However, I think there are some other ways that that might be done. There are other
smaller properties for sale on the lake. This could be sold. I think there are a lot of other
things that could be done. So with that in mind, and the undesirable changes that may
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
take place, along with the undesirable changes that have taken place, I think, on that
road to begin with, I would not be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-I think I’ve made comments before. I think that the request is very
substantial. I think it will have an adverse physical and environmental effect in that area
because of the density, the increased density, building another home, more septic
problems, the sloping lot, cutting down trees. You’d have to remove a lot of the trees
that now are protecting the property, and I just think it would be a very negative to this
area, in order to get your, what you require, and that is trying to reduce your tax
amounts, and the amount of money that you actually have to put out for this. There are
other ways of doing it. You could perhaps rent the property rather than selling it, rent it
for a short time each year, bring in some more money that way. It would be a shame to
have to sell it, that’s for sure, but I really cannot agree. I think that I would have to deny
this application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-George?
MR. DRELLOS-Yes. I’m looking at this lot, the way it slopes, the way it’s configured with
your lot line. I can’t, I couldn’t go along with this variance. Of course this Board wouldn’t
make a decision on, you know, financial status. I understand your plight, but we can’t
make a decision on that. We have to look at the lot and the application in a different
sense. So I would not be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-Well, basically, the Town Board has blessed us with the Code, Chapter
179. The goal, I guess, was to maintain the carrying capacity of the land. When this
subdivision was initially set up, decades ago, basically everything that was there was a
camp. Density wasn’t nearly as much an issue when you had people living there for two
to three months out of the year. At this point this area has become a year round home
for many people, and thus reducing the carrying capacity of the land. By further
subdividing this area, you are, Number One, you’re increasing runoff. You’re increasing
septic. You’re increasing congestion, all of that. At this point, I would not be in favor of
this application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. My only commentary I would make is this. If you look at the
vicinity map, and I think it’s been pointed out by the neighbors that live nearby also, you
know, as you go further north, the lots are much smaller than those that are existing on
the beginning of Knox Road from the corner down there when you first turn up down by, I
guess that would be, one of the people that spoke’s lot there on the corner of Knox Road
there, but, you know, to keep subdividing, it’s an understandable argument that you’ve
made about the financial status and the taxes and the things like that, but, you know, at
some point in time, you know, we’ve sort of gone way around the bend because if we
always have to keep going into smaller and smaller properties, smaller subdivisions like
we have over on Rockhurst and places like that, I think we see the folly of our ways, you
know, in the long term about doing that. Maybe at some point in the future we have to
enact, you know, regulations that basically say, well, I’m sorry, unless you have a
conforming lot, you’re not going to be able to redevelop your property. You might have
to buy, purchase two properties, side by side with each other, and build yourself a near
conforming lot at least. With the last lots up there, this lot being the only one that really
subjectively meets the definition of one acre zoning, it’s just slightly less than one acre
zoning, it’s understandable that your tax burden is probably higher than your next door
neighbor’s tax burden on those smaller lots to the north, but nonetheless, I think the
Board would not be doing its job if it were to grant a variance in this request here. The
Board looks like it’s not going to be granting this request this evening. So, I guess does
somebody want to make a resolution?
MR. URRICO-Well, do you want to give them the opportunity to either table it or?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Or the option to withdraw it.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right. I guess procedurally I just want to understand. I thought that I
understood that this would, depending on what happened here, would have to go
forward or you would look to the Planning Board for recommendation.
MR. GARRAND-We still have to go, according to Town Code 270, we have to go to the
Planning Board for a recommendation.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think the Planning Board, ultimately, if we were to approve
this, would have to approve it based upon our decision here this evening, but if we’re not
going to go forward with this, I mean, I think you could withdraw it without prejudice.
MR. OBORNE-I would recommend.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would recommend doing that, you know, to allow you to, you know,
reconfigure at some further date, you know, come in. I mean, I don’t think anybody
doesn’t understand the plight that you’re in.
EDMOND DE ROCKER
MR. DE ROCKER-Yes. Basically it’s not a, and if I may say so, it’s not as much a
financial decision as it is an issue of, we have like an eight week or six week camp on the
lake, and we do realize it’s a valuable piece of property that we’ve inherited. There are
other buildings that are year round on the peninsula that are probably not assessed as
high as ours have been, and so there’s a judicial thing in my issue about, you know, yes,
we could rent it out, but what’s the sense of having it. We could sell it, but, you know,
capital gains on a piece of property like that is going to be a stupid decision, and nothing
ventured, nothing gained. I don’t see the impact. I think our arguments are pretty
sensible, and I also see the objections, and I respect the job you’re doing, and of course
we love Lake George, and we want to protect the environment. At the same time, you
have to do what you have to do.
MR. UNDERWOOD-My suggestion would be just to withdraw the application and then,
you know, wait for some future date. I mean, who knows what’s going to happen down
the road, whether things are going to change, you know, five years, ten years, who
knows, but I mean it’s unfortunate for anybody on waterfront right now because, you
know, everybody stays as long as they can, and, you know, it’s a tough decision to
make, like you said, but what’s your pleasure.
MR. MAC ELROY-I think withdrawal without prejudice, or whatever, that’s a good option.
We appreciate your consideration, and your comments and input, and Happy New Year.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Sorry about that.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II LUCILE LUCAS AGENT(S):
WILLIAM MASON; MICHAEL O’CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S): LUCILE LUCAS
ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 6 ONONDAGA DRIVE, TAKUNDEWIDE APPLICANT
PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF A 780 SF RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
1515 SF RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS
WELL AS THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: AV 71-06;
DEC SPDES PERMIT WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 12/10/08 ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-51 SECTION:
179-4-030, 179-13-010
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & BILL MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 84-2008, Lucile Lucas, Meeting Date: December
30, 2008 “Project Location: 6 Onondaga Drive Takundewide Description of Proposed
Project: The applicant proposes the demolition of an existing 780 square foot single
story residence and construct, in its place, a 1515 square foot two story residence.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 4.57 feet of north side setback relief, 0.77 feet of south side
setback relief, 10.29 feet of rear setback relief, and 361 square feet of Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)relief.
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
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
build in a more compliant location or reduce the size of the project.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 4.57 feet or 30.5
percent of north side setback relief may be considered moderate relative to the
ordinance. The request for 0.77 feet or 0.5 percent of south side setback relief may
be considered miniscule to minor. The request for 10.29 feet or 51.45 percent of rear
setback relief may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance.
Finally, the request for 361 square feet or 31.3 percent of relief from the allowable
floor area of 1154 square feet may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
Note: The Floor Area Ratio for this application is 26.2 percent, 4.2 percent above the
0.22 percent allowable FAR for the WR-1A zone. The cumulative relief for setbacks
equate to 28.4 percent.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
P89-679 Boathouse and Dock 9/5/89
A.V. 71-2006 Demo and rebuild Single Family Dwelling 11/22/06
Staff comments:
According to the Takundewide Resolution, Memorandum of Understanding between the
Planning Board and the Takundewide HOA dated September 23, 2003 any proposed
cottage expansion would be limited to 1,536 square feet. As this application calls for a
1515 square foot single family residence, it would be considered FAR compliant with
regards to the above mentioned Memorandum of Understanding.
This application is to modify previous approved setbacks in 2006 (See attached
resolution and minutes for A.V. 71-2006). The changes are the result of an existing
fireplace not calculated on the shore side and required entrance decks on the side and
front entrances. It is these entrance decks that trigger the need for a new area variance
application. A total increase of 1,460 square feet to 1,515 square feet is anticipated as a
result of this application.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 10, 2008
Project Name: Lucas, Lucile Owner(s): Lucile Lucas ID Number: QBY-08-AV-84
County Project#: Dec08-20 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of a 780 sq. ft. residence and
construction of a 1515 sq. ft. residence. Relief requested from setback requirements as
well as the Floor area Ratio requirements. Site Location: 6 Onondaga Drive,
Takundewide Tax Map Number(s): 239.8-1-51 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The
applicant proposes to demolish an existing 780 sq. ft. residence single story to construct
a 780 sq. ft. first floor with a 717 sq. ft. second floor residence. The project also includes
an 18 sq. ft. enclosed porch. The information submitted indicates the applicant had
previously receive approval for a similar project in 2006 with a slight modification for the
new proposal. The home is proposed to be located 52.5 ft. from the shoreline where a
50 ft. setback is required, the home is to be located 14 ft. from one side yard and 10.5
from another where a 15 ft. setback is required, and the home is to be located 7 ft. from
the rear yard where a 15 ft. setback is also required. Relief is also requested from the
floor area ratio requirements. the applicant has indicated the setbacks have changed
with the addition of the required decks per building code and this proposal includes the
chimney as part of the setback. The information submitted also includes reference to the
2003 agreement between the Town of Queensbury and the Homeowners Association
where it was anticipated that the applicants would apply for additions or reconstruction of
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
their existing homes. The application also includes an approval letter from the
Homeowners Association. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information
submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law
Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County
Planning Board 12/12/08.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to fill us in?
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record, I’m Mike
O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, representing the applicants, and with
me also representing the applicants is William Mason. We basically have two
applications before you, and what we say I think is applicable to both, although you
probably want to do your resolutions separately for each of the two different applications.
This is a process that began in September of 2003. I think at that time the Boards were
receiving, there are 35 units within Takundewide, and the Board was receiving, 32, the
Board was receiving individual applications and tried to set up a set of standards so that
they would have some uniformity in how each of the applicants were treated, and how
the result was a little bit more known, particularly for the people that became involved
with this project. That’s what you’re talking about when you read about the
Memorandum of Understanding of September 23, 2003. That’s this little booklet right
here, and it was a lot of give and take, with back and forth between the Homeowners
Association and the Planning Board. It’s not necessarily a bible. It’s kind of like a master
plan. It’s a guide. We think, though, that the applications that you have before fall within
the guidelines of what you had there. I actually became involved in this in November, or
probably October of ’06. At that time, I represented Steven Jackowski who owns one of
the units within the Takundewide Homeowners Association, and he, with the two other
owners that are before you today each had individual applications to update and
renovate their units. You gave an approval of that, and you basically said that, you
conditioned your approval upon the applicant’s reviewing with the Planning Board
compliance with the Memorandum of Understanding and looking to see whether or not
the properties, we had suggested that the properties be served by individual septic
systems, whether they would be better served if they had a community septic system.
We then began that process, and we ran into a little bit of trouble because of the timing
of when everything was and when we could do our perc test, and when we could do our
deep hole test. We finally obtained the Planning Board approval in March of ’08, and
from ’06 to ’08 we did develop a community septic system, which will be built, and is in
the process of being built, which would serve eight units that we have signed into it
immediately, with the capacity for three more units that can sign into it. That approval by
the Planning Board was conditioned upon us obtaining Town Board approval of a sewer
transportation corporation, which is what DEC now requires for any community septic
system. We did get approval, in October of ’08, from the Town Board, and formed the
Transportation Corporation. As soon as we got approval, in October of ’08, Bill then
went back to the Planning Staff and started processing building permits, and at that
point, as I understand it, Dave Hatin said we can’t approve what the two Boards have
approved because you don’t have stoops at the doors. In order to comply with the
Building Code you need to have two foot by three foot stoop on each porch. So we said,
okay, we’ll put those on. We then took the application back to Craig Brown, and Craig
Brown said, well, they’re part of the structure, and they weren’t within your setbacks, or
they increased the setback variances you need because you’re now putting these stoops
on the sides of the porch. You have to understand that these lots are very small lots, but
they’re part of a Homeowners Association that has 18.65 acres of open space. Their
potential for infringing upon the Floor Area Ratio is insignificant. I think the structures as
we propose them are some place around four to five percent, as opposed to the twenty-
two percent that’s allowed. So we’re trying to dot the I’s. We’re trying to dot the T’s, and
we’re back because we have added two stoops to the two buildings that you approved,
or the Board approved, in November of ’06. In doing the approval, we also recognize
that as long as we’re counting everything and anything, we should count the fireplace
that’s in existence, that’s there, that’s been there, and that’s two foot by six feet, which is
another 12 square feet. So we’ve included that in the calculations, and we actually
added, on the second floor we had indented four corners, and instead of indenting those
four corners, we’ve gone straight up. So, altogether, we’re still talking 1515 square feet
for each structure. The master plan said that we should not have more than 1536 square
feet. Now I’ve got a copy of the pages of the master plan. I’ve got a copy, if you don’t
have it in your minutes, excuse my notes, if you will.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve got them all.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MR. O’CONNOR-Of the Zoning Board decision. I’ve also got the Planning Board
decision, and I’ve got the Town Board decision. I don’t know if you have all that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we’ve got them all.
MR. O'CONNOR-I shouldn’t have made the copies, then. All right. Keith, and I don’t
know if, Keith and I had a discussion today, and he looked at our Floor Area Ratio, and
he said we should be prepared to talk about the figures that are on there, because we
show that the first floor area is 780 square feet, and it will be 780 square feet, and the
second floor will be 717 feet, although the perimeter of the second floor is the same as
the perimeter of the first floor. The difference is the first floor has a 12 foot in for the
fireplace that’s not in the second floor, and also the first floor has 51 square feet that’s in
for the stairwell. The stairwell is like an open deck area if you will. There is no second
floor over the floor area, or over the stair area. So Bill Mason, in speaking with Craig
Brown, was told that they don’t count the stairwell, if you will. They count it once. They
count it as for the first floor, but don’t count it on the second floor, the area that’s
occupied by the stairs, because there’s no way that you’re going to have living space
above the stairs as you go up the stairs, and that gets us to the 1717 square feet. The
18 feet is the covered decks, or the covered deck. So I’m confident that what we’ve used
on the Floor Area Ratio worksheet is correct, and that it is in compliance with the master
plan. We’ve not changed the, you know, appearance in any significant way. This is
something that also it has another board that I didn’t mention. This has to go through the
Homeowners Association. They don’t treat it lightly. I know that, on the Jackowski
property, we talked about shifting the unit a little bit so that we wouldn’t be as
noncompliant, and the Homeowners Association would not approve that because it
would block somebody’s view that was upland of it. So they paid pretty close attention to
what’s going on. That’s basically why we’re here. We’ve added two porches, and one of
them’s covered, and we recognize that we have a fireplace that we didn’t count.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Both these ones this evening, are they included in the wastewater
system?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, they are.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And that’s going to be constructed this Spring, I would assume, or
underway.
MR. MASON-They’re building it right now. It’s underway.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s underway.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So by the time construction is finished you’d be hooked up?
MR. MASON-Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As per the previous agreement.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MRS. JENKIN-I was just coming on the Board when this was, in 2006 when you
originally came. There was a lot of discussion about the septic system, and I’m just
curious about it. What did you end up doing? Did you do a mound system, or how did
you do that?
MR. MASON-It’s not a mound system. It is, the drain fields, it’s a gravity system to a
pump station that has three pumps that alternate, back each other up, and are backed up
by our back up generator, and the event that all of that fails, they shut down all of the
water to all of Takundewide. So that nothing further can flow into it, and from that point
it’s pumped about 700 feet away from the lake to an area up in the back that we, it took a
lot of wrestling to figure out, with Boards and with engineers and everybody, where the
best spot was, but we came up with what we felt was the best location, very far away
from the water, for three drain fields, that those three pumps alternate. It goes one drain
field and then the other and then the other.
MRS. JENKIN-There was a comment made about the, that it was very, it’s almost like,
the perc was very, very slow in that area, the perc rate.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MR. MASON-The per rate is fairly slow there, but from what I’ve learned, that’s good and
bad. You don’t want it too fast. You don’t want it too slow. Where my engineer
characterizes it as a very reasonable soil, it just means that you have to build a larger
system for, but you don’t want them too fast because then it’s running right through, and
this is certainly not running too fast, and it’s not not running either. It’s not impervious.
It’s in the middle.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. MASON-And the other thing is we were able to get the eight units that got into it,
every one of them were the oldest systems at Takundewide. We have every single cess
pool that was constructed back in the 50’s will be gone now.
MRS. JENKIN-Excellent.
MR. MASON-I know. It was phenomenal. That was a sell job with the different owners
that joined in, and every one of them agreed, agreed to spend the money and are part of
this, which I couldn’t believe that. That was part of my reason for not wanting to go there
was because I was sure we’d never get them and they all jumped.
MRS. JENKIN-That’s major. So the other, because there’s how many, 23, 32?
MR. O’CONNOR-Thirty-two.
MR. MASON-There’s 32 altogether.
MRS. JENKIN-So all the others have their own independent septic systems?
MR. MASON-Each one has their own septic system out on the 18 acres of property.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. MASON-And at one point we were thinking about building a system large enough
for all of them, but really, in studying it with the engineer, it makes no sense, because the
amount of land, because of the slope perc rate, and the land available, will be better off
with the ones that they get farther away from the lake, just keeping them in individual
systems. That’s good soils to use, we need to use those.
MR. O'CONNOR-Some of the other septic systems have already been re-built. They
aren’t the cess pool type things. These eight units that are included in here were cess
pools that were generally located between the cabin and the lake, which would put them
75 feet, 70 feet from the shore of the lake. The other units have on paper reserve areas
that have sufficient soils that they can replace their septic systems if they have a failure
of their septic system.
MRS. JENKIN-Good.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Jackowski was further up away. That was in the bunch up above,
right?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. Jackowski’s in this. Jackowski’s in this, and he will be back, I’ve
got to bring him back to do the step, the porch thing. He just has been involved in too
many other things to do the application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because you essentially ended up like with the one design deal on
most of those houses, as I recall. There wasn’t a whole lot of variation. You were trying
to maintain the cottage look.
MR. MASON-Yes. It’s kind of funny. These two that are being built, one’s my sister and
one is my brother and they’re now almost identical and they started kind of going, the
outside is really going to be very similar. I keep trying to find different ways to make
them look a little bit different, but the inside can be quite different. These two are going
to be identical to each other, but nothing like anything else.
MRS. JENKIN-Now the houses will have the same footprint as what’s there now, more or
less?
MR. MASON-Identical, in the same location.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MRS. JENKIN-You’ll have a dug foundation this time?
MR. MASON-Correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-The same size footprint.
MR. MASON-The same size footprint.
MR. O'CONNOR-Are they right on the same footprint?
MR. MASON-They are right on the same. The cottages, the fireplaces are on the same
side of the buildings, but they’re just shifting maybe two feet to the north or to the south,
but on the same 32 foot length of building, both of them on the lakeside, exactly where
they are today.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions? Okay. I guess I’ll open the public hearing.
Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? Sure.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KATHY BOZONY
MS. BOZONY-Kathy Bozony, Lake George Water Keeper. I’ve got a comment letter,
and I’m not going to get into the semantics of the Floor Area Ratio, but normally I don’t
recall that we’ve ever removed the upstairs stairwell from the calculation. It’s usually the
building footprint. I’ve never seen that happen. I’m looking at the actual footprint as
being 1566. Again, I’m not getting into that issue. As part of the master plan, it states
that any cottage expansion would be limited to a maximum of 1536. So it’s the
application stating 1515, I don’t see that, but because we’ve never done that before, and
it’s very unusual that we’re doing that this time, but the Floor Area Ratio for the proposed
rebuild of a 1566 square foot single family dwelling is 29% versus the 22% allowed. The
Takundewide Homeowners Association entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
with the Town of Queensbury on September 23, 2003, which accepts the Takundewide
Homeowner Association’s Master Plan. In a 2006 letter to the homeowners, the
Homeowner’s Association FAR calculation illustrates the addition of a portion of the 18.7
common acres to each private parcel, in this case, for the Lucas property, 5246 square
feet of the private land, plus the 25,455 square feet of the common land, equaling 30,701
square feet or a lot size of seven tenths of an acre. This is compared to the actual
shoreline lot that is just over one tenth of an acre. My question is, should a
Homeowners Association’s Master Plan supersede the Town Zoning, which has
recognized that it is the actual lot size, especially on the shoreline, that should quantify
the carrying capacity of the land, requiring the necessary development acreage for
stormwater management, a septic tank, shoreline buffering and enough permeable
surface to infiltrate and treat stormwater on site? Lot Six will be connected to the new
community wastewater treatment system and construction for the new home, obviously,
should not begin before the system is completed and certified. All renovations of single
family dwelling on the shoreline of Lake George should require appropriate stormwater
management to infiltrate runoff, including use of bio-retention cells, rain gardens, and
vegetated shoreline buffers. Runoff problems and high nutrient levels currently exist
along the shoreline as discussed during the public hearing for the site plan review for the
community wastewater system. Evidence of algae blooms off this shoreline requires
immediate action by the community and individual homeowners, and I’ve brought a
th
couple of photos of some algae blooms that I took there on September 11, about 50
feet off the shore. They’re at a depth of 20 plus feet. So they’re not as clear, there’s not
enough light down there, but I’m going to share those with you. I just want to thank you
for discussing construction within the Critical Environmental Area. I know this was
discussed in 2006, and this is an extension of that, but we are talking about three
shoreline parcels here, not the rest of the parcels on the Takundewide 32 lot Homeowner
Association. These are the shoreline parcels, and to put a building this size, even
though it is in the same footprint, may be detrimental to the lake. I’m just going to share
these with you. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, come on up.
CAROL COLLINS
DR. COLLINS-Carol Collins, Knox Road. This is one of those really reluctant nights
because all the people presented before you today are like the good people of Lake
George, but the issues are so important, and the one that you addressed quite
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
accurately with the DeRocker, but I’m looking at this as being sort of an expansion of a
nonconforming use as well. I’m also considering how valid a Memorandum of
Understanding is in terms of a binding agreement. It almost seems like, by buying into
this upland property, you get to expand more on your shoreline in a Critical
Environmental Area, and it just sort of rings wrong with me. I don’t know. I haven’t really
looked at this, so I’m usually prepared on these things, but where’s the stormwater going
to go? Is a tenth of an acre going to be able to handle the septic system? I understand
one of them is going to be tied in, but my bigger issue here is this expansion, again, of a
nonconforming use which is an issue, it’s a little bit near and dear to my heart, as you
may know, and these other issues that are going on, on Knox Road. So is that the same
trap we’re going to keep falling into as these expansions keep going on and on in an
environmental area? So I don’t know what the stormwater plan is. I don’t know if the
septic can handle it for these individual places. I understand the 11 sites, and that’s a
very useful thing. So just, you know, I think they’re really trying to pay attention to that,
but if we’re going to keep doing this and doing it and doing it, we’re going to run into
trouble. Thank you. Happy New Year.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Any
correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. GARRAND-Would you like to address some of those issues?
MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. I’m kind of amazed, I guess. I just don’t understand where we
get any progress if we don’t actually have honest and true balancing. We’ve got seven
or potentially eight cess pools that are within 75 feet of the lake. By these owners putting
together their efforts, which they can justify in part by being able to build a reasonable
structure on their 18 acres that they own, they’re going to take that away and they’re
going to, you know, put in a modern septic system that’s going to work. We’ve been
through the Town Engineer. We’ve been through DEC, and we’ve been through the
Town Engineer on stormwater as well as the septic. I mean, there’s no, I don’t know of
what environmental impact that we have here, except for a positive environmental
impact. In fact, there are a number of people on the road that adjoins us to the north that
have a stormwater problem that comes down off the mountain, comes down, what’s the
name of it, Hillman Road.
MR. MASON-Hillman Road.
MR. O'CONNOR-And goes out into the lake, and at either one of your meetings or one of
the Planning Board meetings, we had a lot of history going back to the 1990’s, 1994, I
think, where they showed their problems with stormwater. We have been working with
the Town Highway Department, with the Town Board, trying to resolve that, as well as
resolve what we’re doing for our own property. This applicant is very environmentally
sensitive and I just don’t see where we have advocacy groups that recognize, I thought
maybe they were going to come up and say, you know, good job. I think that’s their duty.
I’ve criticized them before. I’ve gotten into longstanding arguments. We used to just
have the Lake George Association come in and every time they’d come in with
something critical. We seem to be falling into that same box now, but it’s a different
group. We’ve done the environmental studies on this. We’ve passed everybody’s
criteria. I don’t know what negative impact we have, and I’m serious when I say, you
take a look at this site in total, the Floor Area Ratio is some place between four and five.
Why wouldn’t we get credit for that 18 acres that’s not developed, that’s part of our
Homeowners Association, that we pay taxes on, or that the people pay taxes on, that the
people use. I mean, part of the Floor Area Ratio is to maintain open space. We do it
better that most other people up there. I just don’t understand, and I don’t mean to be
critical of the Board. I guess I just react maybe strongly, a strong letter to follow, maybe,
but we do not have any impact on the neighborhood. We’re going to have an
improvement upon the environment, and that’s basically what we’re looking at. We’re
looking at a, you know, not even a substantial variance. That would be my comments,
unless you have some specific questions you think I should address.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other Board members have questions or anything?
MR. URRICO-Just on the calculation of the Floor Area Ratio. Just go over that again.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s a letter, I believe, that was with the.
MR. MASON-You mean when we include the 18 acres?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think just the question about the stairwell.
MR. URRICO-The measurement of the stairwell.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Not counting the upstairs. Again, that’s.
MR. O’CONNOR-The stairwell is just like having a, what do you call it, a banister on the
second floor that overlooks a vaulted ceiling. You don’t count that area above the
vaulted ceiling, even though you have two floors on it. There’s only one area, and, Keith,
you were going to check with Craig today. Did you get an opportunity to check with him?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I did, and he did corroborate that it is, in fact, what is typically
accomplished when you deal with the Floor Area Ratio in this regard. Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, that explanation makes sense to me. You don’t walk on air,
you know, upstairs.
MR. MASON-But that is the correct way to deduct, count the stairway only once?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, you count it only once.
MR. MASON-Thanks. I’m sorry to interrupt, but I just wondered, because I’ve done
about six of these.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think the math is 3.66 feet wide by 14 feet long, it turns out to be, the
stairwell, 51.24 that you would deduct from the second floor, and Bill deducted 51 feet.
MR. URRICO-So, Keith, are you satisfied with the measurements of the house as it
exists, as it’s being presented tonight?
MR. OBORNE-I am satisfied because the Zoning Administrator is satisfied, and that’s
how I approach that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would just finish up my comments here. When we made you
guys go through the Takundewide plan type thing, I know it was a little bit unpalatable at
the time, but it’s nice to hear from you that everybody has signed on, even people that
weren’t intending to do their cottages and improve them, and I think everybody
anticipates at some point in the future, that all of them would probably get doubled in size
because it’s logical that you’d want to have the extra living space upstairs that most of
those single story cottages don’t have at this time, and I think what we were looking for
was that, with the implementation of a community wastewater plan system coming into
play here, that was going to relieve some of the stress placed on the lake with all the
waterfront cottages, you know, of which these two that we’re talking about here tonight
definitely fall into that piece of the pie.
MR. O'CONNOR-And maybe I should have gone back into detail, but I’ve gone through
this before a couple of times, I guess, between different Boards, and for your record, the
number of bedrooms is the same after the expansion as it was before. You will have
some more use because they will be more of a year round building than you would right
now, at least that’s my impression. I don’t know if that’s true are not, but I think some of
the cabins right now are year round use anyway.
MR. MASON-Yes, but we only have one year round resident there still, we all know that.
MRS. JENKIN-But you are increasing the number of bathrooms, because of the
bedrooms. That number is increased now.
MR. O'CONNOR-The bathrooms isn’t what, Joan, anyone looking at a septic system
looks at the number of bedrooms. That’s the standard used.
MRS. JENKIN-Because of the occupancy?
MR. O'CONNOR-Because of the occupancy. With your water saving devices you’re
talking 110 gallons per bedroom per day. You used to talk 150 gallons, but most
standards will now take 110.
MRS. JENKIN-Thank you. I have one other question, too, is this is just another question,
is do you get water from the lake?
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MR. MASON-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-So that’s where your water source is, that lake, now.
MR. MASON-That’s right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Why don’t you explain to them, too. It’s not just a simple, it’s a regular
Health Department approved, private water system.
MR. MASON-I’ve got a filtration system.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there, I mean, I would assume at some point with your water, I
mean, if necessary at some point in the future you could put wells.
MR. MASON-The problem with wells, we could, and in fact, DOH wanted us to put wells
back in the day. They don’t like surface water, but the water quality is much better out of
the lake water than out of the well.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because you’re not going to have iron and everything else in the
water, sure.
MR. MASON-Right, and you’ve got to do a lot of treating and so on to make that well
water as good as the water that we’ve got currently in the source.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because ultimately you’d still always have to have some kind of a
group system, based upon the narrowness and the closeness of those cottages, the
individual systems that are going to be there still.
MR. O'CONNOR-Why don’t you tell them what, I got in the backdoor on that, on your
water system. It’s a double filtration.
MR. MASON-The water system is double filtration through, well, first through a sand
filter, then through a one micron nominal, then a one micron absolute filter. Then, after
that, it’s treated with ultraviolet light. There’s a primary disinfectant. It goes through a
metering system that injects just the right amount of chlorine, depending on the flow of
water through it, and we have 2,000 gallons of finished water on premises at all times to
be delivered with a separate pump that delivers it up. It is, really is a State of the Art
beautiful system. I’d give anyone a tour of it anytime. I’m very proud of it.
MRS. JENKIN-So this is community, then. This is, everyone is in on this system?
MR. MASON-This is a community water system. Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MASON-And it’s monitored by the Department of Health with me. I do daily tests
and do monthly operation reports and so on.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And obviously you’d want to be looking towards improving the water
quality, not putting it at risk.
MR. DRELLOS-And there is a stormwater plan in place, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, there is.
MR. DRELLOS-So that’s all set, and you’re not adding anymore stormwater to the area.
It’s the same. So that stays the same.
MR. MASON-Correct.
MR. O'CONNOR-And there’s a stormwater system that was put in place for the septic
system, the construction of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions? Okay. We’ll give you three more minutes.
MRS. COLLINS-The more I think about this, it’s really huge that I could buy 18 acres and
then increase my FAR ratio for my house and call this a neighborhood association. I just
want you to realize how serious this FAR ratio calculation is, and the precedent this is
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
going to set. Just think about attaching all this land to any waterfront property and
expanding this FAR. Don’t get held up on the MOU. Those things are not binding. This
is huge. The basement wasn’t in these FAR calculations. That does impact the
stormwater calculations. My wheels are spinning upstairs here because of this funnel
development now that we’re using in this FAR calculation. Please think about it. Sorry.
Thanks.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Kathy?
MS. BOZONY-Kathy Bozony, Lake George Water Keeper. I am very pleased to know
that these eight homes are no longer on a cess pool, and we did go through almost two
years, it seems like, recalculating and looking at the improved absorption and
wastewater treatment system, and Bill’s shared with us, you know, his diligence to
actually inspect these systems that are currently on, within Takundewide that has its own
individual on site wastewater treatment, and so I am very cognizant of Bill’s, and the
community’s, adherence to, you know, what is expected of that property. So I wasn’t
really prepared to actually talk about the new on site wastewater treatment system, but it
is a very good thing that this is happening. We did have a question of all the other ones
outside the 11. Some of them have new systems. Some of them are still possibly old
systems, but Bill is saying that he’s inspecting and pumping them out. So I just wanted
to share that as well. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you.
MS. BOZONY-And the FAR calculation, as far as the Memorandum of Understanding,
possibly that should hold true, or could hold true more reasonably, except for these
lakeshore properties that are so small. I did not see the actual full stormwater
management plan that was submitted with this. I don’t know if it was submitted in 2006
or I didn’t see it recently. The only thing in the application was the outside of the building
and the elevations. So I don’t know what that actually looks like, but we are
recommending, if, you know, stormwater, full shoreline buffering and things like that if
there’s room on the property. Thank you.
MR. O’CONNOR-I’ll address, I think, Mrs. Collins’ comment first. You do attached, and
you do include attached lands in your FAR calculation. I mean, we could sit down with a
pencil and draw some very odd lines, so that each of these 32 units had a chunk of this
18 acres, and you would do your FAR calculation, I don’t like saying FAR, your Floor
Area Ratio calculation, based upon that square footage. That’s the way the Ordinance is
written. I mean, I don’t necessarily want to confuse the issues or whatever, but you have
a Floor Area Ratio restriction. You have a height restriction. You have, you know, all
kinds of restrictions that are imposed on this type of property, which we think that we
pretty much comply with, except for the setbacks. We didn’t comply with the setbacks
with the existing buildings, and the only difference between the existing building and
what we’re proposing is we now are counting the fireplace and we are now counting the
two stoops. That’s as to the setbacks.
MR. DRELLOS-In the Memorandum, they didn’t exclude the waterfront properties, right?
It includes all the properties?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-So this Memorandum includes all the waterfront and they all equal the
same if you’re on the water or in the middle or wherever you are.
MR. MASON-And if I may, historically speaking, back in 1986, when the property was
divided up, it was 21 acres. We haven’t since attached some property to it, and added
some property that we’re now trying to use to make larger buildings and make things
work. There was 21 acres of land that was divided up among the 32 homes on the
property, and it was our decision, there was no Floor Area Ratio worksheet at the time,
and that was not a consideration. So the way it was divided up was 32 very small lots
around each of the buildings, and 18 acres of the 21 went into a common shared
property, not thinking that we were going to end up where we are today, talking about
Floor Area Ratio, but I think if anyone were to divide it up today and go through the same
exercise, they’d draw the lines differently. They wouldn’t have 18 acres of shared
common property and then we wouldn’t be talking about this. It really is 32 homes on 21
acres, or almost two-thirds of an acre per home, and they’re spread out pretty well
throughout most of it, with the exception of maybe the back seven or eight acres in the
way back of the property. The homes are just distributed, thank you.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MR. DRELLOS-And I don’t see any restrictions on the waterfront property different from
any of the other homes in there.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know of any.
MR. DRELLOS-I didn’t see any.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think I’ll poll the Board. I’ll start with you, George.
MR. DRELLOS-Yes. They’ve done a lot of improvements to the area. The new septic
system, which I think is a big benefit to that whole area, with all the homes being as close
as they are, and those separate septic systems, and they’re not adding past the footprint.
So you’re not adding more stormwater. So to me, I think it’s very, I don’t think it’s going
to be an adverse effect on the area. I would be in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m very confident in how we’ve gotten to this point. Having been part of
this process probably from, well, from the beginning when we first started asking you to
make changes to the way Takundewide processed these, get to this point of application,
we asked you to make some changes, and you went back and you made changes. You
came up with a plan which we didn’t have when we first started hearing these properties
back in 2003. So I’m very confident in that what we have now is something that was
achieved with not only input from the homeowners there, but yourselves and the Boards.
The Boards were very involved. The Town was very involved. I think this is a process
that we got to in a healthy manner and in a manner that allowed a lot of input, and I think
the result is very positive. I think what you’re doing there is positive, and that’s what
we’re looking for, and then each application that comes before us obviously is judged on
its own merits, in that situation, and the situation is what it is. It’s Takundewide. It has
common property, which we considered from the very beginning, and one of the issues
which was very crucial to us was the handling of the septic, and I think where we’ve
gotten to is much better than it was when we first started hearing your applications, and
so when we balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety
and welfare of the community, I think we’ve gotten to this point very honestly, and you
are only sharing, occupying a footprint that you had to begin with. Slightly bigger than it
was, slightly taller than it was, but not above the height restrictions. I don’t think it’s
going to have an impact on the neighborhood. In fact, it’s going to be a positive result .
Whether the request is substantial. I don’t see that because I think, again, we’re talking
about shared property. However you divide it, this is not, we’re talking about 1500
square feet. This is not a big house, and I don’t see any adverse physical or
environmental effects. I do think you’ve self-created this, but you’ve created a better
product. I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. Not to prolong this, and I certainly agree with what Mr.
Urrico said. Every variance is unique. I think that this is substantially different from
many of the other ones that we’ve seen. I think that you’ve done your due diligence.
The improvement in the septic over cess pools I think is very much a positive aspect. So
I would be in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I am a huge proponent of clustering, and the Comprehensive Plan
for Queensbury advocates clustering because then you have a lot more open area, and
then you have smaller areas for the homes. So I think that definitely the common areas
should be taken into consideration when we’re considering the Floor Area Ratio. So I
don’t consider that this, all the discussion was really very, it wasn’t important, according
to my opinion, only because you’ve maintained all this wonderful open area which is
extremely important for the lake and for the whole, for all the homeowners that live there.
I think the improvements in the septic system have really improved the physical and
environmental effects of the whole area. I think the algae blooms that are out on the
lake, they’ll probably be reduced if you don’t have any cess pools anymore. That will be
a huge consideration. I also feel that it’s important, I have a pet peeve about height
restrictions and adhering to height restrictions for homes, especially close to the lake,
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
and when I was out there and looking at it, even having a two story home, you’re not
going to impact on anybody behind you, and that is an extremely important thing. You’ve
kept to the, it’s smaller than the 28 feet that it’s supposed to be, which is important. You
haven’t put in a three story home, which is good. So I think this is a very positive change
to the whole area, and I would be most in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. These are modest sized homes, and I think the request
for the variance is not substantial. It’s moderate, and I think you’ve answered a lot of the
questions that we might have had, and I don’t think there are going to be any impacts on
the physical or environmental conditions. So I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I’d just like to start, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I’m thankful that some
people come forward, members of the community come forward and bring issues to light
that we may not be aware of. After we read all this paperwork they come up and they
say things that quite often are overlooked by us, that is much appreciated. With that
said, this has been kind of a long, expensive process, from what I remember back in
2006 when they kind of left kicking and screaming about a septic system. What I think
we have here is something a whole lot better. I had the opportunity to be down there
during the months of May, June, and then again in August and September. I walk
around those buildings, all the time, for a lot of time in the summertime, and there are
issues with septic down there, but by the same token, I think the changes that you’ve put
forth are going to alleviate those issues completely, those questioned properties. I’d be
in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Yes, I think this is an example of how the system should
work in a functional manner of speaking. I mean, it’s difficult from the expense end, on
your end I know, having to do all the digging and infrastructure work down there, but in
this instance here, you know, we’re greatly improving the situation, and I think that the
expansion of these cottages, even though Mrs. Collins spoke, you know, right to the
point on that, this is a pre-existing condition. Certainly if it was a brand new development
we would never allow the cottages to be that close together, but we recognize the
historic value of what you have there, and the fact that, you know, what you’ve tried to
accomplish through the years in maintaining that look to it. If you took the 18 acres and
you sold it off and built, you know, 18 great big great camps out on the place out there,
which you could do on there, certainly the impact of that would be much greater than the
doubling in expansion of the size of these smaller cottages, and I think these cottages,
when you look at the design of them, you know, it really is something that, you know, if
everybody did that up on the lake, the impact on the lake would be much less, because
it’s keeping it all, you know, in perspective as to what your impacts might possibly be
with greater expansions, but, going forward, I think that the request that you have here
for these stoops and these minor decks on the outside of the house, the impacts of those
is not going to have any detrimental effect on the lake or the neighborhood. We’ve
accomplished what, you’ve accomplished what we asked you to do and that is to ensure
that the septic that we thought would be a problem for the lake with increased use of
those cottages and doubling the size of them, might have a negative effect on the lake,
and with the, you know, group system being up country well located away from the lake, I
think it’s going to be a positive for the lake, and, going forward, I would just say, why did
Jackowski not get jumbled in here so we had the three? Because we gave the three of
these all kind of together at the time, I think, with our approvals, initially. I’m just
wondering why he didn’t come in at the same time and get it over and done with.
MR. O'CONNOR-He’s been involved in some other projects that are involved with his
business, and he decided that he would do the application himself.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Or try to do the application himself, and I think he’s just gotten wrapped
up in his other business and hasn’t gotten it done.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I guess what we’re looking for tonight is someone to
make the resolution approving the request here.
MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 84-2008 LUCILE LUCAS, Introduced
by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos:
6 Onondaga Drive, Takundewide. The applicant proposes the demolition of an existing
780 square foot single story residence and construction, in its place, of a 1515 square
foot two story residence. The applicant is requesting 4.57 feet of north side setback
relief, as well as .77 feet of south side setback relief, 10.29 feet of rear setback relief and
361 square feet of Floor Area Ratio relief. On the balancing test, Number One, can
benefits be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? From the looks of it, no,
benefits cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Any modification
of these homes is going to involve demolition, and there’s always going to be some sort
of setback relief given the positioning of these properties. Will this produce an
undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby properties? It will not
produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. It’s going to produce several new
homes. Will this request be considered substantial? I believe this request might be
considered minor at best. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental
impacts on the neighborhood or community? The environmental impacts on this
community will be improved with the installation of a community septic. The septic will
no longer be cess pools. Is this difficulty considered self-created? It may be deemed as
self-created since it is the applicant who is coming forward with the demolition and
reconstruction of these properties. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 84-
2008.
th
Duly adopted this 30 day of December, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II ANNE S. MASON REVOCABLE
TRUST (BILL MASON) AGENT(S): WILLIAM MASON; MICHAEL O’CONNOR, ESQ.
OWNER(S): ANNE S. MASON REVOCABLE TRUST ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION:
7 ONODAGA DRIVE – TAKUNDEWIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF A
780 SF RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 1515 SF RESIDENCE. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE FLOOR AREA
RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: AV 72-06; DEC SPDES PERMIT WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: 12/10/08 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE:
0.11 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-52 SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-13-010
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & BILL MASON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sit tight for one more.
MR. O'CONNOR-I simply would ask that you include the record that we just established
for the prior one for this application as well.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 85-2008, Anne S. Mason Revocable Trust (Bill
Mason), Meeting Date: December 30, 2008 “Project Location: 7 Onondaga Drive –
Takundewide Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes the demolition
of an existing 780 square foot single story residence and construct, in its place, a 1515
square foot two story residence.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 4.9 feet of front setback relief, 3.7 feet of north side setback relief,
5.6 feet of south side setback relief, and 5.2 feet of rear setback relief for the Waterfront
Residential 1 acre zone per §179-4-030. Further, the applicant requests 468 square feet
of Floor Area Ratio relief per §179-4-030.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
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 changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Alternatives to an
area variance appear to be limited due to the constraints of the lot.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 4.9 feet or 9
percent of relief from the 54.5 foot average shoreline setback requirement may be
considered minor relative to the ordinance. The request for 3.7 feet or 24.7 percent of
relief from the 15 foot north side setback requirement may be considered minor to
moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 5.6 feet or 37.3 percent of relief
from the 15 foot south side setback requirement may be considered moderate
relative to the ordinance. The request for 5.25 feet or 35 percent of relief from the 20
foot rear setback requirement may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
Finally, the request for 468 square feet or 44.7 percent of relief from the allowable
floor area of 1047 square feet may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
Note: The Floor Area Ratio for this project is 28.9 percent, 6.7 percent above the
0.22 percent allowable FAR for the WR-1A zone. The cumulative relief for setbacks
equate to 26.5 percent.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
P89-678 Boathouse and Dock 8/29/89
P72-06 Demo and Rebuild Single Family Dwelling 11/22/06
Staff comments:
According to the Takundewide Resolution, Memorandum of Understanding between the
Planning Board and the Takundewide HOA dated September 23, 2003 any proposed
cottage expansion would be limited to 1,536 square feet. As this application calls for a
1515 square foot single family residence, it would be considered FAR compliant with
regards to the above mentioned Memorandum of Understanding.
This application is to modify previous approved setbacks in 2006. The changes are the
result of an existing fireplace not calculated on the shore side and required entrance
decks on the side and front entrances. It is these entrance decks that trigger the need
for a new area variance application. A total increase of 1,460 square feet to 1,515 square
feet is anticipated as a result of this application.
SEQR Status:
Type II-No further action required.”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 10, 2008
Project Name: Mason, Anne S. Owner(s): Anne S. Mason ID Number: QBY-08-AV-
85- County Project#: Dec08-14 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of a 780 sq. ft. residence and
construction of a 1515 sq. ft. residence. Relief requested from setback requirements as
well as the Floor Area Ratio requirements. Site Location: 7 Onondaga Drive,
Takundewide Tax Map Number(s): 239.8-1-52 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The
applicant proposes to demolish an existing 780 sq. ft. residence single story to construct
a 780 sq. ft. first floor with a 717 sq. ft. second floor residence. The project also includes
an 18 sq. ft. enclosed porch. The information submitted indicates the applicant had
previously received approval for a similar project in 2006 with a slight modification for the
new proposal. The home is proposed to be located 50 ft. from the shoreline where a 50
ft. setback is required, the home is to be located 11 ft. from one side yard and 9 ft. from
another where a 15 ft. setback is required, and the home is to be located 10 ft. from the
rear yard where a 15 ft. setback is also required. Relief is also requested from the floor
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
area ratio requirements. The applicant has indicated the setbacks have changed with
the addition of the required decks per building code and this proposal includes the
chimney as part of the setback. The information submitted also includes reference to the
2003 agreement between the Town of Queensbury and the Homeowners Association
where it was anticipated that applicants would apply for additions or reconstruction of
their existing homes. The application also includes an approval letter from the
Homeowners Association. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information
submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law
Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County
Planning Board 12/12/08.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, if you’ve opened your public hearing, I would ask, again,
that you just include the record from the last application into this file.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Anything you want to add at all? I mean, we’re essentially
asking for the same exact relief as we were in the other one, except the only difference
being that this lot is just slightly smaller. So that’s what triggers the extra Floor Area
Ratio relief in this instance here.
MR. MASON-Slightly different setbacks.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, just the size of the lots.
MR. MASON-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you have any questions, we’d be glad to try and answer them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Anybody questions at all? Okay. I guess I’ll open the public
hearing. Anybody wishing to speak?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KATHY BOZONY
MS. BOZONY-May I share my algae photos with the Board?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, certainly.
MS. BOZONY-I just wanted to talk a little bit about it. The algae, some of that is related
to possible septic system problems. Some of it’s related to nutrient runoff coming from
land that the phosphorus and nitrogen are running into the lake. So we are hoping that,
and again, I have not seen the stormwater management plans for either of these three
homes, but I’m hoping that we have an opportunity to look at it and help the applicants
actually work through and get some shoreline buffering that will help this situation. Truly
these photographs were taken right off of this property, and I didn’t really know that this
was the property that this happened to be where I dove that day, and I do know Lou. We
play golf together. So I’m pleased about the way the Board has worked through this
process. I understand your dilemma, and it is unfortunate that this FAR is being
calculated this way, but this is the way it is right now. We also support, very much,
clustered subdivisions, conservation subdivisions. The issue with this is you would
never put your homes on the shoreline if you created a conservation subdivision,
because you’d put your homes in the least impact location. So it isn’t truly a cluster
subdivision, but it is nice having that open space undeveloped.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What is your, have you looked along the, like at the interface where
the shoreline and the water meet? I mean, what are you detecting there? I mean, is
there any type of like ongoing?
MS. BOZONY-Well, we haven’t done any water quality samples in this area. One of the
thoughts was to actually do that. The key is it’s very expensive to start doing it. We’ve
chosen a couple of areas on the lake where we did, every week we did water quality
samples of phosphorus, nitrogen, total phosphorus, total suspended solids, total reactive
phosphorus, and so this shoreline drops very deep. So there’s a lot of mixing going on,
too. So I was very surprised to see, that deep in the water, where there wasn’t a lot of
light, the extent of the algae blooms there. I will be back next summer, and I will look at
it, you know, this new septic system on these cess pools will be re-done, and, you know,
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
I’m just hoping that, a lot of this is stormwater runoff as well as septic systems that aren’t
working properly. So, but these are pretty massive blooms down there, and they were
actually pretty unusual, and we did do a genus and diatom, genus sampling of the
diatoms and the algae. So I know exactly what kind of algae were there, and generally
what they’re indicative of. So that will be in a report, but we’ll be watching it and we’ll see
what actually happens next year, and it’s just the encouragement to get stormwater
runoff not going directly into the lake, and as Mike had mentioned, the entire process of
getting that new septic system redesigned and approved also uncovered a lot of other
stormwater that is running directly into the lake, which has a big effect on this as well. So
we’re hoping that that can be handled, as well as individual properties. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. I know you had mentioned before, and I know
that the Town Engineer was working on that road to the north because that seems to be
the substantial stormwater runoff area. I mean, people walk their dogs along the road so
you get all that flush every time there’s a big rainstorm. So a lot of that isn’t necessarily
attributable to you guys on site at the present time. So I think everybody recognizes it’s
a broad based problem. It’s not just.
MR. O'CONNOR-There’s a 12 inch pipe on the property immediately north of Lot
Number Eight, which is Mr. Jackowski’s lot. I forget the fellow’s name. Maybe it’s the
second lot up, but it’s a 12 inch pipe that runs right directly from Hillman Road through
Mr. Locke’s property, through his property, into the lake, unimpeded, and that washes
Hillman Drive, and it washes to the other, there’s another road, what’s the road?
MR. MASON-Heron Hollow Road.
MR. O’CONNOR-Heron Hollow Road, and that’s what the Town is trying to look at to see
if they can put some.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Some catch basins, those drop ones that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Catch basins or.
MR. MASON-Some kind of a filtering mechanism.
MR. O'CONNOR-Some type of dams that will filter it as it comes down along the edge of
the road, because a lot of it comes from the other side of the main road. That whole
mountain comes down through there and just funnels right out through there, and they’ve
had problems. Now Chris Navitsky had done some studies at the output of that 12 inch
pipe. We never saw those, but I mean they were talked about. I don’t know if it was
before one of your meetings or before the Planning Board meeting.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I remember listing them and it was too many to count on fecal coli
form and stuff, but I mean it’s obviously coming from further up the road and
exacerbating.
MR. MASON-The Town Engineer thought that it was very typical, the readings that he
was getting on the coli form and so, on were typical for road runoff, that it wasn’t spiking
it like as far as the fecal coli form. He thought that that was maybe due to animals or, I
listened to him very intently because we want to know what’s going on, but that does run,
as Mike says, when it rains, that culvert runs like crazy and it’s a mess.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. GARRAND-I’ve got a question. I noticed one of your neighbors, the one in the brick
house, she had several, this last year, she had several laborers fertilizing her property.
Does that runoff onto your property also, the brick house?
MR. MASON-Actually, all of that runs to the south, that runs to those fields that are right
in front of the brick house, and those fields are just filled.
MR. GARRAND-That’s your property, right?
MR. MASON-That is not our property. That’s her property. She owns the house across
the road and they own about 20 acres to the south, up into the woods there, and all of
the runoff from there runs to the south and then it goes to a little brook that runs just
south of the Lake George Boat Company. So, in fact, a lot of our property drains that
way as well, behind the tennis courts, comes across and drains across that road. It’s
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
only any of the, in front of the tennis courts, anything there that would run to the north
towards Hillman Road.
MR. GARRAND-They seem pretty liberal with the nitrogen.
MR. MASON-They do, don’t they?
MR. GARRAND-We’ll just call them laborers for now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CLEMENTS-Could I just ask one quick question?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-Just to piggyback on that. I just wondered what your policy was for
lawn management in general.
MR. MASON-I treat the lawn, at most, once a year, and I mean that. I give it either a
fertilizer, and it is the fertilizer, and I don’t remember, isn’t it phosphorus that we’re trying
to not put in the?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think ideally what you do is you use like one of those golf
course ones that’s a slow release one instead of a.
MR. MASON-But there’s one nutrient that you’re supposed to not put in. I thought it was
phosphorus, but whichever it is, they know whenever I go to the shops, and they give me
that one that has that. If I’m fertilizing, that’s what I put down, and I do apply weed killer
as well, and I do that like every other year. Consequently our lawn is full of clover.
MRS. JENKIN-It stays green, though.
MR. MASON-But it’s green, it is very green.
MRS. JENKIN-Do you fertilize in front of your home and right at, down towards the lake?
MR. MASON-Towards the lake, I do a little bit, but very little. I don’t do much. I don’t
have to do much, because it’s the soil type, the clay nature or the clay consistency of it,
whatever, I’ve never had to fertilize much at all. I have to do the weed kill now and then
because people complain so much that they’re getting stung by the bees, and aside from
that, I would let it go, but I can’t stand the complaints. So I kind of try and keep it at bay a
little.
MR. O'CONNOR-Doesn’t Agway now have a compliant fertilizer?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. They’re slow release so they’re not like, a lot of the over the
counter ones, as soon as it rains, they’re gone.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think, didn’t Agway and somebody else, in conjunction with the Lake
George Association, start stocking some type of acceptable fertilizer?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, because that’s how the commercial ones like you put on a
cornfield where you don’t want to lose it all the first storm. So they’re slow release. They
release small amounts with every single rain storm. So you’re long term feeding as
opposed to just, you know, shooting it out there and like most homeowners, the guys that
are out there every Saturday putting more on, like more is better.
MR. MASON-They’ve got more is better, and they’re going right down to the waterfront
with their, I know, and we’re not doing that.
MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, well, then I guess if there’s no more questions, I guess we’ll,
do we really need to poll the Board again on this one? I think we’ve been through this
once. In this instance here, I think we’ll just ask for somebody to make the resolution.
MRS. JENKIN-I’ll make this one.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.85-2008 ANNE S. MASON
REVOCABLE TRUST (BILL MASON), Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its
adoption, seconded by George Drellos:
7 Onondaga Drive, Takundewide. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 780
square foot single story residence and construction in its place a 1,515 square foot two
story residence. The applicant requests 4.9 feet of front setback relief, 3.7 feet of north
side setback relief, 5.6 feet of south side setback relief and 5.2 feet of rear setback relief
for the Waterfront Residential One Acre zone per 179-4-030. Further, the applicant
requests 468 square feet of Floor Area Ratio relief per 179-4-030. In making a
determination, the Board shall consider, whether the benefit can be achieved by other
means feasible to the applicant. In order to increase the size of the home, they’ve done
it in the best way they can because they’re keeping the same footprint of the home and
making two stories. Whether an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to
nearby properties, it probably will be a desirable change because of the changes you’re
making overall in the whole area. The request can be considered substantial because
you are doubling the size of the home, but it’s not substantial considering that you have
18 acres of free property, of common property, along with your own lot size. Whether the
request will have adverse physical or environmental effects, it probably, it will increase
and improve the physical and environmental effects because of the improvements made
with the removal of the cess pools and improvements made to the septic systems, and I
would hope, with adequate stormwater management, you’ll improve the property even
more. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, it probably is because you want,
change is imminent no matter where we go, and you are improving the properties, and
you’re doing it in a very careful and a way that is going to improve the whole area,
especially environmentally. So I move to approve this Area Variance No. 85-2008.
th
Duly adopted this 30 day of December, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you for your patience.
MR. MASON-Thank you, very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II HOWARD DENISON AGENT(S):
HOWARD DENISON OWNER(S): WARREN COUNTY ASSOC. OF REALTORS
ZONING: LI LOCATION: 296 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE ADDITION (720 SQ. FT.) FOR THE WARREN COUNTY
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC. AND WARREN COUNTY MULTIPLE LISTING
SERVICE, INC. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SP WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 12/10/08 LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-4 SECTION:
179-4-030
HOWARD DENISON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 86-2008, Howard Denison, Meeting Date:
December 30, 2008 “Project Location: 296 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 720 square foot office addition for the Warren
County Association of Realtors, Inc. and the Warren County Multiple Listing Services Inc.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 32.7 feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement and 23.5
feet of relief from the 30 foot side setback requirement for the Light Industrial zone per
179-4-030.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
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 to moderate changes to nearby properties are anticipated
as encroachment on the neighbor to the north may be an issue. Further, this
proposal may initiate additional area variances for front and side setback relief if
approved.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
build in a more compliant location or reduce the size of the project. However, the
location for the proposed addition appears to be the most logical given the restraints
of the site.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 32.7 feet or 75
percent of front setback relief may be considered severe relative to the ordinance.
Further, the request for 23.5 feet or 78.3 percent of side setback relief may be
considered severe relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as
most structures in the immediate area are existing, non-compliant in regards to
setbacks.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created. However, the limitations of the lot may be a contributing factor for the
requested variances.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
P89-742 Demo Garage 9/19/89
P20060317 Sign for applicant 7/10/06
S.P. 2-2009 Commercial expansion Pending
Staff comments:
The greatest impact as a result of this proposal would be to the lot directly north. There
is ample parking on site. Grading, stormwater, landscaping, and lighting issues will be
addressed at site plan review.
SEQR Status:
Type II-No action necessary”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form December 10, 2008
Project Name: Denison, Howard Owner(s): Howard Denison ID Number: QBY-08-
AV-86 County Project#: Dec08-16 Current Zoning: LI Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of office addition (720 sq. ft.) for
the Warren County Association of Realtors, Inc. and Warren County Listing Service, Inc.
Relief requested from the minimum front and side yard setback requirements. Site
Location: 296 Bay Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.8-2-4 Staff Notes: Area Variance:
The applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. addition to an existing 832 sq. ft.
building (Warren County Association of Realtors). Relief requested for the front yard
setback where 50 ft. is required and 17.3 ft. is proposed and side setback where 30 ft. is
required and 5.37 ft. is proposed. The existing building is currently pre-existing
nonconforming. The plans show the location of the existing building and addition. Staff
recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the
suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L, applied to the
proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact”
Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 12/12/08.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. DENISON-All right. Thank you. Thank you for your time tonight. I’m Howard
Denison. I am the Chairman of the Building and Grounds for the Warren County
Association of Realtors. That’s why I am the applicant. I have with me tonight the
President of the Warren County Board of Realtors, or past President, as it might be a few
days ago, and he will address you and give you a synopsis of what we’re trying to
accomplish here.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MARK BERGMANN
MR. BERGMANN-For the record, my name is Mark Bergmann, and I am President of the
Warren County Association of Realtors, for about another 27 and a half hours, but then
my duties will still continue. The Association office, we’re the Board of Realtors,
Association Board of Realtors, same difference. We’re the professional organization of
about 750 realtors in the greater Warren County area. The office is located at 296 Bay
Road, which is directly across the road from the C.R. Bard manufacturing plant. It is
zoned industrial, with a rather diverse mixture of industrial, retail, residential, professional
offices. Our office includes offices for two full time staff, as well as meeting and training
facilities to support the business of the Board of Realtors and the Multiple Listings
Service, which is a subsidiary. It’s a modest 832 square foot ranch building that frankly
is just too small for us at this point. Before coming to you, we evaluated every other
possible option, including adding a second floor, which can’t be done, short of tear down
and start over, building to the rear, we could if we didn’t want to have a parking lot, but to
comply with parking requirements and from a practical standpoint we can’t go to the rear,
and as far as relocation, we did an exhaustive search. We are realtors, after all, we have
this information, and we determined that it’s just not the opportune time to sell our
building and purchase elsewhere, given the current economy. Therefore, we are
proposing a 24 by 30 foot expansion to the north end of our building, which is the left
side, as you face it, from the street, and as stated, this will result in approximately a 23
foot encroachment on the side setback, as required 30 feet by the zoning. While Staff is
certainly accurate in characterizing this as a severe encroachment, I do have a letter
from the potentially effected neighbor to the left. I’ll read it into the record and then
provide you with copies, dated 17 November 2008, “To Whom It May Concern: We own
a property at 298 Bay Road, which is directly next door to the Warren County Association
of REALTORS office building at 296 Bay Road. We are aware of their plans to expand
their building and we are aware of their request for an area variance. We do not object
to this expansion project. Sincerely, Carl Svenson 298 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY
12804” And I’ll ask Howard to pass that to your secretary to be inserted into the record.
I’ll add just a couple of more clarifying points. The neighborhood is clearly characterized
by many noncompliant structures that pre-exist zoning. So it’s our feeling that our
request should have no impact to the character of the neighborhood. In fact, I would
submit that it’s consistent with the character of the neighborhood. As to the Staff Note
regarding the requirement for the relief from the front setback, I would point out that the
existing building is already noncompliant, and the proposed structure will actually be one
foot further from the setback. In other words, the proposed structure on the front side will
have less impact on the setback than the noncompliant existing structure. That’s
intended both for architectural reasons and I guess in order to say that it’s less impact.
We evaluated the size of the proposed addition. We did consider making it smaller.
However, smaller space would result in a narrow, bowling alley type room. What we’re
trying to do is build a training room for about 10 members at a time. They need to have
enough space to spread out. We need to have space in order to set up projection
equipment. We’ll be doing largely technical training, computer training, where people
need to have a work space and some of the voluminous paperwork that we’re buried
under, to advance the business of real estate. We believe that our modest expansion is
consistent with the surrounding area, where we have continued to enjoy an excellent
relationship with our neighbors. To summarize, we feel that we’ve considered all
possible options and that we have not come to you frivolously. We respectfully request
your approval this evening so we can move on to Site Plan Review, and maybe even put
a builder or two to work. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from Board members?
MR. GARRAND-Yes. The Svenson property, that’s the tinting van that was right next
door, right?
MR. BERGMANN-Yes, it’s a combination of residential and retail, or residential and
commercial.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. He parks his van over there. What impact is this going to have
on him being six feet from the property line? I mean, is that driveway at all over the
property line? I mean, will he still be able to park his van there?
MR. BERGMANN-He actually, the Svenson property sits on the corner of Bay and
Homer. His driveway is on the Homer Avenue side.
MR. DENISON-But he does park his van.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MR. GARRAND-He parks his van between the two properties.
MR. DENISON-Between the fence line and his house, and if you look on the survey map,
his fence is actually a foot onto his property. So he’s not going to be impacted at all as
far as parking his vehicle there, and I’ve had conversations with him. We’ve gone out,
looked at, you know, walked outside, this is what we’re going to do. We propose putting
up a fence there for him instead of the fence that he has, which is kind of ugly, and the
fence in the back is falling down. He put that up temporarily so the kids wouldn’t kind of
cut through his yard. So, he doesn’t have a problem. I sat there and walked with him
and talked the whole situation over with him, and none of that, the way the roofline is
designed, there’ll be no runoff onto his property at all. The landscaping will be out in
front, as it is similarly now. So, whatever water comes off the roof will be guttered and go
into that garden area in the back, it’ll be stoned. So there’ll be no impact as far as any
water going onto his property, snow falling off roofs or anything like that. He’s happy for
it. That’s what he’s expressed to us.
MRS. JENKIN-My question. It’s a 24 by 30, and I understand the size, it’s a good size.
Had you considered turning it so that the 24 foot wide is, and then it’s longer toward the
back of the property? What would be the reason?
MR. DENISON-The rooflines wouldn’t make sense. It would look stupid. You have,
there’s no good way to do it. If you put a decent roofline on the front, the roofline in the
back would be extremely long. Seeing that we’re here in the winter, you know, I don’t
know what the pitch would be, but it would be probably less than a five twelve, you know.
MR. BERGMANN-Yes. It would be structurally risky and architecturally undesirable.
MRS. JENKIN-Because I immediately, when I saw it, I thought, you’re really getting very,
very close to your neighbor, very, very close, and you’re not giving much space at all
there. There is a chain link fence there, but if he’s okay with it.
MR. DRELLOS-In your opinion, if this addition gets approved, how long do you think
before you would outgrow this site?
MR. BERGMANN-Realistically we’ve decided that it’s good for at least five years. It’s
real tough to tell with, my crystal ball is totally fogged on where we’re going to be. As we
go into 2009, we’ve actually budgeted for a 10% loss in membership, and I won’t know
st
that until February 1 when our dues billing is complete. Given the state of real estate,
we expect to lose some members. The question is, how long it will take to grow back up
We feel, realistically, we can cost this out at least over five years, and perhaps as far as
ten years.
MR. DENISON-To give the Board a little insight into our membership, being a member
for 20 years now, I’ve seen us go from 238 members to almost 800 members, and then
we hit the late 80’s and 90’s, and we went back to less than 300, and in the past five
years we’ve gone back to 700. So we do have that fluctuating membership as the
economy does its thing. The real purpose of the addition here, and we’ve needed this
addition for a long time, is that training room. Because of its computers and how its
impacted our industry tremendously, I mean, everything we do now is basically on
computer. All our forms are on computers. We can be any place in the world and write
contracts, but we need to train our members to be able to use the technology that we
have, and as we have all of these members, we train them. They sometimes leave, and
as the economy comes back up, so it’s always a continuous curve in the training of our
members, and that’s what we’re looking to accomplish. We have done this off site, and it
just doesn’t work as well, because we have to make certain arrangements. Sometimes it
doesn’t work. Then we’ve got to rent computers. To have it on site and be able to keep
that under our control is very important to us.
MR. DRELLOS-What’s your hours? I mean, how late would someone be working in
there?
MR. BERGMANN-Nine to five.
MR. DENISON-Nine to five.
MR. DRELLOS-Nine to five?
MR. DENISON-Yes, Monday through Friday.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MR. DRELLOS-Monday through Friday.
MR. BERGMANN-There’d be no anticipated change in our operational hours.
MR. URRICO-What George asked is important, because the variance stays with the
building, as you know, and so, projecting this out, in five years, if you move out, we’ll still
have a building that’s nonconforming. So how did you arrive at the size of this addition?
Because from what I see in here, you have a big, long conference table, probably could
be made smaller.
MR. DENISON-The conference table is the architect’s design.
MR. URRICO-Are there going to be cubicles there?
MR. BERGMANN-No.
MR. DENISON-No, it’s going to be a flexible space. There are tables kind of like you’re
sitting at now, okay. So we would have like five rows, two people in each, okay, and they
would have computers on them, and there would be a projector like you kind of have
here for training purposes. Then when there’s a need for a conference, some of those
tables could be brought together. So there won’t be some nice, beautiful conference
table in there.
MR. URRICO-But can it be smaller? Can the space be smaller?
MR. DENISON-It was designed with everything in mind that we needed to do to
accomplish the training because we need space in between everybody for the instructors
to walk around. It can be, but then we limit the number of people that can be in it, and
we’d like to have it be bigger, but obviously we can’t.
MR. URRICO-On your off site location, how many people train there at a given time?
MR. DENISON-About 20.
MR. URRICO-At a given time?
MR. BERGMANN-Actually 25.
MR. DENISON-So now we’re cutting that down, but we’ll be able to do it in house more
regularly rather than having to schedule it. So this, we can say, okay, Tuesdays we’re
going to have training. So, people can plan on it, and it can be every Tuesday,
depending on what the sign up is.
MR. BERGMANN-To further address your question as to how we came up with the size,
we need more space, and we’ll continue to be going off site for some of our meetings.
We hold Board of Directors meetings off site. We hold membership meetings off site.
We spend a tremendous amount of money at Six Flags and some of the other hotel and
conference facilities on a monthly basis. We would love to have more space, but it’s not
practical, obviously.
MR. DENISON-Our year end meeting, we had about 200 people there, you know. So
that’s obviously outside, but our normal Board meetings we have 25 people, you know,
and that’s not going to be able to be accomplished here, so that will still happen off site,
but we do have committee meetings that would use that room, where there’s six, eight
people, and the conference room that we have now in the building, you put six people in
it, it’s a very small building, as you can see. You put six people in it, that’s it, and if
you’ve got seven or eight, you’re (lost words).
MR. BERGMANN-The current conference table is a little bit larger than the table that
Howard and I are sitting at by perhaps two feet, and not a lot of room to push your chair
back. We’re not trying to build the Taj Mahal by any means. This is considered to be
rather a moderate, you know, measured investment.
MR. DENISON-And the nice sloped ceiling (lost words) that’s nice, but I don’t think that’ll
happen.
MR. DRELLOS-This would always have to stay as an office, the building?
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, it’s Light Industrial there.
MR. DRELLOS-That’s Light Industrial.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, it could be re-used for, obviously for a building that size,
there’s not going to be a problem with that.
MR. BERGMANN-In it’s current state, it’s smaller than the residential properties in the
area.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes, the ones further down the road to the north are much
larger, the ones that have been added onto and granted variances.
MR. BERGMANN-Yes, and if you go into the City on the other side.
MR. URRICO-You’ve been in this location for years, though, I mean.
MR. BERGMANN-Seventy something, you’ve been around longer than I have. It was
seventy something, wasn’t it, seventy or eighty something?
th
MR. DENISON-August 17, ’89.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions? Okay. Why don’t I open the public hearing. I
don’t see anybody.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence at all? Just the letter that was submitted, I
guess.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Board members, any discussion on this one?
MR. DRELLOS-No, I’d be in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think in general it’s a pretty major request, but, I mean, in
anticipation that someone would be, you know, I think we’ve run into situations like this
where we’ve been adjacent to residential areas where the Light Industrial butts up
against them, and in that instance, I think we would be very reluctant to give this much
relief, you know, because you’re piling up against the side of the next building that’s right
next door. Staff, I mean, do you anticipate Site Plan Review’s going to come up with any
big negatives on this? I mean, the parking’s adequate for what they’re going to need.
They’re not going to be adding on anywhere else.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. No, we would not anticipate any major detriments. Stormwater
should not be too much of a big deal here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think obviously if you were going to add on, if you went
upstairs, I mean, that’s substantial, ripping off the roof, and you don’t want to go there.
MR. BERGMANN-It physically wouldn’t support it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s so much easier just to add on to the side.
MR. DENISON-We had a contractor look at that possibility and.
MR. BERGMANN-It would crumble.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Probably twice as much to do that.
MRS. JENKIN-If you made it an “L” Shaped building it would be twice as much, you
think?
MR. DENISON-If we made it an “L” Shaped building, we’d lose that parking.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MRS. JENKIN-If you turned it.
MR. BERGMANN-We’d lose the parking.
MR. DENISON-We’d lose the parking, we’d rip off the decks, we’d have to reconfigure all
of that. We looked at all the possibilities.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Plus I think they’d be shedding the, the roofline would be shedding
either back or towards the neighbor next door.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, you’ve got six more feet, which would probably be adequate, to
have the runoff and the snow removal. You’ve got 12 feet from the property line. I just
think it’s six feet.
MR. DENISON-If you look at the structure and you tried to do it the other way, first of all I
don’t think it would look right, and you’d have one side dumping into the other, and the
only way to do it is go up in the front, and then have a long sloping back this way.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Like a lean-to.
MR. DENISON-Yes. That’s the only way to physically do it without causing a lot of
problems with snow loads and ice jams.
MR. DRELLOS-If the neighbor doesn’t have a problem, I think that’s a big plus, too.
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, that’s the only negative I see is your neighbor to the north, and
with this letter right here.
MR. BERGMANN-And we wouldn’t have wanted to do it if it was going to upset the
neighbors, frankly. We’re trying to be good neighbors.
MR. DENISON-The way this house is situated, there’s nothing that goes on on that side
of the house. It’s not like we’re blocking the view or, you know.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, his house is very close to the lot line, too.
MR. DENISON-Yes. His house is probably, you know, six or eight feet away.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes.
MR. DENISON-He parks his van there, and it’s about the width of the driveway.
MR. DRELLOS-Is his property Light Industrial, too?
MR. DENISON-Yes.
MR. BERGMANN-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-It is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Does somebody want to make the resolution?
MR. CLEMENTS-I will.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2008 HOWARD DENISON,
Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
296 Bay Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 720 square foot office addition
for the Warren County Association of Realtors, Inc. and the Warren County Multiple
Listings Services, Inc. The relief requested is 32.7 feet of relief from the 50 foot front
setback requirement and 23.5 feet of relief from the 30 foot side setback requirement for
the Light Industrial zone per 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law. In making a determination, the Board shall
consider, Number One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character
of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this Area Variance. Minor to moderate changes may be anticipated. Whether the
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the
applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. The applicant could build in a more
compliant location, but the size would not be applicable to what they need, and the runoff
would be detrimental. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request
for 32.7 feet, or 75% of the front setback relief may be considered severe relative to the
Ordinance, and the request for 23.5 or 78.3% of the side setback may be considered
severe. Both seem to be pretty much in relation to the rest of the neighborhood.
Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts are anticipated.
Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. It may be considered self-created.
However, the limitations of the lot may be a contributing factor. I make a motion that we
approve Area Variance No. 86-2008.
th
Duly adopted this 30 day of December, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. BERGMANN-Thank you. I’d just like to thank you for your service. Both Howard
and I serve on Planning Boards. I spent five years on the Town of Johnsburg Planning
th
Board where I brought in a new Comprehensive Plan, and the 18 APA approved local
land use program recently. That was a four year project that I chaired. So I appreciate
your efforts, and Howard serves in Fort Ann.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Guys, we’ve got a bunch of things to do here before we blow
out of here tonight. First of all we’ll do these minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 19, 2008
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2008, Introduced by George Drellos who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
th
Duly adopted this 30day of December, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
November 26, 2008
MRS. JENKIN-There’s one correction. My name was omitted from being absent. It
wasn’t on it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sorry.
MRS. JENKIN-It should have read that I was absent.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 26, 2008, Introduced by James Underwood who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
th
Duly adopted this 30 day of December, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We got a letter from, we did receive a letter here this evening
from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, Mr. Lapper sent it in to us. As you will recall,
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
last meeting we requested, I believe that we tabled the permeability request deal, and
they were supposed to have submitted some information. We gave them three extra
days past the deadline to get the information in.
MR. DRELLOS-Northway Plaza.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They didn’t get the information until today, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So they’re asking us to accept it, and it was supposed to be
th
submitted on the 17?
rd
MR. OBORNE-On the 23.
rdth
MR. UNDERWOOD-The 23. We’re now on the 30. That’s seven days past the
deadline.
MR. URRICO-What kind of problems does that present?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, let me read the letter, and you guys can make a decision what
you want to do. The reason that we have these dates set up is to give Staff an idea of, to
give them adequate time to, you know, look at the stuff, get it out to us so we can look at
it and I know that they wanted to be on for January, for one of the meetings in January,
and I can’t remember, I believe first one, was it not?
st
MR. URRICO-Yes, the 21.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Probably the first meeting they wanted to be on.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’ll read the letter. “Dear Chairman Underwood: As you
are aware, our firm represents Northway Plaza with regard to revitalization of the Plaza
which would incorporate a Chili’s Restaurant as well as a Walgreens Pharmacy. On
December 17, 2008, the Zoning Board of Appeals adopted a tabling resolution for Area
Variance No. 77-2008, which dealt specifically with the applicant’s permeability request.
At that time, it was identified that the applicant needed to submit information to clarify the
rd
request by December 23. Please be advised that this clarification information just
became available to our office today. Upon receiving it, we made such modifications to
the application as needed and e-mailed such documents to Keith Oborne, Town Planner,
to indicate that we would be prepared to submit it on today’s date. At that time, he
indicated that because the resolution required these materials to be submitted last week,
we would not be placed on the January agenda as we had anticipated. As this Board is
aware, this is a very important project for the community, due to the benefit it will have in
revitalizing a building that has since been abandoned on a very popular Town
intersection. In order to keep this project on track, with the multiple variance requests
and the Planning Board submission, we would request that the Board reconsider this
resolution and modify it such that our submission on today’s date would be deemed
timely. We feel that this would benefit all parties involved and appreciate your
consideration of this request. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have
caused.” What do you want to do?
MR. GARRAND-It sounds like when they show up and we get a letter that says that
they’re not, withdrawing for the night.
MRS. JENKIN-Is it a problem for Staff?
MR. DRELLOS-Yes, I mean, it’s up to the Staff.
MR. OBORNE-It’s not necessarily a problem for the Staff from the point of view of
workload for the ZBA. It is a problem for Staff because this is a continuing problem we
have with applicants, and with that said, I would say, yes, it is a problem with Staff. Is it a
problem for Staff to take care of it? No, not really.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think there’s two things we have to do. In other words, if we
band aid everybody’s attempts to get things in here, everybody’s going to be turning
things in late, you know, which encourages people just to say, deadlines really don’t
matter. So it’s up to you guys what you want to do in this instance here.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MR. GARRAND-Didn’t we do this once before?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, in general, I think we can be accommodating of
people to a degree, but in other words, if they didn’t, they probably requested the
information, it sounds like from the letter, they requested the information, but they didn’t
get it until, and as soon as they got it, they brought it over.
MR. DRELLOS-Let me ask you this. If we postpone it until the following week, right,
that’s what we would do, right, the second meeting in January?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think you’d be looking at the.
MR. GARRAND-February.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’d be looking at February.
MR. DRELLOS-The first one in February. Would it effect them for the Planning Board?
MR. OBORNE-No, because they’ve been bumped from the Planning Board also.
MR. DRELLOS-All right. So there you go. That answers that.
MR. OBORNE-And I would like to state for the record, I do take exception to one line in
here that they first heard about this in the letter that was sent to them. They were at this
meeting, and they heard the resolution.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, it’s probably a reflection of the holidays and, you
know, stuff gets thrown on the back burner and then, all of a sudden, yes, I forgot, but,
what’s the inclination of the Board? What would you guys like to do?
MR. DRELLOS-The first meeting in February.
MR. URRICO-They want to go to the first meeting?
MR. DRELLOS-The first meeting in February.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I guess, in anticipation of that, we will not honor their
request at this point in time, and we would see them at the first meeting in February. Is
essentially what it works out to.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t believe it’s necessary to make a resolution to that effect.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean, there’s nothing, I mean, due to the fact that they’re
already put off at the Planning Board, it’s not any major hold up for them, as far as I’m
concerned.
MR. DRELLOS-Do their homework the next time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Or to any other Board member, it appears, at this time. So do you
want to send them a reply, via letter?
MR. OBORNE-We shall, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Then I guess we’re done with that. The
only thing else we’ve got left to do is we’ve got to do officers for next year.
MOTION TO NOMINATE JAMES UNDERWOOD FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2009, Introduced by Richard Garrand who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
th
Duly adopted this 30 day of December, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/30/08)
MOTION TO NOMINATE RICH GARRAND AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by James Underwood whom moved for its adoption,
seconded by George Drellos:
th
Duly adopted this 30 day of December, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Garrand
MOTION TO NOMINATE ROY URRICO AS SECRETARY OF THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS, Introduced by George Drellos who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Richard Garrand:
th
Duly adopted this 30 day of December, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico
MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess that’s it.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
42