2009.04.15(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/15/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 15, 2009
INDEX
Area Variance No. 15-2009 Richard & Catherine Reed 1.
Tax Map No. 308.9-1-17
Area Variance No. 16-2009 Frederick J. Smith 6.
Tax Map No. 309.9-3-59
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 04/15/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 15, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO
JOYCE HUNT
RICHARD GARRAND
JOAN JENKIN
BRIAN CLEMENTS
GEORGE DRELLOS
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I'm going to call the April 15th meeting to order here, and
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, and the secretary will read in the pertinent parts of the
application, the Staff Notes as well as Warren County Planning Board decision, if
applicable. The applicant then will be invited to the table and be asked to provide any
information they wish to add to the application. The Board, then, will ask questions of
the applicant. Following that, we'll open the public hearing, and I'd caution that the
public hearing is not a vote, but it's a way to gather information about concerns, real or
perceived, and it's a way to gather information and 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. That basically tells us everything they want us to know in
that five minute period. A speaker may speak again if, after listening to other speakers,
they believe they have new information to present. Following that, we'll read
correspondence into the record, and then the applicants will have an opportunity to react
and respond to the public comment, and Board members then will discuss the variance
with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will be polled to explain their
positions on the application, and then we'll close the public hearing, unless there's a
reason to leave it open, and that would be only if it looks like the application will be
continued to another meeting. Finally we'll have a motion to approve, disapprove or
table and then we'll vote on it.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2009 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD & CATHERINE
REED AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S): RICHARD &
CATHERINE REED ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: LUZERNE & WEST MOUNTAIN
ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.04 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO
PARCELS OF 1.02 ACRES EACH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 99-296 SFD; BP 2003-537 2-CAR ATT.
GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: APRIL 8, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 2.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.9-1-17 SECTION: 179-4-
030
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2009, Richard & Catherine Reed, Meeting Date:
April 15, 2009 "Project Location: Luzerne & West Mountain Roads Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.04 acre parcel into two parcels
of 1.02 acres each on the corner of Luzerne Road and West Mountain Road.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 124.96 feet of relief for lot 2A and 37.66 feet of relief for lot 2B from
the double the lot width requirement for lots fronting on either a collector or arterial road
per §179-19-020C. Further, the applicant requests 6.1 feet of relief for the average lot
width requirement of 150 feet for lot 2A per §179-4-030 footnote 1.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/15/09)
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts on 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 may
be able to connect to existing driveway to the north to avoid the 300 foot requirement
for road frontage in the SR-1A zone. Has this option been explored? Further, it
appears that the west side line of lot 2A could be positioned in such a way to avoid a
variance request for less than the minimum the lot width requirement per §179-4-030.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 129.96 feet or
43.32 percent of relief for lot 2A from the 300 foot road frontage requirement per 179-
19-0200 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request
for 37.66 feet of relief or 12.5 percent of relief for lot 2B from the 300 foot road
frontage requirement per 179-19-0200 may be considered minor relative to the
ordinance. Finally, the request for 6.1 feet or 4 percent relief from the average lot
width requirement of 150 feet per §179-4-030 may be considered minor relative to
the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to moderate
impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be
anticipated due to safety concerns for the new driveway proposed on West Mountain
Road.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Subdivision 7-93 3 lot subdivision -Approved 9/23/93
Staff comments:
The driveway proposed for lot 2B fronts on West Mountain Road, a local arterial road.
Has the applicant pursued access to the lot through the existing adjoiner's driveway to
the north? This would eliminate the need for an additional driveway on West Mountain
Road and eliminate the need for an area variance for access management due to the
shared driveway provision per §179-20-0100.
In reviewing this application, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall request the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation concerning this proposed variance per Town
Law §277-6.
SEAR Status:
Type II - No action required."
"Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 8, 2009
Project Name: Reed, Richard & Catherine Owner(s): Richard & Catherine Reed ID
Number: QBY-09-AV-12a County Project#: Apr09-23 Current Zoning: SR-1A
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.04
acre parcel into two parcels of 1.02 acres each. Relief requested from road frontage
requirements. Site Location: Luzerne & West Mountain Roads Tax Map Number(s):
308.9-1-17 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.04
acre parcel into two parcels of 1.02 acres each. Relief requested from road frontage
requirements. The plans show the 2.04 acre parcel is part of an approved subdivision for
Cindy Jarvis in 1993. The information indicates the zoning is Suburban Residential one
acre where each of the lots will be 1.02 acres. The average lot width is required to be
300 ft. for both West Mountain and Luzerne Road which is double the average lot width
of 150 ft. The plans show the location of the existing and proposed house, access and
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/15/09)
septic location. 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 T. Lawson, Warren County Planning Board 4/8/09
MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Steves. Ready to roll.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, Matt Steves representing the Reeds on this
application. It's pretty straight forward. It's a piece of property located in the intersection
of West Mountain Road and Luzerne Road. The Reeds wish to subdivide that. We
looked into all the possibilities as far as the sharing of the driveway on Luzerne Road,
and the configuration and the type of house that is constructed there, and the location of
the driveway being on the easterly side, downhill side of that, it makes it impossible,
really, to share that driveway. So therefore they would like to sell that and build a smaller
home, looking into retirement, and build the house on West Mountain Road for
themselves. So in looking into doing the subdivision and trying to accomplish the two
lots with the minimum amount of variances required, we realize that the road frontage is
an issue with the 300 feet. That's why they doubled the lot width in that zone, because
of the arterial roads. So the new driveway would be on West Mountain Road, with the
minimal amount of variance needed. That lot actually wraps around on the two roads.
So with 37.66 feet lacking, we thought that that would be the best scenario is to make an
elongated lot. The Reeds have contacted the owners of the former Lot Three, with the
driveway coming off of West Mountain Road, and they were given an answer of no.
Whether or not they can explore that again, they did explore it and they said no, and
unfortunately when that subdivision was created, that wasn't at the time when these
were arterial road classifications. Otherwise that would have been mandated. If that
ever happened, which it doesn't look promising, we would still need a variance for not
utilizing our road frontage. So there's still a variance, but we understand it's less
driveway, but we're trying to make the impact as minimal as possible by having that front
on West Mountain Road, where we have almost double the lot width. As far as the one
last Staff comment, as the average lot width of Lot 2A, we understand it as being
basically 144 feet, only lacking six feet. We met with the Reeds in the field, and utilized
what would be the optimal location for that new division line between their existing house
and where they want to build, to maintain the privacy and character of each lot, basically
splitting the edge of the woods distance between there and the house. If you walk the
property and look at the property, it's a nice dividing line in there. We could adjust it a
little bit, but would it really make any difference to the location of the house since it's pre-
existing and the driveway's pre-existing? We decided no, that it would be better to ask
for the variance knowing that it's not a lot that is going to have much change to it,
because the house exists and the driveway exists.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, Matt, the driveway that goes into McCormack's property back
there, on the survey, what I was thinking was if they weren't going to do that, I thought,
why not, instead of having your hook come down towards sort of the central part of your
lot there, coming out onto West Mountain, what if you hooked it the other way so it came
in over close to that other driveway. Would that make more sense?
MR. STEVES-We have no issue with that. We have looked at that as well. We're just
trying to line up with the driveway across the way, but we understand that we want to try
to get driveways here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I was thinking in that instance, even though they're going to be
closer together than what's specified, by having the two driveways that close, it almost
makes them like a single driveway.
MR. STEVES-I would agree, Mr. Underwood. What happens, and it's splitting hairs
when people do this sometimes, is when they say you must share a driveway, and you
put the property line, and what they really do is they put two distinctively driveways in.
The asphalt touches each other at the property line, and then they open back up to the
entrance throat on the edge of the existing road, and in effect we could do almost the
same thing. We could have the two radiuses, the throat entrance touch each other, and
then just break off around that iron rod. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because you've got Town right of way there anyhow. Right?
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So that's all that matters.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/15/09)
MR. STEVES-Yes, and it almost effectively does the same thing. You just have almost
like a little boulevard between them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. STEVES-Yes, we have no issue with that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I was thinking whatever the inclination of the Board is going
forward, that might be a practical way to do it, and, you know, it's tough in this instance
here because both Luzerne and West Mountain Road are major arterials. So
unfortunately you get caught up in that.
MR. STEVES-Right. No, we have no issue with that. We did, just like they have on their
existing home on Luzerne Road, even though it is close to the stop sign on Luzerne
Road. Irregardless, even if we moved that, to your suggestion to the north, which is a
good idea, we would still maintain not the other entrance but the back out, so that you
have ability to turn around
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you always come out forward. Yes.
MR. STEVES-You're always driving out, that's correct. No back out onto these roads.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other Board members have anything, any other concerns you
guys have?
MR. URRICO-I just have a nit picky kind of thing. The Staff Notes keep referring to 2A
and 2B, and the maps that we have don't seem to indicate 2A and 2B. It's one, two and
three.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you calling the original lot A and the other one B?
MR. URRICO-I just want to make sure for clarification purposes, so the record reads
right.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Our lot was Lot Two of a previous subdivision that was submitted to
you. So we're saying that we're subdividing Lot Two into two lots, 2A and 2B, and I
believe my map depicts 2A and 2B.
MRS. JENKIN-This is the property they're talking about only.
MR. STEVES-If you open my map, Roy.
MR. URRICO-I know. I just wanted to make sure it was on the record right.
MR. STEVES-We're taking the original Lot 2 and breaking it into two lots. I didn't want to
call it two and four, because it's still two.
MR. DRELLOS-If we send it to the Planning Board. They'll make recommendations
anyway.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but, I mean, we can make sure that our record indicates, you
know, what we think is a practical solution, and I don't think that they wouldn't recognize,
you know, whatever we do either.
MR. DRELLOS-Well, we can put that in there, then, that they could look at the driveway.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any other concerns at this time, or, I mean, it's
pretty straightforward. I mean, to me, in this instance here, you're, because of the two,
the nature of the roads there, you're stuck, caught with the rules being what they are.
You're going to need relief no matter what. Okay. I guess I'll open the public hearing, if
anybody from the public wishes to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any correspondence at all?
MR. URRICO-I don't see any correspondence.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/15/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, I think what we'll do is this. Does anybody, I mean, I
think everybody recognizes that you're going to need, you know, what's reasonable, you
know, moderate relief for the lot width on there, but, I mean, that's pre-determined by the
size of that lot. There's not much more you could do with it when you split it into two one
acre lots, as you propose to do here, and I think as far as my suggestion, and I don't
know what you guys think of that. Does that sound like a reasonable recourse to you? I
would rather see the driveway move away from that corner because of all the horrible
accidents.
MR. DRELLOS-I think that's fine.
MR. STEVES-I think that's a great idea.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No matter who you are, I don't think you want to be, and like you
said, as long as the traffic's going to always come out of there head forward, not backing
out, that's a great idea. I think we pretty much have, everybody's been on the page with
that on West Mountain Road for a long time now.
MR. STEVES-Right, and you're not making the conditions, per say, any worse because
the separation to the intersection's basically the same if you bring it right to the edge of
the existing driveways there. We will agree to that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Then I guess, can we do anything, in lieu of, I mean, we've got to
send this to the Planning Board anyway, but I mean, we can give an indication to the
Planning Board that we feel that the suggestion I made would make the most sense,
move that driveway access, swing it around the other way.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. I'll provide them with the minutes. So they'll be able to see what
you guys and gals are thinking.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And as far as the relief that's being required here, does anybody
have a problem with that relief? I mean, it's just a component of the fact, you know, of
what the nature of the roadways are there.
MRS. JENKIN-So they are planning to leave the trees as a buffer between the two
properties?
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MRS. JENKIN-And the house that they're proposing will be a smaller home?
MR. STEVES-Yes. Retirement mode.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So why don't we do this, then. Why don't we just, do you
want to, we'll just table this.
MR. STEVES-With the suggestions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-With our suggestions to the Planning Board, and we'll hope for the
best. I mean, I don't think it's going to be any big deal with them. It seems like the only
practicable solution, other than, if those other folks don't want to share their driveway,
but like you said, work out that, onto that Town right of way, or the State right of way on
this.
MR. STEVES-And almost effectively does the same thing.
MR. DRELLOS-It probably won't be until June by they time they get back here. Will it?
MR. OBORNE-Well, I haven't received the subdivision.
MR. STEVES-We had to get the recommendation to go.
MR. OBORNE-You have to get the recommendation. They're going to want to see this
subdivision, and with that said, you're looking probably at June, at this point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That'll work for you?
MR. STEVES-That's fine.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/15/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-And then we can put you on for whatever the first meeting is
following that meeting, and take care of you at that point.
MR. STEVES-That works.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That'll work. All right. Then I'll make a tabling motion.
MR. OBORNE-You could do it on the 17t", because we can get them on the 16tH
Planning Board meeting.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then we'll do it on the 17t", and that way we'll get you out of
there, and then at that point we'll do a quick resolution on that, based upon what the
recommendations.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. STEVES-And I'll have, the subdivision is ready to go. I'll just submit it. Then we
have plenty of time. Thank you.
MR.OBORNE-Yes. Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I'll leave the public hearing open just in case, because you
never know.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2009 RICHARD & CATHERINE REED,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard
Garrand:
Luzerne & West Mountain Roads. Tabled until the 17t" of June.
Duly adopted this 15t" day of April, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron, do you want to come up? He's got to recuse himself on
this next one.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II FREDERICK J. SMITH AGENT(S):
VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S): FREDERICK J. SMITH ZONING: MR-5
LOCATION: 19 VERMONT AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF
A 1,260 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM
ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A GARAGE. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.9-3-59
SECTION: 179-2-010
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2009, Frederick J. Smith, Meeting Date: April
15, 2009 "Project Location: 19 Vermont Avenue Description of Proposed Project:
The applicant proposes to remove three structures (one 264 square foot garage, one 546
square foot shed, one 100 square foot shed) totaling 910 square feet and construct a
1,260 square foot garage on a 0.21 acre parcel in the States Avenue section of
Queensbury.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 360 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum allowable
size for garages per §179-2-010.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/15/09)
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal as the size of the proposed garage is in concert with surrounding
properties.
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
reduce the size of the garage to become more compliant or compliant.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 360 square feet
or 40 percent of relief from the 900 square foot maximum allowed size for garages
per §179-2-010 may be considered moderate 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.
Further, the removal of two accessory structures results in the applicant becoming
compliant with regards to the allowable number of accessory structures on a given
parcel.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
P95-141 One car detached garage Approved 4/18/95
Staff comments:
The applicant states that the proposed garage is for the storage of a camper, boat and
other ancillary items. The current garage is purportedly out of date and in need of
repairs.
The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to place as a condition of approval that that no
business, occupations or services for profit be conducted on premises including the
storage and parking of commercial vehicles over 1.5 tons.
SEAR Status:
Type II - No action required."
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're all set.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, Matt Steves representing Frederick Smith who is at
the table with me. Again, this is pretty straightforward. It's a piece of property on the
west side of Vermont Avenue, just south of Luzerne Road, and Mr. Smith is going to
clean up and remove some of the sheds that are there to make a building that would be
amore desirable and usable building for his needs, store his pontoon boat and his motor
home in, and it would keep them out of sight during the winter months, and for security
reasons as well. As Staff has stated, we're actually removing about 900 square feet of
building to place the new building in there. So it would be an up to date structure, meet
all the current Codes of today, and get rid of the ones that do not and make it one larger
building that would accommodate the necessary storage. It would be located in the
compliant setbacks. The only thing we're looking for, as far as a variance, is for the relief
from the 900 square foot maximum garage size.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members have any questions, any concerns on this
one?
MRS. JENKIN-Do you plan to have an asphalt driveway over the whole thing, or gravel?
FREDERICK J. SMITH
MR. SMITH-Well, we're going to leave the existing asphalt that's already there in front of
the garage now, and the rest will be gravel. There's existing asphalt in front of the
garage there that's going to be removed.
MRS. JENKIN-Is this all asphalt here?
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/15/09)
MR. SMITH-Well, just the part, the little part in front of the garage (lost words) is asphalt
at the time, and the rest of it will be gravel, when the garage comes out, we'll leave that
gravel, around to the front of it.
RONALD KUHL, ALTERNATE
MR. KUHL-Will just your boat and your motor home be in there or will also put your car in
there?
MR. SMITH-No cars. I've got a little John Deer compact tractor.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. SMITH-That and the tools and stuff out of the other.
MR. KUHL-But more or less seasonal storage is what you are doing?
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-And you're going to keep this one shed that's at the back?
MR. SMITH-Yes. It has all the rakes and shovels and stuff like that in that.
MR. URRICO-What about the Staff concerns about a condition that no business be
conducted out of there?
MR. SMITH-I have no problem with that.
MR. GARRAND-No storage of backhoes, bulldozers anything like that?
MR. SMITH-No.
MR. CLEMENTS-Do you mind if I ask what your occupation is?
MR. SMITH-Trucking and excavating.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MR. SMITH-Mostly, I truck for a beer company, the Budweiser plant in Saratoga, and in
Glens Falls. Actually we're moving up to Saratoga, actually.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So this is presently your home there, then?
MR. SMITH-Yes. Well, I live next door. My daughter lives there. She's off to college
now, of course, but when she comes home, she'll be staying there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But do you anticipate that at any point that that mobile home is
going to get changed over to a regular house, you know, in the future?
MR. SMITH-Well, this is why I made four foot frost walls to the garage, because if I had
to, if was going to make a house off of that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, attach on, grow off of that.
MR. SMITH-Yes. That was why we went with the four foot frost walls and stuff. So if
some day the trailer is gone, we can add on that way.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-So you live on the corner?
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/15/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? I guess I'll open
up the public hearing then. Anybody from the public? I don't see anybody.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence at all?
MR. URRICO-No correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I'll poll the Board.
MR. CLEMENTS-Could I ask one more question?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly.
MR. CLEMENTS-One of the things you said is the new garage will compliment the
existing home, and add lawn, green area. Can you tell us how you would do that?
Because I'm looking at, I'll tell you why I'm asking. I'm looking at a permeability of the
lot, you know, it looks like you're going to have a lot more covered.
MR. SMITH-Between the garage would be all, I figured it would be all straight, from the
driveway in, the whole square area will be grass, and 15 feet from the fence line to the
garage will be all grass instead of where the sheds are, instead of patches of grass here
and there, where the buildings are now.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. So you're saying that where the things are going to be removed,
there will be grass there?
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Where?
MR. CLEMENTS-Where the sheds that are going to be removed.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, this has to be asphalt here because that's coming in from the street.
MR. KUHL-I guess the question is if, when you take the garage down, is there concrete
on the bottom of that garage, and that's going to stay?
MR. SMITH-No. That's going to go.
MR. KUHL-That's going to go. Okay, and from the asphalt you have there to around to
this new building will be stone?
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. STEVES-There's just about a 12 foot wide drive path from the end of the existing
asphalt over to the garage, overhead garage door.
MR. KUHL-And you have a motor home or a trailer?
MR. SMITH-It's an RV motor home.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions?
MRS. JENKIN-I guess one of my concerns is it's very large, and whether it would
overpower the mobile home, because you have your mobile home, and then you've got
this great, huge building behind it. It kind of is overpowering.
MR. SMITH-Right. Well, to be honest with you, I'd like to, in about five years or so, get
the mobile home out of there, like I said, and add like a "T" on the side of that garage for
a home structure. That's why we went with the four foot frost walls on the garage. So
we could always add on to the garage as a home.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I'll poll through, and I'll start with you, Ron.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/15/09)
MR. KUHL-The applicant states that he'll put in that it won't be used for commercial use,
which is good, and we should do that. The fact that he's tearing down the two smaller
ones and adding one bigger one for a temporary, if you will seasonal storage. I have no
problem with that. I really don't.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I would, I guess I would like to see this a little bit smaller, but I can
understand if you're going to put a mobile home in there, RV in there. Is that, that you're
going to have to have something fairly large. I guess I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I don't see an undesirable change being produced in the neighborhood,
and that's unfortunate because I think this goes to the times that we've allowed bigger
than normal garages in a neighborhood of this size, and what happens is that this
becomes the defacto standard for the street, and it probably shouldn't be, but it is. So I
don't see a change in the neighborhood. The benefit sought by the applicant, again,
normally we asked for a standard size garage, and this is bigger than standard size. So
I'm a little bothered by the size of it. I wouldn't mind seeing it being brought down a peg.
Even though you want to put something in it that's huge, the fact of the matter is it's a .21
acre lot, and that's a lot of garage for that lot. We're allowing 300 feet beyond what we,
where the Code allows, and in order to fit, basically, one piece of equipment. So I'm
bothered by that, too, and that goes to Number Three, the Area Variance is substantial,
and I don't think it'll have an adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood. I think
the difficulty is self-created. I would be against it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Well, I think there are mitigating circumstances. The fact that you're taking
down three structures that total 910 square feet is good, and constructing 1260 square
feet of garage, and you made a case for why you needed that size garage, and I would
be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich?
MR. GARRAND-A couple of things here. I think it's an improvement to the neighborhood
to be taking down those three existing structures. It actually looks very cluttered over
there, given the size of the lot. As previously mentioned by Mr. Urrico, I do have some
grave reservations about an almost 1300 square foot garage on the property. Given that
you don't actually live there, I would have some serious reservations about it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I feel that it actually is enhanced if you do build a garage and take
down all the different little sheds that are around there. I think that that's a positive, but I
feel it's too large for the mobile home. It doesn't fit that. I think for the whole area, I think
it will have a detrimental effect on the area only because we don't want all huge garages
in the same area. I thought if you cut it back to, I was just doing a quick, if you cut it back
to 30 feet rather than 42 feet long, it would be 1200 square feet, no, if it was 35 feet long,
it would be 1050, and that's just a little bit over the 900. I don't know whether you could
crowd everything in or not there. If it was 36 feet, it would be 1080, which, again, is just
not that much over the 900. I think it would make a difference to make it a little smaller,
and I would be against this variance right now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We've got three and three right now. So, I can tell you what I
think about this, but what I want to ask you at this point in time is how long is your motor
home that you want to put in there?
MR. SMITH-It's 38 feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thirty-eight feet. That's why you need the 42.
MR. SMITH-We really wanted a 40 foot garage. Yes. Originally I wanted a 40, but it
doesn't fit with the 16 inch, you know, with the block walls.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Does that change anybody's opinion, then, as far as that goes, in a
practical sense?
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/15/09)
MRS. JENKIN-Well, there's not a lot of people that have 38 feet motor homes that are
able to store them on their property, even if they have four acres of property, or five
acres of property. So I think that, expecting that you should be able to store it on a .2
acre lot, that's expecting a lot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just as a question for Staff. Say they put up a garage and they had
more of a breezeway type thing for that motor home on the side there, would that make
any sense? I mean, that's really not going to give you the coverage you want. I mean,
you really want to get that thing out of the weather, that's understandable, but I think that
it's also, Joan makes a good point there, you know, when she says, you know, how
many people have a garage for their motor home in Town? I can think of very few
instances anywhere in the community where we have anything like that. So it sort of an
extraordinary request on such a small lot here. I don't know. I'm a little bit torn here, too.
I think that we have to keep in mind that on these smaller lots, and as you showed us
down here on this part of Town here, as has been mentioned by other members of the
Board, it's not really out of character with what's there. In fact, it looks a lot better than
some of the more industrial sized ones that we have in existence down there, but those
pre-date the zoning, obviously, too, you know. I'm not sure if I'm going to go for this or
not. I mean, I understand where you're coming from. I don't think it's an unreasonable
request that you've made here, but the suggestion's been made, and I don't know, in the
sense of, you know, a motor home is something that people have for, I don't know if
that's something you have forever or if it's something you have a short period of time
going forward, and whether or not it really needs to be stored inside because I don't
really see an awful lot of them that get stored inside buildings around the community
here.
MRS. JENKIN-I have one more question. The garage, you live next door. So you have
the large garage that is there. You can't store any of the things that you have in that
garage now?
MR. SMITH-No, because actually we put four vehicles in there for the winter, you know,
cars that we drive, myself, my wife and my two daughters drive. Actually we shove all
four of them in there. It's crowded but we get them in there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, are there any other practical solutions from you guys as
Board members, as to what you might want, what you might think is reasonable?
MR. URRICO-You live next door on a separate lot?
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MR. URRICO-How big is that lot?
MR. SMITH-Actually it's a little bit bigger. It's 90, 90 by 100. Actually it's ten foot longer
than the lot next door, I don't know the exact square footage, but it's bigger.
MR. STEVES-Just, yes, 10 foot, not a lot. It's about 1,000 square foot larger.
MRS. JENKIN-And the house you live in, it looks very nice in the neighborhood. You've
done a nice job. That is an added.
MR. SMITH-Actually, I'm getting new windows and siding, too.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. No, it's nice, and since it sits on the corner, it's very obvious. So
that's a good thing. It's just the garage is large.
MR. URRICO-Are there garages that can be made less wide but deeper?
MR. SMITH-Yes, we could build a 28 foot wide, but then I'm crowding, because I've got a
pontoon boat, so that's a little wider than an average boat, and it's, I can get them in
there, but it would be crowded.. I was going to put the boat on the one side and the
camper on the other and put the little tractor between them. I could scrunch them up
sideways.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, all right. I'll make my determination, and that's this.
I'm going to look at the future of the lot, and I'm going to assume that at some point in
time, the mobile home's going to be gone and there's probably going to be some kind of
a mod or some kind of a house that's going to get built on to the edge of the garage, as
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/15/09)
he suggested at some point in the future. I don't, in any way shape or form, disagree
with the members of the Board that are opposed to the project because I think it is way
oversized from what we do here, and I think that we would, you know, if anybody came in
anywhere else in Town, like in the more upscale residential areas in Town, I don't think
anybody would be in any way, shape approving this as it's been presented here, but at
the same time, you know, it's six of one, half a dozen of another. It doesn't belong there,
as it's been presented, I don't really feel, but at the same time, it's not out of character
with the neighborhood down there, I don't think so, not based upon what I see driving
around. It doesn't look to me like there's any chance that you would want to modify your
application because, you know, you're trying to accommodate those two big, both the
pontoon boat and that, but I'm just thinking in the future with your kids, I mean, I assume
that they're going share in the use of those RV, you know, and the boat.
MR. STEVES-Looking at it, the only thing we could do, and I don't know if it makes that
much of a difference, really, is leaving the 42, because of the length of it, like he says, by
the time you bring in your concrete block walls, and you've got to take that dimension off
the total length of it, and for inside use. We could narrow it down to 28 feet, and that is
extremely, extremely tight as far as the storage capacity. From the road, it still looks the
same.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, it would.
MR. STEVES-I'm saying, but as far as what he is looking to accomplish, the 28 feet is
about the best he could do. He could shrink it down and make the variance less severe
as far as the square footage, but it is still going to have basically the same appearance
from the road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you need all that height up above, too, in essence?
MR. SMITH-Well, the camper is 12 foot from the top of the air conditioner to the ground,
it's 12 foot 4.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you need that bigger size door. Yes. Okay. Well, why don't I do
this, then. What about your suggestion of just putting, making the garage smaller and
putting a canopy? You have 15 feet on the back of it, behind the property, which would
not be seen from the street, and if you had a canopy there, when you wanted to store it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don't know, you know, my thought on canopies is they're worse.
Do you know what I mean? They really don't serve any purpose. They don't keep the
wind and the weather out, and it's almost worthless building one.
MR. URRICO-I'm sorry, but here's my concern is that there's always something. I mean,
people that come for an oversized garage always have something extra to store, and it's,
this time it's the camper. We've had other times when it's been trucks or equipment that
they use for their business. So, you know, this is a nice application. I understand where
he's coming from. I'm just thinking about down the road, are we going to get somebody
else coming with a camper and saying, you know, you've already done it. It's just, you
know, if there was a way that we could get around it, that would be fine, but if we're going
to do it with sort of a canopy on it, we might as well approve the garage then, and might
as well have the benefit of the garage.
MR. STEVES-And I know that setting precedent, that you also have to look at each
application on its own merit, and I understand that balancing act. Just looking back at
this, as I say, we're taking three or four different types of structures that are kind of
sporadic throughout and making one consistent brand new structure, and it's going to
have new shingles, new siding. I mean, it's going to look more compliant, and more in
character with the neighborhood than the existing mish mash of structures that are there,
and obviously living right next door, Mr. Smith, with his family there and his daughters
living here, aren't, they do not want to make it look like an industrial compound. I mean,
you say a nice home next door, and I can assure you that this will be a beautiful looking
structure when it's done, with the fascia and the soffiting and everything on it. It will look
more like a residence with the windows and such in it, at the same time serving the
purpose. Like I say, we could narrow it down to a compliant garage in width, to fit one of
the boats or the RV in, and you'd still have the same width and look from the road. So
we wouldn't even need to be in front of the Zoning Board fora 900 square foot garage,
but in fact you would have the exact same structure from the road that we're proposing,
and it's going to be 42 foot in width. So it really, as far as the character of the
neighborhood from the road appearance, it's going to be exactly the same as if it was 30
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/15/09)
foot wide or 22 foot wide. You're really not going to see that in the foot. As Mr.
Underwood stated, the canopy off the back, I've seen nothing but problems with those.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I agree. I don't like that either. The only thing is, you're saying that
you don't want it to look like an industrial area and all the little sheds do, but when you
have a huge garage like that, it's going to make it look even more like it's industrial,
because it is such a large building on a very, very small lot. At least the small structures
you have now are actually in keeping with the neighborhood because they're small, not
because they look good but just because of the size them, and I know you've added
them over the years because you need to store more things and that's what people do,
but to have a building that size, it's going to be very overpowering for that lot, and it'll be,
I would think it would be a detriment to your house next door as well, only because you'd
be sitting there with this great huge building next door and it won't add to your property.
That's just my feeling.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, I'll finish up what I was saying here and we'll get to this.
I guess I'm going to go with an approval of this request here, and I will say this.
Everybody's made valid points, both sides, and I think you understand that, too. It would
be easy for me to say no, just as easy as it is for me to say yes, but I'm going to say yes
for the following reasons, because you are going to be consolidating the sheds that you
have there. I don't think anybody's really happy with the size of the building in
relationship to the neighborhood, but your home and everything else shows me that you
usually go the extra yard in trying to make things appear more residential as opposed to
commercial, and I think everybody appreciates that look. I'm going to anticipate that at
some point in the future, one of your kids or somebody is going to build a real house on
that lot and get rid of the mobile home, and that's going to enhance it also, and, you
know, the detriments, as far as I'm concerned, don't outweigh what the positives are
going to be on this one here, and it is an extraordinary request. I don't think we would
want to see this coming in on a regular basis because, you know, mobile homes and
boats, you know, I could care less if they're out in the snow. I mean, that's some
people's thing that they've got to have them and got to keep them perfect and that's
understandable, too, because everybody has their own priorities, but I will go along with
your request. So I guess I'll ask somebody to make a motion.
MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. With conditions.
MRS. HUNT-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2009 FREDERICK J. SMITH
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
19 Vermont Avenue. The applicant proposes to remove three structures, one 264
square foot garage, one 546 square foot shed, one 100 square foot shed, totaling 910
square feet, and to construct a 1,260 square foot garage on a 0.21 acre parcel. The
applicant requests 360 square feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum allowable
size for garages, per Section 179-2-010. In making a determination, the Board shall
consider whether the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant,
and I think the applicant has given valid reasons why he needs this size garage.
Whether an undesirable change will be created in the character of nearby properties. I
don't think so. Actually the garage is sort of compliant with the other garages in the area.
The request is moderate. Three hundred and sixty square feet, or 40% of relief from the
900 square foot maximum is moderate relative to the Ordinance. I don't think there will
be any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood, and the alleged
difficulty is self-created only in the fact that Mr. Smith wishes to build a garage to house
his mobile home and other pieces of equipment. There is a condition placed on this
approval that no business occupations or services for profit shall be conducted on
premises, including the storage and parking of commercial vehicles over 1.5 tons. I
propose we pass Area Variance No. 16-2009.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/15/09)
Duly adopted this 15t" day of April, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're all set.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. SMITH-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. As we have no other business, our meeting is adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
14