05-20-2015 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 20, 2015
INDEX
Area Variance No. 88-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 1.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48 & 49
Sign Variance No. 87-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 1.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48 & 49
Sign Variance No. 9-2015 Lawrence J. Meracle, Jr. Action Sign Co. 3.
Tax Map No. 309.10-1-57
Area Variance No. 15-2015 David Dawkins & Alyssa-Barber Dawkins 10.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-67
Area Variance No. 16-2015 Richard Hall 14.
Tax Map No. 315.00-1-1.3
Area Variance No. 21-2015 Lynne Fish & Wendy Schmidt 18.
Tax Map No. 279.17-1-1 and 7
Area Variance No. 22-2015 Thomas J. Kubricky 24.
Tax Map No. 227.13-2-24
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.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 20, 2015
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
RICHARD GARRAND
RONALD KUHL
KYLE NOONAN
ANDREW ALLISON, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call to order this evening's meeting of the
Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here in the
past, it's quite a simple process. We call each application. We read it into the record. We ask
the applicants to join us at the smaller table here. We'll ask questions. We'll listen to
comments. We'll open the public hearing when it's been advertised, and then we'll take action
accordingly. We do have a public comment period scheduled for most of our meetings. We do
have some simple rules to follow. We do have a limitation on public comment of about three
minutes, and we ask you that if you do make a comment to not reiterate stuff that's already been
identified in the record. There's no sense in repeating it. We understand it's part of the record.
We do have some housekeeping to take care of this evening. The first is to approve the April
22nd meeting minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 22, 2015
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 2015, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Kyle Noonan:
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Allison, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The next item is our Administrative Items.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
FURTHER TABLING REQUEST FOR THE FOLLOWING:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2014 MC DONALD'S USA, LLC
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2014 MC DONALD'S USA, LLC
MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, I guess we should call these individually for McDonald's, or as a group?
MRS. MOORE-You can do them as a group.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Great.
MRS. MOORE-It's simply a tabling resolution.
MR. JACKOSKI-We have a request from the McDonald's USA for their property on Route 9
across from the Home Depot to further table their Area Variance No. 88-2014 and their Sign
Variance No. 87-2014, and, Staff, do we have a date as to when they'd like us to table to?
MRS. MOORE-Until, I believe I have a July meeting, and I apologize.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. JACKOSKI-We'll table it to a July meeting, with a June typical submission deadline
requirement. Could I have a motion to do that, please.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
McDonald's USA, LLC for an Area Variance. Applicant proposes demolition of existing 4,800
sq. ft. restaurant as well as demolition of the existing 411 sq. ft. detached shed/garage.
Applicant proposes construction of a new 4,365 sq. ft. restaurant. Relief requested from
minimum front yard setback requirements as well as from maximum permeability requirements
in the CI zoning district.
The Public Hearing was not opened and will be re-noticed.
RESOLUTION TO: TABLE, Area Variance No. 88-2014, McDonald's USA, LLC, Tax Map No.
302.6-1-48, 49. The applicant has requested to be Tabled. The applicant is working with the
client to determine if they will continue to pursue the project. The application is tabled to a July,
2015 meeting agenda with a submission deadline date of Monday, June 15 for submission of
new information. The Board may consider to Deny without Prejudice if no new information is
submitted for the July, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Allison, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McCabe
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
McDonald's USA, LLC for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of
Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of 6 new signs. Three wall signs proposed to read
as a single letter" M" and two wall signs to read "McDonalds"where wall signs total 108 sq. ft in
lieu of the maximum allowable two wall signs to total 30 sq. ft. each. Also, one compliant 45
sq. ft. freestanding sign will be installed. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs
for a business and maximum size.
The Public Hearing was not opened and will be re-noticed.
RESOLUTION TO: TABLE, Sign Variance No. 87-2014, McDonald's USA, LLC, Tax Map No.
302.6-148, 49.
The applicant has requested to be Tabled. The applicant is working with the client to determine
if they will continue to pursue the project. The application is tabled to a July, 2015 meeting
agenda with a submission deadline date of Monday, June 15 for submission of new information.
The Board may consider to Deny without Prejudice if no new information is submitted for the
July, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Allison, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McCabe
MR. JACKOSKI-For the audience members here this evening, we do have an item that was on
the agenda for this evening. It is the Area Variance No. 14-2015. The applicant was Kimberly
Polunci of Tails Wag Inn, 21 Blind Rock Road. The applicant has withdrawn their application
for a variance so there is no further action being taken by this Board concerning that application.
We'll move on to Old Business.
OLD BUSINESS:
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 9-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED LAWRENCE J. MERACLE, JR.
ACTION SIGN CO., LLC FOR DOLLAR GENERAL AGENT(S) LAWRENCE J. MERACLE,
JR. FOR ACTION SIGN CO., LLC OWNER(S) PRIMAX PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING MS
LOCATION 61 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF 3-WALL SIGNS
AT 28 SQ. FT. EACH ON A PROPOSED PLANNING BOARD APPROVED BUILDING.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS, MAXIMUM SIGN
SIZE LIGHTING, AND PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE SP 15-2015
FOR SIGN IN MS ZONE; SP 76-2014; SUP 77-2014; BP 2014-030 NEW BUILDING;
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2015 LOT SIZE 0.87 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO.
309.10-1-57 SECTION CHAPTER 140
WAYNE GENDRON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 9-2015, Action Sign Co. for Dollar General, Meeting Date:
May 20, 2015 "Project Location: 61 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes placement of 3 wall signs at 28 sq. ft. each on a proposed Planning Board approved
building - Dollar General.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require sign variances from Section 140 Signs:
# of Allowable signs Maximum sign size Placement
Allowed 1 wall 1 free standing 30 sq. ft. Front -centered over store
front
Proposed 3 wall signs 28 sq. ft. x 3 (84 sq. West sign over door, south
ft.) sign over windows and east
placement on brick wall
Relief Excess of 2 wall Excess of 54 sq. ft. Not over storefront
signs
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance.
Moderate to substantial impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. -multiple wall signs
denoting one business may be excessive for a main street corridor.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible
where it does not appear as though strict compliance would deprive the applicant of
adequate signage on the project.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may
have an adverse impact on the main street corridor that may be mitigated with less signs.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to install 3 wall signs on an approved building. The code allows for 1
wall sign at 30 sq. ft. The wall signs are proposed to be 28 sq. ft. each and externally
illuminated with gooseneck down cast lights. The signs are to be located towards the front of
the building with them placed on the east, west and south sides. The Main Street code identified
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
wall signs to be centered over each shop front. The West side sign is located over the door
entry and the South side (front facing Main) signage is located over a window area. The east
side sign is located on a blank wall adjacent to an existing residential structure. The signs are to
be made of a resin material and would be consistent with the code that recommends -wood,
metal, stone, brick or similar traditional sign materials.... resin or composite materials that give
the appearance of traditional materials may also be used. The board may consider reducing the
number of signs to one at 30 sq. ft. maintaining the lighting and material of the signage
proposed.
The board should be aware that considerable time and effort was spent developing the Main
Street design standards. Staff would request careful consideration be given to the intent of
these requirements and whether there is an actual need to grant changes to the requirements."
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board made a motion to table Sign Variance No. 9-2015.
That's not, I'm sorry, that's not the Planning Board motion from last night.
MRS. MOORE-No, there was nothing last evening. It was the month prior.
MR. URRICO-That would have been March, and that was read last time.
MRS. MOORE-No, there was two of them.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Get back to me. I'll look for it.
MR. JACKOSKI-No problem. Thank you and welcome. If you could identify yourself for the
record, please.
MR. GENDRON-Good evening. Wayne Gendron with Action Sign Company, representing
Dollar General. The last time I was here was in March and we came in with some internally
illuminated signs and after hearing the Planning Board concerns and your concerns, we went
back to the drawing board, after I talked to Dollar General, and we started the whole process
over again. We came to the Planning Board in April with reduced signage at 28 sq. ft. apiece,
going with a flush mount flat resin letters with externally illuminated gooseneck lighting to fit into
the Main Street theme that you guys have going on over there, and the Planning Board, I don't
know if you guys have the minutes from the April meeting, but the Planning Board thought they
were aesthetically pleasing and thought it was a nice change and a good comprise to what we
were looking for. Just to recap, in terms of the hardship that you have, your setbacks for a
freestanding sign are 15 feet off the property line. The one end of the property line we only
have 15 feet to the front of the building, and the other end we only have 27.8 feet from the
property line to the front of the building, which if we went to that end of the building would put the
signage in the middle of the parking lot. So in lieu of the freestanding sign, which your Code
allows 45 sq. ft. per sign face, we're looking to basically take the overall square footage of the
signs and put them on the wall, which is still reduced because if we went with a freestanding
sign and a wall sign we'd be allowed 120 square feet. I got them and talked to them and
reduced it down to 84 sq. ft., which I thought was a big compromise in not going with the
internally illuminated letters and going with the gooseneck lighting in order to make it more
aesthetically pleasing for the Main Street project. So Dollar General asked me to come in and
try to get these three signs passed. I mean, I feel that they fit in with the theme. They're
aesthetically pleasing. They're not overpowering or large. There's not going to be any yellow
light emitting from the yellow faces whatsoever. It's all downcast back towards the building with
the gooseneck lighting. So the light won't project into any of the neighbors' yards or away from
the building. It'll all be back on the building. So that's basically it. Just looking to get these
three signs approved that we've worked very hard on, went through the process twice now and
really came to a compromise to hopefully please the Board.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Staff, could you explain the intent of the freestanding sign
ordinance, I guess, and the Main Street corridor, which we're supposed to be keeping the
building as close to the road as possible. How does that all fit?
MRS. MOORE-So they're permitted the one freestanding sign and the applicant has chosen not
to do that.
MR. JACKOSKI-But how does the applicant do that if they're supposed to keep the building
forward but the signs have to be off the road?
MRS. MOORE-They can still place a sign in that area, yes. Is it possible that it's subject to a
variance? It's possible.
MR. JACKOSKI-So would they have to move their building back 15 more feet?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MRS. MOORE-No, it's an issue within the Code itself where that freestanding sign is located.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's what I'm trying to understand.
MRS. MOORE-You're correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-When they need a variance to move the, how far off the Main Street corridor
can they set the building back?
MRS. MOORE-It's 40 feet, I believe. I don't have it right in front of me.
MR. JACKOSKI-The most is 40 feet?
MR. GARRAND-The thing is the Comprehensive Land Use Plan says what we want the building
closer to the road and the parking in the back.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right, but they how do you put a freestanding in the front of the building.
MR. GARRAND-You can't very much without a variance and have the parking in the back.
MRS. MOORE-You still have a distance between the front property line and your front of your
building.
MR. JACKOSKI-On the Main Street corridor, and what is that distance before they have to get a
variance?
MRS. MOORE-They have to maintain a 15 foot setback, and there are area, we looked this up
and it's an issue to go through. It may not be in this particular case, but there are properties
that may require variances.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to ask again. If this building is more than 15 feet off the road,
would they be required to get a variance because of the Main Street corridor?
MRS. MOORE-The building would be farther setback than 15 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Say that again?
MRS. MOORE-The building would be, would not be at a 15 foot setback. It would be further
than 15 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm missing something.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. I guess I don't, I guess, a freestanding sign, the applicant chose not to put
a freestanding sign. Another applicant on Main Street chooses to put a freestanding sign in,
they still need to meet the 15 foot setback.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. We are requiring these applicants to keep these buildings close
to the road. Correct?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, but there is still a distance between the building and the front property line.
MR. JACKOSKI-And what is that distance?
MRS. MOORE-It could vary.
MR. GARRAND-This one looks like it's really close. It's right up on the road, and if we're pulling
the buildings forward, it kind of restricts them from having a freestanding sign. A freestanding
sign would almost have to be on the sidewalk, or close.
MRS. MOORE-It still has to be on their property line.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, he doesn't have a really option of putting a freestanding sign on this
property, the way the building is situated. I mean, there's kind of a conflict between our Comp
and, you know, the Zoning Code here.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. GARRAND-Because if we're going to pull these buildings all, you know, all new
construction, it's going to be closer to the road and the parking in the back, it's not going to allow
much space for a freestanding sign.
MR. HENKEL-Well, they could still put it in the drive area. Right?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-A freestanding sign right on the corner here somewhere.
MR. KUHL-Is there going to be a curb cut on Main Street or are they all coming in from the back
parking?
MR. GARRAND-There's a curb cut.
MR. KUHL-You've got to have a curb cut on Main Street?
MR. GENDRON-To be honest I'm unfamiliar with the construction of the site.
MR. HENKEL-This is landlocked.
MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, I've got to recuse myself. I've got this hearing thing. Is it okay? Do
you want me to sit here or do you want me to go there?
MR. JACKOSKI-You probably should leave the table.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. NOONAN-I've got one question. There's a house lot right next door on the east side.
There's a tree right there about where you would put that sign. Have you looked at the lot next
door? There's a huge tree there. Now are they talking about moving that tree? I mean, that
tree is not your, it's not on that property, not on the Dollar General's property. It's the
neighbor's.
MR. GENDRON-Does it show the tree on the site plan I have?
MR. NOONAN-1 went over to the property and that tree is right there in the way. It's like a
wasted sign, unless you're coming in with an agreement with the people next door they're going
to take that tree down.
MR. GENDRON-To be honest I'm unfamiliar with the property next door.
MR. NOONAN-Okay. I don't know if anybody else saw that, but on the east side there's a tree
right there. There's no way you can see that.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think it's their tree.
MR. GARRAND-It's that white house.
MR. NOONAN-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members at this time? We do have a
public comment period scheduled for this evening. I will open the public comment period. Is
there anyone here who would like to address the Board concerning this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, I'm going to poll the Board, and then from there we'll decide
whether or not we're going to do SEAR. So I'll start with Rick.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The original application was kind of way out of
bounds. I mean, the original request was for 207 sq. ft. of signage on this building which would
be terribly obtrusive and in my opinion it wouldn't comply at all with the Town's Comprehensive
Land Use Plan which is seeking to avoid clutter. Some of what Staff says here, moderate to
substantial impacts. I could see that if these were internally illuminated signs, and broadcasting
out with the light, but these are downcast lighting. I don't think it'll have that much of an effect. I
think it'll have a moderate at best effect on the neighborhood. This request is 41% of what the
original request was. It's 54 sq. ft. in excess, which to me is not a lot, but also part of the design
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
that we were looking for in this corridor was to have the buildings fronting on Main Street with
parking in the rear, and to me that just doesn't lend itself to having a freestanding sign. Ergo,
you know, we're going to end up with some, we may end up with a little extra signage on some
of these buildings. What I do want to see is like this, something that is not obtrusive, and I have
to thank the Planning Board for suggesting the downcast lighting.
MR. JACKOSKI-So you're in favor?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Andy?
MR. ALLISON-I'd say I'm in favor with the design. The only thing I would like to see done is that
the downcast lighting on that east side sign is tied to the building operation. So when the
building isn't being operated that lighting gets turned off.
MR. GENDRON-That's something we discussed. It would only be on during the, obviously in
the winter it would come on earlier, but when the store closes it would be shut off.
MR. ALLISON-Store hours it would be on, but when the store hours are over, that light goes off.
The front one, probably for their business they'd want to keep that on for security at the front
door.
MR. GENDRON-1 didn't discuss that with them, but we did discuss making sure that they did get
shut off at the end of the night.
MR. ALLISON-And that should really be controlled by a timer.
MR. GENDRON-Absolutely.
MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-1 mean, I've gone back and forth with this. This new proposal is much better
than the previous, the first one. That east elevation, the sign at the east elevation that's just
above the window that with the neighboring property there now, which may be blocked, I'm not
100% in favor of that one sign. The difference between the east elevation and the west
elevation, for me, is that the west elevation is above an entrance, and, you know, it makes sense
that it would be above the entrance. It would be easier to see when you're coming down that
road. You would see that near the front. So I guess as proposed I'm not in favor, but I am
certainly in favor of the south elevation and the west elevation on here.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, you know, I'm not a big fan of businesses coming with these big old requests
to begin with and then scaling back afterwards, and so it makes it look like, it's not as bad as it
was before. It's still above what you normally would be asking for, or should be asking for. On
the other hand, I understand that the particular difficulties of the Main Street corridor, and you've
been given exception to build there, outside of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and now we
have to accommodate that building with the sign. I think you should be entitled to a sign over
the entranceway, and I think you should be allowed a sign facing Main Street, but I think the
other sign needs to go. I don't think that's something that you really need. So I would be in
favor of two signs, one facing Main Street, one over the door, and that would be it.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I definitely agree with Mr. Urrico. Even though it's definitely 100% better than the
last project, and I like the down lighting, but I have to agree, after looking at the project, I would
have to say there's no sense in having that east side sign. So I would agree with the project if
they eliminate that, yes. So I'm not for the project the way it is now.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'd be in favor also, two signs as Mr. Urrico suggested, but I'd also request that
we do the conditions of store hour operations only, as well as no future freestanding sign. So
as written now, I'm not in favor.
MR. GENDRON-Could I just add a comment in there, folks?
MR. JACKOSKI-Of course.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. GENDRON-The reason for the other sign was to see from both directions of traffic, and the
building's already under construction, looking to open up in June I believe, or late June, and in
order to have the sign in time, they can't go back through this process again. They won't have a
sign for the opening. I really need a resolution to be able to get at least the two signs tonight.
MR. JACKOSKI-And we can grant you less relief. We just can't grant you more relief. So the
two signs could be granted this evening. Right now unfortunately we have no on the current
application as it sits. If you want to suggest to the Board that you would like to modify your
application, so that there are two signs, as Mr. Urrico had possibly suggested, then we could
certainly take a look at that.
MR. GENDRON-1 have no issue with that.
MR. JACKOSKI-So the applicant has requested that the Board reconsider the application with
less relief in that they have a sign off the front of the building as proposed, and a sign over the
entrance doors as proposed. Those signs would also be only illuminated during business hours.
MR. GENDRON-Correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-And that the applicants would not erect a freestanding sign that might meet
current Code. They'd be restricted from doing that. They'd have to come and ask for a
variance.
MR. HENKEL-The main sign is still going to stay lit, though, the main sign?
MR. JACKOSKI-No, the applicant has said that they will turn the signs off.
MR. GARRAND-Is the Board happy?
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'll just quickly poll the Board. Would that be a reasonable granting of relief
today, and I'll start with Andy?
MR. ALLISON-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. So first off I'm going to close the public comment, because I don't
see anyone here looking to speak with the Board. So I'm going to close the public comment. Is
there any written comment, Roy?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a SEAR motion, please.
The applicant proposes placement of 3-walls signs at 28 sq. ft. each on a proposed Planning
Board approved building. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs, maximum sign
size, and placement requirements.
The Zoning Board has determined that the proposed project and Zoning Board action is subject
to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act;
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the
regulations of the Town of Queensbury;
No Federal or other agencies are involved;
Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant;
Part 2 of the Short EAF has been reviewed by the Zoning Board;
Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse
impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared.
Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued.
MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE 9-2015 ACTION
SIGN CO. FOR DOLLAR GENERAL Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its
adoption, seconded by John Henkel;
As per the resolution prepared by staff.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Allison, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McCabe
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Now may I please have a motion for the granting of relief?
MR. NOONAN-I'll do it but I want to just make some notes on it here.
MR. GARRAND-It's in excess of 26 sq. ft. and it's one wall sign excess for the relief requested.
MR. NOONAN-Okay. So how much?
MR. GENDRON-It should be 28 sq. ft. for one sign. Correct?
MR. HENKEL-Right. So it's 56 for two.
MR. NOONAN-And it's for one wall sign in excess of 26 square feet you said? All right.
ACTION SIGN CO., LLC FOR DOLLAR GENERAL; Applicant proposes placement of 3-wall
signs at 28 sq. ft. each on a proposed Planning Board approved building. Relief requested from
number of allowable wall signs, maximum sign size, and placement requirements. There's been
a change to the application and the relief requested is not the same as has been printed. The
relief requested at this point is for two wall signs for a total of 56 sq. ft. That it winds up being
excess relief of one wall sign and in excess of 26 sq. ft., and one of them will be placed over the
storefront, and placement of the two wall signs will be on the west elevation of the building and
the other will be on the south elevation or facing Main Street.
As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the variance application was referred to
the Warren County Planning Department for its review; on 3-14-15 there was a recommendation
of No County Impact;
SEAR Type Unlisted;
The ZBA conducted a public hearing on March 18, 2015 and the public hearing was left open;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because this property and its intended use is fitting into the
Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Queensbury.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, and we have made some
changes and those changes have been agreed upon.
3. The requested variance may be considered substantial as there is excess relief for the
number of allowable signs, maximum sign size and placement.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty may not be considered self-created because the location of the
building and the requirement of placement of signs doesn't allow for the placement of
freestanding signs where they may have possibly been placed.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Two signs, one located on the storefront for the south elevation; one located at the
entrance or the west elevation.
b) The property owner building Dollar General may not erect a freestanding sign. If they
desire to do so, they must approach the Town and request a review of all applications by
the Town.
c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
d) That the lighting of the signs should be on timer and the lights should only be on during
the hours that the business is open to the public.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO.
9-2015 ACTION SIGN CO. FOR DOLLAR GENERAL, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved
for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 20th day of May 2015 by the following vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-Any further discussion or comments with Staff?
MRS. MOORE-You have discussed the timers. If you want that as part of the condition, and
you mentioned a freestanding sign needing a variance review. It could need other review. So
just remove the word variance and just say review by the Town.
MR. NOONAN-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-So let's modify, if you don't mind, because we're in the middle of this review.
Instead of saying hours of operation, let's say that hours of being open to the public. Because
quite frankly, a business is always operating, whether they're stocking shelves or loading trucks
or whatever. So let's make sure that it's while they're open for business, so to speak.
MR. NOONAN-1 would like to amend the statement that I made for bullet point D. The lights
should be on timer and the lights should only be on during the hours that the business is open to
the public.
MR. JACKOSKI-Now I'm happy.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Allison, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McCabe
MR. GENDRON-Thanks.
MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome.
NEW BUSINESS:
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2015 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID DAWKINS & ALYSSA BARBER-
DAWKINS AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL - RUCINSKI-HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S)
JEFFREY SCHWARTZ ZONING CM LOCATION 980 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING 3,458 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A DAY SPA AND
TREATMENT FACILITY. PROJECT INCLUDES UPGRADES TO PARKING AREA AND TO
INCLUDE LANDSCAPING AT FRONT OF BUILDING. BUILDING ALTERATIONS INCLUDE
FRONT FAQADE WHERE THE PROJECT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE CM
ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP 27-2015; SP 1-2014; BP 2013-542; 92-414; BP 93-
410; 95082 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2015 LOT SIZE 0.86 ACRE(S) TAX
MAP NO. 296.13-1-67 SECTION 179-3-040
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Andy's going to recuse himself from this. Andy, you have to say the
reason.
MR. ALLISON-1 have a personal relationship with the applicant.
MR. JACKOSKI-You have a personal relationship with the applicant. Thank you.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2015, David Dawkins & Alyssa Barber-Dawkins,
Meeting Date: May 20, 2015 "Project Location: 980 State Route 9 Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes to reuse an existing 3,458 sq. ft. building for a day spa and
treatment facility. Project includes upgrades to parking area and to include landscaping at front
of building.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variance as follows: Building alterations include front fagade where the
project does not meet the required setback. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts
Setback Requirements for Commercial Moderate Zone and Section 179-4-030 Travel Corridor
Front yard setback / CM
zone
Required 75 feet
Proposed 36.9 ft.
Relief 38.1 ft.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The building was constructed in 1985 and
since then the NYSDOT has had road improvements that altered the front property line.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited as
the applicant proposes to alter the fagade and entryway to an existing main structure.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate
relevant to the code. The required setback is 75 ft. and the applicant proposes 36.9 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The variance may have minimal
physical or environmental impact on the site. The fagade would provide a different
appearance to the current building.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to alter an existing fagade and to install a shade structure entry way.
The existing building is located 38 ft. 6 in from the front property line as existing non-conforming.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
The applicant has indicated the drive way entry will be changed on the south that will be one
way in and will include signage on site -plans should be updated to reflect change. The
driveway to the north will be two-way for employee parking area and clients access. The plans
should be updated to include dimensions on the floor plan exterior and to show an elevation with
dimensions of the shade structure. The plans submitted show the fagade change and the new
foot print of the shade entryway as well as the new site conditions with parking and
landscaping."
MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board made a recommendation on its behalf
for the Area Variance, and the Planning Board did not identify any significant adverse impacts
that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. It was adopted May 19, 2015
unanimously.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. It sounds like a very exciting project. Welcome.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. Jon Lapper with Alyssa Barber-Dawkins. Alyssa and
her husband David have owned Body Relief essentially across the street in Mount Royal Plaza
for 10 years now, and they've been, for the last few years, looking for a freestanding location.
Their business is successful and they've outgrown the space in the corner of that Plaza. So it
doesn't have a lot of visibility, but nevertheless they've grown a very nice business. The location
for this is perfect but the fagade is not. It's just kind of an old tired building that architecturally
really needs to be upgraded. The variance is just for a change of 18 inches closer to the road
from where the overhang is now, and it's just in that right corner. Laura, do you have this?
MRS. MOORE-1 do not have a color drawing.
MR. LAPPER-The color rendering of the fagade. So it's just orange. It's just a small pergola
just to denote where the door is, as an entranceway, and it's only, that structure is just coming
out 18 inches closer to the road from where it is now. So it's really a pretty minor dimensional
request, but it's just really architecturally visually to upgrade the building, and to highlight where
the door is. So in terms of the travel corridor overlay, the theory is always if somebody builds
close to the road and someday DOT or the Town wants to do a taking, it's going to cost a lot of
money to eminent domain to acquire a building, and here we're only talking about, you know,18
inches of a pergola. So if that were ever to happen, it's certainly not an issue and obviously the
road was widened and that's why we're in this situation. So presumably that won't happen any
time soon, but just because it's just that corner of the building, I think it's pretty minor relief, but
important to the project to just make it visually look more interesting.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Board members before I open the
public hearing? Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing this evening. Is there anyone here in
the audience who'd like to address this Board on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-There is none.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board on this project. I'll start with Kyle.
MR. NOONAN-1 don't have any problem with the project as proposed. Actually it will look nice
to have an updated look to that building. The plans look like you're planning on being a long-
term tenant. So it looks like you're doing everything right with that property.
MR. JACKOSKI-They're purchasing it.
MR. NOONAN-You're purchasing it. I thought I saw Schwartz name on here.
MR. LAPPER-He's the owner now, and we'll have a closing in a couple of weeks.
MR. NOONAN-Absolutely. I'm happy with the project as proposed.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-1 think the applicant is making some significant improvements to this as they
deemed it tired looking building. You can't very well ask them to push the building back. It's
only 18 inches. It's very, very minor relief that they're asking for. No change whatsoever.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. HENKEL-I also agree with my Board members. That property is kind of rundown and as a
whole it looks like they're going to really dress it up nice. For a little bit of relief for an overhang
it's definitely a good project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-1 have absolutely no problem with this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We have a reduced size Board this evening. You have the opportunity
if you choose to delay your project if you'd like.
MR. LAPPER-1 think we'll roll the dice tonight.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll close the public comment period.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion.
MR. NOONAN-I'll make a resolution.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
David Dawkins & Alyssa Barber Dawkins. Applicant proposes to reuse an existing 3,458 sq. ft.
building for a day spa and treatment facility. Project includes upgrades to parking area and to
include landscaping at front of building. Building alterations include front fagade where the
project does not meet the required setback. Relief requested from front yard setback
requirements in the CM zoning district.
SEAR Type 11 - no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties. This is going to be a nice added aesthetically-pleasing look to that
strip of Route 9.
2. Feasible alternatives were not necessarily discussed at this point.
3. The requested variance is not substantial.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. Is the alleged difficulty is not self-created because since the building was built, New York
State Department of Transportation kind of moved the front of the road causing there to
be an issue there.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community.
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary.
8. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
15-2015, David Dawkins & Alyssa Barber Dawkins, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McCabe
MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations and thank you very much.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody.
ALYSSA BARBER-DAWKINS
MRS. DAWKINS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2015 SEQRA TYPE II RICHARD HALL OWNER(S) RICHARD
HALL ZONING RC-3A AT TIME OF SB APPROVAL, EFFECTIVE DATE OF ZONING ORD.
APRIL 9, 2002 LOCATION 41 ALESSIA DRIVE - CERRONE WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD
SUBDIVISION PHASE I, LOT 5 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 1,900 SQ.
FT. DETACHED GARAGE. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,000 SQ. FT.
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITH ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A
SECOND GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. CROSS REF BP 2015-080 DIET.
GARAGE; BP 2015-086 SFD W/ATT. GARAGE; SB 1-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
N/A LOT SIZE 37.67 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 315.00-1-1.3 SECTION 179-5-020
RICHARD & PATTY HALL, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2015, Richard Hall, Meeting Date: May 20, 2015
"Project Location: 41 Alessia Drive - Cerrone West Mountain Road Subdivision Phase I, Lot 5
Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 1,900 sq. ft. detached
garage. Project includes construction of a 2,000 sq. ft. single family home with attached garage.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variance from Section 179-5-020 Accessory Structures specifically for a
2nd garage:
2 nd Garage
Required 1
Proposed/ Existing 2
Relief 1
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available
to construct the garage attached to the proposed home to be larger.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The variance may have minimal
physical or environmental impact on the site.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Staff comments:
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
The applicant proposes to construct a single family home and a detached garage on a 37.67
acre parcel. The project occurs on a parcel that is part of a previously approved subdivision that
identified clearing areas and slopes. The applicant has included a survey of the property
showing the location of the proposed home and garage. The applicant has indicated the
additional garage would allow for storage of boats, atv, trailers that would not fit in the house
garage."
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. HALL-I'm Richard Hall. This is my wife Patty, and we're the ones that are requesting the
Area Variance for a detached garage for the storage purposes, for boats, ATV's, trailers, stuff
like that, and the home has already started construction with an attached small downsized
garage. The foundation is being poured tomorrow, and I'm just trying to request for the
additional space because my deed actually requires everything on the property to be inside a
garage, or no parking of anything on the property for more than 24 hours.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. It seems straightforward enough. Would you just briefly
explain where the placement of this larger garage is going to be on the property? In other
words, how far off of the road, and if it's behind the current house, etc.
MR. HALL-Yes. The house itself is located approximately 500 feet off the road. It's a wooded
lot. The garage is actually located about another 120 feet behind, and to the right, of the
dwelling, and the way that the terrain is, because of the mountainous elevation changes, it
actually, it's hidden from the road because there's actually an outcrop of a higher elevation of
ledge. So it makes that invisible from any of the neighbors or the road.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Mr. Garrand.
MR. GARRAND-I can, given the size of this property, I can understand why you would need an
accessory building in order to store things like your tractor and chain saws and things like that
that you're going to need to maintain this property. It's a big lot. The other thing I've noticed in
your deed is there are deed restrictions in here. Said lot shall be used for residential purposes
only. No structure shall be erected, altered, or placed permitted on said lot other than a one
family residence and attached garage, and accessory storage utility pool building as defined
herein. Accessory storage will not be larger than 300 sq. ft. print dimension and not taller than
18 feet. Will this be taller than 18 feet? Because the drawings I looked at didn't show me the
height.
MR. HALL-You're talking about an accessory structure of 300 sq. ft., on my deed.
MR. GARRAND-Well, on your deed there will be no accessory structure larger than 300 sq. ft.
MR. HALL-Right and when I spoke to the attorney that's wrong. Basically, it was discussing not
even a detached garage. It was discussing having a shed or a pool housing, but that the
detached garage was a totally different identity than what you're reading about with the 300, and
that was Mr. Cerrone.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, they've written this deed messed up, then.
MR. HALL-Yes, because I questioned that.
MR. GARRAND-Because this deed basically restricts you from building anything larger than 300
sq. ft. as an accessory structure. Well, you're not going to fit a lot of stuff in a 300 sq. ft.
accessory structure.
MR. HALL-Right, and he said they were referring to that as like building a shed, but a garage
was different. That's how we told me.
MR. JACKOSKI-We're not going to enforce deed restrictions. That's up to those who conveyed
the property to the applicant. If we grant this and they have issues with their title, that's for them
to work out with their attorneys.
MR. HALL-Okay.
MR. URRICO-The Staff Notes say this was a previously approved subdivision.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. URRICO-How many lots of the subdivision do you occupy?
MR. HALL-I only bought one lot.
MR. URRICO-Just the one lot?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Are there any plans to subdivide that lot?
MR. HALL-It can't be subdivided.
MR. URRICO-It can't be subdivided?
MR. HALL-No, and it only has approximately 120 feet of road frontage. It's at the end of a cul
de sac. Most of the property is going up the mountain, and the lot's 500 and something feet
wide. So it's very long and somewhat narrow. Most of the property from where the triangle on
the right hand side where it hits the point, from there back is a no cut, which if you read the
deed, there's a no cut zone.
MR. GARRAND-No cut zone in the back.
MR. HALL-So it's just basically property to say it's yours and you can go hike and walk. It's not
something that you're going to do anything else on, and the subdivision itself is like 15 lot. Two
of them are on Corinth Road. The other 13 are on that road.
MR. GARRAND-It's not too far from where your house is, right?
MR. HALL-I've sold that house. Yes, I just closed today.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any further comments or questions from Board members before I open the
public comment period?
MR. ALLISON-Just one question. What sort of connection are you going to have to the lot,
because on the site plan it doesn't show that you have a road going back to that building or
anything?
MR. HALL-The driveway? Yes, there's already a driveway in. I think I gave Laura a copy of
the one survey.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. HALL-From my surveyor showing the road.
MR. ALLISON-It shows the road going up to the house, but it doesn't show it connecting to the
garage.
MR. HALL-Yes, where that goes to the house, it just comes back about another 50 feet and then
it bears to the.
MR. ALLISON-You're just going to keep it like that 18 foot wide paved?
MR. HALL-Yes.
MR. ALLISON-Paved?
MR. HALL-It's probably going to be gravel at that point. I'm already doing a 500 foot driveway
to get to the house, and then plus a turnaround at the top. I was told that we needed to have a
good enough turnaround at the top so that if there was emergency vehicles and what not, and
then it would go to gravel after I came off the home property to the attached garage, and then
back there there's a larger turnaround as well which would be all gravel.
MR. ALLISON-And that's a ledge up there, right, it levels off? It's not a swale that goes back
between the two?
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. HALL-Where the garage proposed site is is a pretty level area. The terrain bumps up in the
front, like I said, which eliminates anybody seeing the structure from the road, and then at the
back of the home site is where the other outcrop of the rise in the elevation starts continuing up
and then that plateaus again and goes back another 500 or 600 feet before it starts rising again
to the top of the mountain.
MR. ALLISON-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no other Board comments at this time, the public comment period is
open. Is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to
address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one I'll leave the public
comment period open for a moment here, and I'll seek the polling of the Board, and I'll start this
time with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I know Code calls for one garage per property, but this is kind of a big lot,
and I think the second structure, second garage is needed here. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. I agree with Roy. I think it's definitely warranted for a second garage. I go
with the project, yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-1 believe I said that already.
MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-I'm okay with the project as proposed.
MR. JACKOSKI-Andy?
MR. ALLISON-Yes, I'm fine with the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public comment period and seek a motion.
MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Richard Hall.
Applicant proposes construction of 1,900 sq. ft. detached garage. Project includes construction
of a 2,000 sq. ft. single-family home with attached garage. Relief requested for a second garage
where only one is allowed. They're asking for two.
SEAR Type 11 - no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because this project will be out of view and considerably far away
from the road.
2. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the terrain and the necessity for a second garage
to house vehicles that may not fit in the main structure garage.
3. The requested variance is considered substantial because it's looking for 100% relief.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. Is the alleged difficulty may be considered self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare
of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
16-2015, RICHARD HALL, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Richard Garrand:
Duly adopted this 20TH day of May, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Allison, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Congratulations. Good luck.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much. I just had one quick question. What do I need to do as far as
moving forward? Because they're pouring concrete. I would like to move on to the other
structure.
MRS. MOORE-We'll talk in the morning. It's just in reference to submitting the final plans, if we
have enough sets. Did you already apply for your building permit for the garage?
MR. HALL-Yes, I did.
MRS. MOORE-So chances are we'll be able to look at it tomorrow.
MR. HALL-Okay. Thank you so much.
MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome, and good luck.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED LYNNE FISH & WENDY
SCHMIDT AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S)
LYNNE FISH & WENDY SCHMIDT ZONING RR-3A AND WR LOCATION SUNNYSIDE
ROAD NORTH AND DREAM LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3-LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION FOR THE TWO VACANT LOTS (TO BE MERGED). RELIEF REQUESTED
FOR PROPOSED LOT 2 AND 3 FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS.
LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 SEEK RELIEF FROM MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. CROSS
REF SB 5-2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2015 LOT SIZE 12.6 AND 2.05
ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 279.17-1-1 AND 7 SECTION 179-3-040
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2015, Lynne Fish & Wendy Schmidt, Meeting Date:
May 20, 2015 "Project Location: Sunnyside Road North and Dream Lake Road Description
of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 3-lot residential subdivision for the two vacant lots
(to be merged).
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances from Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts dimensional
requirements.
Lots 2 & 3 Minimum Road Frontage Lots 2 & 3 Minimum Lot Width
Required 400 ft. 400 ft.
Proposed Lot 2 328.30 ft. , Lot 3 167.31 ft. Lot 2 262 ft., Lot 3 167.31 ft.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
Relief Lot 2 71.7 ft., Lot 3 232.7 ft. Lot 2 138 ft., Lot 3 183 ft.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The lots meet the required lot size.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available
but would require lot rearrangement that may still require variance relief.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The variance may have minimal
physical or environmental impact on the site. The applicant has arranged the lots so they
can be developed for single family homes and minimize impacts to the site with topographic
constraints.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a subdivision of a 14.65 acre parcel into three lots ranging in size from
4.5, 5.0 & 5.2 acres. All three parcels are split zone with the zone line for WR and RR3A shown
on the plans. The homes are proposed to be located in the RR3A portion of each parcel. The
Lots for 2 and 3 as proposed due not meet the required lot width or the required road frontage
for the RR3A zone. The project is subject to SEAR and the applicant has submitted a long form.
The project is not subject to a coordinated review as the subdivision is not a realty subdivision,
so each board is to complete SEAR as part of the review."
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board made a recommendation and it did not identify any
significant impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current proposal, and it was adopted May
19, 2015, and it was unanimous.
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. Good evening, Board. I'm Tom Hutchins, here with co-owner
Lynne Fish, and the Staff Notes really summarize this quite well, that I would say the property
has been in the family for, what, 90 years, yes, 95 years, and I think you can see what we're
proposing is well within the character of the neighborhood, density wise. We're able to meet the
density requirements of the current Ordinance as well as all setbacks. All access would be from
Sunnyside Road North. There would be no disturbance in the WR area. There is a zone line
that splits the, actually doesn't split the parcel because there are two separate parcels, one on
either side of the zone line, and that's also a school district line, for what it's worth. All the work
would be within the RR-3 zone, and we do seek relief from 400 foot road frontage, and average
lot width for two of the lots, and I think it's pretty clear. I'll turn it over to the Board for questions
if you have any.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Tom. Any questions from the Board members? This is a fairly
simple application. Seeing none, I will open the public comment period. Is there anyone here
in the audience this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this application? I
see two hands being raised, and before they come up to the table, Roy, is there any written
comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes, I have two letters. "We are the owners of a code compliant property, 56
Dream Lake Road, directly across from the code-compliant vacant lot in question. We
understand from your Public Hearing Notice we received on Friday May 15th, 2015, that the
owners, Lynne Fish and Wendy Schmidt, wish to seek a zoning variance to create sub-standard
lots under the Town of Queensbury zoning ordinances. There is no hardship that can be
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
determined for dividing these parcels into tense sub-standard lots other than for personal wish.
Therefore, under current New York State law, the requested variances cannot be granted. We
believe that the current zoning codes of the Town of Queensbury protect the beauty and the
fragility of the environmental ecosystem of Dream Lake. We commend our town for having
such codes in place that protect the properties of those who surround the lake. We therefore
request that the Queensbury Zone of Appeals not overturn their current zoning codes, and
instead, enforce the existing code by turning down the Lynne Fish and Wendy Schmidt request.
We request that this letter be read Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at the public hearing of the Zoning
Board of Appeals meeting. Should we need to be reached that evening, you may contact us at
an alternate cell number or email. Sincerely, Deborah Mumford, EdD Allan Mumford" "From
the notice I received in the mail, I understand that Lynne Fish and Wendy Schmidt are seeking a
zoning variance to create sub-standard lots under the Town of Queensbury zoning codes. As
far as I can tell, there is no hardship that can be determined for dividing the referenced land into
three sub-standard lots other than for selling three pieces of developable land rather than one or
two, therefore can the requested variances even be legally granted under New York State law?
I believe that the current zoning codes of the Town of Queensbury are in place to protect unique
eco environments such as the one found around Dream Lake, as well as unique marshlands
and springs such as those found on the property in question abutting Dream Lake. Therefore, I
respectfully request that the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals does NOT overturn their
current zoning codes, and continue to enforce the currently existing codes by denying both of
the Lynne Fish and Wendy Schmidt zoning variance requests. I also request that this letter be
entered into public record during the public hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals on
Wednesday, May 20, 2015, as I will be unable to attend. Respectfully submitted, Michael
Rivette 66 Dream Lake Road South"
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and if you would like to join us here at the table. Welcome, and if
you could identify yourselves for the record and give us your address, please.
JANICE HOLDING
MRS. HOLDING-My name is Janice Holding. I live across the lake at 48 Dream Lake Road.
ANDREW HOLDING
MR. HOLDING-I'm Andrew Holding. 48 Dream Lake Road. 48 Dream Lake Road is a
Waterfront Residential parcel due north, on your chart you'll see due north across Dream Lake
from parcel 279.17-1-7. The entire northwest boundary of that parcel is visible from our
property. I'm also the secretary and treasurer of the Dream Lake Association, but I want to
state for the record that I'm not speaking for the Association, but as an individual adjacent
homeowner. The proposed project starts out by merging two lots, which the owner certainly
has the right to do, but when the two lots are merged, the less restrictive lot usually has to take
on the zoning character of the more restrictive lot. The applicant then proposes to subdivide
that resulting lot into three separate lots. So a determination needs to be made, first, on what
the area requirements might even be for those new resultant lots. That has to be done before
the Board can even entertain a request for relief from the zoning requirements. The public
hearing notice states, as you've heard, that the relief is requested for lots two and three from the
minimum road frontage and from one, two and three, relief from minimum lot requirements.
However, no mention is even made of the possible relief needed from Table One, Column A,
minimum water frontage. So if any of these resultant lots do not comply with the minimum
waterfront, whatever that might be determined to be for those new lots, then the application for
relief of non-compliance will need to be addressed for that also. Regardless of how end of this
shakes out in the end, Page Four of the application, Item Number Five, addresses whether the
hardship is self-created. The answer doesn't even suggest a hardship. The answer, and I
believe, if I'm quoting accurately here, merely states it is the applicant's desire to pursue the
project, and also, quote, we need to pursue the Area Variances in order to achieve a reasonable
rate of return. In viewing the plans, one of our concerns, great concerns, is how to guarantee
that anything brought before this Board is actually built the way it's labeled as proposed. So
we're looking for some sort of guidance there. The septic on all three fields are 30 to 40 feet
above Dream Lake. Now I know they're well designed for their proposed locations, and I know
that because they were designed by Tom Hutchins who is extremely competent and actually
designed our septic system, but our concern is if the plans all denote proposed, where are the
final houses going to be? Where are the final septics going to be? And what sort of controls
does this Board have to ensure that what is proposed comes to be? We have another issue
which, now it may not be an issue. There are basic covenants and restrictions on all of the lots
around Dream Lake. Now, if this has been in the Fish family before it was Lewis property, this
may not apply, but all of the other parcels have deeds that have restrictions, some of which are
humorous, no spirits shall be brewed or sold on the premises, etc., but one of them, Number
Nine, that appears in all of the waterfront lots that I know of, says the parcels are not to be, the
exact quote is, excuse me, that said premise shall not be subdivided. So I haven't had time to
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
check back the four deeds that we would have to check back to because the last deed is just a
transfer between Schmidt and Fish and Schmidt and Fish. So that's one of the things that would
have to be looked at. I'm not asking the Board tonight to deny, but rather to table it until the
deed research could be done, and until the owners could work out some sort of, as much as you
can do it within Code, guarantee that things would be built at the distances in this proposed
plan. Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Thank you.
MRS. HOLDING-Should I say my name again?
MR. JACKOSKI-You can. I mean, I gave additional time because you were there together. So
if you could make it kind of quick. That would be appreciated.
MRS. HOLDING-1 am opposed to the project because I think it is a self-created hardship. I think
if you wanted to do two lots, that would work better. I'm concerned about the fact that they are
waterfront lots, and though it says proposed, houses are going to be closer to the Sunnyside
Road. What's to prevent multiple houses from appearing right on Dream Lake? I guess the
one point that I'd want to say is in the previous application about the garage, part of the motion
was that the benefit of the homeowner would not be outweighed by the detriment to the
neighbors and the environment, and I think that this is not their home. This is an investment.
They're trying to, as their application says, get the best rate of return. So this is solely for profit,
and I would ask the Board not to change the rules for someone's profit. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to
address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public comment
period open for the time being. If the applicant could re-join us at the table. So, Tom, I think the
biggest concern is, in public comment, could you just mention the, if there are minimum
waterfront footage requirements for the lots in that zone.
MR. HUTCHINS-How would that work, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-I looked it up, and the lot, the shoreline frontages are labeled on the plans and it
only requires 150 feet, or in excess of 150 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So that answers that. Thank you.
MR. HUTCHINS-So we're good there.
MR. JACKOSKI-And to address public comment concerning the proposed areas to be built,
obviously they would have to go to Site Plan, correct, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Currently they're going through the subdivision process. Two of the lots would
actually be subject to site plan review in the future because of the 50 feet, within 50 feet of 15%
slopes. Then typically when someone has proposed a clearing area on a subdivision plat,
they're limited to that sort of square footage. Where they place that on the lot, we typically try to
keep it in the area that has been proposed. The applicant could come back to the Board at
some point and say I'd like to relocate that to another area or communicate with the Zoning
Administrator about relocating the particular area.
MR. JACKOSKI-So again they would have to come back to us to change from what the current
plan is?
MR. HUTCHINS-We would have to go back to, likely, the Planning Board.
MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry, I meant the Planning Board, I meant the Town, but I meant the Planning
Board, correct.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MRS. HOLDING-Point of clarification? I didn't understand something she said.
MR. JACKOSKI-We can't, I mean, sorry. Do any other Board members have any questions?
Okay. The public comment period is still open in case we continue this application. I'm going
to poll the Board. I'm going to start with Rick.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. GARRAND-1 went down there. It seems like these lots are a lot bigger than some of the
lots that are down there. This is an RR-3A zone. Only part of this is listed as the WR zone.
The houses are going to be in the RR-3A zone. They're all over four acres. One of them is
almost six acres, and they are considerably bigger than the lots in the area, the other lots in the
area, and also the placement of the houses is not going to be on the waterfront, which seriously
mitigates the effects of any of the septic or potential runoffs from these homes. There is a
sizeable difference from where these homes would be and the water. I think any impacts are
going to be mitigated by that, plus the size of the lots.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Rick. Thank you. Andy?
MR. ALLISON-I'm actually not in favor of it as it's proposed, and I think we should go down to
two lots to stay within the zoning. Just from the site plan, the grading plan, I think it's going to
be really challenging to get houses in there that don't greatly adverse the existing landscape.
So I'd say we stick to what our zoning calls for.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-1 don't have a problem, at this point, with the project as proposed. My thoughts
are similar to what Rick has stated. If you look at the lots that are there with what is proposed,
the distance from the lake, you would always have to come back to the Town Planning Board
then Zoning Board to get some approvals if you wanted variances within any of these other
boundaries, you know, if you wanted to change something outside of what's currently on here, if
this were to be approved. So I'm okay with the project as proposed.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. HENKEL-John?
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry, I did it again, poor Mike, he's not here. John.
MR. HENKEL-I agree with Rick and Kyle, you know, that they're all over three acres. The only
concern I would have would be the septic systems also, but they're not going to be near the lake
anyway. They'll only be near actually kind of Lake Sunnyside, and that has to all go through
review anyway. So I don't see where there's any major concern there where it's going to hurt
anybody or environment or anything like that. So I'd definitely be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I just want to remind people that the Zoning Code is not cut and dried. It
allows flexibility for variances to make exceptions, and the reason for that is because the State
of New York does not want to see homeowners restricted in such a way that they're not able to
do anything with their property at all, and what our job here is, as a Zoning Board, is to make
sure they're not taking advantage of that variance process. So that's why we go through this
balancing test, and the balancing test is just that, a balancing test. It doesn't mean that one of
the tests overwhelms the other. It just means that we have to weigh all the good with the bad,
or basically provide the minimum variance necessary, that we see. In looking at the test, I see
that there will be minor impacts to the neighborhood. I see feasible alternatives may be
available, but it would require the lot arrangements that would still require variance relief. The
relief is moderate. I see it pretty comparable to the lots are going to be bigger than what's seen
in most of that neighborhood. So I don't think it's going to have an impact on the neighborhood
as well, and I think the alleged difficulty is self-created, but I think on balance I would be in favor
of the application.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Roy, and I agree with Roy's comments. I'm comfortable
with the application as it stands. So at this time I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm going to seek a motion from the Board.
MR. GARRAND-SEAR?
MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry. We have to do SEAR because it's Unlisted. My apologies. Rick?
MR. GARRAND-No problem.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2015
LYNNE FISH & WENDY SCHMIDT, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Henkel:
Based upon the information provided by the applicant and the supporting documentation
provided by Staff and the applicant, I move that we give this a Negative Declaration.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Allison
ABSENT: Mr. McCabe
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Now may I please have a motion to grant the Area Variance.
MR. GARRAND-I'll make it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Lynne Fish & Wendy Schmidt. Applicant proposes a 3-lot residential subdivision for the two
vacant lots (to be merged). Relief requested for proposed lot 2 and 3 from minimum road
frontage requirements. Lots 1, 2, and 3 seek relief from minimum lot width requirements.
SEAR Type: Unlisted;
MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2015
LYNNE FISH & WENDY SCHMIDT, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Henkel:
Based upon the information provided by the applicant and the supporting documentation
provided by Staff and the applicant, move that we give this a Negative Declaration.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Allison
ABSENT: Mr. McCabe
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because it's moderate changes to the neighborhood. The
applicant is restricted by the topography of this property as to where they can actually
build these homes, and I think that's a major factor that's not going to have too much of
an effect on the neighborhood.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. They are reasonable and
have been included to minimize the request. The benefits can be achieved by other
means feasible to the applicant given the outline of the layout of this property, I mean,
basically the way the property lines were drawn up here and the Zoning Code is, they're
going to need lot width relief. If there was such a thing as lot length here, they wouldn't
need relief at all because these lots are 6,700 feet long. The only mitigating factor here
is the lot width, which is what they are here asking relief from.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. I think it's moderate at best.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district. These homes are far enough away that all effects are going to
be mitigated by the distance from Dream Lake and also the fact that these lots are
almost six acres. You've got another one that's 4.4 acres, another one that's 4.5 acres.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
The homes to be built are all way-far-away from the lake and there's a considerable
distance for any type of infiltration that needs to be done; but like I said before, the
slopes of these lots are going to restrict these applicants from where they can actually
build or do anything on these lots.
5. The alleged difficulty may be deemed self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
21-2015, Lynne Fish & Wendy Schmidt, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Allison
ABSENT: Mr. McCabe
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED THOMAS J. KUBRICKY
AGENT(S) ERNEST STANLEY OWNER(S) THOMAS J. KUBRICKY ZONING WR
LOCATION 53 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 1,062 SQ. FT. OF
IMPERMEABLE SURFACE; 600 SQ. FT. PAVED PARKING AREA AND 462 SQ. FT. OF
SIDEWALK AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 31-2015;
AV 67-2014; BP 2014-342 DECK; BP 2012-035 DOCK; BP 2010-220 DECK WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2015 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.14
ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-24 SECTION 179-3-040
TOM KUBRICKY, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-We have had this application in front of us recently.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2015, Thomas J. Kubricky, Meeting Date: May 20,
2015 "Project Location: 53 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes installation of parking and sidewalk areas on a 5,587 sq. ft. parcel. A portion of the
installation is within 50 feet of the shoreline.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require an area variance as follows for permeability, Section 179-3-040
Establishment of Districts Area requirements.
Permeability
Required 75 %
Proposed 61 %
Relief 14 %
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available
to minimize the amount of sidewalk segments although a variance may still be necessary
due to lot size.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered minimal relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project will have minimal to no
adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental impacts.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant requests relief from permeability for the installation of sidewalks and parking area.
The WR zone requires 75% permeable, the existing site is 69% (this includes Rockhurst
portion), 61% is proposed -also including the Rockhurst Portion -values differ from applicants
data sheet due to Rockhurst. The applicant has indicated when there are guest on the property
that it would be easier for them to walk from the boat dock to the deck with a sidewalk area. The
applicant also had prepared the parking area so guests did not park on the road and would have
access to the sidewalk area. The plans show the location of the proposed sidewalk area and
the existing parking area."
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board made a recommendation that did not identify any
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current proposal. It was adopted
May 19, 2015 unanimously.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome, Tom. Is there anything you'd like to add to the
application at this time or should we just ask questions?
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, I would like to thank Sue and Laura and Craig Brown for the help they've
given us to get to this point. We talked to, you know, we appreciate what you've done for us by
giving us permission to put the deck on. We were unaware that we needed a permit for the
sidewalk. All my neighbors up there, I went and talked to 24 of them up there, and they all
have, you know, nobody was aware that we needed a permit for a sidewalk going down through
there, and what I did is I had it engineered so that any runoff will not go into the lake. The part
that, you know, it's really a small sidewalk that I'm asking for from you guys if it's okay. It's more
of a safety thing. I wanted it four feet wide so two people could walk down to the sidewalk and I
did everything that you guys asked me to on the last one, you know, with the shrubbery and all
that. So environmentally it won't have any effect on Lake George at all because the sidewalk,
you know, when it rains it'll, hits down it'll all run on the grass and it's a pretty good area. So I'd
ask for your permission to do that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members at this time?
MR. HENKEL-I've got one question. What's this little six by seven area that's?
MR. KUBRICKY-That's a place to park bicycles. I've got two granddaughters and I've got it
right about where the ladder is going on there. It's just to put their bicycles there. They wanted
to leave them up there for the summer, but, you know, if it bothers any of you I'll be happy to
take that out.
MR. HENKEL-I think you've done a great job of getting the cars off the street, because I mean,
that's tight up there. So it's nice of you.
MR. KUBRICKY-Thank you.
MR. HENKEL-That is a lot of concrete.
MR. KUBRICKY-Whatever I can do for you.
MR. HENKEL-The permeability, it would be nice to get that up a little bit better.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. I'd be happy to go, instead of going three foot sidewalks, or instead of
going four foot I'd be happy to go three, you know, if that would help any of you. I'll basically do
whatever you want me to. I just want to.
MR. HENKEL-That lot is pretty level, isn't it? It's not like you, it's not like going from your deck
to the lake. It's pretty level there. It's not like you've got a bunch of rocks in there.
MR. KUBRICKY-No, I've got it graded beautiful. I mean, if I cut it down to three foot wide, I'd
have like 300 square feet of sidewalk. I kind of wanted to have it so that there's no trip, you
know what I mean? My mother's like 80 years old so she's got to have somebody help her
down, up, and it's actually we've got a boat that, you know what I mean.
Kids with strollers.
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, but like I said, we'll do whatever you would like us to do.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing?
MR. NOONAN-1 didn't do the math, but how much, did you do the math to figure out, if you took
a foot off the width or maybe a foot off one of ends or two feet, how to get that permeability
closer to something in Code? I mean, I'm just asking if there's any alternate.
MR. KUBRICKY-With respect to your question, what I did is on the deck, what I did is I put
quarter inch gaps on the deck going across there. This deck you guys gave me permission I'm
very grateful to you for doing that.'
MR. NOONAN-1 remember the project.
MR. KUBRICKY-And what I did is instead of putting the boards all tight together, I left a gap in
all of them, so, you know, I didn't take that into account, but, you know what I mean, I left the
gap because it actually looks nicer with a gap in them than it did tight together. So you can see,
I didn't realize, you know, but, yes.
MR. NOONAN-Yes, is there anywhere on the proposed sidewalk?
MR. KUBRICKY-I'll tell you, if we cut it down to three foot wide, it would be 310 square feet, and,
you know.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, you could almost cut it down to 147 square feet if you did away with that six
by seven.
MR. KUBRICKY-I'll be happy to do that for you. Like I said, it's more of a safety issue. I want
my mother to be able to come in off the parking lot and walk in and not trip and fall. I'd like the
people to go down to the dock and I put concrete steps in. Have any of you guys been up
there? Yes, you know, I've got it kind of handicap where they can kind of go down the lake and
come back out, you know, and the same way with that boat. I've got little ramps and the boat
where they don't have to jump over. They can kind of just, kind of trying to make it really
friendly, you know, for everybody, and like I said, I appreciate what you did for me with the deck,
and after talking with all my neighbors, you know what I mean, I know none of them got permits
for sidewalks or anything like that, and we were unaware that we needed permits for sidewalks,
but, you know, when Craig Brown came up and did the inspection on the deck, I asked him and
he told me and I said, okay, you know, because we appreciate living in Queensbury.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, Tom, can you tell me, what are you going to make the sidewalk out of?
MR. KUBRICKY-Concrete.
MR. JACKOSKI-Why aren't you using permeable pavers?
MR. KUBRICKY-Because the thing with the pavers and stuff like that is it's kind of a rough ride.
I mean, you know, we can finish concrete where it really looks like glass and it's like, you know
what I mean, if you're pushing anything down it or if you're walking down it and you don't have
the weed problems and stuff like that, and if it was a parking lot that we were doing, that was like
a, you know, if I was concerned about water runoff, you know what I mean, I could see the point,
but on such a small area, you know what I mean, with a quarter per foot, you know, it's going to,
you know, it wouldn't really, you know, for aesthetics, you know, I kind of like straight lines, you
know, I do myself, I kind of like everything clean looking where it's kind of maintenance free so
to speak.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. HENKEL-How about permeable asphalt?
MR. KUBRICKY-Well, I'll tell you, that, you know, it's new, you know what I mean, and, you
know, we'll see with Beach Road, you know what I mean, do you want to pave it every year?
My parking lot is off the 50 foot zone, you know, I'm really here because I'm like 360 square feet
I'm asking to do closer to the lake, because they have restrictions up there.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, the restriction on a non-permeable surface within how many feet of
the lake?
MRS. MOORE-Fifty feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-And what is the restriction again?
MRS. MOORE-It requires review. Within 50 feet, hard surfacing requires review.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any hard surface?
MRS. MOORE-Any hard surface.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is the deck considered hard surfacing?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. KUBRICKY-What the deck is, I did spread the deck out, as you can see in the picture.
MR. JACKOSKI-No, I know. I remember the application. I remember going through the review,
and I remember saying that we knew that we were within the 50 feet and we were providing a
hard surface, but we were willing to do it because you were saving and maintaining all of the
lawn. Now you're hard surfacing a lot of the lawn. That's what I recall.
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, you know, I still have a lot of the lawn there, you know what I mean, and I
have good drainage.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we have a public comment period scheduled for this evening. I'd like
to open the public comment period. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to
address the Board concerning this public comment period?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-Yes. It says, "On May 18th Staff Land Use Planner Laura Moore received a
phone call in reference to the Site Plan and Area Variance for the Tom Kubricky project of
parking area and sidewalk. The caller Margaret Colacino has property at 49 Rockhurst Drive
and is neighbor to the proposed project. She has expressed concerns about the site
stormwater management with the new impervious surface-in reference to the parking area with
road flooding and the new sidewalk where the stormwater would be directed to? She also
expressed concern with the amount of relief being requested that there has been continued
requests for relief on this property."And that's that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other comments? Having no other comments, I'll leave the public
comment period open. I would remind everyone that we do have a SEAR to get through on this
parcel. I'd like to poll the Board.
MR. URRICO-What would be the relief if we gave you three feet width and we took away that
property, the six by seven, what would be left?
MR. HENKEL-147 away from whatever you've got there.
MR. KUBRICKY-362, it would be half of that.
MR. URRICO-Because you said you'd be willing to take that.
MR. KUBRICKY-No, I will, I'd be happy to do that for you. I just wanted to tell you fellow
members that the lady next to me that wrote the letter, you know, this lady, they just don't like
me. I've never done anything to them, but they won't stop, you know, just so you know that,
and the other 24 people on Rockhurst think what I've done there is, they've been very grateful to
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
me. This lady here hasn't even seen what we've done and she just keeps going on, you know,
but I'd be happy to take that out and cut the sidewalk down to three foot, you know, like I said.
MR. JACKOSKI-Why is so much concrete needed along, being parallel to the shoreline?
MR. KUBRICKY-Well, what it is is I've got the steps and I've got the dock there, and I kind of
wanted to have it simple, you know, where they can go down and they go down in the water and
they come back out. They're not dragging grass up. My lawn, I've really spent a lot of money
to make sure that nothing went, you know what I mean? I think I did a nice job of setting it up
where it's environmentally friendly, if you're worried about that.
MR. HENKEL-Do you have any idea approximately what's the, from the edge of the concrete to
both sides of your property north and south? Because it really doesn't have a measurement
there.
MR. KUBRICKY-If you go back in the picture, just so I know what area you're talking about.
MR. JACKOSKI-What we're looking for is how much green space is to either side of the parallel
walkway.
MR. KUBRICKY-Okay. We were asking for 362. We were asking for a variance for 362 feet
additional what's allowed, and that was with a four foot sidewalk. What I have formed up up
there, which everybody went up and saw, is a three foot sidewalk. That's what's formed up
right now is a three foot sidewalk, and I think that's kind of about as tight as we can go. You see
where I have the stairs there? I could throw in some shrubs. I cut it down as much as I could to
make it where it could, you know, if you look at that lot, even where the septic system is and all
that, I really, you know, it's an awful big lot, and it's one of the biggest lots up there that has
more green on it. It's like the lady that wrote the letter to you guys, she has like a sidewalk
going to her dock that, you know, she didn't get a permit for, you know, and the lady to the right
of me, the reason she didn't write a letter is because she put up a 14 by 12 concrete deck that
she didn't get a permit for, you know, and I know that we have to follow the protocol, you know,
I'm coming to you before I'm doing it asking you. You know, these people did it after and then
they're writing letters, you know, trying to bad talk me, and I'm the one that came before you
people asking for a variance, and then they gave me that and then for site plan review, you
know, I'm trying to tell you that I'd really like this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to poll the Board at this time. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm sort of waiting for Laura to see what she comes up with as far as.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So it's narrowed down to three square feet or three feet in width, and it's
915 square feet total, that's 315 for the sidewalks and 600 square feet for the parking area.
MR. HENKEL-Does that also eliminating that six by seven?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. URRICO-What is that percentage wise?
MR. KUBRICKY-It should be right about there.
MR. HENKEL-Because we've got to gain 14.
MR. URRICO-Well, I think I would be in favor of it with the new calculation what it comes out to.
MR. KUBRICKY-Thank you.
MR. HENKEL-I'd also be in favor of it if you eliminate the six by seven and narrowing it down to
three feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Andy?
MR. ALLISON-I'd be in favor, but I'd really like you to consider doing permeable pavers.
They're done a lot now. The technology on those is great. You can make a really flat surface
with them and you've done a really great job with your project so far, showing how to mitigate
hard surfaces and being an example, and, you know, you're going through all the right steps.
So I would ask that you consider doing the permeable pavers.
MR. HENKEL-Is there quite a bit of cost difference?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. KUBRICKY-It's a maintenance, you know, the pavers are, you know, I'm not, I've done
both. What people don't understand is if you put Type 11 sub base under permeable paver for
95%, it's zilch, and everybody says permeable pavers put down Type 11 sub base and it's like,
you know what I mean?
MR. GARRAND-You don't need to proctor it to 95%. 1 mean, this is a sidewalk, you don't have
cars or trucks on it.
MR. KUBRICKY-No, you're right. No, I know what you're saying, but to get your pavers so they
don't move.
MR. GARRAND-Any pavers are going to move anyway, you know, with the frost heaves and
everything.
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, but we're talking up and down. I'm talking penetration of water. It's the
sub base, it's like on each side of my sub base I've got six inches of topsoil and sod. So my
perc is going through that and sand going down through, you know what I'm saying, on my lawn
side, you know what I mean, where the concrete is it would be like, you know, it would be sub
base. It would be the same with pavers, but what I'm saying is like in a three foot area, if the
water runs to the right or the left, it's a foot and a half each way, you know, our perc is going to
be, what we're saving isn't really a lot, but I'll do whatever you guys, if it really, you know, the
concrete part of it. Concrete is just cleaner.
MRS. MOORE-Sixty-five percent would be proposed.
MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-Okay. Mr. Kubricky, I actually love your honesty, you tell us what you want and
why you want it and things like cleanliness, appearance, ease of maintenance. I think that's
wonderful. I just like the fact that you were just telling us what you want, but I think we should
compromise and go to the three foot width and, you know, then I think I would feel better with
granting minimum relief now necessary and then maybe we could all be happy.
MR. KUBRICKY-1 appreciate that.
MR. NOONAN-So I would be in favor of a compromise with a three foot width. Not in favor as
proposed, and taking the six by seven out.
MR. KUBRICKY-I'll do it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-1 don't like the hard surfacing up close to the lake. We've been spanked on
this before, as a lot of you can probably remember, and justifiably so. It's a Critical
Environmental Area, going through SEAR. There's several answers on here I came up with,
you know, impacts on on SEAR. I don't think we should take this lightly. Are there other
means feasible? Of course there are. Permeable. Use nothing but permeable pavers there.
It's another means feasible. Adverse physical or environmental effects. Additional stormwater,
when you've got hard surfacing right up against the edge of the lake, you're going to have
stormwater effects. Is it self-created? Once again, yes. For me it just fails the balancing test.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I'm struggling. Staff can you tell me, did we include in the square footage
calculations the non-permeable surface of that whole area along the shoreline?
MRS. MOORE-We included just these here.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, why not the piece forward of that?
MRS. MOORE-My understanding is that it's taken from.
MR. JACKOSKI-Isn't it a retaining wall?
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, it is, but that's all done through the DEC.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's not on your property, that's not your property? Where are the pegs for
the property lines, the pins?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. KUBRICKY-What it is is, it works the LGA the dock and then the two foot sheathing that
was driven in for the seawall is the DEC, we didn't have to get a permit for that from the Town of
Queensbury, that's the DEC is in charge of that part of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand they're in charge of seawall, but.
MRS. MOORE-It's not on his property. That's, I mean, the pins are on the other side.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are those tie pins or are those actual boundary line pins?
MR. KUBRICKY-They're property pins.
MRS. MOORE-They look like property pins.
MR. JACKOSKI-They're not tie line pins?
MRS. MOORE-The other thing that you mention, I think it was brought up the other evening at
the recommendation was there's, maybe you can explain it again, the sheathing, there's sort of
like a metal plate that's at the seawall and the lawn area.
MR. KUBRICKY-Well, what it is is steel sheathing driven in, it's the interlocking stuff. It's two
feet wide, and this is just a cap that goes on the top of it. We were going to put a concrete one
on it, but we figured the wood would look nicer for what we were trying to do.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I guess we're going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And we'll seek a motion by SEAR. Go ahead, Rick.
MR. GARRAND-Did everybody go over SEAR?
MR. JACKOSKI-I did.
MR. HENKEL-I did.
MR. JACKOSKI-Shall we go over the questions? I mean, I don't want to do Long Form.
MR. GARRAND-Sure. I'm going to go over Part 11. Will the proposed action create a material
conflict with the adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Is it no or small impact or is it moderate to large?
MR. GARRAND-Moderate.
MRS. MOORE-To large.
MR. GARRAND-Yes. There's one impact. Will the proposed action result in a change in use or
intensity of use of land? I don't think so. Will the proposed action impair the character or
quality of the existing community?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. GARRAND-1 don't think so. Anybody else have any differing opinions? Will the proposed
action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a
Critical Environmental Area (CEA)?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-You're saying again?
MR. JACKOSKI-Moderate to large.
MR. GARRAND-Moderate to large.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. GARRAND-Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of
traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? No. Will the
proposed impact cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably
available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? No. Will the proposed
action impact existing public/private water supplies?
MR. JACKOSKI-I'd say yes but small.
MR. GARRAND-Small, I agree. Public/private wastewater treatment utilities?
MR. JACKOSKI-No.
MR. GARRAND-No. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important
historic, archeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? No. All agree?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g.,
wetlands, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-I thought yes.
MR. URRICO-I think no.
MR. GARRAND-You think no. John?
MR. HENKEL-I'd say no. It's small if anything.
MR. NOONAN-I'd say no.
MR. GARRAND-Change in waterbodies? It won't have any effect on stormwater on the lake at
all?
MR. HENKEL-Very small if anything.
MR. ALLISON-1 would say small or no. It's pitched back.
MR. GARRAND-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-I'd say moderate.
MR. KUBRICKY-All right. What would you gentlemen like me to do?
MR. JACKOSKI-We've just got to go through this form, unfortunately.
MRS. MOORE-And I have, in reference to small you have three and in reference to large you
have three.
MR. JACKOSKI-So it's a yes, and then.
MR. URRICO-I said no.
MRS. MOORE-Correct. You have three that are referencing it as a small impact, and three that
are referencing it as a large impact. Is the applicant proposing any mitigation measures that
would?
MR. JACKOSKI-No, concrete. We frown on anything like that within 50 feet.
MR. KUBRICKY-No, I'd go, you know I mean, if you don't allow concrete, I'll go.
MR. JACKOSKI-We're just getting through the process.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MRS. MOORE-So the Board needs to come up with a consensus whether it's small or
moderate, either no, small or moderate to large.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'd say it's small.
MR. GARRAND-Small.
MRS. MOORE-All right. Okay.
MR. GARRAND-And for the next one, will the proposed action result in an increase in the
potential for erosion, flooding or drainage problems? Increase in potential, I'd say yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-What I struggle with is we've heard Navitsky say over and over again grass is
not a good way to control water. It cascades and flows right off the grass and into the lake. It
doesn't absorb, and concrete's even worse. So I just don't see how we can say that this has
been mitigated in any way, shape, or form in those 50 feet. I don't see how we do it. From
what we know of the Water Keeper, I just don't see how that's possible.
MRS. MOORE-But does that, I mean, the sheathing that's in there, is that not directing the
stormwater back into this individual's lawn?
MR. JACKOSKI-That lot is not pitched uphill to the lake.
MR. GARRAND-I say it's impacting.
MRS. MOORE-Is it large?
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, did I miss something? When you guys went there did it look like the
land was sloping up to the lake?
MR. GARRAND-It's still going to run.
MR. HENKEL-There's a lift there.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, that lift, but what's going to happen, the water is going to cascade and
then eventually infiltrate down.
MRS. MOORE-But prior to it getting to the lake it's going through the grass, the grass area.
MR. GARRAND-Right along the edge of the lake.
MR. JACKOSKI-According to the Water Keeper it just goes across. It doesn't actually really
permeate. The water will run faster across the grass then just actually soaking down in.
MR. ALLISON-The question we have to answer is does this increase the potential for erosion.
MR. JACKOSKI-Key word potential is yes.
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Is it small, or is it moderate to large?
MR. GARRAND-It's moderate to large.
MR. JACKOSKI-Moderate to large, on account of I suspect Mr. Kubricky's going to maintain that
wall and everything else very well, so I would say small.
MR. HENKEL-I would say small also.
MR. GARRAND-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Small.
MR. JACKOSKI-The reason we're all struggling with this is this is a tough one.
MR. ALLISON-1 think it's moderate to large. What do you think, Kyle?
MR. URRICO-Yet we have no comment from the Water Keeper here.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. JACKOSKI-He did, though, if you remember the last one, he did comment at the last one,
and we talked extensively that we were allowing that deck because they were keeping so much
green space, and we said if they ever make any changes, they'd have to come back to the
Board. This is like segmentation.
MR. GARRAND-All right. So you've got four with small. Will the proposed action create a
hazard to environmental resources or human health? I don't believe so.
MR. JACKOSKI-Go back to that last one. I actually say it's moderate.
MR. GARRAND-I think it's moderate, too.
MRS. MOORE-But you end up with your tie. You need to come up with a consensus, what is
the mitigation?
MR. ALLISON-1 say it's moderate compared to a more mitigatable solution. If you put in
permeable pavers, this is twice as bad as that. So it's moderate. That's how I come up with my
moderate.
MRS. MOORE-Is the consensus of the Board, because this document goes into the file.
MR. JACKOSKI-I know that. Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-1 still say small.
MR. URRICO-I still say small.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll go with small, to break the tie. Let's go.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So your last question, and I believe Rick addressed that, was will the
proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? And you have
indicated no.
MR. GARRAND-I believe no.
MRS. MOORE-So if we follow the process, going back through, you would be looking at
Question One, Question Four, in reference to is it, then you're looking at whether this particular
element of the proposed action will result in a significant environmental impact. Is it significant
and is it adverse? And is there any mitigation measures that we're communicating with the
applicant that they're going to implement that would mitigate those two questions?
MR. JACKOSKI-I think fortunately the applicant has been willing to work with the Board and as
presented they've offered to reduce the sidewalks to three feet in width. They've also
suggested that they would do permeable pavers if they needed to and I think that is a major
environmental mitigation.
MR. KUBRICKY-I'll do whatever you guys want me to do.
MR. JACKOSKI-The problem is how do we calculate the new permeability percentages if we
were to approve it with the pavers?
MRS. MOORE-With the pavers it's 50%. So if you're picking a segment of the sidewalk that
you're asking the applicant to do permeable pavement, it would count as 50%.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think it would be any of the hard surfacing at all on the property.
MR. HENKEL-So you're talking about the whole sidewalk, not just that by the lake?
MR. JACKOSKI-Again, we went through with this deck and we said, as it was proposed, there
was going to be no more development on this parcel. How are we staying consistent here?
MR. URRICO-So 50%, he's down to 10% relief now, with the three feet and with the, that
section, that other section, six by seven. So if we did permeable pavers.
MR. JACKOSKI-Just in the front part, or the, I call it the front, I know the lakefront side, you're
saying that we'd be below the, where would we be, Andy?
MR. ALLISON-If he took 50% of it, you'd need seven percent relief, right? We're at 14% relief
now.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. NOONAN-If they drop the three feet, it drops it to 10% relief.
MR. JACKOSKI-Does that seem reasonable to everyone?
MR. NOONAN-Because that front section right there, that three by thirty-one foot of permeable
pavers.
MR. ALLISON-Then he is doing everything that current technology has.
MR. JACKOSKI-He'd still get the ability to access the different parts of his property.
MR. KUBRICKY-I'd appreciate that.
MR. JACKOSKI-If we took out the six by seven, and what's the driveway going to be, or I should
call it the parking area? Driveway you just roll in. I don't think you have to drive much on that
with that parcel. that part of the project will be of what material? Concrete?
MR. NOONAN-It's proposed as concrete.
MR. JACKOSKI-There's an awful lot of water that's going to cascade off that, onto that grass.
MR. GARRAND-1 say it's got to be permeable.
MR. NOONAN-Even the parking area?
MR. URRICO-All of it?
MR. ALLISON-Even the parking area?
MR. JACKOSKI-It's just unfortunate that that property up there is just, I mean.
MR. HENKEL-But everybody's got so much cement up there.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and we're going to add more.
MR. GARRAND-And we're going to exacerbate the problem up there, and we got this kicked
back to us by the APA last time, and we don't want it kicked back again.
MR. KUBRICKY-I'm the only lot there.
MR. JACKOSKI-We know. You've done a great job. The trees look phenomenal. I drive by
there almost every day. It looks fantastic.
MR. URRICO-This way everybody wins.
MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, no, I know.
MR. JACKOSKI-We're just trying to get through the process and the LGA and the APA, there's a
lot here.
MR. GARRAND-It's first come, first serve pretty much up there right now.
MR. JACKOSKI-But as they get re-developed, we are holding their feet to the fire, and we are
making them do it. We just did it with the builder who built anew house up there.
MR. KUBRICKY-Chris Abbele.
MR. JACKOSKI-Chris just built a great, I mean, he's working on it and he's doing it, but we held
his feet to the fire, too.
MR. KUBRICKY-1 want to do things right for you guys.
MR. GARRAND-Dibella's, we also did with them.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right, Dibella's. All right. So at this point what we are at is the application is
being modified to have three foot walkways and all permeable pavers for the hard surfacing that
is proposed.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. ALLISON-Installed in a permeable manner.
MR. JACKOSKI-Installed in a permeable manner.
MR. URRICO-And we're removing that six by seven.
MR. JACKOSKI-And we're removing the six by seven.
MR. KUBRICKY-Right. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to do all this permeable pavers.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think so, Tom. We don't want to put you through what you've already started,
but I think we have to, we've got a lot of heat for being consistent.
MR. KUBRICKY-No, I understand.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So we've gone through SEAR and I don't know that we've gotten a
motion on SEAR.
MRS. MOORE-No, so we will clarify Part III. That the two questions that you asked, highlighted
as moderate to large were the action materially conflicts with the zoning regulation, and I
understood it to be specific to permeability. Number Two was the action will impact the CEA,
specifically the permeability. The project mitigation offered and agreed upon by the Board,
reducing sidewalk to three feet in width, removing the six by seven which is a forty-two square
foot area, and using permeable pavers or permeable materials.
MR. JACKOSKI-To be installed in a permeable manner. And when you say sidewalk, Laura,
you're talking about all those surfaces that were on there as four feet now being three feet.
MR. KUBRICKY-Right.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Which I call the capital 1.
MRS. MOORE-This includes the 600 square foot parking area.
MR. KUBRICKY-So the parking lot now, can I use blacktop there, or are you guys?
MRS. MOORE-They're asking you to remove that.
MR. KUBRICKY-Can I live the blacktop that's there?
MR. JACKOSKI-We're recommending permeable pavers, Tom, in order to make all this work.
MR. KUBRICKY-No, I hear you, but even on the blacktop stuff? Can I use permeable blacktop?
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know the technology.
MR. GARRAND-You can use permeable blacktop, yes.
MRS. MOORE-So that's why I was trying to get to permeable pavers or other permeable
materials to be installed.
MR. KUBRICKY-I'd like to kind of keep the blacktop, blacktop.
MR. JACKOSKI-Would that provide you with the 50%?
MRS. MOORE-That would provide him with the 50%. In place of this, he goes back to the
Planning Board tomorrow evening. Part of this project will ask him to provide the details, and
that means he has to provide the cross section of what he's doing for the permeable sidewalk
and the permeable pavement.
MR. JACKOSKI-You can get a drawing from your guys, right?
MR. KUBRICKY-I'll do whatever you guys want.
MR. JACKOSKI-Good.
MR. KUBRICKY-Can you help me out with that, Laura, tomorrow?
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-So what do we need to do for SEAR?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So you've accepted the mitigation, if this is correct, you're accepting the
mitigation measures. So you could move forward and potentially do a Negative Declaration
indicating that any adverse impacts have been mitigated by the project as amended during this
meeting.
MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2015
THOMAS KUBRICKY, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Kyle Noonan:
Given the applicant has proposed mitigation measures to offset the permeability issues we've
outlined.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Allison, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McCabe
MR. JACKOSKI-Now can I have a motion please?
MR. NOONAN-What are the?
MR. GARRAND-Yes, you're going to need the numbers from Laura.
MR. NOONAN-Okay. So I'll do it but I need some numbers. Hold on. So the relief requested.
Well, now.
MR. GARRAND-Those numbers are null and void.
MR. NOONAN-These numbers, right. So what's required is 75% still. What are we going to be
at with everything, or is it just within the 50 feet?
MR. URRICO-I'd go seven percent.
MRS. MOORE-If you'll give me a second, I have to re-calculate the 915.
MR. NOONAN-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-So the permeability is going to be better. So we should be closer to like 70%.
Because we decreased it by 140 some odd feet.
MR. KUBRICKY-So what I'm going to do on that blacktop is I'm going to put that same blacktop
as the Beach Road, right?
MR. JACKOSKI-Tom, whatever the material is in the current technology, whenever you do it,
that would give you that 50% credit for permeability, or more, that's the goal. We have okayed
it. We're saying 50% or more permeability credit. If Staff says it's okay, then it's okay.
MR. KUBRICKY-But the pavers, I can pick out the kind of pavers, as long as I.
MR. JACKOSKI-Provided they give you that 50% credit of permeability.
MRS. MOORE-So if we look at the site development data sheet, the building footprint, and I'm
going to read this out loud so that it's part of the record, building footprint would be 360 square
feet. Letter D which is paved or gravel hard surfaces, is actually 915. The credit here is 457.5.
The porch, which is existing, is 454.5. The Rockhurst portion remains at 240 square feet. That
total becomes 1,512 square feet, and that includes the credit. I did not include the 915 in that
sum, but it included the sum with the credit. Therefore it's 73%, or it's 27% impermeable and
it's 73% permeable, and he's supposed to meet 75%. So it's two percent.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
MR. NOONAN-All those numbers that you just read, do they need to be included, or do we stick
with the two percent relief?
MRS. MOORE-You can stick with the two percent. The site development data sheet will be
updated to represent this.
MR. NOONAN-Okay, and how big is the driveway section?
MRS. MOORE-IT's still 600 square feet.
MR. NOONAN-Right. Okay. I just want to make sure. Okay. Just want to get this right.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Thomas J. Kubricky. Applicant proposes installation of parking and sidewalk areas on a 5,587
sq. ft. parcel. A portion of the installation is within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested from
permeability requirements of the WR zone. Applicant is requesting two percent impermeability
on these surfaces.
SEAR Type: Unlisted;
MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2015
THOMAS KUBRICKY, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Kyle Noonan:
Given the applicant has proposed mitigation measures to offset the permeability issues we've
outlined.
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Allison, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McCabe
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties.
2. Feasible alternatives have been discussed and have been considered by the Board, and
will be part of this resolution.
3. The requested variance is not considered substantial at this point as it has been reduced
to a two percent request.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because the sidewalks are an additional feature
added to the property.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) All hard surfaces will be covered in permeable surfaces, whether it may be permeable
blacktop or permeable pavers. The driveway area will be permeable material, blacktop
or paver, the 600 square foot driveway.
b) The sidewalk will be permeable pavers. The sidewalk will also be reduced to a width of
three feet.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/20/2015)
c) There will be a removal of a six foot by seven foot, or 42 sq. ft. platform that was
proposed.
d) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
22-2015, Thomas J. Kubricky, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Allison, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McCabe
MR. JACKOSKI-You're good.
MR. KUBRICKY-Thank you guys very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any other business? Can I have a motion to adjourn?
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
MAY 20, 2015, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Henkel:
Duly adopted this 20th day of May, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Allison, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McCabe
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
39