06-20-2018 ( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06l20/2018]
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 20, 2018
INDEX
Use Variance Z-UV-1-2018 William Miner 1.
Tax Map No. 302.74-24
Area Variance Z-AV-76-2017 Joseph Orlow 2.
Tax Map No. 290.54-21
Area Variance Z-AV-34-2018 Faden Enterprises 2.
Tax Map No. 296.17-1-49
Area Variance Z-AV-35-2018 Faden Enterprises 9.
Tax Map No. 296.17-1-47
Area Variance Z-AV-14-2018 Joseph & Cynthia Didio 14.
Tax Map No. 239.20-1-7
Area Variance Z-AV-29-2018 Marcia Parker 19.
Tax Map No. 316.5-1-8
Area Variance Z-AV-37-2018 Sarah E. Secor-Jones 23.
Tax Map No. 295.-14.21
Area Variance Z-AV-41-2018 Monsour Enterprises, LLC 26.
Tax Map No. 308.12-2-77
Area Variance Z-AV-43-2018 Thingvellir, LLC/Joel Matthews, Member 32.
Tax Map No. 227.6-144
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
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/2018]
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 20, 2018
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
JAMES UNDERWOOD
MICHELLE HAYWARD
RONALD KUHL
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. FREER-Welcome to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for the 20t" of June. For
those who haven't been here, the process is quite simple. There's material on the back table. We'll
call each applicant up. We'll read into the record the application, ask questions of the applicant, open
the public hearing, and there's public hearings scheduled for the items this evening. After the public
hearing we'll call the applicant back and we'll poll the Board and make a decision accordingly either a
motion to approve or some other decision.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 16, 2018
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
OF MAY 16, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Henkel:
Duly adopted this 201" day of June, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
June 23, 2018
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
OF MAY 23, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald
Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 201" day of June, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
USE VARIANCE NO. 1-2018 MINER FOR MOWERY FURTHER TABLING
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William
Miner for Starr Mowery for a variance of Section[s] 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of
Queensbury. Applicant proposes to maintain two existing apartments and convert a portion of the
4,398 sq. ft. building into four additional apartments. Relief requested from permitted uses in the Cl
zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the Commercial Intensive [CI] allowable uses.
2
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,ll :elJn 06f20/201a8]
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE USE VARIANCE Z-UV4-2018 WILLIAM MINER,
Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 2011 day of June, 2018, by the following vote:
MR. FREER-Any discussion?
MRS. MOORE-Do you want a little detail?
MR. FREER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So the applicant verbally gave information to Staff that they were withdrawing
their application. We asked them to submit something in writing. They have not done that yet, and
just so there's a record of us acknowledging that they verbally withdrew it we should also deny without
prejudice so that the record stands that they could come back if they needed to with a whole new
application.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-2017 JOE ORLOW FURTHER TABLING
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received a request to further Table the
application from Joe Orlow until a July 2018 meeting.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-76-2017 JOSEPH ORLOW, Introduced by Michael
McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
The application to be Tabled to the July 2018 meeting with additional application materials to be
submitted by the end of the month.
Duly adopted this 2011 day of June 2018, by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-So there's no new data. The applicant did go out and look for additional representation
to present information to the Board.
MR. HENKEL-So there's no guarantee he's going to be on in July, or will it be in July?
MRS. MOORE-It'll be in July, yes.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-And we're ready for the first applicant.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-34-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(SJ LANSING
ENGINEERING, PC OWNER(SJ 894 REALTY, LLC ZONING CM LOCATION 894 STATE
ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT
AN 11,400 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING. PROJECT SITE
WORK INCLUDES MAJOR GRADING AND FILLING, NEW ACCESS, AND INTERCONNECT TO
ADJOINING RESTAURANT. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR SETBACK ON MONTRAY ROAD PARKING
REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT. CROSS REF P-SP-36-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2018 LOT
SIZE 1.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.174-49 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-090
MIKE BIANCHINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT
3
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/2018]
MR. MC CABE-I've got to recuse myself from this.
MR. URRICO-Do you want to read the application number in?
MR. FREER-I'm sorry. Yes, Variance AV-34-2018.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-34-2018, Faden Enterprises, Meeting Date: June 20, 2018
"Project Location: 894 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition
of an existing building to construct an 11,400 sq. ft. single-story multi-tenant commercial building.
Project site work includes major grading and filling, new access, and interconnect to adjoining
restaurant. Relief sought for setback on Montray Road and parking requirements. Planning Board:
Site Plan Review for new commercial development.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setback on Montray Road and parking requirements.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes construction of a 11,400 sq. ft. building that is to be located 26.4 ft. from the
front property line on Montray Rd where a 75 ft. setback is required.
Section 179-4-090 Parkin
The applicant proposes 8 parking spaces on the site to be accessed from the adjoining property where
parking is to be accessed from the project site. The project requires 60 spaces where the site proposes
45 spaces on site and 15 spaces located on the Pizzeria Uno parcel as new spaces.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to
reduce the size of the building to address the setback and parking requirements.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 15 parking spaces and for 8 spaces not
accessible from project site. The Montray Road setback relief is 50.4 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 project may be considered to
have minimal impact. The project is located next to existing commercial buildings, lodging, and
restaurants.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to remove an existing building and to construct an 11,400 sq. ft. single story
multi-tenant building. The applicant has indicated the building is to be used for 3 retail spaces and one
space for a "Subway" food service. The project includes an interconnect to the adjoining property on
the north side and a new curb access with right in-right out only from Route 9. The parking
arrangement for the project includes access to some parking spots from the adjoining property and
new parking spaces on the adjoining parcel. The plans show the location of the building and associated
site work."
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/2018]
MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board made a recommendation and they passed a
resolution. Based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be
mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed unanimously on June 19, 2018.
MR. FREER-Thank you. Roy. Would you like to expand on what's going on here?
MR. BIANCHINO-Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can give a description of the project that will
include both parcels. Just for clarification the second item on the agenda involves the variance for the
adjoining parcel, but the development itself includes both. So my explanation will probably go over
both. My name is Bianchino. I'm with Lansing Engineering, representing Faden Enterprises. The
existing parcel is 894 Route 9. It's a 1.3 acre parcel which is currently mostly wooded. It does contain
a, or is mostly wooded. It's a Commercial Moderate zone. It's got no wetlands on it. It's got one
existing residential structure that has been converted to a commercial building on site. It's got
approximately six parking spaces. The site slopes generally down from Route 9 towards the back of
the site and the surrounding land uses in the area are Commercial Retail and Service uses. Since we
do involve, our development does involve the adjoining parcel which is the 900 Route 9 parcel, the
site of the existing Pizzeria Uno restaurant, that parcel is a 1.69 acre parcel, and it is also zoned
Commercial Moderate. It contains an 8100 square foot restaurant, 46,000 square feet of parking with
about 108 parking spaces. There is about 19,000 square feet of green space, which is about 26% of
the site. Our proposal for 894 Route 9 is, as was noted, demolition of the existing structure, the
construction of a new 11,400 square foot single story multi-tenant building, and you can see the
rendering. It's a conceptual rendering of the proposed building. I'm not sure if the Board can see
it. It's the lower board on the floor. It's an Adirondack style, typical of some of the other
developments along Route 9. The proposed tenant, at this point we have one Subway restaurant which
takes up about 2500 square feet and the remaining 8900 square feet will be various retail space. The
proposed access, the site plan right now has one new curb cut proposed on Route 9 and is a limited
access curb cut. It does have full access in. So it allows lefts in and rights in, but it's limited right
now to rights out only. That project, the curb cut is in front of DOT. We met with DOT about
this the other day, and it is under review by DOT. Obviously the existing signalized intersection that's
located here, near the Wal-Mart site is fairly close and there's also the existing curb cut at Montray
which is located here. This is a left, designated left turn lane into the Wal-Mart site and a designated
left turn lane into Montray. What we would be proposing is to make the center section of that is, I
use the term suicide lane for left turns. We do fully expect that as part of their review DOT will likely
force us to go rights in, rights out only at that location, but the original plan, the original site plan
does show a lefts in allowance there. We are waiting for DOT's response back on that. We've also
proposed an interconnection with the Pizzeria Uno site that would allow access from this site to their
driveway in a signalized intersection across from the Wal-Mart. The proposed parking for the site, as
was noted, the building itself requires 60 parking spaces. We are showing on our site, and this is the
existing property line, the dark black line there, the heavy black line. We are showing on our site 46
parking spaces and an additional 15 parking spaces on the adjoining Pizzeria Uno site which is in
conjunction with that access drive that goes through the two parking lots. Again the proposal is for
a cross easement to allow access and parking on the adjoining parcel. They are working through the
details of that agreement with the adjoining owner. The proposal for cross connection and the shared
parking is a proposal that's consistent with the recommendations from the Town's Comp Plan and from
the Design Guidelines for the corridor which recommend for where possible interconnecting parking
lots to provide access management along Route 9 and also to try to reduce over parking of the area
by allowing shared parking for uses where there adequate. So that's part of the reason why we're
proposing what we did. The proposed 894 parcel, as you can see has some green space in the front,
on the side and we tried to maintain some of the existing tree line in the rear. The parcel is 52.3%
green space. Stormwater management is managed on site. All the impervious area is collected and
drained to an infiltration gallery under the parking lot. We do propose an interconnection for water
service, public water, and we are proposing public sewer connecting to the line across the street. We
are out of the district and I believe the Town Board entertained a resolution on Monday night to allow
a one year out of district user agreement for the site and in the meantime we're putting together a
map plan and report for extension of the sewer district to include this parcel. As of a result of the
interconnection of the parking lots, we are removing four spaces on the Pizzeria Uno site because of
the driveway and an island on the end to delineate that access point, and we are adding 15 new spaces
on their parcel for use by the adjoiner, the 894 parcel. That would reduce the allowable, or the green
space on the Pizzeria Uno site from 26% down to 17%. As part of that new impervious area that
would be added to the Pizzeria Uno site, we would be draining that impervious area through the
stormwater management system on the proposed 894 Route 9 parcel and through our stormwater area
into the infiltration galleries. There would be no other changes proposed to the Pizzeria Uno site
beyond that. Again, just to summarize the variances, we are requesting two variances for 894 Route
9. The setback variance, as a corner lot there's a 75 foot setback requirement along Route 9 and
Montray Road. We do meet the setback on Route 9, but we do not meet the setback on Montray.
When you look at that because it is a double frontage corner lot, the side yard setback in this zone is
( u.ueea ushu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJ n 06 f 20/201 a8]
20 feet with a total of 50 for both sides. If we would consider looking at this site, this is kind of the
way we laid this site out. We looked at the site and looked at it from Route 9 and said okay what's
the best location for the building, and it was let's leave the side yard setbacks and recognizing we were
not going to have access too much because of the slope differential on the site. We felt that we could
meet, set the building up in such a way that it would comply with at least the side yard setback. Again,
because this is a front yard technically we do require the variance. The other variance required for
this site is the parking. The access to the parking is located here on our site, but the access aisle
would be on the Pizzeria Uno site in that location and then obviously our additional 15 parking spaces
that are also located on that Pizzeria Uno site. Again our planning process here, we did look at the
Comprehensive Plan and looked at access management and looked at a shared parking,and it's compliant
with the guidelines in this area and we tried to do a shared parking which would reduce the over limits
of parking. If you look at both sites together, we do, between the two sites we do comply with green
space. We're over 32% green space between the two parcels. Our site again is 52%. That's a
summary of the 894 parcel.
MR. FREER-John, I think you had a clarification question.
MR. HENKEL-You haven't guaranteed us yet that Uno has given you approval for the 15 spaces yet,
right?
MR. BIANCHINO-I believe the owner, and the owner's not here tonight. He did call me and say he
was ill, I believe the owner has a draft agreement in place and has been talking with them.
MRS. MOORE-So the applicant is authorized, they're representing Pizzeria Uno through authorization.
MR. HENKEL-Right. Okay. As long as you say.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, he's not speaking out of turn. No.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 have a question for Staff. Why are we segmenting the review into two sections?
Because it seems like everything is important that we clarify both sides of the coin. It seems like we're
kind of doing the easy one first and the second one is the more difficult.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So two parcels, two projects. That's the explanation.
MR. HENKEL-But yet they're sharing.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. BIANCHINO-And the reason why I wanted to, obviously the site development follows both
parcels and that's the reason why I wanted to make sure I discussed at least the Uno site. I can also
talk about, although you didn't introduce the proposed variances on that site, I can certainly talk about
those.
MR. FREER-Well don't worry, we'll get to it.
MR. BIANCHINO-Okay.
MR. URRICO-I have a question. Since you anticipate DOT shooting down the entrance heading
south, I'm assuming that the traffic light will become the major entrance into that parcel. Do you
anticipate any more parking spaces being removed as a result, since that'll be more of a through traffic
lane?
MR. BIANCHINO-No. The way we've got it designed it will work for traffic. It's not going to be
an access drive. It's not going to be a connector road, if you will. It's basically the interconnection
of two parking lots. We don't feel, and we do feel that people will, if we do get left turns in, people
would probably realize at some point that this would probably be the easiest entrance, and if we, it's
just a matter of, one of the things we talked about is where do we put the sign for the facility so that
it best accommodates getting people into this site.
MR. FREER-So you're going to ask for the Sign Variance too?
MR. BIANCHINO-We haven't done that yet. We're waiting to see where we are. Probably not, but
we haven't thought about that yet.
6
( u.ueea ushu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJ n 06 f 20/201 a8]
MR. URRICO-But then there will also be access to Sweet Road as well. Right? Since you're going to
be interconnecting all the parking lots.
MR. HENKEL-Montray.
MR. URRICO-Well, no, I'm talking about Sweet Road because around the back side of Uno you could
connect to the back of the Hotel and head out to Sweet Road as well so that, I'm assuming that people
can drive through to this newer building as well. Will that affect any parking spaces back there?
MR. BIANCHINO-No.
MR. FREER-Any other questions?
MR. KUHL-I do have a question. You said that you were taking four away for the pass through from
this 894 to Pizzeria Uno and you're taking 15 parking spots. Now they're existing, right? That's not
new asphalt in Uno's property, right?
MR. BIANCHINO-This is new asphalt in their property.
MR. KUHL-Well how many parking spots will Uno be left with? Because I don't know.
MR. BIANCHINO-On the Pizzeria Uno site they'll have, there will be a total of 104 spaces on the Uno
site.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. BIANCHINO-For Uno's use. They're requiring, Code is 65.
MR. KUHL-Okay. Any reason why you didn't cut an access from Montray Road?
MR. BIANCHINO-We've got to bring a significant amount of fill to bring this building up to the level
of Route 9, and one of the things we're trying to do is there was a Site Plan approval for a Harbor
Freight on the opposite side of Route 9.
MR. KUHL-Right.
MR. BIANCHINO-Just up this road. It has a significant amount of cut. We're trying to accommodate,
as a cost savings for both projects, if we can take their fill and use it as fill material here it'll save,
economically it saves money for both sites because they've got to truck it away, and if we can take it
over here and use it for fill material. We do have to bring in a significant amount of fill here.
MR. KUHL-And what are you doing on the back of this property to bring that up? What's it going
to be, stone walls?
MR. BIANCHINO-There's going to be a retaining wall along Montray right now and we can grade this
off with an exposed foundation and grade it down at a reasonable slope and meet existing grade a ways
away from the property line, to give us room for a buffer there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is your grade going to be higher than R & T and the properties to the south on
the other side, or are you going to be at the same level?
MR. BIANCHINO-They'll be the same level along here, but then since we're going to fill here and their
site does drop off, they'll be a little bit lower. And we're also looking, the final engineering and the
owner is looking into the possibility of maybe wrapping the retaining wall around the back of the site.
MR. UNDERWOOD-How high is the retaining wall?
MR. BIANCHINO-The highest point of the retaining wall is right about here. It's about 13 feet.
MR. FREER-So that's why they can't drive up that hill, right?
MR. BIANCHINO-Exactly.
MRS. HAYWARD-Have you considered alternatives like reducing the size of the project to minimize
the need for two variances? I mean you've got three storefronts plus the Subway.
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/2018]
MR. BIANCHINO-I think the applicant has looked at the finances of the building in terms of the
construction and the fill required here and feels like this is the size he needs to make the project
economically viable.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Laura, do we have any requirements, when you're bringing in that much fill and
altering from the natural slope and topography there?
MRS. MOORE-Through site plan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It would seem to me you're just not going to be able to take sand and dump it
and have it sit there. You're going to have to have permeability built into it if you're going to have
your infiltrators in there because sand, of which that whole area is built up there, is just going to blow
out if you don't do it right.
MR. BIANCHINO-Right.
MR. URRICO-And also for the record I'd like to talk about the Blind Rock that's back there, that's a
Town historical site, and how are you working around that?
MR. BIANCHINO-A couple of things I'd like to say. We're trying to maintain a buffer along the
back of the property. We did submit the SHPO to look at our design as it relates to that, and we did
get a No Effect letter on our designs. SHPO was comfortable that what we're doing was going to be
acceptable.
MR. FREER-Other questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there
anyone in the audience who'd like to make a statement about this application? Seeing no one, do we
have any written comment, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-1 did not see any letters.
MR. FREER-Okay. We'll keep the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board and I'll start with Roy,
please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think I'm in favor of the project. I think there's a possibility of reducing it in
size so that we don't need the setback on Route 9, but I don't anticipate any problems down the road.
I don't think he's going to be expanding that part of Route 9. So I think we'll be fine.
MR. FREER-Okay. John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. I agree with Roy, but I guess to make the project feasible like the applicant's saying
they need the four storefronts. So I'd be okay with the project as is.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm not in favor of the project. I think if it was decreased to three storefronts I'd
be okay with it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I think that the request on Montray Road, the fact that they're building the wall,
you know, 75 feet off that, I don't think they're asking for too much. I think it's minimal. The fact
that they don't have enough parking spaces on this property, but yet can gain them and not short the
Uno restaurant, I don't think that's asking for too much. I would be in favor of the project the way
it's submitted.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think that we need to go back and review this for integrity of the, size of the
building is so long and so close to Montray, you know, that 13 foot wall there just seems out of place.
It doesn't seem like that's something that we want to create in order to make this happen. It seems
like if we truncated, took one of the tenants off the end of the building and would move it back you
could meld the wall and lower it down sooner than having it be such a monolithic giant pour cement
or whatever it's going to be. I don't know if you can design it in such a way to make it look a little
8
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/2018]
more fitting with the community, but it just seems to be more industrial than it needs to be. So I'm
not in favor of it. As far as the parking goes, I'm all for less parking. I don't think that's an issue.
MR. FREER-Okay. Brent?
[BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE, FILLING IN FOR MICHAEL MC CABE]
MR. MC DEVITT-Parking is not of concern. The retaining wall I believe is somewhat concerning to
me. With that said, though, I am in favor of the project.
MR. FREER-Okay. So my sense is they could make a smaller building and find a way to make it
profitable, but there are enough votes in favor that we can get approval. So I'll ask for one of the
folks who is okay with it to make a motion.
MRS. MOORE-Prior to you making your motion, you should close your public hearing unless.
MR. FREER-Okay. So we'll close the public hearing. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. FREER-And seek a motion.
MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman?
MR. FREER-Please.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Faden
Enterprises. Applicant proposes demolition of an existing building to construct an 11,400 sq. ft. single-
story multi-tenant commercial building. Project site work includes major grading and filling, new access,
and interconnect to adjoining restaurant. Relief sought for setback on Montray Road and parking
requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for new commercial development.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setback on Montray Road and parking requirements.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes construction of a 11,400 sq. ft. building that is to be located 26.4 ft. from the
front property line on Montray Rd where a 75 ft. setback is required.
Section 179-4-090 Parkin
The applicant proposes 8 parking spaces on the site to be accessed from the adjoining property where
parking is to be accessed from the project site. The project requires 60 spaces where the site proposes
45 spaces on site and 15 spaces located on the Pizza Uno parcel as new spaces.
SEAR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 16, 2018; Wednesday, June 20, 2018
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 as these are all commercial properties.
2. Feasible alternatives are available to shorten it but as presented there aren't any alternatives.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because they're able to gain the 15 parking spaces
from Pizzeria UNO and the Montray side of the street is just an access street.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty we could say is self-created.
9
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,ll :elJn 06f20/201a8]
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of
the neighborhood or community;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) 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 Z-
AV-34-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 20t" day of June 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl
NOES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer
MR. FREER-Okay. So we're onto Area Variance 35-2018.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-35-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(SJ LANSING
ENGINEERING, PC OWNER(SJ EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC ZONING CM LOCATION 900
STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES NEW PARKING IMPROVEMENTS AND AN
INTERCONNECT WITHIN A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. ADDITIONAL HARD
SURFACING EXCEEDS SITE PERMEABILITY. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY LESS THAN
30 PERCENT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW SITE DEVELOPMENT.
CROSS REF P-SP-37-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2016 ZONING CM LOT
SIZE 1.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.174-47 SECTION 179-3-040
MIKE BIANCHINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. FREER-Roy?
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-35-2018, Faden Enterprises, Meeting Date: June 20, 2018
"Project Location: 900 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes new
parking improvements and an interconnect within a neighboring property to the south. Additional
hard surfacing exceeds site permeability. Relief sought for permeability less than 30 percent. Planning
Board: Site Plan Review for new site development.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for permeability in the Commercial Moderate zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes to increase additional parking and an interconnect to the southern property
where an increase in hard-surfacing reduces the permeability on site to 17.3% and 30% is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law.
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts
to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce
the amount of pavement on site or permeable surface.
10
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/201a8]
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested is for 13%. The applicant has noted the existing
site is at 26.2%.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have
minimal impact.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes alter the parking arrangement on an existing site to include 15 new parking
spaces, an interconnect to property to the south property line and to align the south parking area
drive aisle with the traffic light. The plans show the alteration to the site parking area."
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, based on its limited review made a motion that did not
identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.
And that was adopted June 19', 2018 by a unanimous vote.
MR. FREER-Thanks, Roy. Do you want to make any comments about this part?
MR. BIANCHINO-Sure. I can. Quickly again, Mike Bianchino from Lansing Engineering representing
Faden Enterprises. As was noted, the Site Plan does show, as I mentioned, the new pavement along the
area on the south side of the Uno parcel to provide an interconnection to the adjoining parcel and an
additional 15 parking spaces in this location utilized by the adjoining parcel. The variance, again, this
would eliminate four spaces on this site and it would bring the total parking spaces on the Pizzeria Uno
site to 104 versus the 65 spaces that are required on that site by Code and does reduce the green
space to 17%. The stormwater management for this area will be through the adjoining 894 parcel.
The reduction in green space and the impermeable area is the nature of the variance. When you look
at the shared facilities, between the two sites, as I said, the 894 parcel because of allowing parking on
the Uno site can maintain 52% green space adjoining the Town property, the historic property mostly,
and the combined parking between the two would be 125 spaces between the two sites and the two
sites required are 164 spaces. So again the green space between the two sites is 32% which would
actually meet the Town's requirement,and the design guidelines for access management, interconnected
parking spaces and shared parking is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and the Design
Guidelines.
MR. FREER-Good. Thanks. Anybody on the Board have any further questions?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I do. Does the same person own both properties?
MR. BIANCHINO-No.
MR. KUHL-No. So why do you keep combining? You say that 894 is so much permeability and
Uno is 53, so combine that?
MR. BIANCHINO-Well, I think it takes into account what the Comprehensive Plan recommends which
is interconnecting and sharing facilities to allow the whole corridor to perhaps have less pavement area
and more green space and fewer curb cuts, more centralized curb cuts. So that's the reason why we,
from a planning standpoint, we talk about combining because I think when you look at the
Comprehensive Plan that's basically what the recommendation is.
MR. HENKEL-But we had a similar situation with McDonald's because the two properties weren't
connected, weren't the same landlord and there was a permeability problem there. Do you remember
that?
MR. KUHL-No. That was a 20 year lease versus owning half of it.
MR. HENKEL-Right.
MR. KUHL-That was, the same landlord had both of them, but one was owned and one was leased.
MR. HENKEL-Right.
11
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA 11°'1eelJn 06f20/201a8]
MR. KUHL-This is two different ownerships.
MR. HENKEL-That's what I'm saying. Similar.
MR. FREER-I think the point is the guys on the south side could go and build more and the argument
that was just made that we should give the north side the variance could go away, using the combined
logic, which is not the way we do business. He's making the case that the combination, because of
the cut through, has some merit, but it's not the way we do business, in my understanding.
MR. MC DEVITT-Can you just explain, maybe I missed it before, the agreement or the understanding
as we sit here today with the owner of Pizzeria Uno. Do we have a deal that is struck, that is binding
or are we up in the air on that?
MR. BIANCHINO-The Pizzeria Uno owner has authorized Mr. Faden and ourselves to represent both
sites, or her site as part of these proceedings. We have submitted the Site Plan application and the
Variance on her behalf as well as Mr. Faden's behalf.
MR. MC DEVITT-So, I guess to take the one step further, is there a signed agreement for an easement?
MR. BIANCHINO-No, because the legal paperwork hasn't been completed yet pending.
MR. MC DEVITT-Well, some attorneys in the room may say that that's important to sign the legal
paperwork. I would actually say that's important.
MR. KUHL-It was my assumption that the same person owned both lots.
MR. BIANCHINO-But again, we are representing.
MR. MC DEVITT-I understand. I do follow what you're saying. It's just that deals go south in this
world. Deals blow up in the I]` hour. We're basically making some determinations, some votes, some
representations based upon an agreement which is not signed. Fair statement?
MR. BIANCHINO-Fair statement.
MR. MC DEVITT-I'm done.
MR. FREER-So my head is going toward the Martha thing where they had a similar permeability issue
and we made them put in permeable pavement, that we didn't accept their, because they're already not
meeting Code, right, with 26%.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And the other thing we're doing is we're rationalizing, taking the one off of one
parcel, putting it on to the other parcel to contain it.
MR. FREER-That's not how we do business.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That's not how we do business.
MR. MC DEVITT-If anything it's going to go from Uno down to this piece of property. It's not
going to go towards Uno.
MR. FREER-Well, yes, I know, but I mean that was the case they made why we should give this. Okay.
Am I off track with the Martha thing? Didn't we, didn't they have to put in some permeable paving
within the parking lot, or was it?
MRS. MOORE-So Martha's does have permeable pavement to the north side of the property. They
just seal coated the south side recently. So I'm not quite, I'll just let you continue. So right now
Martha's, you're correct, has permeable pavement in it.
MR. FREER-But they came in for a permeability thing and we told them that they should put permeable
pavement and they did. Right?
MRS. MOORE-Correct, but my guess is that you've granted them a couple of different variances.
MR. FREER-Yes. It's part of a big project. My other comment is you're kind of getting into, we
don't want to get nickeled and dimed and incremental kind of things. So whoever's developing the
12
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA 11°'1eelJn 06f20/201a8]
signs, if you come back in for a Sign Variance, you know, you're going to have a hard time convincing
me that you've got this thing all squared away. Okay. Any other questions?
MR. URRICO-Well I think there are options you have to increase the permeability and that includes
the pavers, includes some more green space. There are things you can do. I think I have to recognize
the property on its own merits without considering the next door property.
MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the
audience that would like to make a statement on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any
written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-1 don't see any written comment.
MR. FREER-Okay. I'll poll the Board and I'll start with John.
MR. HENKEL-Yes. Obviously it's only one variance they're looking for but I'm not good on this as
it is. I would want a little bit more permeability. So, no.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm not in favor as well. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that there's no easement
in place at this time. Also as far as the parking lot is concerned, the permeability issue, as well as I
have some safety issues about the traffic flow, you know, there's no left turn and there's questions
about New York State DOT which you mentioned in the previous application discussion. So for those
reasons I'm not in favor at this time.
MR. FREER-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-I'm not in favor of it based on the fact that there's no written agreement that the way it's
presented is going to happen.
MR. FREER-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-If we vote this down there's no way that it can proceed because you don't have
a way to turn left out into traffic. There has to be some way of turning out left into traffic to go
south onto Route 9 and as it presently stands, as proposed, this is the only way to do that. So you're
basically cutting yourself to the quick if you vote this down, and I think what we should do is we
should go back and re-think the whole project because we haven't, that's why I brought this up to
begin with at the beginning of the evening because there are important issues that need to be resolved
before you can proceed and we kind of did it bass-ackwards you know in the way that we proceeded
tonight, as far as I'm concerned. So I'm not going to vote for this as is.
MR. FREER-Okay. Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-My biggest concern is the lack of a signed, written easement. I guess I can't quite
get there. Maybe it's because as I've gotten older I've gotten a little more conservative, but those
things are important to me,and as a result I guess I'm not anti-project here and I'm not anti-, necessarily,
seeing this project come to fruition, but that is an issue that's concerning to me, and as a result I would
feel much more comfortable if that was in place, and if we had something in our packet that showed it
was in place. So perhaps there would be a way of going back to the drawing board relative to that
issue and kind of tapping the breaks here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would offer some insight as far as the parking that's on the north side of the
proposed building. If you eliminated this parking right here along this side which doesn't seem logical
anyway because it's not on the access point of the building, unless you're going to have a tenant facing
out towards the north side there towards Pizzeria Uno. I can understand that's why you'd want the
parking, but if you're not going to have a tenant who's facing towards Pizzeria Uno on that end, if you
eliminated those parking spots that would increase your permeability, even though it's not on the Uno
property. At the same time it would make an area where you could have more infiltrators in there,
you know, and process some of the runoff that you're going to produce, but as it stands, as I said
before, I think you're way overbuilding for what you've got here for site size.
MR. FREER-Okay. Roy?
13
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/2018]
MR. URRICO-Even if you had the DOT and the waiver already in hand, there's still problems with the
application here, and that is that the requested variance is substantial and there are alternatives, but
based on those facts alone I would be against the project, even if you had those other things in hand.
MR. FREER-I agree with what he just said. I think we get into a chicken or the egg here. They come
here looking to get the next step in the process and not signed, but even with a signed agreement I
would still be opposed to this because I think there are other things, and that's why I got into this
incremental business on this whole project. I still think you could put a smaller building. You'd need
less parking. You'd need less variances and so I have no interest in going from 26 when 30 is required
down to 17 on that site. Okay.
MRS. MOORE-Can I offer? In reference to the waiver or the easement language, that's something
that I've seen the Board in the past make that a condition, and the project wouldn't move forward if it
didn't have it and would also come up in the Planning Board review in their process. So the project
could not move forward if it didn't occur. So even if you were to grant it, not even mentioning the
easement, the project couldn't move forward. So just to clarify that during the review process.
MR. FREER-Yes, that's kind of what I was getting at in my comments.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. FREER-Okay. So you've heard the sense of the Board. We could vote on this, but that just
creates other things and you have some alternatives in terms of tabling and going back to the drawing
board. So what would you like to do?
MR. BIANCHINO-Why don't we table and I'll go back, the owner not being here, or the applicant not
being here. I'll go back to the applicant and talk about it.
MR. FREER-Okay. So can I get a motion to table?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Faden
Enterprises. Applicant proposes new parking improvements and an interconnect within a neighboring
property to the south. Additional hard surfacing exceeds site permeability. Relief sought for
permeability less than 30 percent. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for new site development.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for permeability in the Commercial Moderate zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes to increase additional parking and an interconnect to the southern property
where an increase in hardsurfacing reduces the permeability on site to 17.3% and 30% is required.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-35-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by
Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt:
Tabled to the June 27" Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Duly adopted this 201" day of June, 2018, by the following vote:
MR. KUHL-Table until when?
MRS. MOORE-So there is a, your Zoning Board meeting next week is light. I don't know if that's
something that the applicant can?
MR. FREER-She said next week is a light agenda, but that would require a quick turn.
MRS. MOORE-Right. I mean I don't know if that's okay or you can move it to the July meetings.
MR. BIANCHINO-No, we can go to next week and we'll let you know if.
MR. KUHL-So you want to table it to June 27"?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
1�.
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/2018]
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. BIANCHINO-Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. Can we just have a quick break here while we re-constitute. Okay. I think we're
re-constituted enough. We'll go on to Area Variance 14-2018, Joe Didio.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV44-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO OWNER(S)
JOSEPH &CYNTHIA DIDIO ZONING WR LOCATION 2966 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 525 SQ. FT. SECOND-STORY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO
EXISTING 1,096 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. HOME IS 2,056 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA)
CURRENTLY AND PROPOSED FLOOR AREA WITH ADDITION WILL BE 2,581 SQ. FT. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, FLOOR AREA RATIO
REQUIREMENTS AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING
BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. CROSS REF P-SP40-2018; AV 34-2003;
AV 26-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
ALD LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 239.204-7 SECTION 179-3-040
ANDY DIDIO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOE DIDIO, PRESENT
MR. FREER-Roy, would you read it in.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-14-2018,Joseph & Cynthia Didio, Meeting Date: June 20, 2018
"Project Location: 2966 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 525 sq. ft. second-story residential addition to existing 1,096 sq. ft. (footprint) home.
Home is 2,056 sq. ft. (floor area) currently and proposed floor area with addition will be 2,581 sq. ft.
Relief requested from minimum setback requirements, floor area ratio requirements and height
restrictions in the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a
nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from expansion of a nonconforming structure, floor area, height and from
minimum setback requirements for such structure in the WR zoning district.
179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements
The applicant proposes to construct a 525 sq. ft. second floor addition. The addition is over an existing
main floor on the north side the setback is to be 6.83 ft. where a 15 ft. setback is required. The
proposed height is 41.11 ft. where 28 ft. is the maximum allowed. The floor area is increased from 2,056
sq. ft. to 2,581 sq. ft. where 1,613.7 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.
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 new addition is over an existing main floor.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce
the size of the addition. Other alternatives may be limited due to the location of the home on the
parcel and size of the existing home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for side setback is 8.7 ft., and Floor
area relief is 13 % in excess, 35%.
15
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA 11°'1eelJn 06f20/201a8]
S. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have
minimal impact.
6. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a 525 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing home. The plans show the
elevation for each side of the building with the new addition, roofline, and windows. The applicant has
provided a floor plan showing the new second floor with 3-bedrooms. The septic system was recently
upgraded with a new tank for up to 4-bedrooms. The site drawings should show the existing porches."
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review had identified the following areas of
concern, the height variance which is increased significantly, and that motion was passed unanimously
on June 19, 2018.
MR. FREER-Hello, welcome, and can you please identify yourself for the record.
MR. DIDIO-Sure. Andy Didio.
MR. J. DIDIO-Joe Didio.
MR. FREER-So would you like to add anything or just take questions from the Board?
MR. DIDIO-Sure. I would just add I just provided the Board, we received letters from the neighboring
properties to the north, two neighbors, the direct adjacent neighbor and the neighbor two doors up
to the north, as well as the neighbor that's two parcels down, which there's a vacant lot to the south
of the vacant property and actual residential structure. We were provided letters of support for the
project and you were also provided with an existing condition, proposed condition rendering that gives
you an idea of what the addition would look like. That's the, the rendering was taken from their dock.
Also again, for lack of ink, there are two copies between the Board members that provide the view of
the property from the bay. So we took photographs from directly in front, from the south side,
from the north side and it shows the very limited visibility of the parcel from the lake and the nearly
invisible perspective that he'll have from the lake with the addition. As a matter of fact you can
actually see, in the existing condition, the gable end of the two story portion of the house the asphalt
shingled roof is a tan color, it's actually more visible than what the addition will be.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Anybody on the Board have any questions for the applicant?
MR. KUHL-My only question, how do you measure three or four bedrooms on a septic?
MR. DIDIO-How do you measure it?
MR. KUHL-Well, you know, what's the capacity for the bedrooms, is it the leach field or is it the?
MR. DIDIO-In the design of the septic the leach field is ultimately the determining factor, but it depends
on the level of treatment prior to the leach field. So if you're just doing say dosing without secondary
treatment to an absorption field and you have poor infiltration, then the application rate of gallons per
day per square foot is reduced, whereas if you offer advanced treatment or pre-treatment, then your,
the gallons per day, your application rate is higher so it increased the field size. The on-site septic was
reviewed by the Town when the sewer district was created for the Dunham's Bay location and approved.
Given the fact that the leach field doesn't meet the side yard setbacks, that was a point of contention
before the application was even submitted so that's where the applicant had a design developed for an
advanced treatment, one of the Clare systems, to be installed in place of their existing 1,000 gallon
concrete tank.
MR. KUHL-So it's a 1,000 gallon tank or it's a 1200?
MR. DIDIO-It's a 1,000.
MR. KUHL-1 always thought a 1,000 was three bedrooms.
MR. DIDIO-It is. A Clare system, again, has a different model.
16
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA 11°'1eelJn 06f20/201a8]
MR. J. DIDIO-We are going for the three bedrooms.
MR, KUHL-I mean other people come up with documents and say that so and so engineer certified.
MR. DIDIO-But the engineer we hired came up with that.
MR. KUHL-Yes, and he's not here. Right? Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? Okay. We have a public hearing on this
application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application?
Seeing no one, you just supplied some written comments. Should we read them in, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. FREER-Go ahead, Roy, if you wouldn't mind.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO"I am writing regarding the addition my neighbors, Joseph and Cynthia Didio, of 2966
State Rt. 9L, are proposing on their property. It does not impact my property at all and I recommend
the Boards pass the variances and allow the addition. Eleanor Strack" Do we know what address she's
at?
MR. DIDIO-She's directly north adjacent at 2968. So the highlighted parcel, she's directly north.
MR. URRICO-And the second letter is 1, Albert Turcotte, living at 2970 State Rt. 9L, Lake George,
N.Y. have no problem whatsoever with Joe's plans for expansion and addition to his property at 2966
State Rt. 9L, Lake George, N.Y. Albert A. Turcotte" And there's another letter. "I am writing
because I cannot attend this meeting because of health reasons. At the meeting 4-25-07 the issues of
the property in question was the reason my attorney and I were there. Because of the illegal actions
of the Didio's. This is documented in minutes of that meeting 4-25-07 of unapproved decks, dock,
stairs areas. Three years prior to 4-25-07 Didio's began the additions of decks of 326 sq. feet without
the application or approval of the Town of Queensbury. The existing buildings and additions will be
in violation because there are not legal setbacks in place now and continuing to add on will only create
further problems. The proposed addition will cause further environmental impact on the lake as it
has on my property. This was determined in the meeting 4-25-07. When the Didio's purchased the
property the damage began when I did not object to the plans for the new docks which was much
larger. The building material was to be moved over my property with my father present and myself,
and was to be done in the ways dad knew were safe for the beauty of our property. The heavy
building materials were to be placed on rollers, heavy pipes, large diameter, rolled down carefully.
Didio's did not notify us when this was happening and when we arrived the major destruction of the
pathways with hundreds of years of established natural firmly established rocks, foliage, grass and
perennials were very torn up, from the way lumber was dragged down the hill with no concern for
our property. We could not stop this damage when Didio's had not notified us as agreed they would
do. The next damaging erosion was caused by Didio's paving the entire front of their property which
runs off on the top of my property causing further erosion to my lot. The next cause of erosion was
the dropping of building materials on my land for the deck project with no approval by the Town or
me. Then the hot tub was delivered without permission by us over my property again causing further
erosion and placed on my property line approximately 15 ft. from waterline exactly on northeast border
of my land sitting directly on property line causing further erosion and making the path inaccessible
to my docks which now have to have steps because natural existing natural path has become entirely
eroded. The area which is covered by building decks and hot tubs allows very little places for natural
absorption of stormwater on their land. This future proposal of construction will only further the
erosion currently occurring to my land. Since my assessment has been determined to be $380,000
from $360,000 1 attempted to have it toward an appeal to no avail because of existing conditions and
damage caused by Didio's. The Didio's have no way of getting building materials onto their property
due to the existing stairs they built on their property and I will not allow them access to my property
to enable further damage. If inspectors view the property they will be aware of the impossibility to
get materials due to such construction. I have photographs but due to illness I have not been able
to get down in the files to get them. As soon as possible I will provide you with them. Yours
Respectfully, Gary Banta" And he's at 2969 State Route 9L. That's it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. J. DIDIO-I believe we have another letter in favor from a neighbor. She's north of Eleanor.
17
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA 11°'1eelJn 06f20/201a8]
MR. URRICO"I am writing this to inform the members of the Boards that the project that the Didio
family is planning for their home will have no impact on us. In fact, we are all for it! Best regards,
Lisa Cadena 2962 State Route 9L"
MR. FREER-That's it.
MR. DIDIO-May I comment on Mr. Banta's?
MR. FREER-Sure.
MR. J. DIDIO-Mr. Banta owns an open lot next us and some cabins across the street that are run down
basically. He is an absentee landlord who all of those things are false. Everything we have done is
permitted. I'm sure the record will show that. You'll find that with every deck and things we've
done. We had a hot tub that was close to his property and he complained to this group and we
appeared in front of them. They said, no, it is not, it's fine, blah, blah, blah, and I said I'll move it and
we moved it, got it away from there, but everything we've done has been permitted. All of these little
things he dreams up, again, I've been there 17 years and I see him when he's attempting to try to rent
out one of those cabins that are empty all the time because they're in such disrepair. As is his house,
as is his property, and in the 17 years I've been there he literally raped that property twice. He hasn't,
someone in his employ has. So he is basically an absentee who has just not really liked us from the
beginning, but again, just a lot of that is not accurate.
MR. DIDIO-All of this is inaccurate, with the exception of the hot tub which, again, is a portable item
but because to keep a good neighbor, as neighborly as possible.
MR. J. DIDIO-I just moved it.
MR. FREER-Okay. So I'm going to poll the Board and I'm going to start with.
MR. KUHL-What's the height of the house now?
MR. DIDIO-Thirty-seven feet from the lowest point on the lakeside to the ridge, the gable end of the
existing two story portion on the lakeside.
MR. KUHL-But you're asking for 41 feet.
MR. DIDIO-Yes. So it'll be five feet higher to the gable end of the addition, reason being the existing
predominantly flat roof, it's an EPDM roof that has a very low pitch over the living room in the
rendering. Above that is where the addition would be. That is actually above the finished floor
elevation of the second story and the front portion of the house. So you'll see in I think it's Drawing
Three of Three, in the cut through section you actually need two steps up to get into the proposed
addition due to the living room ceiling height, and then for minimum code required ceiling elevation
the height has to be raised of the, the ceiling height in the addition will be higher than the existing
second story ceiling height, and then their existing height, 4 feet 11 inches, and then the existing roof
on the second story portion is asphalt shingled. We intend to do asphalt shingle on the proposed
addition. So the roof pitch is 6 on 12 which is the minimum for asphalt.
MR. HENKEL-What kind of disturbance of trees are you going to have with this construction?
MR. DIDIO-No tree removal. There's one limb from a large oak that actually hangs over the, I guess
it would be the northwest corner which would have to be trimmed back, but that's it. No tree removal
and nearly no removal. Just that little branch pretty much.
MR. J. DIDIO-The goal here is quite simply to expand our bedrooms so my children and grandchildren
can stay there. One of the bedrooms of the three bedrooms we have is seven feet by twelve. I
cannot physically get my children, grandchildren, I'm not saying all of them at one time, but just one
particular group comfortably at my home. Believe me. I'm retired. Fixed income. The last thing I
want to do is take on this kind of expense. It's not the last thing because obviously I'm doing it, but,
you know, we want our grandchildren and children at home.
MR. DIDIO-And basically this is the lowest impact addition that they could feasibly due to the property,
not increasing impervious surface. We're not increasing nonconformance as far as side yard setbacks
are going. It's going over the existing roof area of the living room. So basically everything is Code
minimum as far as height to try and watch the height. So again really it's our fault because we all had
kids.
18
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA 11°'1eelJn 06f20/201a8]
MR. FREER-So how are you, Ron?
MR. KUHL-I think you're asking for too much. I'm not in favor of the project the way it's presented.
I think the height situation, I'm not in favor of that. I'm not in favor of the project.
MR. FREER-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a .17 acre lot on a very topographically challenged slope and I think, you
know, it's reflective of the height of the house as it exists. Because you're on such a steep slope that
naturally makes the house taller and there's not much you can do about that as far as that goes. At
the same time, though, you know, we have a floor area ratio that we use at 22%, and, you know, you're
granted 1600 square feet of living space, a little over that, and you're already at 2056, you're going to
jump it up to 2581, you know, so that's going to put you at about a .35 floor area ratio, which is way
over the top, you know, and unfortunately I think in this instance here, even though you're trying to
do the right thing, you know, you can only have what's allowable and what's within reason, and I think
what you're trying to do, you know, I understand where you're coming from in terms of adding on
bedrooms and stuff like that at the same time, but it's just way too much for what the site allows. So
I can't go for it at this present time.
MR. FREER-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I do follow the family. I follow kids. I follow,the floor area ratio,as Jim is indicating
not being minimum, I would not be in favor of the project.
MR. FREER-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in agreement. I think between the height and the floor area I think the variances
would be too extreme to grant so I'd be against it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Mike?
MR. MC CABE-We've been very stringent on granting increased height and, you know, we've argued
over six inches to twelve inches and this is a lot more than that. So to be consistent as a Board I
couldn't support this project for the height variance. I would be all right with the setbacks, and I
understand it's a nonconforming structure to begin with and so that's going to make the floor area
ratio an odd thing, but I can't forgive the height.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. John?
MR. HENKEL-I understand the family thing, too, but it is a little bit too much. You're asking for 967
feet above the FAR variance and that kind of puts a damper on it. Of course the permeability has
nothing to do with it. That permeability of 56%'s no good. I'm not for the project with what you're
asking.
MR. FREER-Okay, and I don't even have to say anything. So there's a couple of choices. You've
heard that approval is not going to be forthcoming. You can ask for the vote. You can table it or
withdraw it. Those are your options.
MR. DIDIO-So it's my understanding that predominantly the objection is to the height increase. So if
by some way architecturally they were able to modify the plans to not increase their existing
nonconformance is at 37 feet, the existing structure, I guess that is essentially the only option.
Whether it's even feasible, again, is another discussion. In reviewing of the notes from the ZBA
meeting notes and the five standards by which you review variances, is it self-created, is it unique to
the property, I think we meet the standard on all five of those points. The difference, obviously we're
looking at, yes, it is significant when you look at the approved building height allowable 28 feet. It is
unique to the property given that you're on a steep slope. The New York State Building Code even
allows.
MR. FREER-Do you want to table it, withdraw it or do you want us to vote? You had your chance
to talk about all this. You heard our input. We're not going to negotiate it.
MR. DIDIO-Sure. Tabling it would be.
MR. FREER-Then you don't have to start from the beginning through the process. You could make,
you could work with Staff and bring it back under the same number without having to go through
19
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/2018]
starting from scratch. If you withdraw it and you want to re-submit it, then you basically are at the
beginning.
MR. DIDIO-Yes. When are the next meetings?
MRS. MOORE-So the next meetings, the July meeting the deadline has passed so it would be an August
meeting.
MR. DIDIO-Okay. Yes, we'll table it until August.
MR. FREER-Okay. So the applicant has made a request to table the application until the August
meeting. Could I get a motion?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Joseph 8T
Cynthia Didio. Applicant proposes construction of a 525 sq. ft. second-story residential addition to
existing 1,096 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Home is 2,056 sq. ft. (floor area) currently and proposed floor
area with addition will be 2,581 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements, floor area
ratio requirements and height restrictions in the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review
required for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from expansion of a nonconforming structure, floor area, height and from
minimum setback requirements for such structure in the WR zoning district.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV44-2018 JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO, Introduced
by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt:
Tabled until the first meeting in August with new material to be submitted to the Town by the middle
of July.
Duly adopted this 2011 day of June, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. DIDIO-Okay. Thanks. Have a nice evening.
MR. FREER-Okay. So we're on to Area Variance 29-2018, Marcia Parker.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-29-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 MARCIA PARKER AGENT(SJ VANDUSEN
& STEVES ZONING WR LOCATION 11 SPERRY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 2.07 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS. ONE LOT IS TO BE 0.58 ACRES
(LOT A) AND THE SECOND LOT IS TO BE 1.48 ACRES (LOT BJ. EACH LOT HAS AN EXISTING
HOUSE AND GARAGE AND BOTH HOMES HAVE ACCESS ON SPERRY ROAD. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, SHORELINE FRONTAGE, ROAD
FRONTAGE, AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING
BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW. CROSS REF P-SB-7-2018 PRELIM. WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING MAY 2018 LOT SIZE 2.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.54-8 SECTION 179-3-
040; 179-4-050
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. FREER-Roy, could you please read it in?
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-29-2018, Marcia Parker, Meeting Date: June 20, 2018 "Project
Location: 11 Sperry Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide an
existing 2.07 acre parcel into 2 lots. One lot is to be 0.58 acres (Lot A) and the second lot is to be
1.48 acres [Lot B]. Each lot has an existing house and garage and both homes have access on Sperry
Road. Relief requested from minimum lot size, setbacks, lot width, shoreline, frontage, road frontage,
and density requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Subdivision review required.
20
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA It,lleelJn 06l20/2018]
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum lot size, setbacks, lot width, shoreline, frontage, road
frontage, and density requirements for the WR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Dimension requirements Waterfront Residential zone.
Project involves subdividing a 2.07 ac parcel into 0.58 ac and 1.48 ac where 2 ac is required. Relief is
requested for Road frontage 150 ft. required —Lot 0.48 ac is to have 118.24 ft.; Lot 1.48 ac is to have
25 ft. —both on Sperry Rd (Lot 1.48 has 80 ft. of road frontage on Lansburg Lane but no access
physically exists). Relief is requested for Lot Width 150 ft. required —Lot 0.48 ac is to have 88 ft. +/-,
Lot 1.48 ac is to have 112 ft. +/-. Relief is requested for shoreline frontage 150 ft. is required —Lot 0.48
ac is to have 75 ft.
179-4-050 Frontage on public streets.
Frontage access is proposed on Sperry Rd that is a private drive
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts
to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited
due to the existing lot configuration and the location of the existing location of the two homes
and other structures on the property.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for lot size where creating two lots of 0.58 acres
and 1.58 acres each lot being less than 2 ac. Relief requested for having two new lots have access
to a private drive where a public road access is required. Relief requested for lot width —Lot 0.48
relief is 62 ft., Lot 1.48 ac is 88ft. Shoreline frontage relief for Lot 0.48 ac is 75 ft. Relief for road
frontage —Lot 0.48 ac is 31.76 ft. and Lot 1.48 ac is to be 125 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 project may be considered to have
minimal impact. The applicant has indicated there are to be no changes to the site or the existing
buildings on the site.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 2.07 ac parcel into 0.58 ac and 1.48 ac. The plans
show each lot has an existing house and garage and both homes have a driveway to Sperry Road. No
site changes are proposed."
MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify
any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And the
motion they adopted on June 19, 2018 unanimously.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with VanDusen & Steves representing Marcia Parker in this
application. As Roy has read in and the Staff has said it's property in a Waterfront Residential zone.
It's bordered on the south by Lansburg Lane, a private road and to the north by Sperry Road, a private
road, and it currently has two primary structures and two garages, and if you look on the map, on the
survey you'll see running through Lot A, which would be the northerly lot, a dashed line that says
deed line equals 40 and deed equals 160. This, back in the 60's and 70's. was two separate parcels, a
.40 acre parcel and a 1.6 acre parcel,and subsequently over the years before Marcia owned the property
it got merged into one parcel, and so what we're looking to do is just separate the two structures so
that she can live with her husband on the larger lot B, and the house that they currently either lease
or rent would be able to be sold with the property. Again, the property, there's no physical changes.
The driveways stay where they are. They both have access, when you're currently driving in off Sperry
Road, and again there's no physical changes to the site whatsoever on this proposal.
21
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/2018]
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you on Town water down there?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. KUHL-How did they get to have two houses on one piece of property?
MR. STEVES-It was two tax parcels years ago.
MR. KUHL-I thought that's what you said, years ago.
MR. STEVES-1 have one of the older tax maps, a copy with me, that shows the two lots and they
combined them. I went through the history of it. Why they combined them I have no idea, if it was
just combined for tax purposes because one person owned it, but it's irrelevant to the point now it's
considered one tax parcel so we have to have a subdivision. Again, as I explained to the Planning
Board last night that these provisions show that the parcel was two parcels in the deed. You go to the
Zoning Administrator and ask for that and come back with two parcels. I think that's a bit of a stretch
because that's overburdening your Zoning Administrator because this has been merged for so long
and at the same time both houses have been there for that long. The use does not change.
MR. HENKEL-Yet they want to keep two driveways.
MR. STEVES-Just currently just like it is because it's two different garages, yes, and if anybody's ever
been down Sperry Road,that private road,there's not much traffic on that road to worry about sharing
a driveway there. Again the lot exists not on a public road but on the private roads. The usage is
there already with two separate driveways to two separate single family homes with two separate garages.
MR. KUHL-Who occupies the house on Lot A?
MR. STEVES-I'm not sure who occupies that now. Marcia may be able to tell us.
MARCIA PARKER
MRS. PARKER-Her name is Ashly Bouchee and she rents it.
MR. FREER-Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled.
Does anybody in the audience have any comments on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there
any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes. We strongly support our neighbor, Marcia Parker, of 11 Sperry Road in her
application to subdivide her existing 2 acre lot. We do not anticipate any adverse effect on our
neighborhood, and we believe she should be allowed to proceed with her plans. Sperry Road is a
small, heavily wooded, isolated road that has almost no visibility or contact with any neighbors. Thank
you. Tom & Beth Portuese 271 Big Bay Road"
MR. FREER-Okay. So I'm going to poll the Board and start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think this is a back to the future. We wonder why things change and why
things go back to the way they were, but this one makes perfect sense. Nothing is really going to
change here, and even if the house gets sold and a smaller house, the one story wood frame one,
there's plenty of room to build a new house there and meet the setbacks and make it reasonable. So
I'd be in favor of it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project.
MR. FREER-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Yes. The project seems a lot more complicated than it actually is. It's always better
to have one house on one property. So relieving that condition gets my vote.
MR. FREER-Okay. John?
22
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06l20/2018]
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with that, that one house on each lot is a good idea. So I'm in favor
of it as it is.
MR. FREER-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I, too, agree with returning to one primary structure on each lot and it's good for
the neighborhood. So I'm in favor of it.
MR. FREER-And Ron?
MR. URRICO-Yes. It's a two acre zone and you're taking two acres and splitting them. I agree with
Jim it's back to the future, and that's the only reason I would agree with it, but for me, I mean why
does the Comprehensive Plan say we have two acre zoning and we're taking 2.07 and splitting it, but
I'll go back to the future on this one.
MR. FREER-Yes. When I saw this I was doubtful that we should proceed, but given the explanation, I
can support this. The water sewer thing seems to be what the Comprehensive Plan people had in mind
when they made this into two acres in this area. So the fact that there's water there is mitigating in
my mind. We're not worried about septic getting in the well and all that cross stuff. So I would
support it. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing and request a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Marcia
Parker. Applicant proposes to subdivide an existing 2.07 acre parcel into 2 lots. One lot is to be 0.58
acres (Lot A) and the second lot is to be 1.48 acres [Lot B]. Each lot has an existing house and garage
and both homes have access on Sperry Road. Relief requested from minimum lot size, setbacks, lot
width, shoreline, frontage, road frontage, and density requirements for the WR zoning district.
Planning Board: Subdivision review required.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum lot size, setbacks, lot width, shoreline, frontage, road
frontage, and density requirements for the WR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Dimension requirements Waterfront Residential zone.
Project involves subdividing a 2.07 ac parcel into 0.58 ac and 1.48 ac where 2 ac is required. Relief is
requested for Road frontage 150 ft. required —Lot 0.48 ac is to have 118.24 ft.; Lot 1.48 ac is to have
25 ft. —both on Sperry Rd (Lot 1.48 has 80 ft. of road frontage on Lansburg Lane but no access
physically exists). Relief is requested for Lot Width 150 ft. required —Lot 0.48 ac is to have 88 ft. +/-,
Lot 1.48 ac is to have 112 ft. +/-. Relief is requested for shoreline frontage 150 ft. is required —Lot 0.48
ac is to have 75 ft.
179-4-050 Frontage on public streets.
Frontage access is proposed on Sperry Rd that is a private drive
SEAR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 20, 2018;
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 the situation exists right now. We're just separating the properties.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not considered reasonable at
this particular time.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's just making legal what already exists.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. It was created years ago by somebody else.
23
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,ll :elJn 06l20/201a8]
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approvall 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) 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 Z-
AV-29-2018, MARCIA PARKER, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michelle Hayward:
Duly adopted this 20t" day of June 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. So we're onto Area Variance 37-2018, Sara Secor-Jones.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-37-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 SARAH E. SECOR JONES AGENT(SJ
MICHAEL CROWE, ESQ. FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH OWNER(SJ RICHARD &
KELLY IRVINE ZONING MDR LOCATION 52 VERANDA LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. SWIMMING POOL IN THE SIDE YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM REQUIREMENTS FOR PLACEMENT OF A POOL IN A YARD OTHER THAN THE REAR
YARD. CROSS REF SB 4-2004(2 LOTS) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.64
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.4.21 SECTION 179-5-020
MIKE CROWE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-37-2018, Sarah E. Secor-Jones, Meeting Date: June 20, 2018
"Project Location: 52 Veranda Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of an 576 sq. ft. swimming pool in the side yard. Relief requested from requirements for
placement of a pool in a yard other than the rear yard.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from requirements for placement of a pool in a yard other than the rear
yard.
179-5-020 Pool requirements
The applicant proposes to place a pool in the side yard where pools are to be located in the rear yard.
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 limited due to the lot
configuration.
21
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/201a8]
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for placing a pool in the side yard where pools
are to be located in the rear yard.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have
minimal impact.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to place a 566 sq. ft. pool in the side yard of an existing lot with a single family
home. The information submitted shows the lot configuration and indicates the rear of the property
involves some grade changes that would be difficult to place a pool. "
MR. FREER-Thank you. Please identify yourself and make any comments you'd like.
MR. CROWE-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I'm Michael Crowe on behalf of the applicant, Sarah
Secor-Jones. Essentially the application before you tonight is for one variance to re-locate the pool,
or to locate a pool in the side yard where the Zoning Code requires it in the rear yard. The reason
for that is the topography of the lot. This lot is cornered right up into West Mountain. The house
was placed towards the, it's not the edge of the lot but where the slope of the mountain is coming
down steeply. So trying to excavate into the back of the yard for a pool is nearly impossible.
Meanwhile the side yard is open. There's no issues with setbacks. It's just a matter of having the
pool in the side instead of the rear yard. To offset that this is at the end of a dead end street and
due to the elevation changes, essentially all the nearby neighbors are significantly downgrade from this
property, and so a number of factors that kind of limit any sort of impact that moving the pool from
the rear to the side would otherwise impose.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. When I went up to look at the house all the other houses on the street are for
sale.
MRS. HAYWARD-Well this one seems to be for sale, too.
MR. CROWE-It's pending, yes it is. The applicants are the purchasers and the sellers, and the purchase
is pending with a closing later this month.
MR. HENKEL-So it's up to us.
MR. KUHL-How do we know, legally, it's going to close?
MR. HENKEL-It doesn't make any difference.
MR. KUHL-No, but is the applicant the new owner?
MR. CROWE-It's both, the Irvines and Secor-Jones.
MR. KUHL-I just wanted to make sure you weren't bringing a shady application in front of this Board.
MR. FREER-So I'm assuming that Secor-Jones owns the property otherwise they wouldn't be able to, I
mean they own it now.
MR. CROWE-Secor-Jones, Sarah Secor-Jones is the proposed purchaser. The Irvines who are co-
applicants, are the current owners, and the contract is, like I said, days away from closing, but pending.
MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled.
Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no
one, Roy, is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's no written or otherwise comment.
25
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/2018]
MR. FREER-Okay. Roy, let's start with you.
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. I don't have any objections.
MR. FREER-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Yes, it's a reasonable thing to do. I support the project.
MR. FREER John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. It will help sell one of the houses there.
MR. FREER-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project.
MR. FREER-And Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I have no issue with the project.
MR. FREER Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a logical place to put it.
MR. FREER-And I, too, support it. It meets the criteria. So I'll close the public hearing and request
a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application for Sarah E.
Secor Jones. Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. swimming pool in the side yard. Relief
requested from requirements for placement of a pool in a yard other than the rear yard.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from requirements for placement of a pool in a yard other than the rear
yard.
179-5-020 Pool requirements
The applicant proposes to place a pool in the side yard where pools are to be located in the rear yard.
SEAR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 20, 2018;
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 by placing the pool here.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. The applicant proposes to place the pool in the
only place that seems logical. The rear yard has steep terrain coming down from the mountain
behind the house. I guess you could put it in the front yard, but no one wants a pool in their
front yard. So the side yard makes perfect sense.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's the only logical place to put the pool.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. The alleged difficulty is created by the topography
that exists on the lot.
26
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,ll :elJn 06l20/201a8]
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of
the neighborhood or community;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) 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 Z-
AV-37-2018,SARAH E.SECOR-)ONES, Introduced by James Underwood,who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 20t" day of June 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. CROWE-Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. Next is Area Variance 41-2018 Monsour Enterprises.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-41-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 MONSOUR ENTERPRISES, LLC AGENT(SJ
MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(SJ RICHARD & KELLY IRVINE ZONING MDR
LOCATION 0 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.71 ACRE PARCEL
INTO THREE LOTS OF 1.57 ACRES EACH FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS. LOTS 2 & 3 ARE
TO HAVE A SHARED DRIVEWAY. LOT 1 WILL HAVE A LOT WIDTH OF 100 FT. WHERE 200
FT. IS REQUIRED ON A COLLECTOR ROAD; LUZERNE ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT
SIZE, AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION OF LOTS
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS P-SB-8-2018; P-SB-9-2018 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.68 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-2-77 SECTION 179-3-040;
17949-020
MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVID MONSOUR, PRESENT
MR. FREER-Roy, are you ready to read it into the record?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-41-2018, Monsour Enterprises, LLC, Meeting Date: June 20,
2018 "Project Location: 0 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
subdivision of a 4.71 acre parcel into 3 lots of 1.57 acres each for single-family dwellings. Lots 2 & 3
are to have a shared driveway. Lot 1 will have a lot width of 100 ft. where 200 ft. is required on a
collector road; Luzerne Road. Relief requested from lot size, and lot width requirements. Planning
Board: Subdivision of lots requires Planning Board review.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from lot size, and lot width requirements in the MDR zone.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements.
Applicant proposes 3 lot subdivision of lots 1.57 ac where 2 ac is required
Section 179-19-020— Residential lots abutting collector roads
Lot 1 is proposed to have a lot width of 100 ft. where 200 ft. is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
27
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/201a8]
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 applicant has indicated neighboring properties are
of similar 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 considered to create
less lots.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief for lot size 0.43 for each of the three parcels. Relief
requested for lot width of 100 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 project may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a three lot single family residential subdivision. The plans show the lot
arrangements. The project is subject to subdivision requirements where the applicant has requested
waivers from providing septic,water supply,stormwater, grading, clearing,and house location indicating
those items to be determined as lots are sold."
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. That motion was passed
June 19', 2018 by a unanimous vote.
MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Please identify yourself.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little,
O'Connor & Borie. I represent the applicant and with me is David Monsour of Monsour Enterprises,
LLC. We're here seeking area variances. One is for the lot size. We are proposing three single family
homes. 1.57 acres each. It's in a zone that requires two acres. We are also requesting a lot width for
one of the three lots, Lot Number One. The lot is 114.92 feet frontage. Because it's on a collector
road it's supposed to be 200 feet. The zone requires 100 foot of lot width, but because it's on a
particular road, Luzerne Road, it's required to have 200 feet. It's my belief that that was so that they
could cut down on the number of driveways. In fact in the provisions where they talked about the
200 feet they give a specific exemption if you use a shared driveway. In this particular instance I don't
think we really need 200 feet because the property next to it, the corner lot on Stephanie Lane, has
202 feet of frontage and the entrance or driveway from that property isn't on Luzerne Road. It actually
goes on Stephanie Lane, and it did get an Area Variance. This shows the actual driveway from
Stephanie Lane if you want to look at that. This is Stephanie Lane. This is the property we're going
to subdivide. The County, when they do their GIS maps, unfortunately don't do them smaller, and I
didn't have a way of reproducing them or making copies like we normally do, but if we lay out the
driveways correctly, we will have 200 feet between the driveways. We have in excess of 200 feet
from Stephanie Lane to where we'll have a driveway on Lot Number One and then we'll have another
200 feet between that point on Lot One from where we have the shared driveways on Lot Two. I
think we fulfill the intention and the thought behind the restrictions. I don't know if anybody has a
question on it, but Section 179-19 and 20 begins it. Section B says all residential lots fronting on a
collector or an arterial road identified in 179-19-30 shall have two times the lot width permitted. The
requirement shall not apply where adjoining residential lots exist or are proposed to be established and
the width of each lot meets the required width of the zone, which it does for these two. Lots Two
and Three are in excess of 100 feet. They're both 104 feet deep and ingress or egress is limited to and
provided by a single common driveway. So what we will propose is that we will have a common
driveway between Lots Two and Three. They will go in to the property perhaps 15 feet or so as a
common driveway and then they will split off and they will go off the property lines but on each
respective lot and we will provide, and it will come into the lot a little bit so that they meet the garage
which will be on the end of the house, respective end of the house, and then as people come out of
the garage we will have a hammerhead where they can back to the property line, turn their car and
drive onto Luzerne Road. So we're not having people back onto Luzerne Road. We're having the
proper separation between the driveways. There's really no impact of any significant nature on the
community or the neighborhood. The size of the lots we also suggest has no impact on the character
of the neighborhood because if you take a look at that map, all the lots along Stephanie Lane are even
28
( u.ueea ushu.ua y ZBA t,lleelJ n 06 f 20/201 a8]
smaller than what we propose. The lots that are immediately to the east of this property all have less
frontage than what we propose. The lots across the street are the same thing. It actually would be
out of character to use, if we were going to simply divide this into two lots and add two lots there.
It would be out of character with the neighborhood with what's there. It also would probably make
it a good recipe for failure because at that point you'd be trying to sell maybe $400,000 houses in a
neighborhood that the price is no place near that. To justify dividing this into two lots instead of
three lots increase the cost of the project, so you're going to build a bigger house to get a return on
your project and I think it just wouldn't work. Those houses wouldn't be saleable. So we think that
there's no impact on anyone. We think it's in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. We
don't think the requested variance is substantial, either by lot size. We're offering one and a half, or
a little better than one and a half to a two acre lot, and I think we've met the standards of what you
would look at for the variance on the driveway. I'll answer any questions. I didn't say this is in a
district served by water. We'll have on-site septic. We've applied and I have in the file, already
submitted,an application for Preliminary Subdivision and Final Subdivision and it all goes to the Planning
Board. We will talk to them about the waivers we requested. It's good sandy soil I'm told. We do
have a letter from DEC saying that there is no endangered species and they take no jurisdiction for
that on this particular site. We first thought of the butterflies, but I think everybody here knows you
don't have butterflies in treed lots. And there's something else, Elfin's, and pine bush scrub trees
which I didn't realize were supposedly an endangered tree. The fellow from Warrensburg actually went
out to the site and said that there was nothing on the site.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Questions from the Board?
MR. KUHL-Mr. O'Connor, you presented a very thorough explanation. How come on the map you
gave us you don't show where the driveway's going to go and where the house is going to go?
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We actually did the application last month and until we know that we're
going to get the variance I don't know that we want to spend that much on engineering, but it's
feasible. I have, to be honest with you, I have a map and I got it by talking to the surveyor today by
telephone, but she put the shared driveway on the wrong lots. So I don't want to confuse the file
and stick this in front of you and then find out why I'm not doing it later.
MR. KUHL-I appreciate you not confusing me.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I don't want to confuse myself. The other thing I didn't say, the fellow who
left earlier is Mr. Lashway, and he owns two of the properties to the east of us, and he has written a
note that I have no objection to Monsour project. He owns 355 Luzerne Road and 359 Luzerne Road.
I will give you this for him, for the file.
MR. URRICO-What date is that letter?
MR. O'CONNOR-He signed it 10 minutes ago.
MR. URRICO-He submitted another letter from Kenya?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, this is James.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-1 think Kenya is his niece.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. FREER-So do you want to give him that now or do you want to make a copy of it?
MR. O'CONNOR-I'd like to make a copy for my file.
MR. FREER-Okay, and so we have a public hearing scheduled. Are there any more questions for the
applicant? We have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to
make a comment on this application? Okay. Would you please come up to the table, ma'am? Please
have a seat and identify yourself, ma'am.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KAREN BATES
29
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/2018]
MS. BATES-Hi, good evening. My name is Karen Bates. I live on one of the lots on Stephanie Lane.
It would be the third lot in on Stephanie Lane.
MRS. MOORE-So this one.
MR. HENKEL-Number 74?
MS. BATES-39 is the address. It's that one, yes. When I bought my house four years ago I was told
that nothing could be built on that property behind me. So I was a little curious when I got the notice
in the mail that it was being requested for subdivision and I'm not quite sure if my real estate agent
told me something wrong or the previous sellers told me something incorrect. So I kind of oppose
the project because right now that's all wooded lots and that's one of the reasons I bought my property
in the first place is that nothing could be built behind that.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, and, Laura, do you want to comment on that?
MRS. MOORE-There's nothing that I have.
MR. FREER-Who told that to you?
MS. BATES-It was the previous owner. Their names were the Andersons. I know one of them has
passed away. I talked to my real estate agent to see if I could find out some more information about
that.
MR. KUHL-But what you're offering us is just hearsay?
MS. BATES-At this point.
MR. KUHL-Somebody told you, and somebody told you something that was incorrect.
MS. BATES-Maybe. Maybe not. I don't have anything to dispute it at this point and I don't have
anything to confirm.
MR. KUHL-No, I understand that.
MS. BATES-And I just wanted to make one other comment about the traffic in the area in the last four
years since I've moved there. Luzerne Road and Corinth Road are extremely busy. It's gotten to the
point where you can almost not get out of either end of the road. It's almost to the point where they
need a traffic light there. So putting three more driveways, if that's what the proposal is on Luzerne
Road, that's another big consideration.
MR. FREER-They're proposing two driveways, but thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Ma'am, I can answer your question. You're this house right here?
MS. BATES-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. This, all of this building will be up here. It won't be back there. I can't
guarantee you that the fellow that owns the lot up here doesn't do a trail or something through there,
but the actual construction, your lot begins at 315 feet back from Luzerne Road.
MR. MONSOUR-We're only going to clear back 125 feet. The rest of it is going to stay woods.
MS. BATES-And where are the houses going to be?
MR. O'CONNOR-They're going to be up front.
MS. BATES-They're all going to be up here along the road?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MS. BATES-And they're going to have all of that to do whatever they want?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
30
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA It,lleelJn (:6/20/2( 18]
MR. FREER-Thank you. Okay. Any other person want to make a comment on this application? Roy,
are there any written comments?
MR. URRICO-Yes. "The Department of Environmental Conservation determined that their proposal
to develop the above described parcel in the Town of Queensbury is not likely to result in the take of
threatened or endangered species. The determination is based on the information submitted by Little
and O'Connor on June 12t", 2018 and reviewed by staff from the Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine
Resources. Though frosted eflins [Callophrys irus] were known to occur near your project location,
based on a site visit by the office the subject parcel does not contain suitable habitat and the DEC does
not anticipate your proposed action to result in a take. In addition there was little to no pitch pine —
scrub oak habitat found on the site. Therefore, no permit is required at this time pursuant to the
implementing regulations [6NYCRR Part 182] of the New York State Endangered Species Act [Article
11-0535]. Be advised that any changes in location, expansion of the footprint of the project,
modifications of the scope or changes in the timing of the proposed actions that are not identified in
the submission referenced above may trigger DEC authorization. Please reinitiate contact with this
office if such activities are contemplated. Please note that this letter does not relieve you of the
responsibility of obtaining any necessary permits or approvals from other agencies or local
municipalities. Sincerely, Jed Hayden Wildlife Biologist" And then "I received notice there will be 3
new homes being built on a property next to me, and I would like to address some of my concerns
and a request. I would like to address my concerns first; Looking at the plans, it appears that Monsour
Enterprises would be taking out a good portion of the wooded area to fit 3 houses on. I moved to
Luzerne Road, Queensbury to get out of the Glens Falls City (people on top of people and houses too
close to other houses) and I admit, I enjoy the country life where the woods surround the houses and
the wildlife such as the deer and foxes that roam the area freely because of the wooded area next and
around me. Lately that is all you see on Luzerne Rd. is people ripping out the woods to put houses
and storage places. Is it possible to ask not to take so much of the woods? My other concern is,
the noise with tearing out the woods, building the houses and making/paving driveways how long do
I have to live next to a construction zone? To address my request; with the removal of the woods
and then construction; I would like a high buffer/security fence down the property line. Like people
say;"Good strong fences make better neighbors". Thank you for allowing me to address my concerns
and request in writing. Regards, Kenya Lashway 355 Luzerne Road Queensbury, NY 12804"
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Roy. Do you guys want to comment on that?
MR. MC CABE-Maybe they want to present their letter. He can read it in and then give it back.
MR. URRICO-I have no objection to Monsour project, and what's his first name?
MR. O'CONNOR-1 think it's James.
MR. URRICO-James Lashway?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Okay, and that's 355 Luzerne Road.
MR. FREER-So where is 355?
MRS. MOORE-So this is 355.
MR. FREER-And the other one was from where?
MR. URRICO-The same address.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is the property. James is right here and Kenya is right here.
MR. URRICO-You must be 359 then.
MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't have the street addresses.
MRS. MOORE-He is.
MR. O'CONNOR-We will have to submit to the Planning Board the clearing lines, established clearing
lines or clearance line. We intend not to clear more than three quarters of one acre. So we're going
to leave three and a half acres in its present state. It's not going to be a total clearance of the site,
and typical Monsour builds by contract. He likes to do it that way and not necessarily build on
31
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06f20/2018]
speculation. So the timing of it depends on what he finds in customers. I've seen recently with
another construction site when we got to the point of getting an approval, there was limitations on
hours of operation. I think that's coming back to this Board. Are they already done?
MR. FREER-We're going to do it last.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. So there's ways of controlling the issues that people raise.
MR. FREER-So we've got to poll the Board, and I'll start with Mike.
MR. MC CABE-Yes. Usually I'm a proponent of the full two acres, but in this particular case I have
to admit that the smaller lots and smaller houses fit the neighborhood from a practical standpoint.
You're not going to get much more than that from a normal buyer. So I would support this project.
MR. FREER-Thank you. John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. That side of the road most of those lots are a lot smaller than that. Most of
them are a quarter acre or a half acre. So I'd be definitely in support of the project as is.
MR. FREER-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm not in favor of the project. I think less than two acre lots would not be in
character. You move farther west down Luzerne Road the lots get bigger. Certainly across the street
in Burnt Hills, those are large lots. I'm concerned about traffic. You could have two lots, three lots,
but, you know, every new car we have adds more traffic. So I'm concerned about that as well. So for
those reasons I'm not in favor.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I think it blends in with the majority of the neighborhood. With two curb cuts as
opposed to three is also a requirement. I'd be in favor the way it's presented.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the 1.57 lot is more than adequate as far as I'm concerned. You're sort of
melding into the larger lots to the west and it's a transition from tiny lots existing on the east side,
and I think it meets the objective of the statutes. The two acre has always seemed to be a little out
of the way for me in a lot of these parts of Town on the smaller lots. So I think you're fine.
MR. FREER-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm in agreement with most of my fellow Board members. I believe the project
meets most of the balancing test and I would be in favor of it.
MR. FREER-I guess I'll support it as well. I think the two driveways persuades me that you're trying
to do the right thing, trying to minimize the impacts. So I would support it. Okay. With that I'm
going to close the public hearing and seek a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman?
MR. FREER-Please.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Monsour
Enterprises, LLC. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.71 acre parcel into 3 lots of 1.57 acres each for
single-family dwellings. Lots 2 & 3 are to have a shared driveway. Lot 1 will have a lot width of 100 ft.
where 200 ft. is required on a collector road; Luzerne Road. Relief requested from lot size, and lot
width requirements. Planning Board: Subdivision of lots requires Planning Board review.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from lot size, and lot width requirements in the MDR zone.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements.
Applicant proposes 3 lot subdivision of lots 1.57 ac where 2 ac is required
32
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06l20/2018]
Section 179-19-020— Residential lots abutting collector roads
Lot 1 is proposed to have a lot width of 100 ft. where 200 ft. is required.
SEAR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 20, 2018;
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 as this blends in with the current layout of the area.
2. Feasible alternatives would be limited.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because of blending in with the existing lot sizes.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. We could suggest this difficulty is self-created because of the two acre zoning.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of
the neighborhood or community;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) 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 Z-
AV-41-2018,MONSOUR ENTERPRISES, LLC, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 20t" day of June 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: Mrs. Hayward
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. MONSOUR-Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. Our next application is Area Variance 43-2018, Thingvellir, LLC/Joel Matthews.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-43-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 THINGVELLIR, LLC/JOEL MATTHEWS,
MEMBER AGENT(SJ HUTCHINS ENGINEERING & BARTLETT, PONTIFF STEWART& RHODES
PC OWNER(SJ THINGVELLIR, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 15 ALLEN ROAD, PILOT
KNOB, KATTSKILL BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A 624 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION AND A
252 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. ALSO, APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT THE
EXISTING GARAGE INTO LIVING SPACE. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,375 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT)
WITH AN EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 2,440 SQ. FT. AND THE ADDITIONS TOTAL 995 SQ. FT.
OF FLOOR AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE
WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF P-SP-40-2018; VARIANCE 736 YR. 1982
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2018/TOWN OF FORT ANN ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.58 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 228.6444 SECTION 179-3-040
JON LAPPER & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
33
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06l20/2018]
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-43-2018, Thingvellir, LLC/Joel Matthews, Member, Meeting
Date: June 20, 2018 "Project Location: 15 Allen Road, Pilot Knob, Kattskill Bay Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 624 sq. ft. garage addition and a 252 sq. ft. residential addition.
Also, applicant proposes to convert the existing garage into living space. The existing home is 1,375
sq. ft. (footprint) with an existing floor area of 2,440 sq. ft. and the additions total 995 sq. ft. of floor
area. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements in the WR zoning district. Planning Board:
Site Plan Review for expansion of a nonconforming structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements in the WR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Dimension requirements and 179-13-010 Expansion of non-conforming structure.
The applicant proposes a garage addition that is to be 15.3 ft. from front property line where a 30 ft.
setback is required. The residential addition is to be 12.6 ft. to the rear property line where a 30 ft.
setback is required. The project involves the expansion of pre-existing nonconforming structure.
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 to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited
due to the lot configuration and the existing house location.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for front setback is 14.7 ft. Relief requested for
rear setback is 17.4 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 project may be considered to have
minimal impact on the environmental conditions. The applicant proposes additional landscaping
and stormwater management for the site.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes construction of 24 x 26 sq. ft. garage addition, a 12 x 21 sq. ft. residential
addition to an existing 1,375 sq. ft. (footprint) home and to convert the existing garage to living space.
Applicant proposes additional shoreline plantings."
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was passed
on June 19, 2018 unanimously.
MR. FREER-Welcome. Could you identify yourself.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. For the record, Jon Lapper with Luke Dobie, project engineer, and Joel and
Joan Matthews are in the audience as well to answer any questions. Because it's been a long night for
you, we'll let you know this is a pretty straightforward project. We'll give you the short version and
get into any details that you'd like. When you look at the lot it's clear that it's a narrow lot. So
there's site constraints. The building envelope is that long dotted area. What's most interesting here
is that unlike a typical applicant before you, they have an area between the existing house and the lake
where they could be building closer to the lake and most people would come to you with that kind of
proposal and here of course they're not. Everything's in the rear. The reason that they need the
relief is just because of the narrowness of the lot and really the existence of the septic system which is
in the best place to put it because of the required distance from their well. Of course we don't want
to put the septic any closer to the lake. So that's really the constraint when they have to push out
close to the garage, closer to the road, but there's nobody across the road that's impacted. So it's
Al
( u.ueea ushu.ua y ZBA V°'1eelJ n 06 f 20/201 a8]
really the right way to make this house a little bit larger. We're not looking for permeability relief,
floor area relief. So everything besides what's proposed is in keeping with the Code and with the site
and Luke added plantings along the lakeshore which the Planning Board was very happy with. So that's
really the justification. Would you like to walk them through the engineering?
MR. DOBIE-Again, thank you, Board. Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering for the record and
Sheet S-2 which I have on the big board tells the story. The orange is what's there existing and the
purple is the proposed additions, and the driveway geometry. So you can see it overlaps almost
entirely upon existing impervious surfaces. So we'll actually show just a small reduction in site coverage
by eliminating the driveway south of the proposed garage and we provided some stormwater mitigation
where the site has none now. There's some vegetated berms and a little bit of infiltration trench, and
then some shoreline buffering plants. It's a pretty straightforward project we believe and it has a
compliant septic design from when the house was built in the early 80's and we've investigated it and
it meets the standards. With that we'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. Questions from the Board, please.
MRS. HAYWARD-One question. I just noticed when I looked at the property, I was wondering about
parking, because I know when I went in I pulled in the driveway and I went to back out and I was like,
gee, there's going to be a building here, how will you gain access or egress from the property.
MR. DOBIE-Well I believe most of the time they'll utilize the interior space of the garage, and we are
keeping the driveway that's in front of the existing garage right now for a turnaround spot. So there
is room to park two vehicles there. So we could have two alongside the house and then two in the
garage.
MRS. HAYWARD-1 just noticed when I was there pulling out it was just kind of hard to see with the
plantings. Thank you.
MR. FREER-Any other Board questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this application.
I'm looking out in the audience and I only see the applicants. Is that correct, are you both the
applicants?
JOEL MATTHEWS
MR. MATTHEWS-Yes.
MR. FREER-Okay. I'm asking anybody in the audience. I don't see anybody. That's my point. Roy,
can you read the written comments please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO"Sirs: We are familiar with the above applicant and know without a doubt his plan will
be an asset to the community. We have no objection to his plan. Sincerely, Ed Creede Judith
Creede" 1296 Pilot Knob Rd. That's it.
MR. FREER-Okay. So I'm going to poll the Board. John, you're up.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's a nice project. I appreciate them not building closer to the lake. The
permeability is great and that road isn't a high access road so that driveway being that close to the
road is not going to cause a problem. So it's a good project.
MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor. I appreciate the improved permeability.
MR. FREER-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, it's a pre-existing, nonconforming building and they're asking for minimal relief. I'm
in favor of it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes,the construction is going to occur on the far side of the lake which minimizes
the impact. I think your stormwater is going to be taken care of.
3
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA t,lleelJn 06l20/2018]
MR. FREER-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. I think it satisfies the test.
MR. FREER-And Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 support the project.
MR. FREER-Okay. I,too, believe the project is a good design and minimal impact to the neighborhood.
So I support it. With that I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Thingvellir,
LLC / Joel Matthews, Member. Applicant proposes a 624 sq. ft. garage addition and a 252 sq. ft.
residential addition. Also, applicant proposes to convert the existing garage into living space. The
existing home is 1,375 sq. ft. (footprint) with an existing floor area of 2,440 sq. ft. and the additions
total 995 sq. ft. of floor area. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements in the WR zoning
district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for expansion of a nonconforming structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements in the WR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Dimension requirements and 179-13-010 Expansion of non-conforming structure.
The applicant proposes a garage addition that is to be 15.3 ft. from front property line where a 30 ft.
setback is required. The residential addition is to be 12.6 ft. to the rear property line where a 30 ft.
setback is required. The project involves the expansion of pre-existing nonconforming structure.
SEAR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 20, 2018;
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 we believe that the new construction will enhance the look of the
property.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time
because of the size of the lot.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because it hasn't really extended beyond the existing
bounds.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district. In fact we think that the environmental conditions will improve
with the new plantings.
5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approvall 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) 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 Z-
AV-43-2018, THINGVELLIR, LLC / JOEL MATTHEWS, MEMBER, Introduced by Michael McCabe,
who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
36
( u.ueeaushu.uay ZBA V°'IeelJn 06f20/2018]
Duly adopted this 20t" day of June 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody.
MR. FREER-We have one more item. The question you had about, do we need to open a public
hearing for this?
MRS. MOORE-No. It's a correction. It's a typo. This is a correction to the resolution for Area
Variance 8-2018. The applicant was made aware of it, or the representative was made aware of it.
What happened was our office was approached by a neighbor reviewing the resolution and had indicated
that the resolution read, in reference to the construction time or the blocking of the roadway it reads
that the Board said the roadway can't be blocked from 6 a.m., or 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., and it really should
have some language in there that talks about the construction time and the road blockage. So
construction time, as read in the resolution, in the minutes that were reviewed that said, yes, the Board
actually did discuss it and it was supposed to be in the resolution that the construction time was from
7 a.m. to 6 p.m. So it's a correction to the resolution.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We don't have to do anything, then?
MRS. MOORE-Other than make a motion to.
MR. FREER-We're going to make a motion to make a correction, amend the resolution. Then we'll
vote on it. Okay. So any discussion? Can I get somebody to make a motion?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seavey
Family Trust. Applicant proposes construction of a 2-bedroom home; revised 1,019 sq. ft. (footprint);
2,058 sq. ft. (floor area). Project includes site work, terraced retaining walls with a walkway to the new
home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and permeability. Planning Board: Site
Plan Review required for hard surfacing within 50 ft. and for a project within 50 ft. of a 15% slope.
Relief Requested:
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —waterfront residential
The applicant proposes construction of a 2-bedroom home. The home is to be 29 ft. from the shoreline
where a 50 ft. setback is required and 6 ft. on the Gansle side and 12 ft. on the Burke side where a 12
ft. setback is required for both sides. The site permeability is to be 69.5 % where 75% is required.
SEAR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 28, 2018; and re-advertised
and noticed to neighbors for April 18, 2018;
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. The Board recognizes the fact that new construction should be done as
nearly to compliance as necessary but they have moved back and the location where the
property will be located seems reasonable.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. We've considered shrinking down
the size of the house, but regardless on a 48 foot wide lot you're not going to be satisfying
anybody's requirements because your house would be the size of a house trailer if it were
compliant.
3. The requested variance is substantial, but it's a pre-existing condition because of these narrow
lots that were created many years ago.
3
( u.ur:r:aushu.uay ZBA 11°'1r:elJn 06l20/201a8]
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district. The applicant agrees at this point in time to put up a privacy fence
along the edge of the deck on the west side facing towards the Burkes. They also agree to
put up three arborvitae. The Board recognizes the fact that by skewing the house and not
centering it on the lot, we are slightly greater impacting the property to the east side, but due
to the 35 foot setbacks from their deck to the currently proposed deck, we feel that that's still
a reasonable thing to do.
5. 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; There is no detriment to the health, safety and welfare
because there will be an improvement with the holding tanks going in as opposed to the narrow
lots being too close to the wells and possible contamination of them.
6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
7. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) The applicant agrees to install a drywell on the Burke side to stop the runoff going to
his lower lot to the lower elevation.
bJ I'Ale �WA111d Alre Ark that there be mom+ � ae�Ter�r�� NoighbeFheed duFiRg
CeRSM tieR, that dlro"�riv�e AP-t Ft=NA-c ced �-Frf.d-UFR rReRn�nal heUFS e
e peF]tieR from 7;QQ '] Yl1 uptil 6- P.m.
IN the e.-i...
NR --l't fA-r deliveries
and stu
like that NA_rm_I CA_Nct FUCtieR
[b.] Amended/Clarified Resolution
We would also ask that there be minimal detriment to the neighborhood during construction,
that Glen Hall Drive not be blocked off during cor7structior7 ReRnal hours of operation, that
are from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. in the evening, except for deliveries and stuff like that, normal
construction.
cJ 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 THE AMENDED
RESOLUTION FOR AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-8-2018,SEAVEY FAMILY TRUST, Introduced by James
Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 20th day of June 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-Okay. Anybody else have any other? I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting.
MR. HENKEL-Second.
MR. FREER-Okay.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JUNE
20, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 2011 day of June, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-Thanks, all.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
38
(Quccnshua-y ZBA t,leeth-m 06/20/2018]
0
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Harrison Freer, Chairman
39