10-17-2018 (Queen,sbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/200]
QUEENSBURY20MING BOARD OFAPPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 17,2018
INDEX
Area Variance No. 71-2017 Beth & Tom Portuese 1.
REQUEST FOR I YR. EXT. Tax Map No. 316.9-1-27.1
Area Variance No. 55-2015 Michael Yurdiga 2.
REQUEST FOR I YR. EXT. Tax Map No. 266.1-2-62
Area Variance Z-AV-42-2018 Christopher Dwyer 4.
Tax Map No. 288.4-65
Area Variance Z-AV-53-2018 French Mountain Inn (Aftab Bhatti) 4.
Tax Map No. 288.4-56
Area Variance Z-AV-55-2018 Tra Tom Development 5.
Tax Map No. 308.74-48
Area Variance Z-AV-64-2018 Cerrone Builders, Inc. 6.
Tax Map No. 296.14-2-14
Area Variance Z-AV-65-2018 Jerry Mechanick 9.
Tax Map No. 308.114-16
Area Variance Z-AV-66-2018 John Kubricky & Sons, Inc. 13.
Tax Map No. 302.8-2-21
Area Variance Z-AV-67-2018 Roland Mitchell & Tammy Bruno 16.
Tax Map No. 279.19-1-10
Area Variance Z-AV-69-2018 David & Morgan Stanhope 21.
Tax Map No. 296.15-1-1
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.
9
(Queensbury ZBA. Meeting 10/17/200]
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 2018
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JAMES UNDERWOOD
MICHELLE HAYWARD
RONALD KUHL
JOHN HENKEL
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. FREER-I'd like to welcome everyone and open tonight's Town of Queensbury Zoning Board for
October 17t". For those who aren't familiar and haven't been here in the past, it's actually quite a
simple process. On the back table there's information about each application and a bit about the
process. We'll call each applicant to the table up front for a presentation,then we'll read the application
into the record, ask questions, open a public hearing if there's a public hearing scheduled, poll the
Board and make motions as applicable. Then we'll go on to the next application. So we have a full
Board this evening and we have some administrative activities to start with.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 19, 2018
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
OF SEPTEMBER 19T", 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
September 26, 2018
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM[Sl:
REQUEST FOR 1-YEAR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2017 PORTUESE 271 BIG BAY ROAD
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received a request for a one-year
extension of approval from Beth and Tom Portuese.
The Approval Condition from the Resolution dated November 15, 2017 remains the same:
a] That the second unit have a life and that life would be 10 years and it would begin upon the
issuance of the CO.
2
(Queen,sbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/200]
b) 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 A ONE-YEAR
EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR AREA VARIANCE, Z-AV-71-2017 BETH AND TOM PORTUESE,
Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
The one-year extension of approval is valid through November 15, 2019.
Duly adopted this 17" day of October 2018 by the following vote:
MR. FREER-I'd like to open this for discussion. Are there any thoughts from the Board about how
many times we should extend variances?
MR. HENKEL-This one's not too bad.
MR. MC CABE-This is just the first one.
MR. HENKEL-It came in front of us not too long ago
MR. FREER-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-They do have an explanation. So I feel good about the explanation.
MR. FREER-Okay. Good. Any other comments from the Board?
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Now before I make a motion on the next one, do we have any information as to why
there's a requirement to extend an additional year for AV 55-2015?
REQUEST FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF APPROVAL (ADDITIONAL 1-YEAR)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2015 MICHAEL YURDDGA 12 SUNSET TRAIL
MICHAEL YURDIGA, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-The letter indicates that he doesn't have funding at this time to start the project.
MR. YURDIGA-Excuse me. That's me. Could I speak?
MR. HENKEL-Sure.
MR. YURDIGA-Do you want?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, they would like to hear from the applicant. The applicant can explain it further.
MR. FREER-Okay. Yes. Please come forward, identify yourself.
MR. YURDIGA-My name's Michael Yurdiga and we're talking about the Sunset Lane, Queensbury
property.
MR. HENKEL-Trail.
MR. YURDIGA-It's just been a funding issue. I need one more year and I'll have a building permit,
within the next six to eight months. There's a lot of things going on with business at home and things
like that, but, you know, I know you've given me an extension before and I really appreciate it, but
this'll be it. I'll have my building permit in place by, you know.
MR. FREER-So the deal is, you know, what we approve is for a year. Right?
MR. YURDIGA-Yes, I know.
MR. FREER-Okay, and this is the one that I wanted, and now we're here for, this'll be the third
extension. Is that right?
3
(Queen,sbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
MR. YURDIGA-Yes, it is, and I know I'm bringing this hardship on myself and I just, like I said, I will
have it by next year. Within six to eight months I'll have everything in place.
MR. HENKEL-You built this for your own home, or is this for somebody else?
MR. YURDIGA-Well, I have a step-son and he's relocating up here. So it's probably for both of us,
but it's a private home. It's going to be a private home. I just retired from my job for 30 years. I
have a business. So I come up here a lot, and I actually have a place on the river in Luzerne. So now
I'm looking to build a place and come here all year round, and he'll be living here year round.
MR. FREER-Okay, and what's the financial, if we don't approve it and make him come back?
MRS. MOORE-He would have to re-apply the application process again. It would be a new application,
if you decide to deny without prejudice.
MR. FREER-Okay. It's a good thing you're here because I would have not been in support of this.
MR. YURDIGA-And I would understand that. I just really appreciate it because I just feel like it's
putting you guys through a lot of work and it's not like a big financial thing to do it again, but I will
have this, you will not see me again. You'll have a building permit.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. YURDIGA-Thank you very much.
MR. FREER-Well we haven't voted on it yet.
MR. YURDIGA-Okay.
MR. FREER-Thanks for your input.
MR. YURDIGA-All right.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received a request for an additional one
[1] year extension of approval from Michael Yurdiga.
The initial ZBA approval date was Wednesday, October 28, 2015 and the applicant received a one-year
extension of approval on September 21,2016 to bring the expiration date to October 28,2017. Further,
an additional one-year extension of approval was granted on August 16, 2017 to bring the expiration
date to October 28, 2018.
The applicant has stated that funding of the project is not possible at this time.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR AN
EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2015, MICHAEL YURDIGA,
Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
For a period of 1-year and set to expire on October 28, 2019.
Duly adopted this 17" day of October 2018 by the following vote:
MR. FREER-So any further discussion on this one? Everybody's okay with this, what we just heard?
MR. HENKEL-As long as it's going to be a single family home and not a rental. That's the only thing.
MR. YURDIGA-There's no intentions to rent.
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-Okay, and now we're on to the first item on the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS:
4
(Queen,sbury ZBA. Meeting 10/17/200]
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-42-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 CHRISTOPHER DWYER AGENT(SJ
STEFANIE DILALLO BITTER, ESQ., BPSR OWNER(SJ CHRISTOPHER DWYER ZONING MDR
LOCATION 1232 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN TWO
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ON A 1.37 ACRE PARCEL; 1,632 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) AND 1,140
SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT). REQUESTING THE SECOND DWELLING TO BE A GUEST COTTAGE
AND NOT TO BE RENTED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE RESTRICTIONS
FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT LOCATED IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT; MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT IS 2-ACRES PER DWELLING UNIT. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
RESTRICTION THAT ALLOWS ONLY ONE DWELLING UNIT PER LOT IN THE MDR ZONE.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2018 LOT SIZE 1.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.1-65
SECTION 179-3-040
MR. FREER-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Yes, so what's happened here is, for you guys I don't know if you know that, but Chris
Dwyer withdrew his application.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-We did not know that.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So you can read the attorney's letter into the record, the attorney's letter first prior
to the motion.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. URRICO"As you are aware, our office represents Christopher Dwyer in his application for area
variance which is in reference to the property above and identified as AV 42-2018. On behalf of the
Applicant I hereby withdraw the application without prejudice. Please let me know if you need anything
further. Sincerely, Bartlett, Pontiff,Stewart& Rhodes, P.C. Stefanie DiLallo Bitter" And the property
she's referring to is 1232 West Mountain Road.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Christopher
Dwyer. Applicant proposes to maintain two single-family dwellings on a 1.37 acre parcel; 1,632 sq. ft.
(footprint) and 1,140 sq. ft. (footprint). Requesting the second dwelling to be a guest cottage and not
to be rented. Relief requested from minimum lot size restrictions for each dwelling unit located in the
MDR zoning district; minimum requirement is 2-acres per dwelling unit. Also, relief requested from
restriction that allows only one dwelling unit per lot in the MDR zone.
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-42-2018 CHRISTOPHER
DWYER, Introduced by Michael McCabe,who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Noting that the applicant is to come into compliance with work proposed in the current building
permit for removal of kitchen appliances and utilities for these appliances, countertops and cabinets
except for a small countertop associated with the sink with one dwelling on the parcel within 90 days.
So by doing that there's no requirement for a variance.
Duly adopted this 17" day of October 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-Okay, and now we're onto French Mountain, or is that one being tabled, too?
REQUEST TO TABLE TO NOVEMBER ZBA MEETING:
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-53-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 FRENCH MOUNTAIN INN (AFTAB BHATTI)
AGENT(SJ GARY HUGHES OWNER(SJ AFTAB BHATTI ZONING Cl LOCATION 1449
STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A 1,110 SQ. FT. AREA AS BLACKTOP
WHERE A PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS FOR THIS AREA TO REMAIN AS LAWN. PROPERTY
USE IS AN EXISTING LODGING FACILITY. APPLICANT REQUESTED APPROVALS IN YEAR
2012 FOR ADDITION TO LOBBY, STORAGE OVER LOBBY, SIGN TOWERS, HANDICAP RAMP
LOCATION AND A CANOPY AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMEABILITY
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF AV 48-2012; SP 54-2012; AV 24-2011 WARREN COUNTY
5
(Queensbury ZBA. Meeting 10/17/200]
PLANNING AUGUST 2018 LOT SIZE 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.1-56 SECTION 179-
3-040
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from French
Mountain Inn. Applicant proposes to maintain a 1,110 sq. ft. area as blacktop where a previous approval
was for this area to remain as lawn. Property use is an existing lodging facility. Applicant requested
approvals in year 2012 for addition to lobby, storage over lobby, sign towers, handicap ramp location
and a canopy area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from permeability requirements of the Commercial Intensive zoning
district.
179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements
The applicant proposes to maintain a 1,110 sq. ft. hard surfaced area that was to remain lawn or 22.6%
where 30% permeable is required. The approved plans of 2012 indicate the proposed permeability was
to be 25%.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-53-2018 FRENCH MOUNTAIN INN (AFTAB
BHATTII, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
Tabled until a November meeting agenda with pertinent information to be submitted to the Town by
the submission deadline date in October.
Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2018, by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-The applicant has provided the information on the deadline date. So, yes, I do have
information for your November meeting for this application.
MR. FREER-And what's the reason? Just that he was late getting it or?
MRS. MOORE-Ys, so there was no information in the October submission. So I couldn't put it on
the agenda, and I talked with the applicant. They asked for a tabling to November to make sure that
he had the correct drawings and information to share with the Board.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
REQUEST TO TABLE TO A NOVEMBER MEETING:
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-55-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 TRA TOM DEVELOPMENT AGENT(SJ
TOM CENTER — HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; VANDUSEN & STEVES OWNER[S] TRA TOM
DEVELOPMENT ZONING MDR LOCATION RICHMOND HILL DRIVE — BARRINGER
HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (NORTHERN PORTION) APPLICANT PROPOSES A FIVE LOT
SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 IN BARRINGER HEIGHTS. FOUR LOTS TO BE RESIDENTIAL;
REMAINDER OF LOT;25.78 ACRES NOT TO BE DEVELOPED PER PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION. LOT
IA TO BE 1.2 ACRES; LOT 1B TO BE 0.70 ACRES; LOT 1C TO BE 0.70 ACRES AND LOT 1D TO BE
0.70 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF 2-
ACRES FOR NEWLY CREATED LOTS WITHIN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT AND FROM
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REQUIRES
REVIEW. CROSS REF SUB 4-2003 MOD. (OCTOBER 2009 — LOTS 3 THRU 10; LOTS 18 & 19J.
SUB 4-2003 (33 LOTSI FWW 6-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 29.06
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.74-48 SECTION 179-3-040
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tra Tom
Development. Applicant proposes a five lot subdivision of Lot 1 in Barringer Heights. Four lots to be
residential; remainder of lot; 25.78 acres not to be developed per previous subdivision. Lot lA to be
1.2 acres; Lot 1B to be 0.70 acres; Lot 1C to be 0.70 acres and Lot 1D to be 0.70 acres.
Relief Required:
6
(Queen,sbury ZBA. Meeting 10/17/200]
The applicant requests relief from the minimum lot size requirement of 2-acres for newly created lots
within the MDR zoning district
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts
The applicant proposes 5 residential lots and lots are to be less than 2 acres in the Moderate Density
zoning district.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-55-2018 TRA TOM DEVELOPMENT, Introduced
by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Tabled until a November meeting agenda.
Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2018, by the following vote:
MR. MC CABE-And I assume the materials have been submitted?
MRS. MOORE-The applicant has submitted materials for information for the Board. They have
reduced the number of lots.
MR. FREER-Okay. So do we need to open public hearings on these in case people came to talk about
them?
MRS. MOORE-1 think the public hearings were left open, and so since there's new information that
the public hasn't had an opportunity to review yet, I don't believe you closed the public hearing yet.
MR. FREER-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Well we might ask if there's anybody here.
MRS. MOORE-But you haven't seen the application materials, and those that are wishing to speak on
it haven't seen those. So I'd rather have them review that information in advance of the November
meeting.
MR. FREER-Yes, but if somebody came tonight thinking they were going to.
MRS. MOORE-It's up to you, I guess. I don't know who's present.
MR. FREER-Is there anybody here that wants to speak to either of the Area Variances that we're
tabling? Seeing no one, we'll move on.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-For those students in the audience, we normally don't have this much administrative tabling
activity, but we're onto New Business. So Area Variance 64-2018 Cerrone Builders.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-64-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 CERRONE BUILDERS, INC. AGENT[S]
VANDUSEN & STEVES; LITTLE, O'CONNOR, BORIE OWNER(S) CERRONE BUILDERS, INC.
ZONING MDR LOCATION 79 DEVIN COURT(THE VILLAGE AT SWEET ROAD) APPLICANT
PROPOSED TO MAINTAIN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED 140 SQ. FT. DECK ATTACHED TO AN
EXISTING COVERED PORCH. EXISTING HOME IS 2,300 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH A DECK
AREA. THE DECK IS 168 SQ. FT. WITH 140 SQ. FT. OPEN AREA AND 28 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED
SCREEN PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DECK. CROSS REF RC 43-2018 SFD; SB 8-2012 (CONSERVATION) WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-244 SECTION 179-4-030;
179-3-040
MIKE O'CONNOR & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-64-2018, Cerrone Builders, Inc., Meeting Date: October 17,
2018 "Project Location: 79 Devin Court Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposed to
7
(Queen,sbury ZBA. Meeting 10/17/200]
maintain an already constructed 140 sq. ft. deck attached to an existing covered porch. Existing home
is 2,300 sq. ft. (footprint) with a deck area. The deck is 168 sq. ft. with 140 sq. ft. open area and 28
sq. ft. enclosed screen porch. Relief requested from the minimum setback requirements for the deck.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the already constructed deck in
the MDR zone.
Section 179-3-040 —Dimensional requirements —dimensional requirements Moderate Density zone and
Section 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches canopies and decks
The applicant proposes to maintain an already constructed 140 sq. ft. open deck. The deck location is
23.4 ft. from the rear property line where a 30 ft. setback 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 open deck portion, although that would leave a 10 ft. wide open deck area.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal
relevant to the code. The relief requested is 6.6 ft. to the rear setback.
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 to maintain an already constructed 140 sq. ft. open deck. The plans show the
open deck is attached to an existing covered porch. The applicant has indicated they weren't aware of
the restrictiveness of the rear setback in the conservation subdivision."
MR. FREER-Okay. Please identify yourself and add anything that you'd like to the proposal that was
just read in.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. I'm Mike O'Connor from the law firm of Little, O'Connor 8T
Borie. I represent Cerrone Builders, Inc. I agree with the Staff comments. What we're asking for
has very minor impacts on anyone. This lot actually backs up onto the common area. It's heavily
treed. It's not in anybody's face. It's not in anybody's backyard, and I'd also add that I probably
have done 400 closings for Cerrone Builders, Inc. in the last 10 years in the Town of Queensbury,
Town of Moreau. This is the first time we've had a mistake, as far as setbacks go. They just didn't
understand the difference between the deck or didn't focus on the difference between a deck and a
patio. A patio is not subject to the setbacks. It's as simple as that. The house is up. People are
ready to close. They've got a temporary CO. They hope to get a permanent CO so we can close.
We can't close with the buyer and his bank unless we have a permanent CO. So I don't think they
have any impact on anybody. It was an honest mistake. It's not their custom or their habit. Usually
Matt Steves who's at the table with me stakes out the houses. They're very religious about doing the
properties. It's simple as that.
MR. STEVES-Matt Steves with Van Dusen & Steves. Like Mike has stated, I've done hundreds and
hundreds of homes for Cerrone and never had an issue. They were unaware of that, and also in the
conservation subdivision, they did this subdivision with two acre zoning, but with the conservation
subdivision they did grant, the Planning Board, relief from the side setback from 25 to 10, but they
forgot to look at the rear setbacks because typically we leave a larger buffer area around your backyards
and you use smaller lots for the conservation subdivision, it works extremely well. You use a, ask for
8
(Queen,sbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
a little bit of that relief. Usually what we see is 20 feet in the rear yard and that was an oversight and
overlook. It's come to light now, and again knowing the area, because I live two houses up, it is
heavily wooded in the back, all the lots back up against common areas, and I have no problems with
this application.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from the Board? Okay. We do have a
public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make
a comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's no written.
MR. FREER-Okay. With that I'll poll the Board and we'll start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Yes. Normally I'd say if it was presented to us at the beginning would we allow this,
and it's kind of minimal relief to be holding their hands to the fire, so to speak, so I would say they're
aware of what they did, and I think it's still minimal relief. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 don't have a problem with it. The relief is small. It's not good to come before us
after the fact, but I can see how it happened. So I'll support the project.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes it's minimal relief of 6.6 feet. It's an open deck. It's not an enclosed structure.
So I would definitely be on board with it as is.
MR. FREER-Thank you. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in agreement with my fellow Board members. I'd support this.
MR. FREER-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-I'm going to agree with my other Board members. It must have been the surveyor that
made the mistake. I have no issue.
MR. FREER Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's only relief from the common area in the back and I think it satisfies the intent
of what the relief is. Thirty feet's substantial. Six feet's inconsequential really.
MR. FREER-Okay. I,too, support the application. However, it raises the bigger issue of consideration
for people who don't have the proper variances when we get as builts back into our system, and the
Planning Board and Zoning Board are trying to sort through that. So hopefully we'll get some. I
don't think that this case is the trial case that we want to use, but this keeps coming up, and the whole
notion of how to deal with it in a fair but some way enforceable activity is something that folks are
looking at, but I think as my colleagues have said this is minimal. So I'll 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 Cerrone
Builders, Inc. Applicant proposed to maintain an already constructed 140 sq. ft. deck attached to an
existing covered porch. Existing home is 2,300 sq. ft. (footprint) with a deck area. The deck is 168 sq.
ft. with 140 sq. ft. open area and 28 sq. ft. enclosed screen porch. Relief requested from the minimum
setback requirements for the deck.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the already constructed deck in
the MDR zone.
Section 179-3-040 —Dimensional requirements —dimensional requirements Moderate Density zone and
Section 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches canopies and decks
9
(Queen,sbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/200]
The applicant proposes to maintain an already constructed 140 sq. ft. open deck. The deck location is
23.4 ft. from the rear property line where a 30 ft. setback is required.
SEAR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed., October 17, 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 variance is hardly discernable to the eye.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's minimal.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
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-64-2018, CERRONE BUILDERS, INC., Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 17" day of October 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. Onto Area Variance 65-2018.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-65-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 JERRY MECHANICK AGENT(SJ LARRY
CLUTE OWNER(SJ JERRY MECHANICK ZONING MDR LOCATION 3 HERALD DRIVE
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 984 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING 1,360 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. EXISTING 400 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE
WILL BE CONVERTED TO LIVING SPACE. PROPOSAL INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 144
SQ. FT. FRONT PORCH ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GARAGE ADDITION AND FRONT PORCH. CROSS REF BP 99-548
SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.76 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.114-
16 SECTION 179-5-020; 179-3-040
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JERRY MECHANICK, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-65-2018, Jerry Mechanick, Meeting Date: October 17, 2018
"Project Location: 3 Herald Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction
90
(Queen,sbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/200]
of a 984 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing 1,360 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Existing 400 sq. ft.
attached garage will be converted to living space. Proposal includes construction of a 144 sq. ft. front
porch addition. Relief requested from the minimum setback requirements for the garage addition and
front porch.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief to construct a garage addition and to construct a front porch addition to
an existing home in the MDR zone.
Section 179-5-020 Accessory Structure —Garage and Section 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches canopies
and decks
The applicant proposes a 984 sq. ft. garage and 144 sq. ft. is the porch addition. The garage is to be
located 10.6 ft. from the property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. The front porch addition is
to be located 24.3 ft. from the property line where a 30 ft. setback 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 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 location of the existing home and any new addition may trigger request for relief.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for the garage is 14.4 ft. and the porch relief is
5.7 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes the construction of a 984 sq. ft. garage addition to the existing 1,360 sq. ft.
home. The existing garage is to be converted to living space. The front porch addition is to be 144
sq. ft. and to be covered. The plans show the location of the additions and the elevations."
MR. FREER-Okay. Please identify yourself and make any additions to what was just read in that you
believe is relevant to the Board's decision.
MR. MECHANICK-My name's Jerry Mechanick and I just needed a bigger garage and a front porch
since I don't have one.
MR. STEVES-Again, Matt Steves with Van Dusen & Steves. I did the survey work on this property
and this is just basically to let Jerry stay where he lives now and modify the home to the needs of the
family. They'd like to have a larger garage and be able to convert the existing garage to some living
space and stay consistent with a lot of the neighboring properties that have the small porches on their
house.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I've got a question. This garage is obviously just going to be for your home use.
You're not going to store construction vehicles?
MR. MECHANICK-No.
MR. HENKEL-That's a big garage.
99
(Queen,sbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
MR. MECHANICK-I've got three different cars and a bunch of other stuff.
MR. HENKEL-No business on the side?
MR. MECHANICK-No.
MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions? We have a public hearing scheduled for this application
this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make a comment about this application?
Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's one letter. "I Russell Flansburg from 1 Anthony Court support approving the
requested minimum setback variance for 3 Herald Drive. Russell Flansburg"
MR. FREER-Okay. Do we know where that person is, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-What number is that again?
MR. URRICO-One Anthony Court.
MR. FREER-Do you know that person?
MR. URRICO-Russell Flansburg. He supports you.
MR. MECHANICK-Does he? I don't even know him.
MR. FREER-It must be one of the side properties.
MRS. MOORE-So you said what number again?
MR. URRICO-One Anthony Court. I'm assuming it's Queensbury.
MR. STEVES-1 think it's one road removed from Herald Drive.
MRS. MOORE-There it is. It's on the other end of it. It's right here. It's this house here.
MR. URRICO-He was responding to a public hearing notice so he's within 500 feet.
MR. FREER-So he's within 500 feet.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. So I can close the public hearing and poll the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. FREER-And I'll start with Mike.
MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem with the project. It seems reasonable. Kind of stuck because of
the existing location of the house, and so I can understand why he's too close to the edges of the
property there. So I'll support the project.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, Mike. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project as well.
MR. FREER-Okay, and Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It's a modest home which will greatly benefit from the added living space.
The garage is not going to be any impact either, nor will the porch.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I'm in agreement with my other Board members. It's minimal relief and it's a good
add. I'm in favor.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor as well.
MR. FREER-And John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. It definitely would be a nice addition. It makes the house look better. The only
problem I have is I wish that they'd put these houses back farther to begin with because a lot of them
didn't have porches and you know they're probably going to add a porch eventually. Now you're
going to create the problem of that setback, but it's the Planning Board at the beginning. I know it's
within the setback. I'm for the project.
MR. FREER-What year was this house built? Do you know?
MR. MECHANICK-At the end of'98. 1 think I moved in December '98.
MR. FREER-1, too, can support this variance request. It meets all the criteria that we've been asked to
consider. So with that I will seek a motion.
MR. KUHL-I'll make that motion if I can, Mr. Chairman.
MR. FREER-Thanks, Ron.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jerry
Mechanick. Applicant proposes construction of a 984 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing 1,360 sq.
ft. (footprint) home. Existing 400 sq. ft. attached garage will be converted to living space. Proposal
includes construction of a 144 sq. ft. front porch addition. Relief requested from the minimum setback
requirements for the garage addition and front porch.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief to construct a garage addition and to construct a front porch addition to
an existing home in the MDR zone.
Section 179-5-020 Accessory Structure —Garage and Section 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches canopies
and decks
The applicant proposes a 984 sq. ft. garage and 144 sq. ft. is the porch addition. The garage is to be
located 10.6 ft. from the property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. The front porch addition is
to be located 24.3 ft. from the property line where a 30 ft. setback is required.
SEAR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 17, 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 is an existing structure and it's a minimal requested relief.
2. Feasible alternatives are really limited and have been considered but are really not possible.
3. The requested variance is really not substantial as it's just 10.6 feet for the porch and 23.3 from
the property line, so that's 5.7 for the porch.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. We could suggest that the alleged difficulty is 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;
13
(Queen,sbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/200]
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-65-2018,JERRY MECHANICK, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 17" day of October 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. MECHANICK-Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. Moving forward, Area Variance 66-2018.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-66-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 JOHN KUBRICKY & SONS, INC. JOHN
DAVIDSON AGENT(SJ DENNIS MAC ELROY, ENV. DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(SJ JOHN
KUBRICKY&SONS, INC. ZONING CLI LOCATION EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD,NORTHSIDE
OF SERVICE ROAD TO DUKE CONCRETE PRODUCTS APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CREATE
ACCESS TO A 6.6 ACRE PARCEL THROUGH AN EXISTING EASEMENT TO AN ADJOINING
PARCEL. THE EXISTING 6.6 ACRE PARCEL WILL NOT CREATE OR USE A PHYSICAL ACCESS
TO BAY ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE 6.6 ACRE LOT UTILIZING EASEMENT ACCESS
TO BAY ROAD; NOT HAVING PHYSICAL ACCESS TO A PUBLIC ROAD. CROSS REF SP 62-
2018; FWW 7-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2018 LOT SIZE 6.632 ACRES
AFTER LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-21 SECTION 179-4-050
DENNIS MAC ELROY & MIKE O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-66-2018,John Kubricky & Sons, Inc., Meeting Date: October
17, 2018 "Project Location: East side of Bay Road, north side of service road to Duke Concrete
Products Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to create access to a 6.6 acre parcel
through an existing easement to an adjoining parcel. The existing 6.6 acre parcel will not create or use
a physical access to Bay Road. Relief requested for the 6.6 acre lot utilizing easement access to Bay
Road; not having physical access to a public road.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for a 6.6 acre lot utilizing easement access to Bay Road; not having physical
access to a public road.
Section 179-4-050 Frontage on public streets
The applicant proposes an existing 6.6 ac parcel. Parcel 302.8-2-21 Lot 2 to have access through an
easement with Parcel 302.8-2-4 Lot 3. Parcels are to have their own physical access to a public road.
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. The project
may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties.
14
(C ueensbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be considered as
there is adequate area to create an individual physical access —the board on a case by case basis has
typically encouraged less curb cuts.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant
to the code. Relief is 50 ft. of physical access.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal impacts on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to use a proposed dedicated easement to access a 6.6 ac parcel identified as Lot
2 on the V1 drawing. The easement is access to a new storage facility that was approved at the Planning
Board Site Plan 62-2018 and FWW 7-2018 and access is provided to the Duke Concrete facility. The
easement is unofficially known as Duke Drive."
MR. FREER-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm, again, Mike O'Connor from the firm of Little,
O'Connor and Borie. With me at the table is Dennis MacElroy who's the engineer for the project.
We agree with Staff that this has minimal impact on the property, the neighborhood and community.
In fact it's a betterment as to what the alternative would be as opposed to putting a separate curb cut
on Bay Road. We're avoiding that by using the road that's been used for years by Duke Concrete.
The self-storage unit will actually own the front portion of that road and it's subject to the existing
and continuing easement that Duke Concrete owns and this lot that doesn't have frontage will have the
same easement. I've submitted language to Laura as to the easement, and basically there would be a
reservation in the deed saying that John Kubricky, Inc., his successors and assigns reserve a right of
way easement for two curb cuts to the 50 foot right of way and easement located between Lot Three
and Two for the purpose of providing ingress and egress from and to Lot Two and Bay Road for all
forms of motor vehicle and foot traffic. Said right of way shall be in perpetuity or until said roadway
or its substitute shall become a Town highway. Bay Road Self-Storage, LLC shall have the obligation
to maintain said right of way and easement. That's going to be on the parcel that they will take title
to. So there's no change, no real impact. Maybe Dennis wants to add something. I don't know.
MR. MAC ELROY-I think you've covered it, Mike. It's just really a housekeeping measure to allow
the continuation of the access from Duke Drive.
MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? So why don't they just, my question is why don't
they just sell them so that they have access? Duke will use it as well? The Duke Construction guys
will use this same road they've been using?
MR. O'CONNOR-Duke Concrete, yes. They have a permanent easement, the same as what we're
proposing, that will be reserved for Lot Two. The same language. I copied the language in their
deed.
MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the
audience that would like to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any
written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR. FREER-Okay. I'll poll the Board and start with John.
MR. HENKEL-I think it's a good idea not to have two curb cuts, or one curb cut on Bay Road. It's a
good project as is. I'd be in favor of it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Mike?
95
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem with it. It seems like a reasonable thing to do.
MR. FREER-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the variance.
MR. FREER Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-A shared access drive makes more sense. Then when Lot Three comes up for
consideration I think we should consider approving it on that one, too, even though it's not before us.
MR. FREER-Well is it not approved?
MR. MAC ELROY-Lot Three includes Duke Drive within its bounds.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So that's already included.
MR. MAC ELROY-So its access and its frontage is within that 100 feet on Bay Road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So it's only this parcel that's at minus 50 feet that you're short?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. FREER-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it's good use of the property. It's been empty for a lot of years. I'm in favor
of it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor.
MR. FREER-1, too, support this application. Bay Road seems to have gotten more crowded and people
keep cutting through to avoid the lights on Quaker Road. Okay. I'll 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 John
Kubricky & Sons, Inc. / John Davidson. Applicant proposes to create access to a 6.6 acre parcel
through an existing easement to an adjoining parcel. The existing 6.6 acre parcel will not create or use
a physical access to Bay Road. Relief requested for the 6.6 acre lot utilizing easement access to Bay
Road; not having physical access to a public road.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for a 6.6 acre lot utilizing easement access to Bay Road; not having physical
access to a public road.
Section 179-4-050 Frontage on public streets
The applicant proposes an existing 6.6 ac parcel. Parcel 302.8-2-21 Lot 2 to have access through an
easement with Parcel 302.8-2-4 Lot 3. Parcels are to have their own physical access to a public road.
SEAR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 17, 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. It makes more sense to have a single access point rather than creating a
new curb cut on Bay Road.
16
(Queen,sbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/200]
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but it makes more sense to do as has been proposed
here by the applicant.
3. The requested variance is not considered to be substantial because they're only 50 feet short
on the frontage that they need.
4. Is there an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district? We do not anticipate any even with the added traffic from the new facility being
created.
5. The alleged difficulty is / is not self-created because (Note: Question not addressed or
answered by ZBA)
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-66-2018, JOHN KUBRICKY & SONS, INC. / JOHN DAVIDSON, Introduced by James
Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Duly adopted this 17" day of October 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much.
MR. FREER-Okay. On to Area Variance 69-2018, David and Morgan Stanhope.
MR. URRICO-1 think we're on to 67.
MR. FREER-I'm sorry. Roland Mitchell & Tammy Bruno.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-67-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 ROLAND MITCHELL & TAMMY BRUNO
OWNER(SJ ROLAND MITCHELL & TAMMY BRUNO ZONING MDR LOCATION 65
JENKINSVILLE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF A 196 SQ.
FT.COVERED PORCH TO AN EXISTING 1,944 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF
AST 571-2018 COVERED PORCH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.56
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.19440 SECTION 179-4-080
TAMMY BRUNO, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-67-2018, Roland Mitchell & Tammy Bruno, Meeting Date:
October 17,2018 "Project Location: 65 Jenkinsville Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to complete construction of a 196 sq. ft. covered porch to an existing 1,944 sq. ft. (footprint)
home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the under construction deck in
the MDR zone.
17
(Queen,sbury ZBA. Meeting 10/17/200]
Section 179-3-040 —Dimensional requirements —dimensional requirements Moderate Density zone and
179-4-080 Setbacks for porches canopies and decks
The applicant proposes to complete construction of a 196 sq. ft. covered deck. The deck location is
approximately 25 ft. from the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. Survey waiver
requested granted.
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 location of the existing home as the home does not meet the required front setback.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal
relevant to the code. The relief requested is 5 ft. to the front setback.
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 to complete construction on a 196 sq. ft. covered deck. The plans show the
location of the covered front porch on the site."
MR. FREER-Thanks, Roy. Please identify yourself and make any additional comments to the Board
that you'd like.
MS. BRUNO-Hi. Good evening. Tammy Bruno, 65 Jenkinsville Road, Queensbury, NY. This is the
first time I've ever been here so I have no clue what I'm supposed to do. I'm sorry.
MR. FREER-Okay. Is there anything other than what's in the application?
MS. BRUNO-No. Basically, if you want me to explain, the old porch got torn off. My daughter
goes to school every morning and that porch is falling apart and it just keeps falling. The house is
the oldest house on Jenkinsville Road. It's his mom's house that was built, I don't even know how old
that is, but anyway, water is going, our basement is an old-time basement, the tall basements, the brick,
and basically all the water is going in front of, the drainage, it's hitting. It's hitting our concrete to
our basement, and if we don't do a covered what's going to happen is our whole basement's going to
collapse. So we're like between a rock and a hard place basically, the whole situation.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, and any questions from the Board for the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-So obviously you started to build it and then figured out that you were too close?
MS. BRUNO-We didn't start building it. We tore off the old porch.
MR. HENKEL-I see. So that's what's the.
MS. BRUNO-No, we were told not to do anything. We were listening.
MR. FREER-That's not kind of how it was worded.
MRS. MOORE-So you mean, you did put the sonotubes.
MS. BRUNO-The sonotubes aren't filled. We didn't fill them. I dug the holes. He did three. I did
three, or two and a half each, and we did that, because we're running out of time. October is a really
18
(C ueen,sbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
weird month and all the rain. We've been re-doing the whole house, the windows to the siding,
everything to re-vamp our house, you know, and make it look nice. So we did the holes. We dug
them and we put stuff on top of them, but there's no cement in anything. They're just sitting there,
waiting.
MR. FREER-Okay. So we have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the
audience that wishes to make comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written
comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is none.
MR. FREER-Okay. With that I'll poll the Board and start with Michelle.
MRS. HAYWARD-So, I'm in favor of your application so far. Just a quick question. This is the
original footprint of the old porch? You're just replacing what was there? It is bigger?
MS. BRUNO-Yes. So the original is basically the door and actually it's further toward the road than
the old porch was than our new porch is going to be a country style across, then all the water doesn't
go and damage our basement. So we're doing a whole covered. Trust me, we've been working on
this house since August 23" every day.
MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you. I think it's a reasonable application. So I'm in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Can we just hold on a second here? There's some confusion here. Is she asking for
five feet of relief?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Or 25 feet?
MRS. MOORE-Five feet.
MR. MC CABE-Because the way it's worded here, it's kind of a little bit confusing.
MRS. MOORE-So the first part, if you look under Relief Required, the deck is located approximately
20 feet from the property line where a 30 foot setback is required. So she needs five feet of relief.
MR. URRICO-Okay, but down in Number Three it says relief requested is five feet to the front setback.
MRS. MOORE-That's the relief. So I back tracked.
MR. MC CABE-Sorry about that. We've got to know what we're approving.
MS. BRUNO-That's okay.
MRS. MOORE-So it should say 30. Got it, or it should say 25. 1 see.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-The survey is waived. So we don't have an exact.
MRS. MOORE-So you don't have an exact measurement.
MR. HENKEL-It's approximate.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So the survey waiver was granted. However, if the Board feels that as an as
built that the applicant should get the distance measured to confirm that distance you could request
that. It's an option. You don't have to ask that.
MR. HENKEL-Just as long as it's within that five feet either way.
MR. FREER-So do you support the application?
19
(C ueen,sbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
MR. HENKEL-Yes. I've been by it. They're making some good improvements. Like she said, as old
as the house is they're working hard on it. I mean, like I said, as long as it's not five feet from the
road I have no problem with that. If it's roughly that five feet I have no problem with that. Without
a survey we can't tell. Do we know this for a fact that that's approximately right?
MRS. MOORE-The word approximate is there. So, no, I can't say exactly what the distance is at this
point.
MR. HENKEL-Like I said, as long as it's not grossly over the five feet, I have no problems. I think
they're working hard on it. They're making good improvements to it. For with they're asking, I'm
for it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, John. Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 support the project. I think it's a reasonable thing to do, and I think it'll improve
the looks of the property which will improve the neighborhood.
MR. FREER-It sounds like it will improve the value of your home by not having the basement issue and
the water.
MR. HENKEL-That's a limestone foundation I think. Isn't it?
MS. BRUNO-1 have no idea.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's limestone. I looked like a limestone.
MR. FREER-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yens, I'm in favor of the application. I would recommend that when we make the
motion that we give her some leeway, make sure that we're not narrowing it down to such an extent
that an exact measurement's going to be needed.
MR. FREER-Okay. Well you give that some thought and think of the wording that you want.
MR. URRICO-I'm not going to do it.
MR. MC CABE-I'll take care of it for you.
MR. FREER Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think we're satisfied with the intent of the regulation. I mean older homes that
were built closer to the road, you can't anticipate, and 25 feet is set back, even if we were going to
give them 10 feet of setback relief, that would more than give them enough space. So I think we should
make it eight feet of relief instead of five and a half.
MR. FREER-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just so they don't have to come back if they're like one foot over.
MR. FREER-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. I have no problem with it.
MR. FREER-I don't think we can give more relief than they've requested.
MRS. MOORE-You can't.
MR. MC CABE-I'm going to do the proposal and I'm going to say five feet plus or minus three and a
half feet. Without a survey what are you going to do?
MRS. MOORE-You can ask for information about the survey. It is up to the Board.
MR. FREER-The dilemma we're in here is that, just for the audience, our charge is we can't give more
relief than is requested, but we're trying to figure out a way to make it practical without a survey that
if you're off by six inches or a foot and a half that you don't get into trouble with the Building and
Codes guys and all that stuff.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
MR. HENKEL-She'd just have to come back in front of us to ask for forgiveness if she did.
MR. URRICO-She can't ask for more relief right now?
MR. HENKEL-No.
MS. BRUNO-I'm sorry, can I interrupt for a second? Our problem right now is snow's going to be
falling and our basement's going to be gone if we don't like get that porch started.
MR. FREER-Well, we're trying.
MS. BRUNO-1 know you are, and I appreciate it, but I don't think Roland needed more than five? Did
he? I mean Roland came and did the.
MR. FREER-Okay. So we have to go with what you've applied for.
MS. BRUNO-Whatever he said, he's a builder. I don't think he needed any more than he said.
MR. FREER-And we can say approximately, right? Or not?
MRS. MOORE-5.999 is plus or minus.
MR. FREER-Okay. Any other discussion? Okay, and I'll 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 Roland
Mitchell &Tammy Bruno. Applicant proposes to complete construction of a 196 sq. ft. covered porch
to an existing 1,944 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for
the MDR zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the under construction deck in
the MDR zone.
Section 179-3-040 —Dimensional requirements —dimensional requirements Moderate Density zone and
179-4-080 Setbacks for porches canopies and decks
The applicant proposes to complete construction of a 196 sq. ft. covered deck. The deck location is
approximately 25 ft. from the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. Survey waiver
requested granted.
SEAR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 17, 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 by granting this variance it will have an improvement to the existing
property and thus an improvement to the character of the neighborhood.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. They're only looking for five feet out of thirty.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is of course self-created.
21
(Queen,sbury ZBA Meeting 10/17/200]
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;
The Board understands that the conditions here are approximate and so granting of this
variance recognizes that.
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-67-2018 ROLAND MITCHELL &TAMMY BRUNO, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 17" day of October 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck.
MS. BRUNO-Thank you. So I come see you tomorrow? Okay. I just want to make sure.
MR. FREER-Okay. So now we're on to Area Variance 69-2018, David & Morgan Stanhope.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-69-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 DAVID&MORGAN STANHOPE OWNER(SJ
DAVID & MORGAN STANHOPE, PAMELA CASEY ZONING MDR LOCATION 148 SWEET
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 120 SQ. FT. STORAGE SHED ADJACENT TO THE
DRIVEWAY AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE WETLAND (SHORELINE) DESIGNATED ON THE PARCEL. CROSS REF AV 45-2017; SP 52-
2017; FWW 4-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2018 LOT SIZE 4.43 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 296.1544 SECTION 179-5-020
DAVID STANHOPE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-69-2018, David & Morgan Stanhope, Meeting Date: October
17, 2018 "Project Location: 148 Sweet Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
to install a 120 sq. ft. storage shed adjacent to the driveway area. Relief requested from the minimum
setback requirements for the wetland (shoreline) designated on the parcel.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the minimum setback requirements of the wetland to install a 120
sq. ft. storage shed for the MDR zone.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —moderate density residential
zone and Section 179-5-020 Accessory Structures
The proposed shed is to be located 35 ft. from the wetland where a 75 ft. setback 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 limited due to
the wetland delineation on the property, where any new structure may need relief.
22
(C ueensbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested is 40 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 to install a 120 sq. ft. shed on existing gravel pad. The applicant has provided
a brochure image of the shed to be installed."
MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Please identify yourself and add anything you'd like to what was just
read in.
MR. STANHOPE-Good evening. My name's David Stanhope. I'm the homeowner of 148 Sweet Road.
Pretty straightforward. We're just proposing, like you said, a 120 square foot shed, 10 by 12, just
adjacent to the garage. We're limited just to where to put that shed because of the wetlands on the
property. The shed, I worked with Laura Moore just to go over that application and with Bruce Frank
just as to where would be the most logical area to place the shed. Just for snow blower, lawnmower,
simple outdoor items, but that's basically what we'd use the shed for.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. FREER-No questions. We have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the
audience that would like to make comment on this proposed application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there
any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is not.
MR. FREER-Okay. No written comments, I'll start with Ron.
MR. KUHL-Yes. This is a good project. The wetlands are there. Knowing personally, having built a
house, he's not going to disturb anything. The shed's not going to affect anything in the wetlands.
Just so long as he doesn't put his mother-in-law in there, I'm in favor.
MR. FREER-Thank you, Ron. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project. You have limited alternatives and they've already been
explored. So I'm in favor.
MR. FREER John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also in favor of it as is.
MR. FREER-Okay. Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 can't support the project. I felt that the house intruded on the wetlands and so I'm
certainly not going to support further intrusion into the wetlands.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Mike. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of it.
MR. FREER Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it's 120 square foot shed, so I mean it's not going to have any huge impact
on anything, and even though it's close to the wetlands, everything built there is close to the wetlands.
I don't think it'll have a negative effect.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
MR. FREER-I, too, can support this project. It seems to be minimal relief and the wetlands are a
challenge in this area, and we have to be good stewards of that. However, at the same time we need
to be reasonable for the project, and with that I will close the public hearing and request a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman?
MR. FREER-Please. Thank you.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David 8T
Morgan Stanhope. Applicant proposes to install a 120 sq. ft. storage shed adjacent to the driveway
area. Relief requested from the minimum setback requirements for the wetland (shoreline) designated
on the parcel.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the minimum setback requirements of the wetland to install a 120
sq. ft. storage shed for the MDR zone.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —moderate density residential
zone and Section 179-5-020 Accessory Structures
The proposed shed is to be located 35 ft. from the wetland where a 75 ft. setback is required.
SEAR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 17, 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. This is another issue with the wetlands but it will have no net effect on the
wetlands.
2. Feasible alternatives are not many and they're really not possible.
3. The requested variance is really not substantial. It's because of the 75 foot wetlands buffer
requirement.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. We might suggest that the alleged difficulty is 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-69-2018, DAVID & MORGAN STANHOPE, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer
24
(C ueen,sbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
NOES: Mr. McCabe
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Good luck.
MR. STANHOPE-Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. I have two more housekeeping. You guys can go. I hope this was useful,
educational. I'd like to sort of continue the discussion with the Board on the already built. You heard
me use the word consideration. People make mistakes. That's one thing, but Cerrone's, we should
try to establish some way to recognize mistakes in a fair way.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think what we should do is we should consider how far off they are. I mean
like the one we had this evening, they needed a 30 foot setback and they were at 25 setback, and so I
would not, I think we would have appreciated if they would have stuck to the actual setbacks, but I
think that especially on older lots and smaller lots, it's difficult sometimes, and we've had before the
excuse of moving stakes and lines getting misaligned and things like that, you know, I think we have
to look at them all on an individual basis. You can't make a blanket clause or quote that's going to be
set in stone for every single project because I think that exceeds the standard of fairness that we're
supposed to supply.
MR. HENKEL-Didn't we already approve Cerrone for smaller lots to begin with?
MR. UNDERWOOD-The conservation easements, that's the purpose of those, is to go to smaller lots
so you have less disturbance.
MR. FREER-Instead of building 20 lots.
MR. UNDERWOOD-On 10 acres.
MR. FREER-Yes, you build smaller lots so you can hook up the utilities easier and leave the other stuff.
MR. URRICO-And you have a common central area.
MR. FREER-Yes, undisturbed.
MR. MC CABE-But in my mind that's a high end area, and that's a high end builder. That mistake's
unforgivable, in my estimation. However small.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think his explanation of having not had that happen previously under all of
this projects that he's done.
MR. MC CABE-Well how many places has he done in there and he didn't know that that was the
setback?
MR. FREER-So I'm sort of between you two. Tuesday we're going to have the bigger discussion.
Mike, you know, Cerrone, what do we do to help prevent this, you know, have them make fewer
mistakes, have them make, you know, so what is the Town's?
MR. MC CABE-The gross difference here is that one of Cerrone, and the guy on North Road. I mean,
so those are kind of like the extremes. And again, there should be a difference there than some guy,
you know, who's trying to fix up his house and doesn't, you know, realize what some of the issues are.
He's not a professional.
MR. URRICO-That's the problem is that, I've been on this Board a long time. There's never been two
cases exactly the same, and the same goes for anything that's pre-built or built before we give approval.
They've never been exactly the same. So it's very hard to say this is the way it's going to be. We
don't know, but there are penalties that we can employ. We've done it very rarely.
MR. FREER-We could make them take it down.
MR. URRICO-It could be monetary.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We have resorted to that in the past, making people remove patios and
hardscaping and decks and roofs on homes that were oversized, but I think it should be discretionary
on our part, too.
25
(C ueen,sbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
MR. FREER-I mean I think that's the challenge is how do we balance that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-We have to look at each one, as Roy said, individually, because no two are alike,
and the circumstances, even though sometimes, you know the first time you look at it the dander's up
on the back of your neck and you're saying, you know, it makes me angry about what happened this
time, but I think there's a difference between, you know, like the one on North Road, you know, where
we have a huge garage put up, you know, with no permitting process, no review by the Town. That's
an obvious end run on their part, and that's a perfect example of one that if we wanted to be, if we
wanted to play hardball we could say tear the thing down tomorrow.
MR. FREER-Well, yes, I think us as a Board need to advocate to play hardball, but we have to use
discretion and include every individual case.
MR. KUHL-Well, you know, this was an auxiliary structure. One of the first weeks I was on this Board
a particular builder came up and had built a house and he needed a variance for four feet, and we gave
that builder the variance because he swore he'd never do it again. I went home and spoke to a friend
of mine in the building business, and he said that builder, he had the surveyor lay out the lot. When
they staked the building he should call the surveyor back to see that the stakes are proper off the line
and he didn't spend that $175. Okay. That guy, because I was gunning for him. If he came back with
another house I was going to say move it, okay, and I confront that person every time he comes in
front of this Board because he always cuts corners.
MRS. HAYWARD-You mentioned Tuesday. I didn't miss that meeting?
MR. FREER-No, no, no. This coming Tuesday the Planning Board is having a session.
MRS. HAYWARD-That's the first one? I didn't miss, this was it? I wrote the date down.
MR. FREER-Yes, October 23"
MRS. HAYWARD-So I didn't miss the first meeting. It's coming up.
MR. KUHL-Going back to what we talked about, each one is a separate case.
MR. FREER-So the second sort of question for the group is, you know, you all gave the Chairperson
authority to waive surveys. Okay. This was a good example of some of the fuzziness that comes
with waiving surveys. Do you have any more, I guess, guidance for me? Because I've probably done
10, 15 survey waivers, you know, with recommendations from Laura, and some of them we've put, you
know, as as built required, you know, afterwards. Any thoughts on how you guys are feeling about
the lack of survey on this one tonight or in general?
MR. URRICO-Surveys are not always proof that it's right, either. One of my first years on the Board
we approved something on Assembly Point and it turned out the survey was wrong. He built over
the line, and we didn't give him the variance. I think we booted it afterwards, and that ended up in
court.
MR. KUHL-The reason why we were doing away with surveys were for the small properties on the
west side of the Northway when they're bringing in a mobile home. I mean that was the original intent,
right? Those people, they're spending all their money and we didn't think it was worth it, at $1500,
$2,000 for the survey.
MR. FREER-Well how about the Jenkinsville?
MR. KUHL-We were more concerned with that five foot than that applicant was. We were stirring
the pot, and in reality we should have said bing, bang let it go. They didn't need it because she had
confidence in her builder, and so we go.
MR. FREER-Okay, any other comments about my?
MR. HENKEL-Well, first of all, who's going to issue the fine or whatever? We don't do that, right?
MRS. MOORE-Not you as a Board, no.
MR. URRICO-Is the Town Attorney going to weigh in on this as to whether?
26
(C ueen,sbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
MRS. MOORE-So a notice was sent out to the Zoning Board Chair, the Town Supervisor, Town
Counsel, to invite a couple of members of each group. The Town Board will be sending two. The
Zoning Board I understood will be sending two. The Town Counsel hasn't contacted me. I'm assuming
someone will be present, but I'm not certain of that. We also invited Kathy Bozony. Kathy Bozony
could not attend. Chris Navitsky was also asked to attend and he hasn't responded yet.
CATHY HAMLIN, ALTERNATE
MRS. HAMLIN-But any of us can be in the audience as observers?
MR. FREER-We need to be careful.
MRS. MOORE-It's an open meeting. There was a public notice. I guess I'm just concerned that when
more than two show up, is it triggering the quorum issue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it's like that nebulous meeting we had that time when we had the Zoning
and the Planning Board all together at the same time in pre-meeting.
MR. FREER-About that place over there?
MR. UNDERWOOD-And it's not kosher.
MRS. MOORE-So I'll look into it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You can go to the meeting and not make commentary. If you just want to be
an observer, that's perfectly fine.
MRS. MOORE-1 would see that as being potentially okay.
MR. URRICO-Harrison, I think the only problem with this passing on the survey is that we were dealing
with approximation. That was the only issue there. Somebody could press the point later on and
say they built further than five feet away. So that's the issue was an approximation. Given the definite
facts definite measurements, we don't need the survey.
MR. FREER-Okay. Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think a lot of times you can measure off the buildings that are previously
constructed on site also. I think it provides relief for people not to have to spend X number of extra
dollars.
MR. MC CABE-Well, the other thing, wasn't there a curve in the front of that Jenkinsville property,
so, you know, that would have had an effect also.
MR. URRICO-Yes, that's a weird road to begin with.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would think for the Town you could measure from the centerline of the
road back to the house.
MR. MC CABE-But where on the house?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Bruce does that, but I'm just saying that commonsense dictates on older
properties in Town you can't change the way it is.
MR. URRICO-The centerline is not always the centerline either.
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. KUHL-You know you brought up the North Road project, did the construction company's name
ever surface?
MR. HENKEL-No, they wouldn't give it.
MRS. MOORE-1 don't know.
MR. KUHL-Bitner was supposed to give it to you.
27
(Queen,sbury ZBA Meeting V17/200]
MR. HENKEL-She didn't know.
MR. KUHL-Well, no, when she came in front of us she didn't know, but then she came back for that
and we gave her a variance for that gazebo, right?
MRS. HAYWARD-She said she was going to find out.
MR. KUHL-She said she was going to find out.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think one way to dial that in would be to require, in after the fact instances
when they appear before Boards, they have to appear with the person who created the illegal project.
MR. FREER-You've heard me say that. Don't come back unless you bring in.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think that also puts the Town, the Town can put them on notice that, you
know, in other words you have to be a licensed contractor within the Town of Queensbury to operate
within our community. I don't think we're there yet with the Town Board, but that would be a
suggestion.
MRS. MOORE-So, I guess, I mean, is there further discussion?
MR. FREER-Well, I want to let you weigh in on the conversation to get a sense of, I don't think we've
ever had these kinds of discussions, since I've been on the Board, after the fact, but for me, you know,
at least when it comes to surveys, you guys have had a chance to input and I've received other input,
you know, and I really appreciate that because as we've seen, as I've seen, you know, there's seven of
us because we have seven different perspectives, and I think there's kind of a good trust of what's
going on here that I want to continue to see.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think everybody should always have the mindset of, even though you think
something is wrong when you come in to the meeting, a lot of times you listen to the other Board
members and you modify your position, too, based upon the realities when you hear the applicant give
their spiel and explanation as to why the mistake occurs. A lot of times, I mean, we're supposed to
fall on the side of reasonableness, too, you know.
MR. FREER-Well when I saw the third waiver for one year, you know, my first reaction, as I said to
the guy, it's a good thing he was here.
MRS. MOORE-So if I can weigh in on that one. We typically accept administrative requests like that
and then they don't necessarily show up to the meeting. It's a guidance, from you as a Board, is what
it sounds like, that you would like applicants to be present when they're requesting an extension.
MR. FREER-If it's a controversial one. I mean, not on every, but the third time, that was one that I
was. Okay. I don't want to keep people too much longer. We kind of worked through a lot of his
pretty expeditiously, but again, thanks for your inputs.
MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting.
MR. FREER-Seconded.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
OCTOBER 17,2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison
Freer:
Duly adopted this 17" day of October, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Harrison Freer, Chairman
28