2009.03.25(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 25, 2009
INDEX
Area Variance No. 10-2009
Area Variance No. 12-2009
Area Variance No. 13-2009
Area Variance No. 14-2009
Serge & Holly Shishik 1.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-38
Lehigh Northeast Cement Company 7.
Tax Map No. 310.7-1-1
Linda Lea Muller 10.
Tax Map No. 253.3-1-33
Mohammad Tariq 21.
d/b/a Rodeway Motel
Tax Map No. 228.00-1-56
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 25, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOAN JENKIN
RICHARD GARRAND
JOYCE HUNT
GEORGE DRELLOS
BRIAN CLEMENTS
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I'll call the March 25, 2009 meeting to order here, and first
off, let me do a quick review of our procedures in general. For each case, I'll call the
application by name and number, and the secretary will read in the pertinent parts of the
application, the Staff Notes as well as the Warren County Planning Board decision, if
applicable. The applicant then will be invited to the table and be asked to provide any
information they wish to add to the application. The Board, then, will ask questions of
the applicant. Following that, we'll open the public hearing. I'd caution that the public
hearing is not a vote, but it's a way to gather information about concerns, real or
perceived, and it's a way to gather information and insight in general, about the issue at
hand. It should function to help the Board members make a wise, informed decision, but
it does not make the decision for the Board members. As always, we'll have a five
minute limit on each speaker. So that basically tells us everything they want us to know
in that five minutes. A speaker may speak again if, after listening to other speakers, they
believe they have new information to present. Following that, we'll read correspondence
into the record, and then the applicants will have an opportunity to react and respond to
the public comment, and Board members then will discuss the variance with the
applicant. Following that, the Board members will be polled to explain their positions on
the application, then we'll close the public hearing, unless there's a reason to leave it
open, and that would be only if it looks like the application will be continued to another
meeting. Finally we'll have a motion to approve, disapprove or table and then we'll vote
on it. First off tonight we have some New Business.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II SERGE & HOLLY SHISHIK
OWNER(S): SERGE & HOLLY SHISHIK ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 325
CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,190
SQ. FT. STRUCTURE WITH A 218 SQ. FT. PORCH AND CONSTRUCTION OF 1,317
SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 378 SQ. FT. PORCH. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM FRONT, SIDE YARD SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO
REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 11, 2009 LOT SIZE:
0.09 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-38 SECTION: 179-4-030
SERGE SHISHIK, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2009, Serge & Holly Shishik, Meeting Date:
March 25, 2009 "Project Location: 325 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed
Project: Note: This project was tabled at the February 18, 2009 ZBA meeting with the
condition that the applicant come back with a different plan. Suggestions offered by the
board include a one and one half story home and/or building a similar design on the
same footprint that exists (see attached resolution dated February 18, 2009).
The applicant had proposed the demolition of a 1,469 square foot two story single family
home to be replaced with a 1,952 square foot two story single family home. The
applicant has submitted new information that includes the demolition of the home, which
is now proposed to be replaced with a 1,344 square foot one and one half story single
family home. Relief requested from front, side yard setbacks and floor area ratio (FAR)
requirements per §179-4-030.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 17.31 feet of relief from the required 30 foot front setback and 0.49
feet from the 12 foot south side setback requirement per §179-4-030. Further, the
applicant requests 477.76 square feet of Floor Area Ratio relief per §179-4-030 in order
to create a 34.1 % FAR for the property. The FAR maximum for this zone is 22%.
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 changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal as the size of the proposed house is smaller than what currently exists.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
build in a more compliant location or reduce the size of the project.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 17.31 feet or
57.7 percent of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement may be considered
moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 0.49 feet or 4.08 percent
of relief from the 12 foot south-side setback requirement may be minor relative to the
ordinance. Finally, the request fora 34.1 % FAR or 477.76 square feet of additional
FAR relief from the requirements for this zone may be considered moderate relative
to the ordinance.
1344.0 sq. ft. house = 3937.45 sq. ft. lot = 0.341 x 100 = 34.1 % FAR
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
Additionally, the project does propose a compliant waste-water system and storm-
water control that do not currently exist on site.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None since 1950
Staff comments:
The applicant states that this is a seasonal dwelling used during the summer months and
it is understood that this new dwelling is also for seasonal use. If the home has a heating
source and insulation, this structure will be considered a year round home.
SEAR Status:
Type II - No action required."
MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Shishik, anything you'd like to add? I think the last time you
came in, I think we all recognized that this was a very tiny lot, but it wasn't your creation.
It's something that you purchased at some point in the past, and that the house that's on
the lot is well past its lifespan of usage. It's an old, tired building, but at the same time, I
think we all agreed, both Staff and the Board agreed, that, you know, what you had
proposed before was a little bit too big for what the lot could accommodate, and I think
there was some public commentary related to that also. So, I think what you've done
here now sort of is a little bit, you know, if you want to tell us what the differences are
from what you had last time, size wise.
MR. SHISHIK-Sure. We've reduced the height of the overall structure, going to the one
and a half, the cape like, which is consistent to what's there now. We also brought in the
property, even narrowing it from what's existing there now, decreasing one of the
variances that we required from the previous meeting. So it's a bit tighter from the edges
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
than the current property or the proposed structure last month. We also did, I think, Mr.
Underwood, it was your suggestion to do the knee walls upstairs. So we put the knee
walls in, making the bedrooms much smaller, and that actually worked out pretty well,
because the stairs can kind of come up and then the dormer off the side would be able to
accommodate that upstairs bathroom, making a little bit more floor area, but bringing
down the overall floor area, so decreasing the ratio accordingly. So that's basically, you
know, we didn't really re-create the wheel. We just, well, we re-created the whole top
floor and shrunk it all down. So it hopefully made the math work out a little bit more
favorable.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do Board members have any questions regarding what he's
proposing?
MR. URRICO-Just on the question by Staff, will this contain a heating source, an
insulation?
MR. SHISHIK-No. There's no year round water supply, either, at the property. I mean, a
heating source, I mean, we might put some baseboard in, but, no, I mean, I have no
intention of.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would imagine, Keith, my experience has been like over on Glen
Lake there's some seasonal dwellings over there, and when they had additions built on
them, they made them insulate them.
MR. SHISHIK-I want to, I mean, I definitely want to insulate it, for a lot of different
reasons.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It almost makes sense. I can't imagine that the Town Building and
Codes would allow you to build a building without insulation going forward, and it would
make more sense, noise wise and everything else, to put it in.
MR. SHISHIK-Yes, even the heat, to be honest with you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And realistically speaking, if the water source is that community
water that comes from the lake, it's not going to be viable in the wintertime, to any
degree.
MR. SHISHIK-No, it's not. There's no water supply. Plus you get, it's a different tax
code, too, and I want to keep it at that as well, as seasonal.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions you guys have right now?
MRS. JENKIN-Well, I think the changes are good, and we appreciate that you did listen.
MR. SHISHIK-Yes. We went back to the drawing board, my wife and I, and we just want
something that can accommodate us and the kids.
MRS. JENKIN-It's certainly more in keeping with the neighborhood now. Definitely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I will open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public
wishing to speak on this matter? Do you want to come up?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We realize
this is a very difficult site. We appreciate the revisions that the applicant has made. A
couple of thoughts of ours, and, Mr. Chairman, if I'm addressing the wrong Board, let me
know, but there is proposed modifications to the on site wastewater treatment system,
but we feel that there's some questions with that that should be contemplated and
considered with the entire re-development of the site, and possibly could that modify the
structure even more? It looks like they're proposing nearly doubling the size of their
porch, but when we take a look at the septic system in the rear, we're unclear, it appears
the back portion of the structure is simply a slab on grade and there's not a foundation
wall. We're confused on that, because we do not know, if there will be a foundation wall,
will this require a variance for the septic system on setbacks to the septic tank. They are
also proposing, it appears, a raised system in the rear because of limitations to depth to
groundwater. Based with the Eljen system, they're going to need about two feet of fill
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
brought in to make that system work, and therefore are they going to need a pump to
actually make that work? Again, this may not be directly related to their dimensional
variances, but we think that it's a cumulative project, and we have to take a look at those
items also. So we think that the full planning should be brought in at this stage. So I
guess, in closing, our questions are, regarding the septic system, are there variances
required, is there a requirement for the setback of the septic tank to the house, and then
if that is required, does that therefore maybe bring in a question about the size of the
porch, and the extent of the porch, and I think those would be our questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm going to guess, I'm pretty sure that the septic tank issue is
related to if you have a cellar there. I mean, if you just have a frost wall down
underneath the ground, that's not going to affect the building, I would imagine. They're
going to have to do a, put footers in and build up, so they have something substantial to
build on.
MR. OBORNE-Sure. The distance is 10 feet from the tank, the septic tank itself, from
the slab, and then from there, I mean, it's been designed, it's my understanding, in my
review of the design, that it does fit, I will admit it's shoehorned in. Dave Hatin has taken
a look at it, and I would suggest asking the applicant to clarify certain issues with that.
Right now we're here for Area Variances right now. I didn't pick anything up, in my
review, at this point, that would stop him from having a septic put in.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and are they going to undergo any Site Plan Review here,
because of the?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Nothing. So it'll strictly be a Building and Codes issue.
MR. SHISHIK-Dave Hatin, I mean, did look at the septic. It doesn't not require a
variance. The slab was part of the design to make it work. It's not, I'm not an engineer,
but it's not a raised system or whatever termination. There is no pump. To get that 36
inches of ground clearance, there is some fill that was going to be brought in, but it
wasn't, it isn't a quote unquote raised Eljen system. I don't pretend to know what that
means, but I've heard that term thrown around, but, you know, the engineer that I worked
with, that designed the septic system took all that into consideration as well.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you've just got two half baths in there. Is that what you've got?
A shower?
MR. SHISHIK-One and a half.
MR. UNDERWOOD-One and a half, yes.
MR. DRELLOS-They go by bedrooms anyway.
MR. SHISHIK-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-What is it, three bedrooms?
MR. SHISHIK-Two bedrooms.
MR. DRELLOS-Two bedrooms.
MR. NAVITSKY-Well, I think our questions would be directed to Mr. Hatin because
simply if the pipe's got to come out under grade, and the pipe out where the system is is
going to be above grade, it doesn't work.
MR. DRELLOS-You're saying it's going to need a pump, then?
MR. NAVITSKY-That's what it appears. So my questions will be directed to Mr. Hatin.
MR. DRELLOS-Well, that's the Building Department.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So are you assuming they're going to have to put a pit in the ground
and the pump from there to the thing? I mean, obviously you've got a downstairs
bathroom. You've got to go downhill.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. I mean, not knowing the exact grade, I mean, we did a drive by. It
appears relatively level through there. Minimal pitch, and they said the proposed Eljen
system would be five inches into existing grade. That system needs 30 inches of depth
from ground level to the base of the sand. So therefore they need two feet of fill, and that
pipe is therefore 18 inches out of the ground.
MR. DRELLOS-Are they going to raise the house, maybe, to get the foundation there?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don't think so, because they don't want to affect their height, you
know.
MR. NAVITSKY-All right. So these are, but I think my questions are directed to the
Building Department.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I would do that, Chris, absolutely.
MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SHISHIK-(Lost words) porch concern.
MR. NAVITSKY-Well, my thought, again, was the septic field also requires a 20 foot
separation to the house.
MR. SHISHIK-The porch is on the front.
MR. NAVITSKY-But my point being is that if a variance was going to be required on the
setback from septic system to the house, which needs to be 20 feet, although this may
be considered a replacement, and I do not know if there's relief granted for that.
MR. DRELLOS-It's on a slab, right? We're talking it's on a slab? There's no basement?
MR. SHISHIK-No basement.
MR. DRELLOS-Then I think you can be closer with a slab.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm pretty sure you can be right up against a slab, as far as I
remember.
MR. DRELLOS-You can, with it, yes. The 10 and 20 feet go away when you've got a
slab.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it's when you've got a full cellar that then you've got to make
that, make sure you make that 10 foot.
MR. DRELLOS-And you were talking slab, you don't have a basement. You can move
things closer.
MR. NAVITSKY-My belief is otherwise, but I will check on that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. NAVITSKY-But that's all, and then, just the other point is, if you've got a slab, well, if
there's a frost wall, then that's fine.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. NAVITSKY-But I was just concerned about the bearing and just the structural
integrity, but I will raise that question regarding the frost wall with the Building
Department. That's all. Thanks.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak
on the matter? Any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll start with you.
MR. GARRAND-Certainly. I think this is a significant change to the original plan, also
given the fact that the lot is very small, options are limited here. Anything you put here is
going to require a variance. There's not a whole lot anybody can do about it. Anything
short of a shack or a storage building, small one, would require a variance. This
proposal is definitely a lot better than the last one, though, and I'd be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. Yes. I think you took our suggestions to heart. I think the
requests you've made are either moderate to minimal, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm in agreement. This is a much better plan than the first one you
showed up with. So I'd be in favor of what it looks like now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George?
MR. DRELLOS-Yes. I'm going to agree with my fellow Board members. By reducing the
house size, and lowering the two story to a story and a half, that makes more sense on
this size lot, and like Rich said, I mean, to make something fit, you're looking at a shed
pretty much. So we understand that you have to have something there, something that's
livable. So I'd be in favor of this project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. My concern before was the change in the character of the
neighborhood, and I think this one will fit very, very nicely into the existing homes
around. I think that you've done a really good job of trying to keep it in, within the bounds
that you need to, and you've made it a little bit narrower, which is another point in your
favor. The septic doesn't seem to be our concern. So I don't think there will be any
physical or environmental adverse effects there. So I would definitely be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I'd agree with the rest of the Board. I'd be in favor. I think you've done
a good job. You've actually made the square footage smaller than the building that's
there now. It's decreased the Floor Area Ratio. So I'd also be in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and I'll also go along with the Board members. I think
everybody recognizes that if, as has been mentioned, that if you were going to build
compliant, it would be a clubhouse for your kids to play in. So, I mean, that's not really
where we want to go with this one, and I think that you've listened. It's essentially about
the same size as what's been there for many, many years. I think the upgrade of the
system with a new septic is going to be a plus. I think it's recognized it's not going to be
year round usage. I don't think there's any way possible, given the water supply system,
that it could become year round usage. So I think I'll go along with what everybody else
has said, too. It's a lot of relief that's asked for. It's much more Floor Area Ratio relief
than we normally grant, but we recognize it's a tiny lot. So it's one of those out of the
blue ones that we get once in a blue moon. So does somebody want to do a resolution?
MRS. JENKIN-I can do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2009 SERGE & HOLLY SHISHIK,
Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
325 Cleverdale Road. The applicant has proposed the demolition of a 1469 square foot
two story single family home to be replaced with the 1344 square foot one and a half
story single family home. Relief is requested from front side yard setbacks and floor
area ratio requirements per Section 179-4-030. The relief required. The applicant
requests 17.31 feet of relief from the required 30 foot front setback, and 0.49 feet from
the 12 foot south side setback requirement per 179-4-030. Further, the applicant
requests 477.76 square foot of floor area ratio relief per Section 179-4-030 in order to
create a 34.1 Floor Area Ratio for the property. The maximum Floor Area Ratio for this
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
zone is 22%. In making this determination, the Board shall consider the following
criteria: Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created. Minor changes to the
nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal, as the size of the proposed
house is smaller than what currently exists, and it definitely is in keeping with the rest of
the homes in the neighborhood. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be
achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area
variance. The applicant really cannot achieve any other method if he wants to have a
home for his three children, and the two bedroom is definitely within the scope of what
the size of the project should be. Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
The request for 17.31 feet or 57.7% of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement is
more or less what the requirement almost has to be because of the size of the property.
This request for .49 feet or 4.08% of relief from the 12 foot south side setback
requirement is also minor relative to the Ordinance, and the request fora 34.1 % Floor
Area Ratio or 477.76 square feet of additional Floor Area Ratio relief cannot be avoided,
only because the property is so small. Whether the proposed variance will have an
adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the
neighborhood may be anticipated. It does propose a compliant wastewater system and
stormwater control which will actually improve the whole situation on the site. Whether
the alleged difficulty is self-created. It really was not self-created, only because the
house now is barely livable, and if you want to enjoy your summers at home, it'll be much
improved to have a nice new home to live in. So I will move to approve Area Variance
No. 10-2009.
Duly adopted this 25t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would suggest that you get together with Dave Hatin and make
sure the septic issue in the backyard is squared away, and make sure, before you start
laying it out, that you've got it in the right place, because you've got all those narrow
setbacks to deal with. Thank you.
MR. SHISHIK-Yes, sir. Thank you. My only question, is there a term to this?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. You have a year, and then you can re-new it if you don't get to
it. I mean, you can come in and keep requesting renewal of it. So, not a problem. Good
luck.
MR. SHISHIK-Okay. Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2009 SEQRA TYPE II LEHIGH NORTHEAST CEMENT
COMPANY AGENT(S): EDWARD KOKOSKI, ENGINEERING MANAGER OWNER(S):
LEHIGH NORTHEAST CEMENT COMPANY ZONING: HI LOCATION: 313 LOWER
WARREN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING SWITCHGEAR
WITH NEW; THE NEW GEAR WILL BE IN A NEW 797 SQ. FT. MODULAR BUILDING
WITH A 254 SQ. FT. STEEL DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: AV 17-2006; SPR 7-2006; BP 2004-469 STORAGE
BUILDING; BP 2001-213 COM'L BLDG; BP 95-670 ADDITION; BP 95-484 EQUIP.
BLDG; BP 95-147 ALT.; SPR 13-09 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 11,
2009 LOT SIZE: 46.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 310.7-1-1 SECTION: 179-4-030
EDWARD KOKOSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-I just had a question. Is this the same one that we've approved
before, or a different one?
MR. KOKOSKI-It's a little different, but very similar.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay.
MR. KOKOSKI-We were going to just do one of the components, and then we decided to
go ahead and do both of them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MR. KOKOSKI-So it's a little bigger.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just so it all fits in one.
MR. KOKOSKI-It's just about right there at the same location.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I thought it was the same place.
MR. KOKOSKI-Yes.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-2009, Lehigh Northeast Cement Company,
Meeting Date: March 25, 2009 "Project Location: 313 Lower Warren Street Description
of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace existing switchgear with updated
switchgear near Delaware and Hudson Railroad property. The switchgear will be housed
in a 797 square foot building with a 254 square foot steel deck. Relief requested from
rear setback requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 42.5 feet of rear yard setback relief from the 50 foot rear yard
setback requirement per §179-4-030.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as the entire
location is in a heavy industrialized zone.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
build in a compliant location; however the location appears to be predetermined as
the electrical substation is located adjacent to the site and is integral to the project.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 42.5 feet or 85%
of relief from the 50 foot rear yard setback requirement may be considered severe
relative to the ordinance. However, the two properties involved are interrelated.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created. However, the location appears to be the most logical given the restraints of
the project.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 51-2007 Containment building expansion Approved 10/16/07
A.V. 17-2006 Rear setback relief for Switch gear and Hydraulics Approved 3/15/06
S.P. 7-2006 New switchgear enclosure Approved 3/28/06
Staff comments:
According to the applicant, the modular building for the switch gear is in two sections that
will be attached to enclose the switch gear. There is an existing 35 square foot shed to
be removed on the site where the switch gear enclosure will be placed. The building has
a steel walkway with stairs and ramps leading up to the walkway. The project is intended
to update and upgrade the existing switch gear associated with the electrical
components of the plant.
SEAR Status:
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
Type II - No action necessary"
"Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 11, 2009
Project Name: Lehigh Northeast Cement Company Owner(s): Lehigh Northeast
Cement Company ID Number: QBY-09-AV-12 County Project#: Mar09-24 Current
Zoning: HI Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to
replace existing switchgear with new; the new gear will be in a new 797 sq. ft. modular
building with a 254 sq. ft. steel deck. Relief requested from side setback requirements.
Site Location: 313 Lower Warren Street Tax Map Number(s): 310.7-1-1 Staff Notes:
Area Variance: The applicant proposes to replace existing switchgear with new; the new
gear will be in a 797 sq. ft. modular building with a 254 sq. ft. steel deck. Relief
requested from side setback requirements where 11 ft. is proposed and a 50 ft. setback
is required. The information submitted indicates no other improvements are proposed
for the site. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted
according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L
applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County
Impact." Signed by Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning Board 3/16/09.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The only correction I would make on that is it's now Canadian
Pacific. Delaware and Hudson kind of bit the dust back in the 80's.
MR. DRELLOS-I was going to ask that question, if Delaware and Hudson still owned
that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Notice the different marquee on those engines when they go by.
Other than what you had proposed last time, it's essentially in the same place that we
approved prior to this on two other occasions.
MR. KOKOSKI-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think that it's just a modification from what you had done
before, and I don't think anybody would have a problem, having previously done that.
MR. URRICO-So nothing was done with the previous variance that you received, nothing
was done with that project at that point?
MR. KOKOSKI-Yes. It was just postponed and held, and then when we re-looked at the
project, when we got down to it and actually looked at it, what we had done before was
we had combined, we had a different, we had actually two projects that we were looking
at. So when we submitted the application last time we had both of them on the
application, both of them required a variance, and so the second one, that is the switch
gear, we didn't do, we chose not to do it at that time. So now we're going ahead with it.
We really doubled the size of the amount of equipment that we're changing out. That's
why it's changing configuration.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And the only real party that would be affected would be the railroad,
since the line runs through, nearby. So, I mean, there's really no effect, and I don't think,
previously, we had anything from them, in regards to that.
MR. DRELLOS-I would think they wouldn't. I mean, without the Cement Company, there
wouldn't be a railroad through there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They need revenue, right?
MR. DRELLOS-That's right. So I don't think it would bother them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think I'll open the public hearing just in case somebody is
here. Anybody from the public wishing to speak?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don't see anybody, and I don't think we have any correspondence.
MRS. STEFFAN-No, no correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I'll close the public hearing, and does anybody on the
Board have a problem with this one?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Does somebody want to do the resolution, or I can read the old one
in, reiterate that one. Go ahead.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2009 LEHIGH NORTHEAST
CEMENT COMPANY, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Richard Garrand:
313 Lower Warren Street. The applicant proposes to replace existing switchgear with
updated switchgear near Delaware and Hudson Railroad property. switchgear will be
housed in a 797 square foot building with a 254 square foot steel deck. Relief is
requested from rear setback requirements. The relief requested is the applicant
requests 42.5 feet of rear yard setback relief from the 50 foot rear yard setback
requirement per 179-4-030. The criteria for considering and making a determination.
Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this Area Variance.
Minor changes are anticipated. 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 location appears to be pre-determined, as the electrical substation is
located adjacent to the site, is integral to the project. Whether the requested Area
Variance is substantial. The request for 42.5 feet or 85% of the relief from the 50 foot
rear setback required may be considered severe relative to the Ordinance. However, the
two properties involved are interrelated. Whether the proposed variance will have an
adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood may be anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. It
may be considered self-created. However, the location appears to be the most logical,
given the restraints of the project, and I would like to move that we approve Area
Variance No. 12-2009.
Duly adopted this 25t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You're all set. Thank you.
MR. KOKOSKI-Okay. Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II LINDA LEA MULLER AGENT(S):
MICHAEL J. MULLER OWNER(S): LINDA LEA MULLER ZONING: RR-5A
LOCATION: 1826 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
4,500 SQ. FT. BARN ADDITION TO BE USED FOR STORAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED
FOR A SECOND GARAGE AND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE IN EXCESS
OF 900 SQ. FT. CROSS REF.: BP 2002-661 CARPORT; BP 2001-832 ADDITION &
DECK; BP 97-603 CARPORT; BP 96-066 GARAGE; BP 93-959 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 87-
814 ADDITION; BP 7516, YR. 1982 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH
11, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 27.82 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 253.3-1-33 SECTION: 179-5-020
MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2009, Linda Lea Muller, Meeting Date: March
25, 2009 "Project Location: 1826 Ridge Road Project Description: Applicant proposes
construction of a 4,500 square foot barn located on a 27.85 acre parcel located in
northeast Queensbury.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the number of allowable garages per Section 179-5-
020D. Further, the applicant requests 3,600 square feet of relief from the maximum
allowable square footage for garages per Section 179-2-010.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as the
proposal is located in the center of a 27.85 acre parcel in the RR-5A zone and the
surrounding area has a few large parcels with many having more than one garage
and more than one accessory structure. However, this proposal may increase the
request for similar variances in the future.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
reduce the size of the project to be more compliant.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 3,600 square
feet or 400% relief from the 900 square foot maximum allowable size for a garage
may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for a second garage
would constitute a 100% increase relative to the Ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
However, there appears to be an issue with ACOE wetland proximity relative to the
project site (see staff comments).
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 96066 Two car detached garage Approved 3/25/96
BP 01832 Residential addition Approved 8/28/02
Staff comments:
According to the submitted narrative, the applicant proposes to use the barn for storage.
Further, the applicant states that the height of the barn will be compliant. As there are no
height dimension associated with the elevation drawing, this statement may need to be
verified by the applicant. Note: The maximum building height for structures in the RR-5A
zone is 40 feet.
The location of the ACOE wetlands appears to be in question as the Town's records
indicate wetlands in the vicinity of the project. The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to
direct the applicant to procure a survey to verify the separation distances between these
wetlands and the project site.
SEAR Status:
Unlisted - A SEAR determination required.
Note: This project was listed as a Type II SEAR action. However, according to
§617.5(c)(7) of the SEAR regulations, this project should be an unlisted action and the
Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to designate it as such."
"Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 11, 2009
Project Name: Muller, Linda Lea Owner(s): Linda Lea Muller ID Number: QBY-09-
AV-13 County Project#: Mar09-27 Current Zoning: RR-5A Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 4,500 sq. ft. barn addition to
be used for storage. Relief requested for a second garage and for construction of a
garage in excess of 900 sq. ft. Site Location: 1826 Ridge Road Tax Map Number(s):
253.3-1-33 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes construction of a 4,500
sq. ft. barn addition to be used for storage. Relief requested for a second garage and for
construction of a garage in excess of 900 sq. ft. The information submitted indicates the
property is 27.8 acres and the building location will not require any setback variances.
The applicant has indicated the structure will not contain plumbing or septic, but will have
electric and will be insulated but not heated. The location is behind existing spruce trees
that exceed the building height. Stormwater will be addressed with two stone French
Drains along the eaves of the building. Staff recommends no county impact based on
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General
Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact" Signed by Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning
Board 3/16/09.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I'm going to read in a narrative of the project, because I think
that's. "The proposal is to construct a barn type structure with a 4500 sq. ft. foot print on
a parcel of land that is 27.8 acres in size. The structure would be for personal use of the
residential occupants of the primary residence for storage of multiple items of personal
property including antique tractors, collector vehicles and tools, etc. The parcel is
presently improved by an owner occupied single family dwelling, and several
appurtenant structures which include a two story garage, a workshop, a garden shed,
miscellaneous unoccupied cabins. With the exception of the miscellaneous unoccupied
cabins, all structures on the parcel were constructed by the occupant/owners since
acquiring the property in 1982. The proposed structure under consideration is either a
re-assembled barn, a restored barn type structure or a new structure depending upon
cost, availability, insurance and code regulations. The proposal is that the structure will
not exceed a 4500 sq. ft. "footprint" and not exceed height restrictions imposed by code.
The proposed structure will not include any plumbing or septic. Electric utilities may be
obtained from a utility pole situated on the premises at Ridge Road. The structure may
be insulated but not heated. The proposed structure can be well screened behind
existing tall spruce trees many of which exceed the height of the proposed structure.
The proposed location of the structure is in the center of a clear flat area of
approximately three acres in size accessible along an existing private unpaved roadway
situated on the easterly side of Ridge Road behind a locked gate. The proposed location
of the structure is not within any measured 100 foot setback from any wetland. There
are wetlands located on the entire 27.8 acre parcel, however, actual measurements with
a tape measure and by personal observation of the site can easily verify that the
proposed structure is not within nor even proximate to any setback specified from any
protected wetland. Stormwater retention shall be achieved by installation of number two
stone French Drain perimeter device below surface grade three feet wide and three feet
in depth along eaves of the structure located to capture rain sheeting from the roof or
melting snow. The structure will have a metal roof." And that's about it. "We are
advised that the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals will require a certified survey for
an Area Variance and we request a waiver from the requirement. The Area Variance
sought does not in any way involve setback or relative distances from boundary lines.
We have almost 28 acres of land. A survey for such a parcel with topography, existing
building locations and general depiction of improvements on the land has been
estimated by two different survey offices to cost in excess of $13,000. Such a cost is
unreasonable in relation to the total cost of the proposed project, as the entire current
budget is less than $40,000. The cost of such a survey would add nothing to the
proposed project except unnecessary expense, and the proposed structure which
requires an Area Variance, is hundreds of feet distant from all boundary lines, all
roadways, any wetlands, and when built will not be visible from any adjacent neighbors'
property, nor from the public right of way. We ask that a certified survey requirement for
the Area Variance application be waived." I did review that, and my determination was
that a survey would not be necessary on this project because I thought that, you know,
given the size of the project, and the foot print of the building that was proposed, that
they probably, within that three acre open area, could easily locate it significantly from
any wetlands. I know there was concern on the part of the Board about possible Army
Corps, but, you know, noted on the Town GIS site that we didn't even have any wetlands
located on there, as far as I know, or minor ones. Is that true?
MR. OBORNE-Well, there should have been a sheet issued to you, in your packet, that
shows potential wetlands in the area. Again, you, as the Chairman of the Zoning Board
of Appeals, can obviously waive the survey requirement.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, I think it's reasonable to assume, if you went out to
that site, that you could find wetlands just about anywhere on that whole east side of
Ridge Road is pretty wet, but I mean, at the same time, when the building permit, if we
grant permission for this building, or any building out there, obviously the siting was
going to be pretty important, but there's room to move on it. Just in asking from you, the
applicants, I would assume the size that you're asking for is because you don't know
what size barn you might acquire?
MR. MULLER-That's correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And it would give you the leeway to have something up to that size,
but possibly smaller.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MR. MULLER-I totally agree. I don't think that I'll achieve that size, but, no kidding, I
don't want to come back here twice.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Okay. Anything you'd like to add?
MR. MULLER-Yes. Thank you for, if you will, to waive the survey, and I do agree with
you that when I get a building permit, I can certainly find a location on that cleared area
that's well outside of any required setbacks from wetlands. I wanted to show you. I
guess we don't have an easel?
MR. UNDERWOOD-We don't have anything other than what Staff's got up there.
MR. MULLER-I wanted to point out something to this Board. This piece of property,
north and south of this, is basically, if you look at it, it's probably the most heavily wooded
pieces of property up there because both Linda and I have tried to keep it heavily
wooded, and the prior owner had basically re-forested it in the 1930's. All that we've
ever done, and I know that you have the map that I've drawn, to clear it, was basically
put a house on it. Those existing buildings that were there, I've done it in yellow. You
can see where the proposed structure is. That's sort of dotted in yellow, and it's all within
the envelope of what is presently cleared. There would be no intention to clear anything
else.
MRS. JENKIN-Would you show where the road is, the unpaved road where you're going
to put, it comes from Ridge Road, does it?
MR. MULLER-It does. It's right here. There's a little house, if you've ever driven down
Ridge Road, there's about a 12 by 18 foot cabin, right up against the road. This
property, when it was developed in the 1930's, there was a main house here, which
actually was (lost words) home for a family with a large number of children and it was a
general store that sold bait and sandwiches, and there was a Christmas Tree farm
mainly in this area. This was a cabin that they rented out to vacationers. This was a
cabin that they rented out to vacationers. Everything else we have built on the property.
That is that we built the house, the main residence, put up a two story garage, 900
square foot, and this thing where the house was, we were able to replace it, and that's
basically a workshop. This out here is a garden shed that used to be up front, and I
basically reassembled it, moved it, it was a chicken coop that was out really close to the
road. I have no idea why the chicken coop was within 10 feet of the road, but that's
where it was. So that's been out here. Basically since 1982 we've just been building
and developing the property. Since 1982, when we first started out there, we were
permitted to have a barn out there and actually I had an agricultural pursuit. I made the
mistake of thinking I was a farmer, and I had livestock. I got over that pretty quick.
MRS. JENKIN-So there was a big field out there then, if you had livestock, then it was
cleared?
MR. MULLER-It was cleared substantially what you see, the goats cleared it. They were
excellent workers. They worked seven days a week. What I have for you here is the
piece of property. Again, this is the same shot that's up there. The County gives it to
you in color. So these are all the trees, and if you can observe it, I put a yellow rectangle
where this barn would be. Here's wetland way up here. Here's wetland through here.
There's wetland, well, this is off the property, through here, and there's wetland down
here. I'm well away from all of that, and basically what you see here is that you can't see
it. That is that whatever is going on on this property, it's so heavily wooded, year round,
that is that these are evergreens, you just can't see what's going on in there.
LINDA MULLER
MRS. MULLER-This is where the road, the unpaved road comes in. You can see the
change in the tree line.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. MULLER-Yes, the unpaved (lost word) does that.
MRS. JENKIN-It goes way back there, then.
MRS. MULLER-Yes.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MR. MULLER-It goes way up to the adjacent property. The owner of the adjacent
property is here. He can explain it to you. They just use it to go up and hunt. So
basically that's the property that's in question. What I have in mind to build, I do have the
actual plans of a building that would be ready and suitable for (lost word). That building
actually exists in Queensbury, and it was approved by the Town and by this Board.
MR. DRELLOS-How big is this one?
MR. MULLER-That one is.
MR. DRELLOS-This is the one at your brother's?
MR. MULLER-No, that's Mike Stevens. Michael's here. Mike, what's the size of that
one? Forty by sixty. That's an ideal size, but I don't know what size I can find. I would
really like to be able to have a place that I can put it so that I can snatch a barn or get a
plan to put one up really quick. I want to be versatile about it, and I wrote honestly in my
presentation to tell you that it's very problematic about trying to build a new barn or a
used barn or whether it ought to be a metal barn, because of insurance and building
codes. I plan on, I anticipate a problem with using used material, if it's an existing barn,
and if that turns out to be an impediment, then I'll go with new material. The pictures that
I offer you, also, I think, are very instructive, because I certainly have a full expectation
that you require a stormwater plan retention, and I have proposed a French Drain. If you
look carefully at where the snow falls off of the roof like that, you can see that it actually
drops several feet off the side of the building, and you can't put gutters on a building like
that. Those gutters will be gone after the first winter, but the ideal plan, and I basically
ran this by the engineers that I consulted on this, I didn't ask them for an engineering
report, was that they, if I did a French Drain all the way around the building, basically
crushed stone, nice and deep, and sort of tapered away from the building, would that be
adequate and that would be the only plan that they would recommend. So if it's a
question of size, then I can build it any size. The soil there is terrible. Everything that's
up on the Ridge Road, probably north of 149, is clay. It is non absorbent. We can have
a rainstorm, and that water will sit on the top of the ground for days. So the plan would
be to bring in a lot of crushed stone and a lot of sort of a gritty material that will basically
take the load of that stormwater, and the plan, basically, works out perfectly for what
would be in the bottom on the floor of that barn. I had toyed with the idea that it should
be a wooden floor, and although that's not completely out of consideration, because I've
asked a lot of experts about the wooden floor, I think it's a fire protection problem. So it
might certainly be a cement floor, and if it's a cement floor, it's really got to have a lot of
that crushed stone and other material brought in, because it's just not going to exist very
well on top of clay. It's going to just fracture something terrible. I don't think anybody's
going to see this thing, but for what it's worth, I think that the right approach is to make it
an earth tone. All of our buildings on our property are earth tone, with the exception of
the nasty little cabins that are out on the road. I've never decided what to do with them,
but you can't really see our house. You can't really see our garage, and you probably
will never take notice of the workshop that's actually probably within 12 feet of Ridge
Road, because it's just all brown and just kind of blends in perfectly. I think the same
thing would happen with this barn. I don't expect it to have a shiny roof. It's probably
going to be brown metal, and on the sides, I just haven't decided what it is, but it's going
to be a color that's an earth tone, probably brown. What is the whole point of this
exercise? Well, the whole point of this exercise is that the lady that I'm sitting next to,
who technically owns all the property, and with whom I'm married, she requires that she
be allowed to put her car in the garage, okay, and you would think that I have enough
garages there for her to get her car in, but you can put her under oath, and she'll tell you
that I don't. I've got too many things. I've got stuff, and it is associated with our property.
I don't think that you would expect an explanation that you need a barn like this from
somebody who lives on one acre. I've got a lot of tractors. I've got a lot of tools.
MRS. MULLER-Snow blowers.
MR. MULLER-Snow blowers, plows, and just parts of things that I collect, and I don't
want them outside, and right now unfortunately I do have them outside. I've got them
covered under tarps, and it's not right. I also have, because it takes time to do it in
Queensbury, I actually acquired another piece of property that has a barn on it that I
have stuff in that barn, the same type of stuff that I would bring to my barn, and that I
would sell that other barn and relocate to where my house is. It's right for us because I'd
like to be where my stuff is. I'd like to work while I'm still home, and not her wondering
why I'm not home paying attention to things on our property, and I think that a 28 acre
parcel is certainly suitable. It would fit. I wonder about the Staff Notes where they say,
you know, that if somebody asks for this, then be prepared, everybody else will ask for it.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
I don't foresee everybody else asking for this, but I thought it was an interesting
characterization, and what I'd like to give you, I went to the County and I took a copy of
something that's available from the public record that's a map. My parcel is in bright
yellow. Looking at it, I actually don't think that it's entirely current, because I know that
there have been several other double garages and several other barns, and a couple of
agricultural barns built. I'm not building an agricultural barn. So all I did on this picture
was, in red, filled in those rectangles that are barns on adjacent pieces of property. Right
across the street there's a residence that has seven barns, and I know that those are
historical. Those probably all pre-date the Ordinance, but nevertheless they're in the
neighborhood, and that's certainly important to state the case that this is keeping in
character with the neighborhood. My next adjacent neighbor recently sold a piece of
property, Mr. Miller, to the State of New York, and if you go up there, it would be kind of a
gas to see that the State of New York is actually trenching and digging in a wetland. The
theory is that they're making a bigger wetland, so that when they take the wetland on
Route 149, there'll be a bigger wetland on Ridge Road. So be it, but those buildings that
are next adjacent to the newly created artificial wetland, those are all filled in. Those are
barns, and then there is a barn that's also just across the street, on Stevenson, which I
think from recent recollection actually fell down, and then there's barns that are, again,
further up on Ridge Road, and because, only because this map didn't do it, didn't go
down as far south as I had hoped that it would, there's barns up and down Ridge Road
that you can see from the road. I think it is consistent and in keeping, in character with
the neighborhood. The things that I would like to put in this barn are, not necessarily
would go in a garage. So it's somewhat unfair. I took issue with Craig Brown's
interpretation that this was another garage, that is that everything that I want to put in this
building is not for the housing of my vehicles. Certainly if I can get the things out of my
garage, I can put vehicles in my garage, and then I'll have a barn that I can put my things
in. So we would ask for that approval, if it's a barn or a garage, so be it. It's certainly
only for our private use. I have no space that's available for others. I don't intend to
conduct a business out of there. The business that I do by day keeps me certainly busy.
So I just have an intention to use it, and I think that it's in keeping with the spirit of what
Rural Residential makes available. I'd also like to point out that I don't think that it is as
an exceptional or an extraordinary request in that although the Staff Notes statistically
suggest that this 4500 square feet is 400% more than one would be allowed, I think it's
important to look at it in relation to the size of the lot, that is that this lot, being almost 28
acres, it could probably, by clustering, have another four houses on there. We have no
present intention, nor a future intention, if you sit there and think, well, maybe some other
owner some day might. Well, they might, okay, because we're probably going to pass on
and not own this property in perpetuity, but that will be their problem to deal with, that is
that we have no intention of subdividing this property. We love it up there. We want to
keep it private and personal and pretty, and I don't think that you have any, you shouldn't
have any concern about, you know, will this look monstrous or will this look out of place,
or will there be crap all over the place. I think we have taken a piece of property that had
one nasty looking house up on Ridge Road, about 25 years ago, and fixed that, and we
basically have been excellent care takers for the property. I think it's time for us to be
allowed to take the stuff that admittedly and unfortunately is crap stored under tarps, or
busting out of the seams of existing buildings, and put it under a good roof, and keep our
property clean and orderly. So that's what we would ask for.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I would just make the statement that, you know, the
Queensbury Codebook doesn't have any allowance for barns, you know, and it seems a
little bit odd to me because, as you've mentioned, there's plenty of barns on Ridge Road,
especially when you go further back to Town, there's some massive barns, some of the
biggest barns in both Washington and Warren Counties, I would imagine the two up by
Chestnut Ridge there, and you know, there's a past agricultural history in the County.
Washington County has plenty of barns. You drive just over the line, you're pretty close
to the Washington County line there, and I don't know what the extent of new barn
construction is.
MR. DRELLOS-But their barns were meant for a reason, for a farm. They didn't build
them just to build them to put tractors and stuff in. They used it as a working farm, for
cows or whatever.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I would say the vast majority of barns that are still left
around the countryside, probably a lot of them are no longer used for agricultural
purposes. They're more storage places.
MR. DRELLOS-I agree with you, but also they're not just going to tear them down
because we didn't use them for a farm anymore.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Okay. Well, I'll do is I'm going to ask everybody here to
make some commentary as to what they think on the project. I mean, it's an
extraordinary request. I don't consider it to be a normal request, and as far as Staff
Notes go, when you're looking at the request, it's on an individual basis that we're asked
to grant relief to people. It's not going to necessarily trigger 500 more people coming in
here and asking for barns this size.
MR. GARRAND-Do you want to see if there's any comment, public comment?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Well, do you guys want to ask any questions at this point?
MR. DRELLOS-I've got one. Do you, you said this might not be the actual size you're
going to build, 4500. Have you got an idea what?
MR. MULLER-It would be less.
MR. DRELLOS-Like, 3500, 4,000?
MR. MULLER-Well, the ideal barn would be, as Mr. Stevens said, 40 by 60, but if I find
one that's 44 by 70, I would like to be able to put it up without coming back here.
MRS. JENKIN-But the thing is that 40 by 60 is 2400 square feet, and you're asking for
almost double that.
MR. MULLER-I'm asking for 4,000. I'll show you a plan.
MRS. JENKIN-So that the photo that we have, it would be almost twice as long as that.
MR. MULLER-Well, I'll show you a plan, and here's the plan that, it's different and it's all
the same. This was something that was offered to me.
MR. DRELLOS-If we grant 4500, and they get a 2400.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That's fine.
MR. OBORNE-That's fine.
MR. DRELLOS-I understand, but does that give them the right to come back and just
add on without coming for a variance on the 4500?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if you're going to read the letter of what we would be
granting, we would, you know, when we make the stipulation, we can say we recognize
that you might acquire a barn up to that size, but it's not likely that would be the case,
and that any barn that's purchased and erected on site would probably have to remain as
that barn and not be.
MR. MULLER-Mr. Drellos, the answer to your question is that once you get a building
permit and you build it, if you haven't acted upon the variance granted within a year, then
it's gone, and so I would not be building two barns at the same time. When I get a
building permit, that's the barn I'm going to build.
MR. URRICO-Now we're approving up to that amount.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. URRICO-If he chooses to use less, we've already stated what the size is going to
be, or the maximize size is going to be.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. MULLER-That's right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys?
MR. GARRAND-Are there any plans for the other accessory structures on the property,
since you're going to be moving stuff into this barn?
MR. MULLER-You mean, would I change anything?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. MULLER-No.
MRS. MULLER-I just want my car inside.
MR. GARRAND-You're going to leave all the other buildings on site, though?
MR. MULLER-Yes. We're going to park our vehicles in them. We can't park our
vehicles in our existing garage.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. So you're not going to park your vehicles in the barn?
MR. MULLER-No. There's no driveway.
MRS. MULLER-No. There's no driveway.
MR. MULLER-There's no plan for a driveway.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, that's what I was questioning, whether you would have a road from
your house to the barn?
MR. MULLER-No. You don't need a road to take a tractor out.
MRS. MULLER-It's just a tractor. I mean, we're not going to be moving stuff in and out of
it all the time. It's going to be stored there, and do that in the good weather.
MRS. JENKIN-So to access your new barn, you'd have to go in from Ridge Road?
MR. MULLER-You can go in from Ridge Road, or I can go in from my driveway.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, that's what I'm asking. Is the road going to go from your driveway to
the new barn?
MR. MULLER-No.
MR. URRICO-You're not going to have a road, but you'll have access to it with tractors.
MR. MULLER-If you look on the plan, there's no road going to this barn. Okay. This
barn basically sits on a lawn.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a standalone.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. That's why you say if your tractor is going from your home to the
barn, it's just going to go through woods?
MR. MULLER-No, it's all open, and you would go on the grass.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. MULLER-The existing road, let's talk about it. There are two accesses that
presently exist on this property. One is a private driveway, and that's right in front of our
house, and it is possible to go beyond our driveway, drive across our lawn, and go to this
barn.
MRS. JENKIN-I see.
MR. MULLER-As I have done to the other garden shed that's already there, but I don't
frequently do that.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. It was impossible to see because there's snow on the ground. I
did visit.
MR. MULLER-Right. The other access, which is the logical access for how we would
basically deliver the materials, and the stone or what have you, would be the road, not
the driveway.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay, that road to the side.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MR. MULLER-That's gated. That's actually maintained by Mr. Combs who has access to
that road across his property in the back, and that's been there, we've owned the
property since '82. It's been pre-existing. I'm guessing that it was there in the 40's.
MRS. MULLER-Dirt road.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys?
MR. DRELLOS-They don't have to go for Site Plan, right, or anything? The stormwater
gets approved by the Building and Codes?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Building and Codes.
MR. OBORNE-No, there's no Site Plan Review involved with this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I guess I'll open the public hearing. Anybody from the
public wishing to speak on this matter? If you could come up.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RICH COMBS
MR. COMBS-My name is Rich Combs, and I'm the Richard Combs they're mentioning
that as the right of way road across from Mike's, and I just want to say that, you know,
Mike has been, I own the property to the east of the blue line, and then north past
Muller's and whatever. So I own about 150 acres there, but I have no problem
whatsoever with Mike. They've been the best of neighbors. They've opened up the log
road to us, the access dirt road, and bent over backwards to be good neighbors for 30
years. So it's, they're a class act. They could use storage. They do a nice job. He's got
a big brush hog, and he cleans the road out for us, and he has several tractors and he's
got a use for it. So, it's legitimate. He'd use it, and whatever he does, it looks better
always there. So it's a big plus for the whole area. So anyway. So we're all for it.
We've got no problem with whatever they do. They're so good, and they don't block your
view. We've got tons of trees. You couldn't even see them from our property, and I own
all along the back. So, anyway, that's it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak?
MIKE STEVENS
MR. STEVENS-Hi, everybody. I'm Mike Stevens, and I built that little red barn there you
looked at, and I just wanted to point out two things. I did French Drain it. I'm probably
75% clay. It worked perfect. I didn't have any problems with it, and I've had that barn up
for, I think the very late 80's, and when Mr. Muller introduced himself to me and asked to
take pictures because he wanted to build a barn on his property, I'd like to point out to
you people the same thing I told him. That barn is 40 by 60. I have 14 acres. I have
mowers and I have brush hogs, tractors, and there's not enough room. So anybody
that's not familiar with what we use on acreage to maintain it, believe me you can fill
them up in no time, and I did, and I'm living proof of it on Ridge Road, and mine's only 14
acres and I probably have less equipment than he does, but it was very easy to fill it up,
and I did so, and I did suggest to him he might even want to make it bigger, because he
has all that stuff. I mean, I'm still leaving tractors outside yet, and I built a 60 footer. So,
you know, I just thought I'd let you know that. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Any correspondence, Roy?
MR. URRICO-No correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you'd like to add?
MR. MULLER-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members, any questions you wish to ask, or is
everybody pretty familiar with what they're asking for? Okay. Then I guess I'll poll the
Board and I'll start with you, Brian.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. Thanks. I took a drive up there, and, you're right, the buildings
that are up there are nicely maintained. It looks like it does a nice job up there. I guess
my only concern is that usually we have, when we're looking for relief for something, we
have something specific. However, with the size of the property, and the distances from
the wetlands that are shown here, I guess I feel that I would be in favor of this variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Yes. Looking at the criteria that we are supposed to follow,
because you have so much stuff, as you call it, and so many things that you do need to
store, I don't see where the benefit can be achieved by any other means. I feel that the
barn that you've requested, or the size of the barn, is really 400% larger than a usual
barn, which is completely, it's considerable, but there certainly won't be an undesirable
change in the neighborhood character, and the request will not have any physical or
environmental effects, because you're right in the middle of the woods, and I feel that it'll
be a benefit to you, and I think that it'll help you out, and I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George?
MR. DRELLOS-The size of the lot is what's making me believe that the size of this barn
would fit. That's the only reason I would really be in favor of this is just by the 28 acres. I
don't feel that people are going to be coming in to build barns this size, because there's
businesses that aren't even this big. To me, it's excessive size. I'm kind of hoping that
you could build a 2400 or 3,000 square feet would be a little more reasonable. Forty-five
hundred seems pretty excessive, but the size of the lot, it wouldn't, I know it wouldn't
show up so much, you know, in the whole scope of it, and there are a lot of barns around
there, but I just still feel 4500 is kind of large. I'm hoping that you could build smaller, or
you will, but as far as that goes, I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-As the applicant mentioned, they won't own the property forever, and
what I can see happening down the line is, you know, this barn will be here, and this
thing will be subdivided into five acre parcels down the road, by some developer who
comes along in 10 or 15 years. If they put a stipulation in there that there'll be no
subdivision of this property, I'd be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-It's interesting that at one time Queensbury was primarily an agricultural
area. So barns were very prevalent. I think it's welcome to see that somebody's willing
to change the clock back a little bit and bring back some of the character that once
established this community. I think when you look at the criteria, whether this will
change the character of the neighborhood, you have to take into account that this is an
RR-5A zone, and this parcel is five times the required acreage for that area. So we're
talking about 500% bigger than it really needs to be, and the Code does not make an
exception for a garage or an accessory structure larger than one acre. It just says all
property, and we've had situations before where we've granted a second structure in lots
that were oversized or bigger than average for this very reason, and this is certainly
bigger than even those lots were. I think the benefit to the applicant has been well
stated. I think the requested Area Variance may seem substantial, but again, compared
to the size of the lot, which is really, sometimes you have to look at things, not from the
statutory standpoint, but from a reasonable standpoint, and say, wow, this is a pretty big
lot, and it's not going to be viewed by anybody. It's not going to be seen from the road. I
don't see any environmental hazards or detriments, and the difficulty can be described
as self-created in that he wants to, they want to improve their property somewhat. So I'll
grant it that, but I would be in favor of this project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. If you look at it another way, this property could support five,
900 square foot garages. So what you're asking is not unreasonable for the 27.82 acres,
and with the stipulation that it be no larger than 4500 square feet, I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I'll go along with everybody else's sentiments. I think it
would be difficult, Rich, to put stipulations about future subdivision of any property in
Town, because we don't know what the future Code's going to reflect down the road. I
think that applicant has also mentioned that they have no intentions to subdivide the
property as long as they own the property, and I think that that's something that possibly
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
could occur in the future, as you suggested, but we really wouldn't have any control over
that. They would have to come in and request that, and it would have to go through the
review process in order to occur. As far as what I said before, we don't have any
allowance for barns in the Town. In a rural area, I would assume that anywhere in the
country if you were Rural Residential Five acre zone, you would assume at some point
barns might need to be created in the future. Looking at the economy, we'll probably be
seeing more barns down the road here, and whether they're used for agriculture or
storage purposes, I mean, that's to the benefit of the applicant. I mean, I don't think it's
unreasonable for people to use the barns for whatever they choose as long as it's not
something illegal. The applicant also has made a good case for what they're requesting
here based upon the individual basis of their request. I mean, it's not unreasonable for
people to request larger structures and we've granted quite a few around the Town on
larger parcels. We usually don't have a problem that, and I don't really have a problem
with this one, either. I think it is a request for an oversized building based upon the Code
because we only allow garages as secondary structures, and that reflects the suburban
atmosphere of Queensbury, but it certainly doesn't reflect upon the nature of this
property being 28 acres, as you said, Brian, it's substantial. So, even though it's aself-
created difficulty, I don't see any detrimental effects, environmentally, and I think that,
you know, it's been pointed out to us, the wetland issue that was raised by Craig. I don't
really see that it trips us into the Unlisted Action. I think it's still a Type II action as it was
originally advertised. Are you guys happy with that, or do you want to do the Unlisted? I
mean, I see no need to go there with this one.
MR. OBORNE-I do want to point out to the Chairman that the reason that it's Unlisted it's
a 4,000 square foot accessory structure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and that was the primary reason?
MR. OBORNE-That's the trigger. You can, however, choose to do the Short Form, just
to cover it. I do highly suggest you do that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I think maybe what I'll do is this.
MR. URRICO-You have to close the public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I did close the public hearing, but I'll close it again.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think what I'll do, then, is go through the Short Environmental
Form.
MOTION THAT BASED UPON ALL THE COMMENTARY IN THE SHORT
ENVIRONMENTAL FORM, THAT I WOULD GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS AT ALL. THAT WE FEEL THAT
THE SETBACKS THAT WERE A CONCERN OF STAFF FROM THE WETLANDS
HAVE BEEN WELL ADDRESSED. WE FEEL THAT THE ACTUAL SITE TO BE
DETERMINED OUT THERE IN THAT THREE ACRE OPEN PARCEL SUGGESTS TO
US THAT THERE'S ROOM TO MOVE IT, JOCKEY IT, WHICHEVER WAY IT NEEDS
TO GO BASED UPON THE COMMENTS OF THE BUILDING AND CODES
DEPARTMENT WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT. SO, BASED
UPON THAT, I'LL GIVE A NEGATIVE DEC., Introduced by James Underwood who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
1826 Ridge Road.
Duly adopted this 25t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-You don't have to go to the APA, I would assume, you're in the
Park.
MR. MULLER-We are.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So, I mean, it's going to get forwarded up to them. I'm sure
they're going to look at it.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. The APA wetlands are way away from the proposed construction
area. It would be the ACOE of a concern, if there was a concern of the Board.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does somebody want to do this one, or do you want me to
do it? It's up to you guys.
MR. URRICO-I'll move it.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2009 LINDA LEA MULLER,
Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
1826 Ridge Road. The applicant is being approved for construction of an up to 4,500
square foot barn located on her 27.85 acre parcel located in northeast Queensbury. In
doing so, the applicant is being granted relief for the number of allowable garages per
Section 179-5-020D, as well as a request for 3600 square feet of relief from the
maximum allowable square footage for garages per Section 179-2-010. In granting this
relief, we've considered the following criteria: Whether an undesirable change will be
produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be
created by this Area Variance. We anticipate minor changes to nearby properties as a
result of this proposal, since it's located in the center of 27.85 acres in an RR-5A zone.
The benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by reducing the size of the
project, but we think the size of the barn is mitigated by the size of the property, which is
well over 500% larger than is needed in the RR-5A zone, and considerably larger than
the allowable garages for a parcel in the Town of Queensbury, which does not allow for
different sizes of property in relation to the structure being requested. The requested
Area Variance may be considered substantial, but, again, the request for 3600 square
feet of relief from the 900 square foot maximum is mitigated by the size of the property
and the fact that it's going to be well screened from the road and any nearby properties.
We don't anticipate any adverse effects to the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district, and the difficulty is acknowledged to be self-created. I move for
its adoption.
Duly adopted this 25t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. MULLER-Thank you very much.
MRS. JENKIN-One additional comment that I'd like to make is, by building the barn, it's
probably a real disadvantage to anyone that wanted to subdivide that property because
they'd want to, they'd have to take down the barn if they wanted to subdivide. So it's
almost, it would be a disadvantage for anyone.
MR. MULLER-Yes. Thank you very much. I appreciate the fair hearing.
MRS. MULLER-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II MOHAMMAD TARIQ d/b/a
RODEWAY MOTEL AGENT(S): GARY HUGHES OWNER(S): MOHAMMAD TARIQ
ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1449 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES 233
SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING OFFICE/LOBBY AND 2,062 SQ. FT. OF
DECKS/RAMPS TO 2 EXISTING BUILDINGS OF THE EXISTING MOTEL SITE
(RODEWAY INN). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE, FRONT, AND TRAVEL
CORRIDOR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SPR 19-09 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 11, 2009 LOT SIZE: 0.03 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
228.00-1-56 SECTION: 179-4-030
GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-2009, Mohammad Tariq d/b/a Rodeway Motel,
Meeting Date: March 25, 2009 "Project Location: 1449 State Route 9 Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 233 square foot addition to an
existing Motel office to include a handicap ramp accessed from parking lot. Further, the
applicant proposes the construction of 2,026 square feet of deck and access ramps to
one of the existing motel buildings on site. The existing rooms in the building associated
with the decks are to be reconfigured into suites and the open areas into storage. Finally,
the project includes the removal of an existing concrete walkway and the construction of
anew walkway associated with the new decks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 19 feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement and 8
feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the Highway Commercial
Intensive zone per §179-4-030. Further, the applicant requests 6 feet of relief from the
Upper Route 9 Travel Corridor District's 75 foot setback requirement for buildings per
§179-6-060C. Finally, the applicant is requesting 1138 square feet of additional
permeability relief from the 30% requirement of §179-4-030 for a total of 14.97%
permeability for the site.
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 nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
build in a compliant or more compliant location or reduce the size of the project.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 19 feet or 38
percent relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement per 179-4-030 for the
handicap ramp may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request
for 8 feet or 40 percent relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement per §179-4-
030 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request
for 6 feet or 8 percent relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor building setback
requirement per §179-6-060C may be considered minor relative to the ordinance.
Finally, the request for 1138 square feet or 3.4 percent additional relief from the 30
percent minimum permeability requirement per §179-4-030 may be consider
moderate to severe relative to the ordinance (see staff comments).
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
However, there appears to be an issue with existing on-site stormwater management
that may need to be clarified.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 20050855 Alterations Approved 6/14/06
S.P. 19-2005 Deck Approved 4/26/05
BP 20000286 Septic Alteration Approved 5/29/00
Staff comments:
The applicant states in the narrative that there will be no change to the permeability of
the existing property. It has been determined that the new decks are in fact impermeable
and will affect the permeability of the property. Decks are considered hard surfaces that
promote runoff and it is this runoff that will need to be planned for. The site's existing
permeability calculation sits at 18.36 percent. The proposed project would decrease
permeability to 14.97 percent. The minimum permeability requirement is 30 percent per
§ 179-4-030.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
The area beneath the deck is currently vegetated with grass and will need to be
designed to carry the concentrated stormwater to either the existing off site system or in
situ.
The concrete walkway to be removed has an approximate area of 204 square feet and
the proposed new concrete walk has an approximate area of 256 square feet, resulting in
an increase of impermeable surface of 52 square feet.
Only the top deck for building #3 will be used for permeability calculations.
The addition to the office to be constructed over existing concrete surface and does not
have an impact on the permeability calculations.
New Impermeable Surfaces Square footage
New Deck 888 sq. ft.
Stairs and Landings 198 sq. ft.
Walkway 52 sq. ft.
Total increased impermeability 1,138 sq. ft.
SEAR Status:
Type II - No action necessary"
"Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 11, 2009
Project Name: Mohammad Tariq d/b/a Rodeway Motel Owner(s): Mohammad Tariq
ID Number: QBY-09-AV-14 County Project#: Mar09-26 Current Zoning: HC-Int.
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes 233 sq. ft. addition to
existing office/lobby and 2,062 sq. ft. of decks/ramps to 2 existing buildings of the
existing motel site (Rodeway Inn). Relief requested from side, front, and travel corridor
setback requirements. Site Location: 1449 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 228.00-
1-56 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes alterations to an existing
motel site. Relief is requested from the side setback where 20 ft. is required and 12 ft. is
proposed, travel corridor where 53 ft is proposed and 75 ft is required, permeability, 30%
is required where 16% is proposed. The applicant proposes to construct a 233 sq. ft.
addition to the existing lobby and to construct two 2,062 sq. ft. deck ramps to the 2
existing buildings. The plans show the alterations to the buildings on the site. Staff
recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the
suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the
proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact"
Signed by Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning Board 3/16/09.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I'm going to do the same thing I did on the last one, because
they did include a narrative of the project, and just to get that on the record, so
everybody's squared away. "The owner is proposing to add 233 sq. ft. to his existing
office/lobby along with an 84 sq. ft. covered lobby entrance. Also proposed is a 148 sq.
ft. handicap ramp. All of this is in keeping with franchise requirements. These additions
are going over existing non permeable areas. (See Bldg. #1 on plot plan) The owner is
proposing 1830 sq. ft. of new decks to access renovated rooms at Building #3 (see plot
plan) and increase vitally needed storage for his motel business. Renovation of rooms
will create 2 new suites as opposed to just rooms. The owner would like to begin
construction as soon as possible and have the additions and renovations complete by
Memorial Day weekend of 2009. (May 22nd)." In Part Two it says "Waiver for
stormwater Management: The impact of this project will not change the permeability of
the existing property. The Building #1 additions will be over existing paved/concrete
surfaces. The deck additions on Building #3 will be constructed of a spaced wood
decking (5/4 x 6 treated) to allow water to go where it has been going. The handicap
ramp will necessitate the removal of some blacktop. The ramp will be of spaced wood
decking (5/4 x 6 treated) allowing water to reach the ground. See plot plan, Page 1 of
plans for existing stormwater drainage. The owner has not seen or aware of any
problems with the existing system. Note: stormwater will run in the same direction (to
the existing system) as it is now. And Part Three, "A Waiver for the Lighting Plan: The
impact of the down lighting (per the local Code) will be minimal in the scope of the
project site. (H.C.-Int.). One new light will be used at building #1 covered porch and 18
new lights are proposed for building #3. No flood lights or harsh lighting is proposed at
the renovated buildings. See lighting plans on Pages 2 thru 8 of the plans submitted." I
mean, the lighting is really not germane to our review. That's more of a Planning Board
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
issue, but just to get it all out there anyway. Okay. So tell us anything else you want to
add.
MR. HUGHES-I had plans of the existing building, Building #3, as opposed to what I've
sent in for proposed. So hopefully it'll clarify any questions that you might have.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as what you're doing here, I mean, this is an upgrade by
franchise because it's a Rodeway Inn, I assume, that, you know, looking at the area, I
mean, we've dealt with upgrades of other motels in Town at various times in the past,
and I think everybody recognizes the benefit of doing that. You've got to keep up with
the times or people don't show up anymore.
MR. GARRAND-Existing office is tiny. I've been in there about a half a dozen times, and
it's like tiny. You can't move around in the back or anything.
MOHAMMAD TARIQ
MR. TARIQ-No. That's why the franchise is looking to have space for dining, so we can
offer like a continental breakfast in a nice way. Right now we just have coffee. There's
no space to sit and stuff like that.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, there's no space for that at all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Now the rooms are going to be changed to suites? Is that what
you're going to do in the back, essentially, you're just changing over.
MR. HUGHES-My name is Gary Hughes. I'm representing Mr. Tariq, for the record.
Basically, yes, we're hoping to make the rooms bigger, make them into more of a suite
like situation, as opposed to, if you look at the plan that I just gave you, first floor plan,
the unit on the lower left, there's like a, it's like a bedroom, bathroom, and a separate
bedroom with a porch. What we'd like to do is enlarge the bedroom and incorporate it
into more like a larger suite and possibly the same thing. So if we did that, we'd do two
on the first floor in the front and then the same thing on the second floor. In other words,
we're expanding over existing, where there's an existing porch, and if you look at the
proposed plan, we're eliminating that porch and making it into part of the room.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. HUGES-We're eliminating the storage which is critical, but we're trying to a create
larger storage in that existing breezeway. So if you look at the plan that I just gave you,
plus the one that I submitted, and that's what we're proposing, and this is the way, the
one I just gave you is the existing building as it is right now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you're just going to remove the storage that's on the ends and
make that part of the room to give more interior space?
MR. HUGHES-That's correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So that's really no big change, as far as alteration. That's
essentially keeping the building in its footprint.
MR. OBORNE-I do have a question, if I may. Gary, it looks like the breezeway area, in
what was submitted previously, was to be closed off?
MR. HUGHES-That's correct.
MR. OBORNE-And the one that you just submitted here looks like it's open.
MR. HUGHES-That's right. I though, per your request, that this is the existing floor
plans, as it is right now, and what I submitted is what we are proposing. Just to avoid
some confusion, so that people understand where we are now and where we want to go.
MR. OBORNE-The applicant is correct that I did request the existing condition, and I
apologize for not picking upon that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean, the new plans, it's pretty evident what you're proposing
there.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MRS. JENKIN-So the breezeway, as it exists now, the visitors have, or your clients have
access through the breezeway.
MR. HUGHES-Into the rooms, that's correct.
MRS. JENKIN-Into the rooms, and so then, with the closed in breezeway, then they'll
only have access through the outside. They won't, that inside will be completely closed
off.
MR. HUGHES-That's correct, from the proposed decks that we're doing, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Is there a, there's a roof on the breezeway now, is there?
MR. HUGHES-Yes, there is.
MR. OBORNE-Ma'am, there's a picture of it.
MRS. JENKIN-There it is. Okay. I see. Kind of dark.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So decking that's proposed, that decking is an upgrade of
what's there, in essence?
MR. HUGHES-There really isn't any.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, there's nothing there now, right?
MR. HUGHES-That's correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-So that's how, so you're adding the deck so that people will have access.
MR. HUGHES-There's a staircase at the end of the building, at the front end of the
building, to access the upstairs.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Which is pretty similar to a lot of other places in Town, doing it that
way.
MR. CLEMENTS-And that's right behind the office.
MR. HUGHES-That's correct, the building right behind the office. If you look at the plot
plan, the first page of the small set that you have here, it shows the proposed stairs
going up and the proposed decks on each side of it.
MR. DRELLOS-So with the decking and space now, between the boards, and the water
runs through.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, technically the Town always counts decking as
impermeable, even if you've got space between, you know, I mean, it's just one of those
things that the Town.
MR. DRELLOS-So it isn't going to run off. It's going to just fall through. It has to.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean, you can assume it's going to fall through, but, I mean,
is that going to fall through down onto the deck below then, on the upper deck?
MR. HUGHES-Yes, it would.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it will. Okay.
MR. HUGHES-Now, what I'm proposing there, and I misinterpreted what Keith had told
me as far as the decking, that being permeable. So he asked me to come prepared for a
solution on what we're going to do with the water that does come off those decks or off
the roof, and on the chart that's here, on the 1138 square feet total increase in
permeability, per Adirondack and Lake George Park Commission stormwater
management systems, if you take that square footage times 1.5 gallons per square foot,
we have to be able to deal with 1707 gallons of water. So there's two solutions to that.
We could do stone trenches, we could do two, four foot by four foot stone trenches, we
could do two, four foot by four foot stone trenches, 20 feet four inches long, one on each
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
side of the building, or we could do two, four drywells, four feet in diameter by two foot
eight inches high.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Your choice on those?
MR. HUGHES-Either one is acceptable. Either one is generally acceptable.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don't know what would be easier. It would probably be
easier just to put the infiltrators in, in the long term, plus you can clean them out, too,
when need be. I mean, that's, are we going to get into that permeability issue, or is that,
this going to go to Planning Board?
MR. HUGHES-Yes, it is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's going to have to, right?
MR. OBORNE-Well, they're looking for permeability relief from you, obviously, but
absolutely, as far as the control of the stormwater and the runoff.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you assume that what they've proposed with four infiltrators,
or that long trench, would adequately do it?
MR. OBORNE-I'm sorry, I was out of the room at that time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-He basically presented two plans for the infiltration of the water
created, and that was either you had to have that 24 foot long trench, you said.
MR. HUGHES-Twenty feet, four inches. What I proposed, Keith, was, I did the
calculations at, I took the square footage times 1.5 gallons, and that comes up 1707
gallons, and I divided that by two, which is 853 gallons. I can, per side, splitting it. I
could either do two, four foot by four foot by twenty feet four inch stone trenches, or I
could do four, four foot diameter by two foot eight inches high drywells, stone filled
drywells.
MR. OBORNE-Right, and I will say that if the Zoning Board is comfortable with that, I
have no problem with it. They will have to do test pits to see what the permeability is in
the area. Knowing the soils in the area, we know how fast that's going to be.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's sand. It's gone.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly. So, that appears, on paper and through voice, that, you know, it
may work, and obviously the Town Engineer will have to vet that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. DRELLOS-That's per side you said, right?
MR. HUGHES-That's correct.
MR. DRELLOS-That's what I thought.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, it seems logical, a logical solution for that factor, you
know, that it's not something that couldn't be done.
MR. HUGHES-Sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, worst case scenario, they're going to make you add one
more infiltrator or make it a little bit bigger, based upon the engineer's opinion on it.
MRS. JENKIN-Will the stairs to the second floor be covered?
MR. HUGHES-No. As you can see on A-5 of the proposed plan, the front elevation.
Those are the proposed new stairs going up to the proposed new decks on each side.
MR. DRELLOS-So you have to shovel that all off when it snows?
MR. HUGHES-Yes, we do.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, that's just, your pitch of the roof up there is not going to
allow you to come down any lower? I mean, you'd have to make a kicker off there.
MR. HUGHES-What we did, I did have a, we had started out with roofs over those, and I
think because of the economy, budgetary constraints, we pulled it off for now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, are you going to make it load bearing down below, when
you do the, for the upper deck there? I mean, I would assume you would be smart
enough to make it load bearing, so if you wanted to add the roof later, in retrospect, you
could still do that, and not have to go back and start from scratch and save yourself that
headache.
MR. HUGHES-But we did have the decks covered and the stairway covered.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And that wouldn't change our permeability, because we'd be right at
where we're at now, if you decide to do that in the future.
MR. HUGHES-No, it wouldn't.
MRS. JENKIN-The one thing, though, if you have the decks on the second floor above
the decks on the first floor, and it's raining hard, you're going to have, the people on the
first floor will have rain raining down on them.
MR. HUGHES-They're going to get wet. That second floor and first floor, that's correct,
and the stairwell.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You don't think you'd just cover them with a membrane up there or
anything on the upper deck, to make it water-tight?
MR. HUGHES-We could. We could do that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I'm thinking for your guests they probably would prefer that
than getting dripped on down below.
MRS. JENKIN-Absolutely.
MR. DRELLOS-So none of these will be handicap accessible, really, are they?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, down below he's going to have a ramp.
MR. OBORNE-I would advise against that, only because it's going to change the flow of
water.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, exactly, but I mean, you could go to drains, drains with
downspouts or something like that.
MR. OBORNE-Sure, but I'm just thinking in the sense of practicality, in a practical way.
MR. HUGHES-Mohammad just brought up a point to me. He's saying that obviously this
year that would definitely be out, as far as a roof system, but he just said that possibly
next year or the year after he would want to do the roof, and again, due to the economy
and financial constraints, he can't do it right now.
MR. TARIQ-At a certain point, maybe not this year, probably end of next year, we
planning to change the roof. So we don't want to touch it now, and then later on do it
again. So we're going to do it once. So in this way everything is done properly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Well, I mean, given the differential and the hard times with
everybody's dollar unavailability at the moment, I think we all understand where you're at
with it, but I would just make the suggestion that you anticipate, if you're going to do that,
that you don't have to come back and tear everything down and start all over, throw
away that money. Any other questions from people? I'm going to open the public
hearing up. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence at all?
MR. URRICO-No correspondence.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Then anything else you guys want to add or I'll just
poll the Board and see where we're at, I guess. I'll start with you, Joyce.
MRS. HUNT-All right. Thank you. Well, using the balancing test, I don't think that the
benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. I don't think
there'll be any undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby
properties, and the request is moderate, in some instances, and minimal on the others. I
don't think it'll have any physical or environmental effects, and it's difficult is self-created,
only in that they wish to upgrade these premises, and I'd be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think the plan, overall, is going to be of benefit to you. I really have
a problem with the decks, though. I wouldn't want to be on that main floor going in and
having water raining down on me.
MR. TARIQ-No, I mean, one thing is for sure is that there is a plan to cover it. I mean,
we're not going to leave it. Two of the buildings already have the covers on them, on the
canopy, but this one and the last year one, we did it, and the office building when we put
a deck, they have opening. So we definitely plan, I don't want to do one roof today and
six months later I do, I'm going to do all four roofs in one shot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do them all at the same time.
MR. TARIQ-So that it looks the same, because the purpose of doing the deck for that
building was also because the rest of the three buildings have the decks, and they
completely look different than that one. So once that one will be with a deck and all the
entrances from the outside. Then it's going to have a good exterior. When the guests
come, we indicate to them, okay, just go around, and then he looks, the room number,
because they're right visible, but when he looks for that building, our room numbers are
inside, so he has to see where's the entrance where to go. So this will bring up like the
whole property in one shift, and obviously right on roof nine it will have a good exterior,
business wise.
MRS. JENKIN-I think that probably looking at the balancing test, and whether there's an
undesirable change in the neighborhood, there probably isn't. You're doing upgrades to
your buildings, which is very, very important, as Jim said, that you have to keep up with
the times, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George?
MR. DRELLOS-Yes. I think it's a reasonable request. It'll, the decking, I guess without
the roof, that's just part of it. You can hand out umbrellas, I guess, if it's raining too hard,
but it'll, the looks will blend in with the other, your other buildings there, and I think the
office is needed. It'll square off that building. So I'd be in favor of this project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I also agree with Mr. Drellos. I think that this is a definitely needed
upgrade for this building. As far as permeability goes, it's a one acre parcel. A lot of that
is parking. I don't think you're going to get around permeability issues here. I see Staff
Notes has it listed as a third of an, not even three tenths of an acre.
MR. OBORNE-What's that?
MR. GARRAND-On the agenda sheet, it's listed as .03 acres, but it is, according to the
print, it's over an acre.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that obviously is a typo. It should be 1.03.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That's a mistake, yes.
MR. GARRAND-The upgrades are definitely needed, and also with a business like this
you've got to stay current with the times. I don't think the request is truly substantial. So
I'd be in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. I really have no problem with the addition to the office. It's
over impermeable space right now anyway. I was a little bit concerned about the decks,
but, Keith, you did say they're going to the Planning Board for a stormwater plan?
MR. OBORNE-Well, they go for Site Plan Review.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. So, with that in consideration, I would say that probably I'd be in
favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm in agreement with everybody else, as long as whoever makes
the motion puts in a stipulation about the wastewater collection, stormwater collection.
I'm sorry.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I, too, would be in favor of the project. I think there's nothing
that's been substantiated that isn't needed on this project, and, going forward, we would
also probably recognize that probably you're going to do some modification in the future,
and if you have to come back to us, we'll recognize that, too, and try to bring you into
compliance, if need be. So, in this instance here, the big issue is the stormwater, and
that'll be addressed by the Planning Board when they do Site Plan Review on the
project. It appears to me, your suggestions, you had two choices there.
MR. HUGHES-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They're going to choose one, or either or, as far as that goes, and
as Brian said, the newly created entrance ways aren't going to add anything because it's
over impermeable area anyway. So I'm sure they'll have some suggestions for that
former grassy area, what to do with that to help in regards to that also in the interim. So
does somebody want to do this one? Or do you want me to do it?
MR. GARRAND-I'll do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I did.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2009 MOHAMMAD TARIQ d/b/a
RODEWAY MOTEL, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brian Clements:
1449 State Route 9. The applicant is proposing a 223 square foot addition to the
existing motel office including a handicap ramp access from the parking lot. Further, the
applicant proposes the construction of a 2,026 square foot deck and access ramps to
one of the existing motel buildings on site. His existing rooms in the building associated
with the decks are to be reconfigured into suites and open areas into storage. Finally,
the project includes the removal of an existing concrete walkway and the construction of
a new walkway associated with the new decks. Relief requested. The applicant
requests 19 feet of relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement, and eight feet of
relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the Highway Commercial Intensive
zone per 179-4-030. Further, the applicant requests six feet of relief from the Upper
Route 9 Travel Corridor district 75 foot setback per Section 179-6-060C. Finally, the
applicant is requesting 1138 square feet of additional impermeability. Relief is 14.97%
relief from the 30% requirement. Also as a condition, the applicant agrees to address
the stormwater issues. Under the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by
other means feasible to the applicant. Given the size constraints of this lot, this is the
most logical avenue to take as far as renovations go and expansion of the office. Will
this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby
properties? This is a Highway Commercial Intensive zone. This will not produce any
undesirable changes in the neighborhood. Numerically, this request may be deemed
moderate to substantial. Whether this request will have adverse physical or
environmental impacts. At this time we cannot foresee any physical or environmental
impacts that this project will entail. The applicant is agreeing to stormwater control
policies, and this may be deemed as self-created. So I move that we approve Area
Variance 14-2009.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/25/09)
Duly adopted this 25t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. OBORNE-Could I say one thing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-Did you, one condition was that stormwater was to be looked at. Was
there another condition that you had mentioned?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I think that we just recognize that they may come back to us
with a covering or doing something with the decks, in the future, and we understand
where you're at right now.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're all set. Okay. We do have a couple of sets of meeting
minutes to approve here, and we'll just do those quickly.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 18, 2009
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2009, Introduced by James Underwood who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
Duly adopted this 25t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
February 25, 2009
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2009, Introduced by James Underwood who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Duly adopted this 25t" day of March, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Drellos
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess we're all set, guys.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
30