2009.06.17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 17, 2009
INDEX
Area Variance No. 25-2009 Sean Quillinan 1.
Tax Map No. 289.09-1-30
Area Variance No. 26-2009 Peter Darrah 12.
Tax Map No. 279.15-1-45
Area Variance No. 27-2009 Anthony Classi 15.
Tax Map No. 308.10-1-36
Area Variance No. 28-2009 John H. and Judy J. Shafer 19.
Tax Map No. 240.6-1-18
Area Variance No. 29-2009 Chantal Baril 23.
Tax Map No. 290.5-1-35
Area Variance No. 30-2009 Linda Dator 24.
Tax Map No. 240.5-1-30
Area Variance No. 31-2009 Mastoloni Family, LLC 24.
Tax Map No. 226.15-1-29
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 06/17/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 17, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOYCE HUNT
RICHARD GARRAND
JOAN JENKIN
GEORGE DRELLOS
JOHN ZANGHI, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the June 17, 2009 meeting of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order. 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 the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes, as well as the
Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. The applicant then
will be invited to the table and be asked to provide any information that they wish to add
to the application. The Board, then, will ask questions of the applicant. Following that,
we’ll open the public hearing, and I’d caution that the public hearing is not a vote, but it’s
a way to gather information about concerns, real or perceived, and it’s a way to gather
information and insight in general about the issue at hand. It should function to help the
Board members make a wise, informed decision, but it does not make the decision for
the Board members. As always, we’ll have a five minute limit on each speaker. So that
basically tells us everything they want us to know within 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, and then we’ll
close the public hearing, unless there’s a reason to leave it open, and that would be only
if it looks like the application will be continued to another meeting. Finally we’ll have a
motion to approve, disapprove or table and then we’ll vote on it.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II SEAN QUILLINAN OWNER(S):
SEAN W. QUILLINAN ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 4 SULLIVAN ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH
A 2-CAR GARAGE TOTALING 4,145 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM
FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD SETBACK, MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND MAXIMUM FAR
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2009-043 DEMO HOUSE WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.09-1-30 SECTION:
179-4-030
SEAN QUILLINAN, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-We did hear this one late last month, and we had made some
suggestions to the applicant.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2009, Sean Quillinan, Meeting Date: June 17,
2009 “Project Location: 4 Sullivan Road Description of Proposed Project: Note: This
application must be tabled pending the outcome of a septic variance request for the
Town of Queensbury Board of Health. The public hearing for the septic variance is July
6, 2009. With this knowledge, the ZBA may wish to table this application to the July 15,
2009 meeting in anticipation of the applicant receiving a septic variance for this parcel.
Further, it is our understanding that the applicant has met with Dave Hatin; however, no
changes to the project plans have been submitted to this office.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling with 2 car attached garage
totaling 4,316 square feet on a 0.41 acre lot in the WR-1A zone adjacent to Glen Lake.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 25.9 feet of southwest front setback relief and 12.8 feet of west
front setback relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the WR-1A zone per
§179-4-030. Additionally, the applicant requests 2.7 feet of east rear setback relief from
the 20 foot requirement per §179-4-030. Further, the applicant is requesting 635 square
feet of floor area ratio relief per §179-4-030. Finally, the applicant is requesting 6 foot
11.25 inches of building height relief from the 28 foot maximum allowable height for a
building 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. Moderate impacts to nearby properties are anticipated as the
proposed home is larger and taller than what previously existed.
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
place the home in a more compliant or compliant location by citing the house deeper
in the lot and toward the center. However, the proposed location of the new house is
designed to use existing infrastructure that survived the previous house’s destruction
by fire.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 25.9 feet or 86%
relief from the 30 foot southwest front setback requirement may be considered
severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 12.8 feet or 42.7% relief from the 30
foot west front setback requirement per §179-4-030 may be considered moderate
relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 2.7 feet or 13.5% relief from the 20
foot rear setback requirement per §179-4-030 may be considered minor relative to
the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 635 square feet or 16.2% from the
maximum allowable FAR of 3,929 square feet may be considered minor to moderate
relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 6 ft. 11 in. or 24.5% of building
height relief may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as
the house, if approved, would be re-built in the same general location with limited site
clearing and grading. Further, the proposal is not on water-front property and as such
little to no impact on Glen Lake is anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
P2009-043 SFD Demolition 2/17/09
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to replace a 2,620 square foot single family residence with
attached garage destroyed by fire with a new 4,564 square foot single family residence
with attached garage in the same location. The lot is currently vacant.
Per the tabling resolution, the applicant was directed to seek guidance from Dave Hatin,
Director of Building and Codes in regards to height concerns of the board (see attached).
SEQR Status:
Type II – No action necessary”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Quillinan.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
MR. QUILLINAN-Since the last meeting, I took a little time to put together some
additional information that I have for the Board. I know obviously you’d have liked to
have had it before tonight, but it has taken some time to put it together. So I would like to
present that information to you if I could.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. QUILLINAN-It consists, first, of a letter with some of the points regarding the last
meeting, as well as some of the issues that I see as far as the Zoning Code for the
property are concerned. I focused on a couple of areas, as well as photographs and
maps to get you better acquainted with our particular neighborhood, because I do feel
that that was something that was somewhat dismissed at the last meeting. I don’t know
if you’d want me to read this whole thing in or not, or if you’d like to take the time right
now just to quickly read through it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We could. Did you get any indication from Dave Hatin as far
as the septic and all? He thought that was going to be not a problem at all?
MR. QUILLINAN-He said it’s not going to be a problem. He said it’s an improvement,
particularly in this system as well as for the neighbors, because it takes it out of the 100
foot circle and puts it 75 feet from my well, downhill, and he said the perc rate was like 30
seconds. So they said from the standpoint of efficiency, it said it will be very good. So
he anticipates no problem on the septic.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, Staff Notes, you know, refer to the Board of Health. I mean,
do you anticipate the Board of Health’s going to have a problem with this?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I don’t see that it would be.
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. What do you guys want to do, do you want to proceed, then
and go through this thing again, just to see how everybody feels about it? Any questions
you guys have?
MR. URRICO-My feelings haven’t changed.
MRS. HUNT-Mine haven’t either.
MR. URRICO-I’m still for it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think the thing to key in on is Staff Notes and to look
through here, again, and just to go back to what the impacts are going to be, you know,
and if you’re looking at the Floor Area Ratio, it’s a little bit over. It’s 16.2% from the
maximum that’s allowed, but in regards to the totality of it, you know, you’re looking at
about five, six hundred square feet, the addition, you know, which is the size that we
allow for an allowable shed or something like that. So, you know, it’s not that big a
number that I see on that one. I don’t know what you guys think about it.
MRS. HUNT-The setback relief is the same as the other house.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Well, and look at it this way, too, I think that we’re counting the
garage, the two car garage, in that Floor Area Ratio, are we not?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So, in other words, if you had a single car garage there,
instead of the 900 square feet that you’re allowed, you would be, what is the actual figure
for the garage? Do you know what that square footage is?
MR. OBORNE-No. I don’t have the file with me.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I didn’t bring it either, but I’m guessing, you know, with the
addition of, I’m just saying replacing the previous, I guess you had a single car garage
there, prior to the fire.
MR. QUILLINAN-Correct.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-And now you’ve got a proposed two car garage. So in essence I
think that we could say that that additional bay in the garage is what’s jumping up that
number.
MRS. JENKIN-It’s 24 by 24, the garage.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-I thought it was the height, though, that some of the Board members are
having a problem with.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I haven’t gotten to that. I’m just trying to go through the
different points. So the sticking points were the Floor Area Ratio was one of them and
height was the other one, and I think that we previously discussed on the height that, you
know, in the instance of Waterfront Residential, we had that 28 foot maximum that we
allow, and I posed the point to you guys that, you know, in this instance here, the house
doesn’t point towards the lake. You don’t see it from the lake, if you’re looking from the
lakeside, you’re really only going to see the upper two floors, you know, which doesn’t
really ponderously look down on top of everything else, but I mean, it’s up to you guys
what you think on that one.
MRS. HUNT-Also three sides of the house are not that height. It’s only the one side
that’s faces the recreation area.
MR. QUILLINAN-Right. It’s the one that faces the field.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So facing due east, then. Okay. Do you guys have any questions
you want to ask?
MR. GARRAND-Question for Keith. Is the area above the garage considered in the
Floor Area Ratio?
MR. OBORNE-No. Floor Area Ratio is just the relationship between the footprint of the
house and the property.
MR. GARRAND-Okay, and the area above the garage is not going to be finished at all?
MR. QUILLINAN-No.
MRS. JENKIN-I think there’s a (lost words) proposing the negative is the size of the
homes, as I said before, around you. They’re much smaller homes, and when this is
built, it’s still going to be much larger than the immediate homes right around in your
area.
MR. QUILLINAN-I think if you look at the, I believe it’s the third page of the letter, we’ve
actually measured the homes in the area. I mean, within the field itself, you have two
other homes that are equal to or larger, and then within 950 feet of the house I’ve got
another probably seven or eight homes that are equal or considerably larger, including
one that has a footprint of almost 3600 square feet, and we’re talking within, less than
1,000 feet from me, and within the neighborhood of.
MRS. JENKIN-Around the back? Is that the one in the back?
MR. QUILLINAN-Well, there are a few of them, actually because you’ve got one on the
water that has almost 3600 square feet, and then throughout Sullivan Place, Sullivan
Drive, you’ve got houses all over, 22, 23, 24, 2800 square feet, and those are just the
footprints, not the actual, you know, what would be part of your Floor Area Ratios. If you
did that, they would be even substantially larger.
MRS. JENKIN-And I understand your letter. I understand your quandary about this
because you do want to build a home, and I felt, when I looked at the floor plan originally,
that it’s a very, very nice floor plan. It’ll be a livable home. It’s just the area that it’s in.
It’s that spot it’s in.
MR. QUILLINAN-I think one of the things that is difficult, I think, Keith, you’ve got the
overhead of the map, like the Google with the zoning on it.
MR. URRICO-The tax map.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
MR. QUILLINAN-You’ve got copies of it.
MR. OBORNE-What are you talking about?
MR. QUILLINAN-An overhead shot of the property, Glen Lake, the Sullivan Road area,
with the tax map lines on them, the yellow lines.
MR. OBORNE-I apologize. I really truly do. Just a second.
MR. QUILLINAN-Well, once it’s up, when, D.L. Dickinson, when they did this survey, a
lot of the property that I would, in a sense think was mine falls outside the survey lines
and becomes Town land, and it’s a strip that runs basically from Glen Lake Road along
Sullivan Road and back over the hill, and that square footage that’s lost in survey is over
4,000 square feet. Now that’s property that we’ve, I mean, literally half of it is my
driveway, a side yard, retaining walls, trees, lawns that we take care of, that has always
been, in our sense, if you were to ask me, that’s my property, okay. What I did is I ran a
calculation, if I was to put that 4,000 square feet that’s back into it, there’s 22% exactly.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. QUILLINAN-So from the standpoint of the Floor Area Ratio, considering the size of
the lot, it’s pretty close. Let alone the fact that, to this day, I still haven’t gotten a good
answer as to why we’re actually deemed waterfront, because as you look at the tax map,
you look at the perimeter of Glen Lake, we’re the only neighborhood that is Waterfront
Residential, yet we have no waterfront at all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s the same way over on our side of the lake, over on Mannis and
Fitzgerald, I mean, it’s only the lakeside. The other side of the road does not, with the
rare exception.
MR. QUILLINAN-Yes, and I measured some of the places, and on Mannis and Reardon
and Hall, I’ve measured out that, I mean, I’m actually farther away from the water than
people who are Rural Residential.
MRS. JENKIN-Is the public hearing open?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to open it.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I think you left it open.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Are you guys through for the moment, then I’ll open up the
public hearing?
MRS. HUNT-Do you want comments now, or just questions?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, if you have any questions for the applicant, why don’t you go
ahead and ask them. You can do that.
MRS. HUNT-No, I really don’t.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Then I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the
public wishing to speak? And I know Roy was given a lot of letters this evening, and I
assume those are from neighbors?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I was given two.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody from the public wishing to speak? Why don’t you raise
your hand and you can come up one at a time.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NANCY SULLIVAN QUILLINAN
MRS. SULLIVAN QUILLINAN-Hi. I’m very nervous. My name is Nancy Sullivan
Quillinan, and I live at 34 Sullivan Place at Glen Lake. I’m here tonight to support my
son’s variance application to build a new home at Glen Lake. I’m here in place of my
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
husband who had heart bypass surgery last year, and who became so upset after last
month’s meeting, that I was afraid for his health, so Sean and I wouldn’t let him come to
this meeting. Tonight he is with my granddaughter and her soccer team at their game in
Hoosick Falls. He is there partly because the team’s coach, Sean, had to be here to
plead his case again before your Board. I thought the hardest thing that I would ever be
asked to do in my lifetime was to watch my son as he held his wife and my grandson and
sobbed while their home at Glen Lake burned to the ground. I was wrong. It was far
more difficult to watch their dream of a small cape house on the same site be put into
th
question on May 27. It was hard to see him sobbing after the meeting, realizing that the
plan that they had put such long hours into developing, the plan that they could afford,
and that they truly thought would meet the intentions of the codes, was not acceptable.
They are not asking to build a mansion, but a house that will add just a few square feet of
living space in what was the attic area of the old house. The footprint of the new home’s
main living space is virtually the same. …but with the addition of a 2-bay garage at the
rear. This is not a huge house, but a modest 1 ½ story home. My son is asking to build
that 1 ½ story home on a basement foundation, just as the old house was built….a
basement that because of the topography of the nearly half-acre piece of land will be
exposed on its east side, just as the basement of the old house had been exposed, a
basement that will be exposed, not to the lake, but to the one acre piece of land that the
maintains for the benefit of the entire neighborhood. The land that he and his father and
I, and his grandfather and, yes, his great-grandfather have paid taxes on for decades.
The land that his family has specifically deeded to be a park for the neighborhood. I’m
sure the intent of the 28-foot height requirement was to limit tall buildings at the lake’s
edge that might impair the view of and from the lake. I don’t believe it was to limit a
homeowner who lives across the main road, nearly 300 feet from the lake, from building
down, into the ground with a basement for a home that would otherwise be well within
the height requirement. I would like to point out that the plan my son and his wife so
carefully thought out, includes the elimination of an enclosed porch that was on the east
end of the main level of the original house. If anything, the new house will provide a
slightly better view of the lake for the immediate neighbor to the north, the only neighbor
whose view of the lake is affected in any way by my son’s property. I have spoken with
Dave Hatin, who lives next door across the park and would have a full view of the
exposed basement elevation of the home. Dave told me that as a neighbor he has no
problem with the design of the house, and in fact he thinks the home will look nice on the
lot. I have also spoken with Paul Derby, the president of the Glen Lake Association and
have shown him the plans for Sean and Deb’s house. He has no problem with the plan
and questioned why the property was even zoned as waterfront since it is across Glen
Lake Road from the lake and has no direct access to the lake. He suggested that the
neighborhood might want to get together and look into that zoning. My son and his wife
put long hours and considerable money into a plan that would be appropriate for the lot
and the neighborhood. I know that he consulted with Dave Hatin and also met with Craig
Brown and Keith Oborne to get some direction in planning his home. Sean believed, as I
do, that his house plan was within the spirit of the codes. Unfortunately, it does not meet
the letter of the code. That is why he is now asking for a variance. The Glen Lake
community is changing. When I grew up on Glen Lake, it was a community of mainly
summer camps. In winter there were very few families who lived at the lake. Now, only
one residence of the 31 homes that comprise the Glen Lake Road, Sullivan Road,
Sullivan Drive, Sullivan Place neighborhood is a seasonal dwelling. All of the other 30
are year-round homes and only one of those is used as a vacation home. I believe that
this is generally true of the other neighborhoods along the lake. In our neighborhood of
31 homes, none of which by the way has direct access to the lake, should, God forbid,
any of our neighbors suffer a catastrophic loss of their home, virtually all would need
multiple set back, FAR or height variances to re-build on the same footprint. Sean and
Deb’s request for a variance is therefore not out of line for our neighborhood. Zoning
codes are enacted, I believe, to protect the community, to be used as guides as a
neighborhood grows and changes over time. This new house, as proposed, will be a
betterment to the neighborhood. It will take the cars that were always parked in the front
of the house and put them in a garage at the rear, away from the lake view. It will
provide a slightly better view of the lake for the only effected neighbor. It will give a
family who lost their home and all of their possessions in a catastrophic fire, a new home
in the neighborhood they love. I ask that you please approve their very reasonable
variance request. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else wishing to speak?
ROBERT NIEDERMEYER
MR. NIEDERMEYER-I’ve got some visual aids here. Good evening. My name is Robert
Niedermeyer, and I live one house away from the Quillinan family property. Let me
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
begin by saying that I wholeheartedly support the Quillinan’s effort to rebuild their home
and their shattered lives. My comments to this Board are directed mainly to those
members who would deny them this chance, because of their opinion about what fits in
the neighborhood. I would venture to guess that these people may not have even visited
the neighborhood lately, if at all. One of the most devastating things that can happen to
a person in their lifetime is the loss of their home from a fire. I watched the night this
young family lost everything they had in this fire, and I watched the fire companies that
had rushed to the scene struggle to get water from the inoperable dry hydrant at the lake.
The dry hydrant, by the way, that was located by the Town of Queensbury against the
recommendations of the Bay Ridge Fire Company as being likely to fail in winter. I
personally spoke to some of the fire personnel that night, and the prevailing opinion was
that with proper water supply, this structure quite possibly could have been saved.
Instead it was condemned and had to be demolished. For this, the Town of Queensbury
must share part of the blame for this catastrophe. I would like to point out a few things
about the proposed structure, and the houses surrounding it. The proposed house
would be the same size and dimensions as the original, with the same footprint in the
same location as the original, with a two car garage built to the rear where there are no
additional setback infringements. It has approximately 2150 square feet of living area,
which includes three bedrooms and two and three quarter baths. The Taj Mahal it is not.
It is consistent with the sizes and styles of the surrounding houses. As for the height
issue, I call attention to some of the photos of the neighborhood houses. Photo Number
One is of the house directly across the street. Three stories high, plus a roof, height from
the road, 34 feet. Photo Number Two shows the house directly behind that one, two
stories plus a lower level walkout. Height from the driveway 35 feet, with 3152 square
feet of living area. That’s just living area. The house in Photo Number Three is next to
the house in Photo Number One. It is a high pitched roof cape style with a walkout
garage, exactly the same concept as the Quillinan’s proposed home. Photo Number
Four is the house next to that, a high pitched roof cape with an attached garage, 3104
square feet of living. Photo Number Five is of the house about 250 feet east of the
Quillinan’s, a high pitched roof cape with a lower level walkout garage. This has to be
starting to sound familiar. And lastly is a photo of my house and property, as I said one
house away. I am both offended and incensed by the referral by one or more of the
members of this Board that this neighborhood is nothing but a bunch of camps. Does
this look like a camp to you? By the way, the head of the Queensbury Town Building
and Codes Department lives in one of the houses you have photos of. I can’t speak for
Mr. Hatin, but I’m quite sure he would not like his residence referred to as a camp. The
Town of Queensbury bends over backward to accommodate The Great Escape with
variances for their rides that climb to 20 stories in the air and signage that is clearly
above and beyond the stated restrictions because they pay a huge amount of tax and the
Town is afraid to deny variances for fear of losing revenue. Hardship is certainly not a
word that should be associated with any part of that operation. One comment that was
made at the last meeting was that the design should allow for the children’s bedrooms to
be placed in the basement. That is a short-sighted and insensitive comment. The
existing grade of the home site does not allow for this without extensive re-grading that is
not in the best interests of the surrounding area and would add expensive, extensive
cost increases that would have to be added to the project. Using this logic, the roller
coaster at The Great Escape should have been placed in a large excavated hole in the
ground to keep it from rising out of the air too far. That sounds kind of silly, doesn’t it? In
closing, let me say that the insensitivity of some members of this Board towards the
tragedy this family has experienced boggles the mind. You should be ashamed of
yourself. If ever the term hardship should be applied to a project, this should be an
example. You have the opportunity and the choice to do the right thing. Do it. Thank
you for your time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else wishing to speak?
JILL PETERSON
MRS. PETERSON-Well, I’m just here because I feel like there’s strength in numbers. I
don’t really have anything written down, but I do own the house that’s on.
MR. OBORNE-Ma’am, could you state your name for the record?
MRS. PETERSON-My name is Jill Peterson and I own the house that’s on the other side
of the field, and I also own a residence that is up the hill, and I guess somehow I’ve
gotten out of being in that lakefront property, even though I’m off Glen Lake Road on the
other side, and my house, I think my husband went and measured it tonight, and it is, by
your standards I think I am, I think, five feet over what Sean is asking for, and I know
that, I’m also a Sullivan. My maiden name is Sullivan, and I do believe that all the roads,
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
when I was a little kid, I grew up in that white house that’s right next to Sean’s, and all
those roads were, I think they’re called Sullivan roads because the Sullivan’s donated
them. I believe the right of way across the street is something that was donated by the
Sullivan family, and I also believe that the field that is mowed by Sean all the time is also
a property that the Sullivan family has paid taxes on and it’s called a private park, but
we’ve maintained the swings, and there’s been, there’s a basketball court there and they
have field days there, and supposedly if you don’t have a meeting comes back from the
Association back to the family. So I don’t know if we’ve had a meeting. So in essence
Sean could probably own that property if he wanted to, but he chooses to maintain it and
mow it for the whole community, and I just want to applaud everything everybody’s said
so far, and I think that almost everybody that lives in the neighborhood is sitting behind
me, and don’t understand why you could deny Sean this variance. That’s all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on the matter?
SARA MC CARROLL
MRS. MC CARROLL-My name is Sara McCarroll. I live at 25 Sullivan Road, and I feel
terrible about this, but I think I’m here to support Sean and Debbie in their endeavor, and
I have no problem with what they want to do. Thank you.
PHILIPPA HINDSON
MRS. HINDSON-Hi. My name’s Philippa Hindson. I live at 12 Sullivan Road, and I’m
actually the house that’s directly next to Sean and Debbie. I’m the one who would be
impacted by the view, my view would be impacted. I’ve sent a letter to the Board, that I
presume is in your packets, to say that I support totally their plans. I’ve seen the plans.
It will not impact my view at all. In fact, it will improve my view from my windows
because it will be just a nicer looking structure, and I do feel that the house directly
across the street where they are now staying is much more of an imposing structure than
what they’re proposing. So I urge the Board to grant them their request. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you.
BILL O’DONNELL
MR. O’DONNELL-Hi. I’m Bill O’Donnell. I live at 26 Sullivan Road. Just briefly,
detriment to the community was a term I heard, and that’s, I suppose, why we have
zoning and thank you all for the jobs that you do. I wouldn’t want it. I’m a Californian. I
moved here four years ago. Community, that’s what that is. That’s our little community.
They welcomed us like I was a Sullivan. I want my view back. My view, diagonal from
my porch, Sean and Debbie’s house, I want to see those kids charging out of that door
again chasing the dog. Right now there’s a big hole in the ground in the sense that we
lost something. Can’t compare to them. I’d really like it back. This new home, I’m in
construction. It looks like the old house but nicer, and I hate to say that. I’d love to have
it back. I’d love to have them back and that sense of community that you don’t get any
other place. It’s really great. The guy that designed it is a neighbor. All the neighbors
are here. We’re all for it. I can’t see any detriment to the community by this. So I hope
you’ll pass it. Thanks again.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else? I guess there’s a couple of letters. Roy,
do you want to read those in?
MR. URRICO-Yes. Okay. The first one I’m going to read is, it’s addressed to the
members of the Board. “As the immediate neighbor of the above-referenced project, I
wish to express my full support for the plans presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals to
rebuild the house that was destroyed by a fire in January 2009. I have seen the plans
and have no objection to any aspect of this project. The increased height of the house
and the addition of the two-car garage will in no way affect my enjoyment of views of
Glen Lake from my house. I urge the Board to grant the Quillinan family the relief they
seek so that they may commence rebuilding their home as soon as possible. Thank you
for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Philippa R. Hindson” “To Whom It May
Concern: We are Marianne & Larry Dickinson of 17 Sullivan Drive, Lake George (Glen
Lake). Our grandchildren are fourth generation “Glen Lakers”. We would like to go on
record that we hope you approve Debbie & Sean Quillinan’s request for a variance. The
neighborhood where we live is no longer just seasonal summer camps. There are many
new and remodeled, year round homes in the vicinity of where Debbie & Sean want to
re-build after their devastating fire. We have seen the proposed plans for their home and
feel the house would fit in perfectly with our community. Debbie & Sean’s house will be
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
greatly missed this summer. They are frequent hosts of “Friday’s at Five” where the local
families get together. Each family brings a dish and all the children play together. Sean
is the one who mows the field and keeps the park clean, a job he inherited from his
father, who inherited the job from Sean’s grandfather. Their home is always open to
anyone who needs a band aid for a scraped knee, or a cold drink on a hot summer day,
or a place out of the rain while the kids all wait for the school bus. The fire at the
Quillinan’s residence was not only devastating to their family, but to our entire
neighborhood. We hope you will pass their variance so they may start the rebuilding
process soon. Our community misses their home a great deal. Thank you for your
consideration in this process. Very truly yours, Larry & Marianne Dickinson” “To Whom
It May Concern: My name is Mark Dickinson of 42 Sullivan Place Lake George, NY and
I am writing on behalf of Sean Quillinan, is wife and two children who lost everything they
own in a fire at their home. I understand that the Town of Queensbury has resisted
approval of the plans for their new home for one reason or another. I have seen the
plans and I do not see how it would negatively affect the area in any way, as a matter of
fact I think it would improve our neighborhood. Sean and his family grew up in this
neighborhood, as well as I did, and they are outstanding neighbors that help out in any
way they can. To this day he still maintains and keeps a close eye on the park and the
neighborhood kids who play there. He does this for the love of this neighborhood and for
the town to give him and his family a hard time with their chance to rebuild and put this
tragedy behind them is appalling. Please let it be known that my family and I feel that the
Quillinans should be able to build as planned with no further hassles from our town
officials. Sincerely, Mark & Melissa Dickinson” That’s it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, I have a question, and the Vice Chairman asked me the same
question, too. In Staff Notes it says this application must be tabled pending the outcome
of a septic variance request from the Town of Queensbury Board of Health. Is that law,
is that an opinion?
MR. OBORNE-Give me a little bit of time. That’s actually what I’m working on right now.
MR. URRICO-Can we pass it with stipulations that?
MR. OBORNE-With the stipulation that you would need a variance? That’s what I’m
looking at right now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That it meets the septic, you know, setbacks, etc, that they can work
that out. I mean, Mr. Quillinan’s given me the indication that he’s talked to Dave Hatin
and that Dave Hatin doesn’t feel that that’s a problem, and Dave certainly would a
reliable source for that information, even if it’s hearsay conversation, so to speak.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, well I was privy to that conversation, to be honest with you, and he
did not really have much of an issue with it at all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think the issue comes down to this, and just so the public is
aware of where we’re at. We’re all volunteers here. The Code book is handed to us.
We all come on here. None of us are on the Zoning Board because we want to whack
people like they’re piñatas and make trouble for people and make life miserable. A lot of
us got on because we wanted to make things reasonable for people, that there’s a
reasonable process that we work through. We’re bound by a set number of parameters
that we make our decision on, and let me just say this about building in the Town of
Queensbury. If you live on Waterfront Residential property, I live on the other side of
Glen Lake. I had to go through the process when I wanted to re-build my home, and I
had to seek variances, I had to get variances to do my construction at the same time. If
you’ve got lots of money, you can hire a lawyer, and, you know, if you get some big time
lawyer he can come in and give some story for you and if it’s new construction, there’s
plenty of examples of pictures that you are providing to us here this evening, and I’m well
aware because I live on Glen Lake of houses that are way over height and I’m saying,
like, how come theirs is so big and they wouldn’t let me build mine that big. So, I mean, I
sympathize with where you’re at at the same time. The Board is not unsympathetic, as
far as that goes, but, you know, we come up against this argument all the time about
what’s reasonable, what’s unreasonable, and I think that’s why I threw out the idea
before, and I spoke with you before, previously, too, that the Code is such that the 28
foot requirement is something that’s written into the book. So, in other words, we don’t
get to say, well, for you it’s okay, for you it’s not okay. It’s not a matter of that. It’s up to
each individual person to say, but in your unique circumstances, I will say this. That
whole area over on Sullivan Road, you know, and in the back lots, all the back roads
over there, we’ve granted numerous variances at numerous times because of the
Waterfront Residential designation that’s ascribed to the area, and everybody’s well
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
aware that, hey, it’s not really on a lake. So, why is it Waterfront Residential, and I
questioned that judgment as to why the other side of the lake doesn’t make the other
side of the road Waterfront Residential, you know, they’re certainly out of the picture, and
you guys have been roped in, so to speak, over there, maybe because it’s been a long
term neighborhood, but at the same time, if a Board member makes an opinion that they
feel the house is over height, that’s a legitimate thing based upon the Code. It’s not a
matter of they’re trying to be mean or, you know, overbearing in their interpretation.
They’re entitled to make that interpretation. I don’t think that the public should ever feel
like we’re an unreasonable group of people, because you’re going to get a varied opinion
as you go through the Board. That’s why there’s seven Board members sitting at any
given evening that you appear before us here, but I think what I’d like to do at this time is
this. If you don’t have anything else to add, I think everybody’s quite aware of your
situation. I will say this as Chairman that it is a unique situation. Certainly if you came in
to me tomorrow and your house was still standing and you said to me I want to build my
house and it’s going to be 35 feet high, I would have no trouble telling you, no, you’re not
going to build it 35 feet high. You’re going to have to come in with something different
this time, but I think everybody understands the circumstances. Nonetheless, it’s up to
each person to decide for themselves, is the over height of this building a detriment?
Some people may feel it is. Some people may feel it’s not. I mean, that’s up to the
individual Board members, but, you know, you presented your case here, and I think
what I’ll do now is just go down through the ranks, poll the Board, see if anybody’s
changed their mind, see what the mindset is so you have an idea.
MR. OBORNE-I do have an answer to your question, and that is, no, you cannot approve
this tonight. It was advertised as an Administrative Item.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-But, with that said, you’re certainly going to give an indication to the
applicant as to which direction it’s going to go.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Well, I’m going to go through the Board anyway as if we
were going to do this, so you understand where we’re coming from, and, you know, we
have to play by the rule book. We can’t change the rules for any individual person. We
can’t bend, you know, we’re supposed to do this thing properly. So let’s go through and
see what people have to say. George, I’ll start with you.
MR. DRELLOS-My decision last month was to be in favor, and I haven’t changed that
decision. I don’t think it’s an undesirable change to the surrounding area. I don’t think
he can, the benefit can be sought by any other means. He’s building in the same
footprint. The height, because of the hill and how it’s laid out, that’s just what it’s going to
be. You’re not going to change the shape or the height of houses that are built on hills.
That’s the way they’re going to look, and there’s a lot of houses in that area that do look
like that. So I feel that this project should be approved.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-One of the biggest problems is basically the size of the house. Now,
given what’s in the neighborhood, versus what’s proposed, even Mr. Quillinan provided
documentation on that. Also provided, well, let’s say given the topography of the land
and the fact that the house was built on a cut out, I think almost anything he builds there
is going to lend itself to some sort of height variance. The person I believe that would
have been most affected after going out there, would have been the woman who lives
directly behind him. She’s in support of the application. On top of that, Mr. Quillinan has
agreed that he will not finish the area above the garage, which basically precludes this
house from getting any bigger in the future, and also having him have to come before us
for another FAR variance. At this point, I’d have to change my mind and be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. Well, in January the Quillinan home burned and was a total loss,
partly because of the failure of the Queensbury Town fire hydrants, and luckily everyone
got out safely, and now you want to replace your house with a larger one more up to
date, and you want several variances. Now I personally cannot imagine losing my home
because it’s not just your house, but everything, your life. You lose a life, but putting
empathy and emotion aside, I’d like to use the balancing test. The applicant feels a
larger house on a similar footprint is most logical. There will be no undesirable change in
the neighborhood. In fact, the new house will enhance the area in the property in
Queensbury, because Queensbury property is becoming more and more valuable, and I
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
think this is the wave of the future. None of the area residents object to the variances,
and I think the building height is mitigated by the fact that three sides are not needing a
height variance, just the one side, and that faces a recreation area, and even the Staff
said that’s minor to moderate, and I don’t think there’ll be any adverse physical or
environmental effects, and I think the benefit is clear, and there would be no detriment of
health, safety, or welfare to the community, and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m not going to change my vote. I was in favor of it last time and I’m in
favor of it now. I will reiterate what I said. I think special circumstances require special
considerations, and I think when we look at the overall goal of the balancing test, which
is to balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community. I don’t think there’s any question about that we should be in
favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. John?
MR. ZANGHI-Coming not from the last meeting but having reviewed the information, not
only tonight as well as the previous information supplied, I think when you do look at the
balancing test, and one of the missions of our Board is to weigh the benefit to the
applicant versus the detriment to the community. When you look at the balancing act,
clearly it’s not undesirable, when you look at the pictures that have been supplied and
the overwhelming neighborhood support, that this house would not be out of character.
Although there are significant variances being sought here, only one of them is what we
would consider severe to the Ordinance, and again, it’s basically on the same footprint
as was initially built. It’s just going, the height is going up a little bit. Again, not out of
character, and several homes, as we’ve said, are larger than this and higher than this.
So, all in all, without repeating much of what everyone else has said, I definitely would be
in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. Everyone else on the Board has cited the criteria. We are, it’s our
responsibility to uphold these criteria, and as I said before, and I was pretty adamant
about it, I was concerned about the undesirable change in the neighborhood because of
the homes around it and the size of the home in comparison to the other homes in the
nearby properties, and I think that the support you’ve received from the neighborhood is
actually a major, that’s a very, very important factor that you were able to, that all the
other neighbors are so much in favor of this. We can’t take this from an emotional point
of view. We have to take it from what our responsibility is to uphold the variances. So
anyway, I think I definitely would change my vote from last time, only because I feel that,
with the support from your neighbors, and that little community that you have, they don’t
feel there’s an undesirable change in the neighborhood, and so therefore, if they don’t,
then I would go with this, with the variances myself. I would allow them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. For myself, most of the setback variances that you’re
requesting are all obvious ones that are already there. I mean, there’s no change, and it
wouldn’t be any different, I mean, certainly we have lots of instances on Waterfront
Residential property where somebody wants to add a second floor and they have to
come in and get a variance based upon the fact that it’s going to be intruding because it
doesn’t meet the setbacks. So we almost always give those, you know, unless it’s some
ridiculous request or anything like that. In your circumstances here, also, the Floor Area
Ratio, as mentioned before, you know, it’s over the 22% Floor Area Ratio, and there’s a
good reason why we have that on Waterfront Residential, and that’s because, as
everyone in this room understands, that lives on Waterfront Residential property, no one
meets the Code guidelines, and in fact the new Code, we don’t have Waterfront
Residential One acre or Three acre anymore. Everybody’s lot is now Waterfront
Residential Two acre. So go figure. No one had a lot that was close to one acre. Now
it’s two acres like it’s some magic number that’s achievable. So I don’t even understand
why they did that, but I guess it was to make us think more severely about requests
when they do come in for over built lots and things like that, but I don’t really see that
yours is an over built lot. The excess, I can determine that that’s going to be the extra
bay in your garage, and that goes away because you’re allowed a 500 square foot out
building on your property. You’re not going to have that. You’ve got an extra place for
your car. You’re not going to have the car sitting out in the yard. So that’s a plus, too.
As far as the over height of the building, I’m willing, and I threw out the idea before, I
think because this doesn’t really look out at Waterfront Residential, like a lot of these
bigger McMansions that are being built on Waterfront Residential in various parts of the
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
Town on Glen Lake and up on Lake George, and I think in this instance here, even
though you’re over height, it’s not really over height in my book, you know, I mean,
you’ve got to look at every one individually and see what it’s impact is, and we’ve
certainly denied lots of people who wanted 35 foot houses up on Lake George and we’ve
said absolutely not, and they had to bring them into compliance, but in your instance
here, I don’t see that we have to do that. So I think you understand where the Board is
at. Keith’s determination is that you’ve still got to wait to get your septic variance. We
can’t grant ours until that happens, but in other words, what’s the first meeting we’re
going to have after that meeting?
th
MR. OBORNE-The 15.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Is that after that?
th
MR. OBORNE-July 6 is the anticipated.
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So when you come in here on July 15, we’ll put you on first
thing that evening, bing, bam, boom, we’ll waive the magic wand. We’ll vote, but there
won’t be any discussion, as far as I’m concerned, and you’ll be on your way. So, sorry to
hold you up.
MR. QUILLINAN-No, thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So I think what we’ll do is we’ll table this. I’ll make a tabling
th
motion that we table this until the 15 of next month, and you’ll be first on the agenda as
Old Business.
MR. QUILLINAN-Thank you.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2009 SEAN QUILLINAN, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
th
4 Sullivan Road. Tabled until July 15, and they’ll be first on the agenda as Old
Business.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Zanghi, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II PETER DARRAH OWNER(S)
PETER DARRAH ZONING: SR-1A LOCATION: 10 MUD POND ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. BY 24 FT. FREESTANDING GARAGE .
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A FOURTH ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WHEN ONLY
ONE SHED AND ONE GARAGE ARE PERMITTED PER LOT. CROSS REF.: BP 90-
027 SFD; BP 91-206 DECK; BP 97-211 BARN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A
LOT SIZE: 0.80 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.15-1-45 SECTION: 179-5-020D
PETER DARRAH, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-What was the last time? We had a tabling on this because you
couldn’t be here?
MR. DARRAH-I unfortunately had a heart attack last month, three weeks ago.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So we missed you that evening, and I don’t think we did anything
other than table it.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2009, Peter Darrah, Meeting Date: June 17,
2009 “Project Location: 10 Mud Pond Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicants propose construction of a 576 square foot detached garage on a 0.83 acre
parcel adjacent to Mud Pond Road.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for a fourth accessory structure when only one shed and
one garage are permitted per lot per §179-5-020D.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts on the character of the neighborhood may be
produced as a result of this project.
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
remove two of the three sheds in order to be compliant.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for a fourth
accessory structure or 200% relief may be considered moderate to severe relative to
the ordinance. However, the total square footage of all accessory structures,
including the proposed garage would be 1,116 square feet.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor changes to the
physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be interpreted as
self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
P2007-503 216 sq. ft. shed 1/7/2007
P2001 320 sq. ft. shed 5/19/2001
Single Family Dwelling built in 1990
Staff comments:
The location of the proposed garage appears to be the most logical given the limitations
of the lot and the location of the driveway. The applicant states, in a phone call by staff
on Friday, May 15, 2009 that the proposal is for the 24x24 (576 sq. ft.) garage and not
the 26ft. x 34 ft. (886 sq. ft.) garage as stated in the application.
The applicant currently has three sheds located on site, totaling 540 square feet.
SEQR Status:
Type II-No action required.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you guys want to add? Do Board members
have any questions? I think the big issue for us is, I think, the number of storage sheds
and things like that. Are any of those going to be consolidated or used?
MR. DARRAH-The one down, way down back by the garden area, that one will more
than likely be eliminated. Because right now I’ve got my lawn tractor and my rototiller
down there, because that’s pretty much where all my garden is, and if I put my garage
up, I will eliminate the little one because that’s only an eight by eight.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And realistically speaking, you know, for myself anyway, you know,
when I look at, when we have these ones with all these out buildings and things like that,
a lot of them have been there for quite some time. I assume they’ve all been there for a
long period of time, and no one’s really complained about them in the past. So it’s hard
to bring them up at this late date. Anybody have any questions?
MRS. JENKIN-I had a question. Where will the driveway entrance be? Will it be facing
your house, the doors face your house, and then you’ll use your existing driveway?
MR. DARRAH-The doors will face your van.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
MRS. DARRAH
MRS. DARRAH-So you’ll drive in and turn right.
MR. DARRAH-Drive in and turn right.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. That’s what you’re going to do.
MR. DARRAH-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there’s no more questions, then I’ll open up the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any
correspondence?
MR. URRICO-I don’t see anything. I would say no.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I guess you need the space. You want to have a place to
park a vehicle, and put all your goodies, things that are scattered around like everybody
else that’s in the same boat.
MR. DARRAH-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-So you are getting rid of one, right?
MRS. DARRAH-Yes. The one way down in back.
MR. DARRAH-Yes.
MR. URRICO-That’ll bring it to 476, is that right? I thought you said it was eight by
eight?
MR. DARRAH-Yes, it is. It’s an eight by eight.
MR. URRICO-That brings the total sheds down to 476. Is that right? Are my
calculations right?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want me to poll you on this one, or does
everybody think it’s pretty reasonable? Anybody have a problem with it? Okay, then, I
guess I’ll just have somebody do a resolution then.
MRS. JENKIN-I could do one.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2009 PETER DARRAH, Introduced
by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
10 Mud Pond Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 576 square foot detached
garage on a .83 acre parcel adjacent to Mud Pond Road. The applicant requests relief
for a fourth accessory structure when only one shed and one garage are permitted per
lot per Section 179-5-020D. The criteria for considering an Area Variance. 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 impacts on the character of the
neighborhood may be produced. There really isn’t much change. 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 has offered to remove the one small
shed, and they’ll have no more further use for that. So then they would have just two
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
other outbuildings, other than their garage. Whether the requested Area Variance is
substantial? The request for a third accessory structure may be considered moderate to
severe relative to the Ordinance. However, the total square footage of all accessory
structures is not over by much, especially when you are removing one of them. Whether
the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. There won’t be an adverse
effect to building your garage. In fact, it will probably make a positive effect, since you’ll
be able to put more things inside rather than leaving them outside. Whether the alleged
difficulty is self-created. It is interpreted as self-created. So I move to approve Area
Variance No. 26-2009.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
MRS. JENKIN- 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
has offered to remove the one small shed, and you’ll have no more further use for that.
So then you would have just one other out building, other than your garage. Is that
correct?
MR. DARRAH-Two.
MRS. JENKIN-Two other. You have three, you have two sheds and the larger one at the
back now?
MRS. DARRAH-Yes, the barn.
MRS. JENKIN-The barn. That’s a great barn. Okay. So you’re going to remove one of
the three sheds.
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Zanghi, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MRS. DARRAH-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Have a good evening.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II ANTHONY CLASSI OWNER(S)
ANTHONY CLASSI ZONING: SR-20 LOCATION: 12 HERALD DRIVE – HERALD
SQUARE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 FOOT
TALL, 99 LINEAR FOOT STOCKADE PRIVACY FENCE IN THE NON-
ARCHITECTURAL FRONT YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOCATION, SIZE
AND TYPE OF FENCE. CROSS REF.: SUBD. 13-86; BP 2005-870 PORCH; BP 92-
501 SFD; BP 2000-212 SEPTIC; A.V. 43-2008 POOL WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.10-1-36 SECTION:
179-5-060
ANTHONY CLASSI, PRESENT
MR. URRICO-I’m going to start by reading the letter he enclosed in his application. It’s
addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. “The reason I am here today is to ask
permission from the Board to put a privacy fence up. The reason for the fence is last
year we were granted a variance to put a pool up in our front side yard. The Board then
recommended that some type of screening be put up so the pool cannot be viewed from
main roads of Anthony Court and Herald Drive. The only way to succeed at this would
be to put up a privacy fence. Vegetation will not solve this problem. Yours truly, Anthony
Classi”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2009, Anthony Classi, Meeting Date: June 17,
2009 “Project Location: 12 Herald Drive – Herald Square Subdivision Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to erect a 6 foot tall, 100 linear foot stockade
fence for pool screening in the non-architectural front yard.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from location, style and height restrictions for fencing per
§179-5-060.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts on nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. According to the
applicant, the only feasible alternative, which was vegetative screening, appears to
be insufficient for screening purposes. Further, with two front yards, any type of
privacy fence would require relief.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 1 foot or 16.7 %
relief from the height requirement of 5 feet for a fence in the front yard may be
considered minor relative to the ordinance. The request for location and style may be
considered moderate relative to the ordinance; however, the requirement that pools
must be screened from the view of a public right of way may minimize this request.
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 as a
result of this proposal.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2007-701 Issued 12/11/07 Shed
BP 2005-870 Issued 11/17/05 Enclosed Porch
BP 2002-631 Issued 08/01/02 Porch
BP 2002-632 Issued 08/01/02 1-car attached garage
BP 2000-212 Issued 04/18/00 Septic Alteration
BP 98-442 Issued 07/22/98 Deck
BP 92-501 Issued 10/29/92 Single Family Dwelling w/ Attached garage
Staff comments:
The pool was approved by this board in July, 2008. The applicant was given approval
with vegetative screening and not a privacy fence. The code states that in the case
where a lot fronts on two public rights-of-way, the pool shall be screened from the view of
the public right-of-way and the neighboring property by means of landscaping as per
§179-5-020C5.
Note: Landscaping includes fences, scrubs, trees etc.
SEQR Status:
TYPE II”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Classi.
MR. CLASSI-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re back again. We remember this, it was like de ja vu all over
again, and we’re just wondering why, would you just prefer the taller fence?
MR. CLASSI-Yes. Right now there’s like a cyclone fence. It’s all see through, so it’s not
giving any kind of screening, and we did put some bushes up, but it’s not covering
anything.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions you want to ask? I don’t
remember what our mindset was the last time we went through here. Keith, what was,
do you recall what the vote was last time or why?
MR. OBORNE-I’m pretty sure it was unanimous.
MR. CLASSI-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-And this is kind of an odd situation, the way the house is located way to
the west.
MRS. HUNT-Why do you want a six foot instead of a five?
MR. CLASSI-I could put a five, but I just thought with the extra foot it would cover a lot
more, and we’re also like 73 feet from the road, also, it’s not directly on the road either.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to do any kind of landscaping in front of it, too?
MR. CLASSI-There already is. We did that last year, right after the pool got in.
MR. GARRAND-Do you plan on having this fence around the other side of the house
also? Because you have a nice tree line there.
MR. CLASSI-Yes. I’m just going to do the pool side for now.
MR. GARRAND-Just the pool side?
MR. CLASSI-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-Okay, because that area isn’t a lot of white plastic fence in that area.
MR. CLASSI-Okay.
MR. GARRAND-There are some but not a lot.
MR. CLASSI-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-I was just wondering if it would kind of look out of place being along the
tree line, on the other side of the house, where the pool is not.
MR. CLASSI-Exactly. Well, further down the road we can, yes, if you want to issue it that
way, I would.
MR. GARRAND-Well, I wouldn’t want to see a white fence over there. It would look
awful.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I think, are you talking in the area to the west?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-It’s compliant there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s only the stretch along the.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s the non-architectural front yard is what triggers this.
MR. CLASSI-The pool side.
MRS. JENKIN-The length of the fence that you’re going to put up, and the area that it’s
in, because it is an open area. Don’t you think that the, proportionally, that the five foot
fence would look better, and it would certainly afford privacy for you, the privacy that you
need, because no one’s going to be able to see over five feet.
MR. CLASSI-Right, well, it’s a four foot pool that’s up. It’s not sunken in at all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re above ground.
MR. DRELLOS-It’s above.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
MR. CLASSI-That’s why I was going with the six.
MR. DRELLOS-You almost need six feet, then.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Do you have a walkway around the pool or anything, or is it just the pool?
If you’re sitting beside the pool, are you sitting down on the grass?
MR. CLASSI-On the grass, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-On the grass. So the five foot fence would afford privacy when you’re
sitting around the pool. It would just be if people are jumping up and down in the pool
that you’d be able to see them.
MR. CLASSI-Yes, all the time you actually will, from both roads.
MRS. JENKIN-You’d see them at six feet, too. It’s only two feet.
MR. CLASSI-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anymore questions, or shall I open up the public hearing? Okay.
I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to talk about it? Anybody have any real
concerns about this?
MRS. JENKIN-Well, my feeling is that five foot is adequate.
MRS. HUNT-I think it’s minor relative to the Ordinance, and I can understand, with the
height of the pool being above ground, you would want a six foot.
MR. CLASSI-Yes.
MRS. HUNT-I think it’s a minor request.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think when we’re looking at in the ground pools, in most
instances, you know, five foot’s adequate, but this one seems like it’s a little bit different,
and looking at it individually it’s not that far out there, the request.
MR. URRICO-I also think the height from the road makes a difference.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes, because you’re kind of looking down.
MR. URRICO-Because the distance from the road, the five foot even seems smaller.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. GARRAND-I’m in favor as long as there’s no fence on the westerly portion of the
house. I think that would look terribly out of character.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, I wouldn’t see that you would need it on the other side
of the house, because you don’t have the privacy issue over there anyway.
MR. CLASSI-Right, no, I have my shed on that side also.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. So it’s only going to be on this side here. All right. Then
hearing that there’s not anything, does somebody want to do the approval?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. Thanks for reminding me.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2009 ANTHONY CLASSI,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos:
12 Herald Drive – Herald Square Subdivision. The applicant proposes to erect a six foot
tall, 100 linear foot stockade fence for pool screening in the non architectural front yard.
The applicant requests relief for location, style, and height restrictions for fence per
Section 179-5-060. Criteria for considering the variance. Whether the benefit could be
achieved by some other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant did have
vegetation around the pool, but felt that the fence was needed. There would not be an
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. The request
of one foot or 16.7% of relief from the height requirement of five feet is minor relative to
the Ordinance. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects, and
the alleged difficulty only because Mr. Classi wants to put up a fence rather than have
vegetation. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 27-2009.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mr. Zanghi, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mrs. Jenkin
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. CLASSI-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II JOHN H. AND JUDY J. SHAFER
OWNER(S): JOHN J. AND JUDY J. SHAFER ZONING WR-1A LOCATION: 21
HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 400 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING
GARAGE IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2008-
018 ADDITION; P2006-262 SEPTIC WARRE COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 10, 2009
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.6-
1-18 SECTION: 179-4-030
JOHN SHAFER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-2009, John H. and Judy J. Shafer, Meeting Date:
June 17, 2009 “Project Location: 21 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicants propose construction of a 400 square foot detached garage on a
0.26 acre parcel on Hanneford Road.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 21 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback
requirement and 20 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the old
WR-1A zone 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 impacts on the character of the neighborhood may be
produced as most garages associated with parcels in the neighborhood are non-
compliant with regards to setback.
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
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
place the garage further south to decrease the side setback request. However, the
proposal appears to be the most logical given the restraints of the lot.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 21 feet or 70%
of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement and the request for 20 feet or 80%
relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement per §179-4-030 may be considered
severe 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 changes to the
physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be interpreted as
self created. However, the limitations of the lot are the overriding factor in the request
for this variance.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2008-018 192 sq. ft. addition 5/22/08
BP 2006-262 Septic Alteration 5/2/06
Staff comments:
The location of the proposed garage appears to be the most logical given the limitations
of the lot and the location of the existing stone parking. Are gutters associated with this
project? Where is the stormwater directed during rain events? Please clarify.
SEQR Status:
Type II-No action required.”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 10, 2009
Project Name: Shafer, John and Judy Owner(s): John and Judy Shafer ID Number:
QBY-09-AV-28 County Project#: Jun09-28 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant is proposing a 400 sq ft. freestanding
garage in the northeast corner of parcel. Relief requested from minimum front and side
setback requirements. Site Location: 21 Hanneford Road Tax Map Number(s): 240.6-
1-18 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant is proposing a 400 sq ft. freestanding
garage in the northeast corner of parcel. Relief is requested from the minimum front and
side setback requirements. The garage is to be located 9 ft. from the front setback
where 30 ft. is required and 5 ft. from the side setback where a 25 ft. setback is required.
The information submitted shows the garage to face south so cars will not be pulling
directly onto Hanneford Road. The applicant has indicated the need for the garage to
use when they retire to this area full time. Staff recommends no county impact based
upon the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS
General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning
Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by T. Lawson, Warren County
Planning Board 6/10/09”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Shafer?
MR. SHAFER-Good evening. My neighbor to the north, I think I said in my transmittal
letter, is orally in support of, and I just spoke to him before I came down here tonight,
John Beals, is very supportive of this garage. It would be closest to his property line.
Just before the meeting tonight, there is a letter here from Paul Ryan, who is my
neighbor just to the south, fully in support of the project as well. I didn’t have time to get
copies made, so I’ll just give you, Mr. Chairman, a copy of the letter.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Thanks.
MR. SCHAFER-Other than that, there have been no changes from what you see on the
drawing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It appears to me it’s a pretty modest sized garage. You’re not
building some grandiose, five bay, you know, I need all my toys to put away, garage.
MR. SHAFER-In fact the two cars that you see on the drawings are oversized. One of
them is a little two seater English sports car. I don’t need a 24 by 24.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
MR. DRELLOS-There’s not too many other spots you can put it, really.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, and I think, you know, when we look at these small lots up
there, we’ve granted a lot of variances for plenty of garages on Hanneford Road over the
years.
MR. DRELLOS-It’s not that big of a variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t understand the mindset where everything has to be set in the
middle of the lot, you know, like it’s cookie cutter subdivision or something. When you
put stuff to the side, it lets you have a little bit of a yard back there, too, at the same time,
and as long as it’s not offensive to your neighbors. It’s kind of similar to docks down on
the water, when you put two docks next to each other so there’s not complete dock water
frontage on the lakeside.
MR. SHAFER-Yes, and if you notice from the ground photo that Keith had up there,
Hanneford Road, of course, is only one lane, and so when there’s two way traffic they
have to pull off on the private property to pass. They do that there in my parking lot, and
that’s perfectly fine. They’ll still be able to do that with the garage because the garage
will be set back far enough for a car to be able to pull off there and pass another car.
That big tree will have to go, unfortunately. If it was Christmas time, I’d donate it to the
Town of Queensbury as a Christmas tree, but I’m not sure it’ll survive until then.
MR. DRELLOS-Is Hanneford a Town road? Is that considered a Town road, Hanneford,
or is that a private road?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the Town plows it. I’m pretty sure they do.
MR. SHAFER-It’s paved back to about where the end of what you see in that
photograph.
MR. DRELLOS-But it’s a Town road, though?
MR. SHAFER-Well, I think that’s a little unclear. Years ago, the towns had an ability to
take over, under the law, some of these uncertain roads as to who owned them. I don’t
know that the Town every exercised their right, back in those days legally, but they do
plow it, and everybody considers it a Town road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I know that you have bedrock issues up on Hanneford Road,
because we’ve had so many projects up there, and as you go out towards the forefront,
everybody’s aware it’s a cliff, and it’s sawed rock under the ground there.
MR. SHAFER-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I would assume you have enough soil back there for the
infiltrators, or if you’re going to put crushed stone in under the eaves, so you have some
kind of holding capacity.
MR. SHAFER-Yes, as you can see, it’s pretty level there now, and of course the
stormwater sheet flows. It rarely, there is a culvert across Hanneford just to the north of
our property. There is one across Hanneford just to the south of our property. So I don’t
see stormwater as being a problem. We will put crushed stone around the foundation.
The foundation will go down to rock as far as it is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I assume everything kind of pitches toward the lake anyway at
that point.
MR. SHAFER-Correct. Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Does anybody want to discuss this at all, or shall I open up
the public hearing? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing
to speak on the matter? Mr. Navitsky.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We do not
oppose the proposed application. I think the Chairman touched on the request that we
were going to make to the Board. We request the Board to consider condition of
stormwater management for the structure. Although it is exempt from stormwater
management requirements, the Code does grant the Zoning Board, in granting
variances, the Zoning Board of Appeals may impose conditions similar to those provided
for the Site Plan Review usage to protect the best interests of the surrounding property,
the neighborhood and the Town as a whole. So we’re requesting that stormwater
management be considered on the property, since it is in a Critical Environmental Area
and sits above Lake George. The applicant will benefit by the request of the variance,
and through the condition that Town and residents and users of the lake would benefit by
eliminating uncontrolled runoff. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you, and you have that one letter?
MR. URRICO-Yes. “Members of the Board: I am writing in support of the application
John and Judy Shafer to obtain a variance to build a garage on their property at 21
Hanneford Road. I am an adjacent property owner to the south of them on Hanneford
Road. I have reviewed their plans and feel their proposed construction will be an
improvement to the neighborhood. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely, Paul Ryan”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Anything else you’d like to add?
MR. SHAFER-No. I just said to Chris, you know, I’ll do whatever makes sense here from
a stormwater standpoint. At our engineering firm, we do this every day.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Usually the solutions in this case are, you know, minor. It’s not
going to be some expensive, you know, structures you’ve got to build or anything like
that.
MR. GARRAND-Any ideas as to what stormwater controls you’d use here?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think a lot of it can be accomplished like with ditching and then
filling it with crushed stone, just so you have a longer standing time, and you’ve got some
capacity, in a major storm or runoff problem.
MR. SHAFER-Right. That crushed stone parking lot is actually about a foot deep, and
the whole concept is to slow water down so that it has a chance to get down into the
ground and any sediments can be filtered out and so on and so forth. So I just said to
Chris we’ll think about this a little while, and I’ll talk to him over the phone and decide
what makes sense here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. You guys want to discuss this one, or?
MRS. JENKIN-Well, I had a concern about the next door neighbor because it’s so close,
but that’s been taken care of. As long as he’s in support of it.
MR. SHAFER-Yes, John’s very supportive.
MRS. JENKIN-I was wondering about your tree, but you have to take that down. The
other concern I have is your own concern, is it’s going to block more of the view of your
own home, but there’s really nothing you can do about that.
MR. SHAFER-Well, which is why we wanted it on the north side, so that the view of the
home, as well as our view out of the eating area of the kitchen, you can actually see the
trees and the road. So if it were to be centrally located, you still would need side yard
setback variances because the lot is so narrow, but it would also destroy everything from
a visual perspective.
MRS. JENKIN-And you have the nice garden to the south of it, too, which you don’t want
to destroy or effect.
MR. SHAFER-Correct. My wife is very anxiously looking forward to planting of shrubs
and flowers around this new garage.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? Okay. Then do one of you guys want to go ahead
and do it?
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
MR. DRELLOS-I’ll do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-George, sure. Go ahead.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2009 JOHN H. AND JUDY J.
SHAFER, Introduced by George Drellos who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Zanghi:
21 Hanneford Road. The applicants propose construction of a 400 square foot
detached garage on a 0.26 acre parcel on Hanneford Road. The applicant requests 21
feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement, and 20 feet of relief
from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the old WR-1A zone per 179-4-030.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance. In making the determination, the Board shall
consider: Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The Board considers minor impacts.
Most of the garages are already non compliant in regard to the setback anyway.
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible
for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. This is the most logical spot,
given the lot, the way it’s positioned, the house, so this is the most logical. Whether the
requested Area Variance is substantial. It may be considered substantial, but it’s the
size of the lot, and the garage is not that huge in size. It’s only 400 square feet. So that
request we’d consider not substantial. Whether the proposed variance will have an
adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. Mr. Shafer says that he will put in stormwater control. So that answers that
question, and none of the neighbors have complained. So that answers that. Whether
the alleged difficulty was self-created. It may be interpreted as self-created, but with the
constrains of the lot, this is still the most logical spot for this garage. So I still make a
motion to approve Area Variance No. 28-2009. The applicant will propose eaves
trenches for this garage for this application.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, you wanted to add something?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You may want to just say, as far as the stormwater controls, instead
of being so nebulous, is to say maybe eaves trenches. That would pretty much cover it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure.
MR. DRELLOS-The applicant will propose eaves trenches for this garage for this
application.
AYES: Mr. Zanghi, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. SHAFER-Great. Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II CHANTAL BARIL OWNER(S):
CHANTAL BARIL AND PAUL TEASDALE ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 150
SUNNYSIDE ROAD NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO
STORY, 852 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK AND
FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE
EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: BOH 24, 2007
SEPTIC VARIANCE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 10, 2009 LOT SIZE: 0.22
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-35 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-13-010
MR. UNDERWOOD-These people evidently, and I’ll read in the beginning of the Staff
Notes because that sort of explains the situation. “Since receiving this application, the
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
applicant has changed the plan at the advice of her contractor. With this knowledge, the
Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to table this application to the next available board
meeting.” So I assume they want us to table it?
MR. OBORNE-That is a tabling request by the applicant.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we will table this until the first meeting next month, the
th
15.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2009 CHANTAL BARIL, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
th
150 Sunnyside Road North. Tabled to July 15, at the request of the applicant.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Zanghi, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II LINDA DATOR AGENT(S):
JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S): LINDA DATOR ZONING: WR-1A
LOCATION: 2583 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF
3.66 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.67 ACRES AND 1.99 ACRES. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM PUBLIC ROAD FRONTAGE REQIUREMENT
FOR PRINCIPLE BUILDINGS. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2009 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 10, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT
SIZE: 3.66 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-30 SECTION: 179-4-090
MR. UNDERWOOD-Now, we’ve got a problem with this one, too?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, this needs to be tabled also.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll read again here. This application must be tabled pending
a recommendation from the Planning Board concerning this area variance associated
with Subdivision 6-2009. This application to be reviewed under the new zoning code and
as such will require an additional variance associated with lot size. With this knowledge,
the Zoning Board of Appeals may consider tabling this application to July 15, 2009.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2009 LINDA DATOR, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
2583 State Route 9L. To the July 15, 2009 meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Zanghi, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II MASTOLONI FAMILY, LLC
AGENT(S): STAFFORD, CARR AND MC NALLY – BRIAN S. REICHENBACH
OWNER(S): MASTOLONI FAMILY, LLC ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 18
NEIGHBORS WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF STORMWATER
INFILTRATION DEVICES WITHIN THE MINIMUM 100 FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK.
THE PROJECT IS CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM PROPOSED STORMWATER DEVICES WITHIN 100 FEET OF
LAKE GEORGE. CROSS REF.: SPR 38-2009; AV 9-2009; NOA 2-2009; BOH28-2008
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 10, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY:
YES LOT SIZE: 0.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-29 SECTION: 147-11
BRIAN REICHENBACH & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2009, Mastoloni Family, LLC, Meeting Date:
June 17, 2009 “Project Location: 18 Neighbors Way Description of Proposed Project:
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
Applicant proposes to renovate a 2,020 square foot existing non-conforming single
family dwelling to include raising the roof, construction of an 810 square foot first story
addition, the addition of 65 square feet to the second story and associated site
improvements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 80 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum setback requirement
per §147-9 for infiltration devices associated with a rain garden on the north portion of
the parcel. Further, the applicant requests 66.32 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum
setback requirement per §147-9 for infiltration devices associated with eave trenches
abutting the house to the east. Finally, the applicant requests 53 feet of relief for
infiltration devices associated with eave trenches abutting the house to the west.
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. However, the possibility of similar requests for shoreline setback relief
for infiltration devices may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
reduce the size of the project in order to lessen the need for infiltration devices;
however, an area variance for infiltration devices would still be required for any
proposed expansion due to the limitations of the lot.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 80 feet or 80%
of relief for the rain garden may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The
request for 66.32 feet or 66% relief for the east eave trench may be considered
moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 53 feet or 53% of relief
for the west eave trench may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. With the limitations of the lot and the
required stormwater management associated with the proposal, the alleged difficulty
may not be self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
S.P. 38-2009 SFD Renovation Pending
A.V. 9-09 Shoreline setbacks/Expansion of a n/c structure Approved 2/25/09
B.O.H. 38-2009 Septic variance Approved 11/28/08
BP 7463 Crib Dock Approved 7/22/82
BP 6060 Crib Dock Approved 9/05/79
Staff comments:
The applicant wishes to renovate the existing 2,020 square foot house to include a
reconfiguration of bedrooms and an expansion to include an 810 square foot first story
addition and a 65 square foot second story addition.
Consideration may be given to seeking a recommendation from the Planning Board
regarding stormwater infiltration devices prior to issuing a decision. A proposed new
wastewater system is to be installed as part of the overall project.
SEQR Status:
Type II – No SEQR Determination required.”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 10, 2009
Project Name: Mastoloni Family, LLC Owner(s): Mastoloni Family, LLC ID Number:
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
QBY-09-AV-31 County Project#: Jun09-24 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes installation of stormwater
infiltration devices within the minimum 10 foot shoreline setback. The project is
classified as a Major Stormwater project. Relief requested from proposed stormwater
devices within 100 feet of Lake George. Site Location: 18 Neighbors Way Tax Map
Number(s): 226.15-1-29 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes
installation of stormwater infiltration devices within the minimum 10 foot shoreline
setback. The project is classified as a Major Stormwater project. Relief requested from
proposed stormwater devices within 100 feet of Lake George where 20 ft. is proposed.
The project involves the renovation and an addition to an existing home. The information
submitted shows the location of the addition and renovations. The applicant has
indicated that any location of a stormwater structure would require a variance. The plans
show the location of the rain garden as a 300 sq ft. area to accommodate 150 cubic feet
of storage. Staff recommends no county impact based upon the information submitted
according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L
applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County
Impact” Signed by T. Lawson, Warren County Planning Board 6/10/09
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. REICHENBACH-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to address the application, and then if you
have specific technical questions, maybe Tom can deal with that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes. My first question would be, you know, we approved
this, and why are you back? Is this just something that we forgot to do, or?
MR. REICHENBACH-It’s not anything that you’ve forgotten to do. I think it’s merely the
fact that we’re looking to put infiltration devices within 100 feet of the lake. We have to
because there’s no place on the lot that’s not within 100 feet of the lake.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is it all the eaves trenches and the garden thing that you’re going to
do out there, the rain garden thing out on the point? Those are the ones, right?
MR. HUTCHINS-Those are the devices, those are the two devices that are within 100
feet of the lake. The reason we didn’t apply for those the last time we were here is
because we didn’t have a stormwater design at the time because we didn’t know if we
were going to have a project without the variances we needed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And we’re a little bit, because the stormwater regs, you know, we’re
just sort of getting into the mode of what it’s all about. I mean, we realize the importance
of those devices and so for us, being laypeople without a real severe background as to
what works and what doesn’t work, we sort of have to go with, you know, what you
propose and then listen to what the public says about it, whether they think it’s adequate
or not. Does the Town Engineer review these things before the Planning Board?
MR. OBORNE-He’ll review this under Site Plan Review. So he’ll have his shot at it then.
There, you know, is a consideration to send it to the Planning Board for their professional
opinion, but at this point we did not send it off. No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, okay. All right. Thanks, go ahead.
MR. GARRAND-Just for the record, your name?
MR. REICHENBACH-Sorry. Brian Reichenbach of counsel to Stafford, Carr & McNally
in Lake George, representing the Mastoloni Family, LLC. This variance would
unquestionably accomplish the stated goals of the Town stormwater law. The Town
stormwater law is designed to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff to specifically the
lake in this case, and there’s no question that granting of this variance will reduce the
amount of stormwater runoff into the lake over the current conditions by nearly a third in
both the ten year and twenty-five year storm scenarios. Approval would, therefore,
benefit the Town as a whole, and not only the adjoining and area homes, area and
district. Addressing the first factor, whether there’d be an undesirable change in the
neighborhood, I think that’s pretty clear that by reducing the amount of stormwater runoff
into the lake that it would benefit the neighborhood, not any detriment at all. Again, all
the nearby properties, the neighborhood, the district and indeed the Town as a whole
and the entire lake basin would benefit from the decreased runoff. The Staff Notes
indicate that there may be, I think it says there could be similar requests for shoreline
setback relief for infiltration devices. I agree with that. I don’t agree that it could be, that
it has anything to do with this particular application. In the Town law, the most preferred
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
method of stormwater control is infiltration devices. Well, sure, everybody wants to do
the most preferred method. So those should lead to more applications for that kind of a
device. I don’t think it’s the fact that we’ve brought this application for a variance that has
anything to do with that. Next factor, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be
achieved by any other method. I’ll address the Staff Notes first. The Staff Notes first
indicate that the applicants could reduce the size of the project. I think that
misapprehends the meaning of the factor a little bit. The words are the benefit sought by
the applicant. The benefit sought by the applicant is this particular project. Reducing the
size would make it a different benefit. If you look at the benefit sought by the applicant,
which is to propose this project that you folks have already approved variances for, the
most preferred way to handle the stormwater is these infiltration devices. There is no
place on the lot that is not, I’m sorry, that is 100 feet from the lake. Accordingly, to
accomplish the stated goals of the law, with the most preferred methods set forth in the
law, you need to grant this particular variance. The third factor, whether the requested
Area Variance is substantial. It probably is substantial. It’s severe in at least one case,
moderate in others, and that’s based on merely the proximity of the project to the lake.
It’s very close. We all recognize that. We went through that when we did the prior
variances. It’s just the nature of this particular, unique parcel on the shores of Lake
George. It’s a peninsula. I would add that also substantial is the amount of reduction in
the stormwater runoff from the current condition of the property. Mr. Hutchins’
calculations show about a one-third reduction in both the 10 year and 25 year storm
event, by granting this variance. That’s a significant change to the amount of stormwater
runoff in the lake. The fourth factor, whether this proposed variance would have an
adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood is
a no brainer. Quite frankly, not granting this variance would be detrimental to the
neighborhood. Granting the variance is going to reduce the stormwater runoff by a third.
That absolutely has to benefit the environmental conditions in the neighborhood, or the
Town law doesn’t mean what it says, and I think it’s pretty clear that the Town law was
arrived after some pretty heavy study, some pretty heavy consideration of this particular
issue, and if the goal is to reduce the stormwater, this is a fantastic way to do it. The
final factor, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, again, this is a unique parcel
on Lake George. It’s a peninsula. I don’t know that there are too many others like it. I
don’t know that there are any others at all like it in the Town. So it wasn’t self-created.
To be able to do anything on this property, the Mastoloni Family, LLC has to do
something with the stormwater, and this is the way they can accomplish it. I’d like to
address just a little bit the suggestion in their Staff Notes, I think, that the
recommendation be obtained from the Planning Board. With all due respect to the
Planning Board, you folks have your own separate charge and obligation. You are
charged with looking at these five factors and determining whether the way this project
meets those five factors will preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and
the health, safety and welfare of the community. That’s a little bit different analysis than
the Planning Board goes through. I don’t think you need their opinion on what they think
of this particular project. I think your folks’ charge is to look at the factors, look at how
we’ve met those factors, look at what this project will do, and decide whether that meets
the criteria for a variance from the stormwater law. The Planning Board is going to look
at the Site Plan Review. They’re going to look at a whole different criteria. I think you
folks don’t need their opinion to reach your decision. Finally, all in all, granting the
variance application here is going to protect the waters of Lake George, and the health,
safety and welfare of the community and the Town at large. Thank you. We’d be glad to
answer any questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Tom. So you’ve got eaves trenches around the whole thing. I
mean, I assume you’re adequately building those so you’ve got some depth to them to
hold?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And is the rain garden, is water going to be directed to the rain
garden from troughs or anything?
MR. HUTCHINS-No pipes. No troughs.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got sheet flow going that way?
MR. HUTCHINS-Sheet flow. Yes, over the surface, and if I could comment on a couple
of the things that we did that I think are really unique.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I mean, the other thing that I see on there is all the buffer
planting you’re doing, and I’m saying, well, in most instances we don’t see that up on the
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
lake, although we request it many times, but, I mean, you’ve got like a ton of stuff you’re
putting in up there that I see, but, you know, I mean, I assume that’s an attempt to make
things greener and to create that vegetative buffer zone for the runoff purposes, yes.
MR. GARRAND-It can only help.
MR. HUTCHINS-Which is always a goal of everybody. We’ve also used permeable
pavers on the patios, which I think are pretty neat, and just the driveway turnaround, and
walkway.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any other questions?
MR. DRELLOS-When it goes to Site Plan, even if we approve this, they could change a
little here and there, I guess.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. I mean, they can always have you add more plantings or
make the things bigger, the trenches.
MR. DRELLOS-Turn it this way or move it.
MR. GARRAND-Did you try to account for that in your Site Plan on this one? It looks like
it’s pretty much what they’d want.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I’ve taken a few lakefront site plans to the Planning Board. I know
what happens when you don’t (lost words).
MRS. JENKIN-Would you explain the rain garden to me?
MR. HUTCHINS-A (lost words) area that collects water and grows plants.
MRS. JENKIN-So is this going to be dug so that it is lower, or is it already there?
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s kind of there, but it’s going to be shaped. It will be shaped better. If
you went there, it is kind of a low area now, but it will be re-shaped and graded.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So it’s graded so that there is, will there be standing water in there
at any time, do you think?
MR. HUTCHINS-Not very often. For a short period of time after a high intensity rainfall
event there will probably be some water, but we don’t anticipate it being a pond, no.
MRS. JENKIN-And what kind of plants do you, do you actually plant plants in there, or
just let grass grow naturally?
MR. HUTCHINS-No, they’re planted, and there’s a plant schedule on S-4, and I don’t
proclaim to be a plant expert, but we did have a landscape architect do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there’s no other questions, I’ll open the public hearing. Is
there anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do you want to come
up?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. In general,
we support the variance request that has been attempted, or that has been requested,
and the attempts of the landowners to incorporate stormwater management into existing
development to reduce impacts to Lake George. We’d also like to recognize the buffer
proposal in the area of the boathouse, and also the incorporation of the low impact
development thoughts such as pervious pavement. We think that that is a good
suggestion. We’d like to make two points for consideration by the applicant. We would
suggest the use of another rain garden in lieu of the proposed eaves trenches earlier.
We’re not big fans of eaves trenches. We feel that rain gardens provide improved
stormwater treatment, to answer a couple of questions that Joan had. The importance
with rain gardens is you actually add amended soils. You work in about 30% compost
and organic materials in your soils, and you should provide about 12 inches of that. That
provides the ability for bacterial action, microbes to absorb the nutrients, and then the
plants which are specified take those up. So it helps with nutrient removal. That’s why
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
we encourage rain gardens. We’re glad to see that. Eaves trenches, we feel,
concentrate runoff near the foundation where soils are altered and require more
maintenance, collection of leaves and what not which prevents runoff into the trench.
We did have one question for the applicant, and we ask that they detail, there’s a note
that says they are looking at some vegetation removal up along the shoreline. So if that
could just be clarified, and that may be more of a Site Plan issue, but in general we
support their request and think it’s a good idea for the property.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else from the public? Any
correspondence?
MR. URRICO-I don’t believe there is any. No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-As I mentioned before, we’re sort of new to the runoff thing, and I
think everybody, you know, as an educational thing, you know, there’s two components
to runoff. There’s stormwater runoff which is, you know, the rain coming off the roof of
this house, and as everybody knows in a major rain event or a major precipitation event,
there’s a lot of it that comes off all at once, and there’s a limited capacity for the ground
to absorb that and I think these ideas that we’re now starting to see on a regular basis up
on the waterfront properties seem to me to be a pretty good idea. The rain gardens, the
things like that that actually hold the water and allow it to gradually absorb into the
ground, rather than allowing sheet flow to just stream off, and I think anybody who’s
spent time on Lake George, up on Pilot Knob, when it really rains on the mountain and
it’s coming down like a river everywhere, and no matter whether it’s a stream bed or it’s
bedrock, it’s water running everywhere. So there’s a limited capacity for absorption, but
on this point up here, as you’ve said, it’s sort of a unique situation. Nobody has a point
that’s surrounded, you know, on a peninsula like that. So, anything else you guys want
to add?
MR. DRELLOS-No, because I still think the Planning Board will really look at the issues.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think during Site Plan Review they’re going to, they may
tweak this and add, subtract, multiply, you know, the number of things that are needed
here on site, but, you know, it looks to me like you, I mean, when have we seen one with
this much vegetation planting and things like that?
MR. DRELLOS-It’s one of the better ones.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I’m sure they’re going to take the Water Keeper’s opinion
into account also, as far as whether the eaves trenches are going to work or not or if they
want something bigger, it’s not that big of a deal to add what’s requested.
MR. HUTCHINS-I’ll comment on that if you want.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. HUTCHINS-Chris and I, we have a friendly disagreement on the use of eaves
trenches, and both of us I think could make our point. I like them, in this particular case,
because we’re dealing with the runoff before it runs anywhere, except off the roof. It
comes down off the roof, and it doesn’t have to run across a lawn, it doesn’t have to go in
a pipe. It is instantly infiltrated, and it deals with the small duration storm event as well,
the half inch rainfall. In a very small rainfall some of these things may not ever, may not
see any runoff, and in this case it does. We don’t have a basement. I wouldn’t use it if
we had a basement in the building. It’s a crawl space. The water wouldn’t be an issue
against the foundation, and I like them, and Chris isn’t a fan of them, and we both know
that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think the other thing, too, is, topographically speaking, if it’s
not as steep an area, like you have here it’s pretty reasonably level an area to speak of,
and with all the layering of vegetation between there and the water, too, that mitigates it
also. So that’s not going to hurt it.
MR. HUTCHINS-And I’m sure we’ll have that discussion again at Site Plan Review.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. All right. Do you guys want to go ahead and vote on this
one? Do you guys have any concerns?
MR. DRELLOS-Let’s do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want me to do it, or do you want to do it?
MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2009 MASTOLONI FAMILY, LLC,
Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by George
Drellos:
18 Neighbors Way. The applicant proposes to renovate a 2,020 square foot existing
nonconforming single family dwelling to include raising the roof and the construction of
an 810 square foot first story addition, the addition of 65 feet to the second story and
associated site improvements. The applicant requests relief of 80 feet from the 100 foot
minimum setback requirement per Section 147-9 for infiltration devices associated with
rain garden on the north portion of the parcel. Further, the applicant requests 66.32 feet
of relief from the 100 foot minimum setback requirement per 147-9 for infiltration devices
associated with eaves trenches abutting the house to the east. Finally, the applicant
requests 53 feet of relief for infiltration devices associated with eaves trenches abutting
the house to the west. On the balancing test, the first consideration we take into account
is whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Given
the nature of this property, it’s more or less a point, any stormwater control is going to
require some sort of variances. It’s a point, and the configuration is going to require a
variance. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character of
nearby properties? I cannot foresee any change to the neighborhood. As a matter of
fact, with the landscape design and the site improvements, I think it will improve the
neighborhood. As stated by counsel, given the nature of the Ordinance, this may be
deemed substantial. Whether this request will have adverse physical or environmental
effects on the neighborhood. I think the proposal by the applicant can only help. So it
will have no adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood as near as
we can tell. Whether this difficulty is self-created. I don’t believe it is self-created as
stated in the Staff Notes. Like I said before, given the configuration of this lot, anything
they do here is basically going to require a variance. So I move that we approve Area
Variance No. 31-2009.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Zanghi,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We’re done, but just to question you guys, we’ve got the
new Zoning Code. Do you guys want to have like a workshop meeting and get paid to
come and learn about?
MRS. JENKIN-That would be a great idea.
MR. DRELLOS-How about Wednesday?
MR. UNDERWOOD-What do you suggest, date wise? I mean, Craig’s going to have to
confirm it, but, have you got any dates in mind?
MR. OBORNE-I would tentatively schedule it, why don’t you do a resolution for, what
th
have we got here, the 24.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Of June?
st
MR. OBORNE-Of June, or the 1 of July.
thst
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. The 24 of June or 1 of July we’ll have Craig e-mail us what
th
he prefers and we’ll figure out what we can do. The 24 is probably better. That’s next
week, because we don’t have our second.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/09)
MR. OBORNE-Well, do both.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We’ll do it as an either or.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, when would we have it?
MR. UNDERWOOD-The same time, seven o’clock. We’ll just meet here.
MRS. JENKIN-But we have the ZBA?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, we don’t have a second meeting this month. We’ve only got the
one meeting.
MRS. JENKIN-That’s fine, then, that’s even better.
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So I’ll make the recommendation that we do it on the 24,
to Craig.
MR. OBORNE-And if that doesn’t work?
MR. UNDERWOOD-And if that doesn’t work then we’ll have to re-confirm with everybody
st
for the 1. Are we going to be real busy next month?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are we going to need three meetings?
MR. OBORNE-You just tabled three tonight. That’s probably going to put you at about
14.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then we’re going to three for sure, because I think the past
we get into this situation, and it just becomes overwhelming.
MR. OBORNE-Do you want to come in?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll come in and we can figure out what we want to do where.
MR. OBORNE-The best time would be Friday.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This Friday. So Friday morning I’ll show up and we’ll do it.
That sounds good. I’ll be there early.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
31