2011.09.21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2011
INDEX
Sign Variance No. 42-2011 GRJH, Inc. Exit 18 Citgo 2.
Tax Map No. 309.14-1-6
Area Variance No. 55-2011 Janet Whalen 9.
Tax Map No. 303.5-1-5
Area Variance No. 45-2011 David & Evelyn Dufresne (Cont’d Pg. 20) 11.
Tax Map No. 239.8-1-13
Area Variance No. 60-2011 Randy Savage 18.
Tax Map No. 301.7-2-4
Sign Variance No. 53-2011 Hospitality Syracuse, Inc. 21.
Tax Map No. 309.13-2-2, 3
Area Variance No. 59-2011 Martin & Susan Farber 23.
Tax Map No. 239.17-1-10
Area Variance No. 57-2011 Teakwood Builders, Inc. 27.
Tax Map No. 308.18-2-71
Area Variance No. 56-2011 Dean & Pamela Romer 31.
Tax Map No. 297.10-1-49
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 09/21/2011)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 2011
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOYCE HUNT
RICHARD GARRAND
RONALD KUHL
BRIAN CLEMENTS
JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. I’d like to call to order this evening’s meeting of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven’t been here in the past, on
the back table is a general description of how tonight’s meeting will run. We will call to the front
table here each applicant. We will read the application into the record and then ask for comment
and open public hearings, etc. So at first we have some housekeeping work to do. We’re going
th
to go through and approve six sets of meeting minutes and we will start with the April 20
meeting minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 20, 2011
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF
APRIL 20, 2011, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard
Garrand:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
April 27, 2011
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF
APRIL 27, 2011, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy
Urrico:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Koskinas
June 22, 2011
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF
JUNE 22, 2011, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Koskinas:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
June 29, 2011
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF
JUNE 29, 2011, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian
Clements:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
July 20, 2011
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF
JULY 20, 2011, Introduced by John Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce
Hunt:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Hunt
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
July 27, 2011
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF
JULY 27, 2011, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Clements
OLD BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 42-2011 SEQRA UNLISTED GRJH, INC. EXIT 18 CITGO AGENT(S)
W. LLOYD HELM ZONING MAIN STREET LOCATION 107 MAIN STREET APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 45 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT
RESTRICTIONS FOR THE MAIN STREET ZONING DESIGNATION. APPLICANT TABLED
TO THIS DATE; NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED. CROSS REF BP 2011-103 SF SIGN;
BP 2008-054 NEW COM’L BLDG; SP 52-2007; AV 23-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
JULY 13, 2011 LOT SIZE 0.98 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-6 SECTION CHAPTER 140
CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 42-2011, GRJH, Inc. Exit 18 Citgo, Meeting Date:
September 21, 2011 “Project Location: 107 Main Street Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant has constructed a 35.7 sq. ft., 19 ft, 3 inch tall freestanding sign within the front yard
setback for freestanding signs.
Relief Required:
Note: No new information submitted.
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1.Front setback – Relief request for 2.1 feet of front setback relief from the 15 foot setback
requirement for freestanding signs as per §140-6B(2)(a).
2.Sign Height – Relief request for 7 feet, 3 inches of height relief from the 12 foot maximum
allowed as per §140-6B(4)(a)(1).
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives short of placing
the sign 15 feet from the property line and reducing the height down to 12 feet appear limited
due to existing as-built conditions.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 2.1 feet or 14% relief
from the 15 foot setback requirement for freestanding signs as per §140-6B(2)(a) may be
considered minor relative to the ordinance. The request for 7 feet 3 inches or 61% relief
from the 12 foot height requirement for freestanding signs as per §140-6B(4)(a)(1) may be
considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance.
Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on
an empirical calculation and not subjective reasoning.
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 or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
S.P. 52-2007M Site Plan Modifications Approved 8/19/08
S.P. 52-2007 2,400 sq. ft. Gas station/Convenience store Approved 12/18/07
A.V. 23-2007 Setback relief Approved 4/18/07
Staff comments:
This application was tabled at the request of the applicant to the September 21, 2011 ZBA
meeting in order to confer with his partners on a course of action. Further, the ZBA gave the
applicant further choice to table as he also wished to have the potential for a full board present
for this variance request.
SEQR Status:
Unlisted – Short Form attached”
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and good evening, and just for the public here, we will have a public
hearing and this also is a SEQRA application. Good evening.
MR. WILKINSON-Good evening. For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson with Paragon Civil
Engineering representing GRJH. Next to me is Lloyd from GRJH who was here at the last
meeting. Just to recap, again, I wasn’t here at the last meeting so I don’t know what was
presented and I may repeat things, but I wanted to make sure that my professional opinion and
involvement with the project was expressed to you guys as a Board and so you know maybe a
bigger picture, maybe not. I’ll explain it anyway. Back about three years ago, this project was
in for a Site Plan Review. At that time, we got the Site Plan approval re-locating the sign to an
approved location. We moved the sign to that location and found out it didn’t conform to the
front setback because there was a taking by the County and the State in the meantime along the
front road corridor. That was the biggest reason why it doesn’t meet now. We, at this time I’ve
conferred and we are willing to re-locate the sign to meet the front yard setback and call it an
existing nonconforming sign that was re-located under the Site Plan which was what originally
occurred to begin with I don’t know if that’s possible. I don’t know if that changes your actions
tonight, but in my opinion that’s the avenue that we would like to choose is be able to move that
sign at least horizontally so that we’re not asking for a front variance anymore. However, it is an
existing nonconforming sign that we re-located under the Site Plan and therefore we may or
may not have to have a variance for that. So that’s where our position is tonight and we’re here
to open it up and hear comments, discussion from the Board, questions, whatever.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Do any Board members have any questions at this time?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. CLEMENTS-I have one.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Brian.
MR. CLEMENTS-What about the height?
MR. WILKINSON-The height is the existing height that it always was and always has been. We
just re-located the sign.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MR. KUHL-I have a question for Keith. If they would have moved it to the right location, they
wouldn’t be here?
MR. OBORNE-Not necessarily. They’d still need the height. They need height relief.
MR. KUHL-But if they would have moved it before the new regs, they would have been in
compliance, correct?
MR. OBORNE-That would be a safe assumption, but I don’t make that determination.
MR. JACKOSKI-But every sign going forward has to come into conformance on height.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-Under the new Code, in five years. Is that correct?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. KOSKINAS-You understand that, sir, that within five years you’re going to have to make
that sign conform. If you’re going to take it down and move it, I don’t understand why you don’t
lop a couple of feet off that post and put it back together and never think about your sign again.
LLOYD HELM
MR. HELM-I just feel that height was never an issue before. I never applied for a height
variance, and we had to re-locate the sign because the County took our property or paid us for
our property, and now all of a sudden they’re asking us to not only do two feet, which in my
opinion doesn’t, aesthetically no one’s even going to tell the difference, but you also want us to
cut it down to 12 feet.
MR. CLEMENTS-I think what we’re saying here is in five years you’re going to have to do that
anyway.
MR. WILKINSON-The way the Code is written, within five years you’re going to be forced to do it
anyway.
MR. HELM-So we’ll do it in five years.
MR. KOSKINAS-You’re asking this Board to grant you a variance knowing that you’re going to
take the sign now and re-locate it and in five years you’re going to take it down to shorten it.
MR. HELM-Yes, I am, sir.
MR. JACKOSKI-Does anyone else have any questions at this time before I open the public
hearing? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I’d like to open up the public
hearing. If there’s anyone here in the audience who’d like to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, Roy, do we have any written comment?
MR. URRICO-I do not see any written comment of any kind.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. For now I’m going to keep the public hearing open. Any other questions
or comments from Board members?
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have a comment. I feel very strongly that we were trying to make this
corridor more friendly more present and I would not be in favor of a height variance. I think we
should follow the new rules and make the signs height compliant.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce, thank you. Roy, why don’t we start at that end.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. I think as long as we’re going to be moving the sign that
we have to adjust it to the correct height.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. John?
MR. KOSKINAS-Absolutely. It’s a new corridor. We have an opportunity to do things right. The
applicant has an opportunity that’s presented himself fully and he’s got to take the sign down
anyway, shortening it to a compliant height is appropriate. I wouldn’t support this variance
request.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I agree with the applicant. I think that, you know, the 2.1 feet is pretty
negligible, but I disagree with the applicant that, you know, doing it five years as opposed to
now, with it being a feasible alternative with them taking, moving the sign anyway, I think it’s
definitely presenting an opportunity to make it more compliant.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I think the applicant’s got the choice to do it right the first time or re-do it and
I’m in favor of doing it right the first time. I think it should be brought down. The corridor is built.
It’s nice. It’s new, and why not make a new sign or bring your sign down where it looks right. So
I’m against it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I agree with the rest of the Board. I would be against it also since it’s coming
down. You might as well set the height, too.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR. WILKINSON-If you don’t mind, I have a question for Keith, I believe. The Main Street
corridor, does that end at the Northway or does that continue past the Northway?
MR. OBORNE-Lloyd’s property is where it ends.
MR. WILKINSON-Okay. So we’re at the very end of the Main Street corridor. The other point is
that this sign actually physically faces the Northway, since that’s where the majority of the
customers are going to see it from, and that’s how it’s posted that way. I mean, it’s a
perpendicular road, but the Northway is right there, too, and the visibility from the Northway is
what they’re looking for. So with those other points in mind, we also can physically re-locate it
so that it’s possibly back further on the property so it’s not out 15 feet from the front property so
it’s still visible from the Northway, and then we get into a discussion of, well, it’s not on the front
yard, it’s on the side yard, and is that, does that warrant the Main Street corridor. I’m trying to
throw it out there to see if there’s any leeway or play at all in any of the Board members to see if
you can, you know, take another look at this from another perspective, again especially since
the Main Street corridor does end right at this property and the Northway is right there, and
that’s what the visibility is, wants.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand that, and I appreciate that. I think, though, if you look at it as that it
ends there. I look at it as that it begins there because you’re coming off the highway and you’re
entering into Queensbury.
MR. WILKINSON-True, I agree.
MR. JACKOSKI-So Roy has another comment.
MR. URRICO-Well, given a choice, I’d rather the sign stay where it is and have it lowered than
grant the height variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand that.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. CLEMENTS-Excuse me. I have a question for Keith. Do you know of any other signs
along that corridor now that are out of compliance and are higher that would be, as a matter of
fact, what’s the gas station signs?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t know on first blush, you know, where they would be, to be honest with
you. Maybe the Cumberland Farms, I’m not sure. I’m sure there are freestanding signs that are
not compliant along the Main Street corridor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Carl R’s certainly has got an awfully tall sign.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-The DeSantis family will be back in here, too.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and that’s the intent of the Code, obviously.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right. I mean, you’ve got to understand that we’re only here to grant the
variances associated with the Code that the Town put in place. So we didn’t develop the Code.
We’re just trying to follow the Code.
MR. WILKINSON-Well aware, appreciate that.
MRS. HUNT-And aren’t there signs on the Northway to indicate that there’s a gas station?
MR. WILKINSON-Yes, the help signs, the blue ones with the pictures on them, yes there are.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think you have a unanimous Board against the current application, and I
know you wanted a full Board here. I’m opening to listen to.
MR. HELM-Well, would you let us leave the existing location of the sign and just lower it?
MR. WILKINSON-That sounded like something that Mr. Urrico put on the table.
MR. JACKOSKI-That’s feasible. Why don’t we, again, we still have the public hearing open.
Why don’t we poll the Board again, just so you get a fair representation of what they’re all
thinking. We’ll start at the other end this time.
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. My answer would be yes, I think so, because you’re looking at 2.1 feet
setback, and I think you’re absolutely right. You’re not even going to notice that. As far as the
height is concerned, I think you will. So I would be in favor of that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Ron?
MR. KUHL-I still believe you should move it and lower it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I think it’s a reasonable compromise.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. KOSKINAS-When it comes to just being reasonable, I can see what you’re asking, and I
don’t think it’s an unreasonable request. I think being height compliant is critical, but I’ll say, as
a member of this Board, and understanding what this Board’s function is, that you’re supposed
to have, when you ask for a variance, you’re supposed to have some hardship, something’s
wrong, something’s problematic.
MR. WILKINSON-There was a taking in the front.
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, and just a moment ago you didn’t have a problem with the two feet, you
were voluntarily moving the sign into compliance.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. KOSKINAS-And asking could you keep the height, and now you’re asking can you be non-
compliant, having to take the sign down to lower the height, can you be non-compliant. I don’t
see the hardship. So I have to tell you, understanding my responsibility here, and not trying to
be unreasonable, I understand that you want to do as little as possible and you only want what
you want when you want it, like everyone else who comes here, but I think that here’s an
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
opportunity to do this correctly, and setting, also, a standard for every other applicant who
presents themselves to this Board, and I think if we want that corridor to be a pleasant entry to
the Town of Queensbury, we have a great opportunity, and thanks to your cooperative approach
to it, I think you can set a standard as good citizenship. So I’d like to see you make it compliant.
MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with Mr. Koskinas. I think he makes a very cogent point. I agree.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Well, I put this on the table and I’m going to stick with it, that if you keep it where it
is, I understand the situation that occurs. It was a change in the rules along the time that you
were putting in the sign in, and that was a game changer I think. So I’d be in favor of leaving it in
this location but lowering the request, deleting the height variance.
MRS. HUNT-Now that area around the bottom of the sign, has that been cemented in or?
MR. WILKINSON-It has to sit in a concrete pillar.
MRS. HUNT-Has it been done yet?
MR. WILKINSON-It’s in the concrete. That’s how it has to be set or else it can’t be stood up.
Because the sign itself, if the wind comes, it’s got moments and stuff, and it has to have (lost
words).
MRS. HUNT-Around there, all of the connections and everything are all cemented in?
MR. WILKINSON-Through the base of the light, yes, all the electrical is in and everything else.
Getting to it is all in conduit, and that was what I was going to respond to you, Mr. Koskinas, is
that the only benefit to doing it the way that Mr. Urrico put on the table is that we wouldn’t have
to move that gigantic concrete base, and the other point that can go with that as well is that if
you look at the property map, Main Street comes up, but then there’s an angle that goes up
toward the Northway branch. So to be offset from that 15 feet is actually further than 15 feet
from the Main Street actual corridor. So that’s why the appearance, you know, again, maybe we
should have taken that approach first, but we were looking for more of the visibility from the
Northway at first from a business standpoint. That’s why we didn’t suggest the other way the
first time. So, again, you know, just trying to negotiate and find the best for everyone. I
appreciate your comments and I understand exactly where you’re coming from with the Board.
MR. KOSKINAS-You’re on good ground because you don’t need a unanimous yes here.
MR. JACKOSKI-A couple of questions from me. The signage that you’re applying to the bottom
of the post, which appears permanent but it’s clearly temporary, what are your future plans for
signage like that on the parcel?
MR. HELM-We get barraged from SUNOCO with perimeter signs like that all the time, and also
Price Chopper who sends sign checkers out to all our locations to see whether we have proper
signage up in the windows. So we do, we get those. They are temporary. They come once
every quarter out with a new one. We try to keep the signs at our stations from our tenants to a
minimum with all the Marlboro and beer bombardments that they try to put up everywhere, but
we do like to have some ability to have local promotions attached to the signs.
MR. JACKOSKI-But if we were to grant your application this evening, you realize we’re not
granting you the ability to put up those temporary signs? Keith, in that corridor, is there any
restriction or additional requirements or anything that would prohibit temporary signs?
MR. OBORNE-Temporary signs are illegal.
MR. WILKINSON-The election campaigns, remember all that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and I know that. There’s an ATM sign out there also, right? Is that going
to stay?
MR. HELM-I didn’t realize there was an ATM sign.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is that what that little red, I can’t remember.
MR. OBORNE-Hanging off the side? That says diesel.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. HELM-We have diesel.
MR. JACKOSKI-Diesel, right.
MR. HELM-That’s permanent.
MR. JACKOSKI-Because it’s the corridor, and because we are going through the modification of
this thing, and because of the taking, I’m going to be okay with leaving it where it is, but it’s got
to be reduced, but I also would be in preference of not having those temporary signs. So I don’t
know how we want to make a motion to move forward.
MR. GARRAND-Just make a motion to approve the 2.1 feet. That’s all.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and then it’s up to Code compliance to monitor the temporary signage. I
did leave the public hearing open, and there wasn’t anyone in the audience at the time I had
called. Is there anyone who’s joined the audience who’d like to speak on this application?
Seeing no one, and knowing that there’s no written comment, I’m going to close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And ask for a motion to approve, and we need to move through SEQRA.
MR. OBORNE-That’s correct, and also you, as a condition of, during the polling, you wanted the
temporary sign removed.
MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. And I’ll get to that when we have discussion on that. So could
someone put forth SEQRA?
BASED ON THE INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS AND ANY SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO I MOVE WE
GIVE THIS A SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 42-2011 GRJH, INC. EXIT 18 CITGO,
Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
107 Main Street. The applicant is GRJH Incorporated. The applicant has constructed a 35.7
square foot 19 foot 3 inch tall freestanding sign within the front yard setback. I move that we
grant relief for 2.1 feet of front setback relief from the 15 foot setback requirement for
freestanding signs as per 140-6B(2)(a), and the Board has looked at the criteria and we agree
that there might be minor impacts to the neighborhood, that feasible alternatives are short of
placing the sign 15 feet from the property line, but we have asked the applicant to reduce the
height down to 12 feet, and the request is for 2.41 feet or 14% relief from 15 foot setback
requirement for freestanding signs. That we are not approving temporary signage around that
pole or off that pole on a permanent basis. I move that we approve this variance.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-And given the motion that was put forth by Roy, and the discussion that I’d like
to have to make mention that we amend that motion to include that we are not approving
temporary signage around that pole or off that pole. Any further discussion?
MR. KOSKINAS-Can I ask a question?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
MR. KOSKINAS-Is that making mention, or is it a condition that no temporary signs be
presented on this plot? As a condition of this variance?
MR. URRICO-My question is, is there a definition of temporary signs?
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. GARRAND-That’s what I was trying to avoid.
MR. KOSKINAS-They’re not allowed.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. GARRAND-That’s why I was just going to make a motion, and to condition it on something
that’s already not allowed seems.
MR. OBORNE-A sign used for the short term advertising limited to 60 days.
MR. URRICO-So beyond the 60 days.
MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. The problem is you change out copy, does that start the 60 day clock
again?
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-So again, I’ll just mention that we’re not going to allow temporary signs like that
on a permanent basis, but I do understand the Code, and we will allow Code Enforcement to
manage the Code.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas
MR. WILKINSON-Thank you for your time.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. We appreciate it.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2011 SEQRA TYPE II JANET WHALEN OWNER(S) JANET
WHALEN ZONING MDR LOCATION 15 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
A 384 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR
DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2011-276, BP 2011-293 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
AUGUST 10, 2011 LOT SIZE 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-5 SECTION 179-3-040
JANET WHALEN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2011, Janet Whalen, Meeting Date: September 21,
2011 “Project Location: 15 Meadowbrook Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes a 384 square foot attached garage to a single family dwelling.
Relief Required:
Relief requested from the front and side setback requirements of the MDR District as per §179-
3-040.
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1.Front setback – Request for 0.8 feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement.
2.Side setback – Request for 20.8 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement.
3.The expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by this board as per
§179-13-010F.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Concerning the front setback relief
requested, a feasible alternative would be to place the building 0.8 feet to the west in order
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
to become compliant. Concerning the side setback relief requested, feasible alternatives
appear limited.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 0.8 feet or 2.6% relief
from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the MDR zone may be considered minor
relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 20.8 feet or 83.2% relief from the 25 foot
side setback requirement for the MDR zone may be considered severe relative to the
ordinance. Finally, the expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by this
board.
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 or
environmental conditions in the district may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2011-276 Deck Approved 7/2011
BP 2011-093 Garage addition Pending
Staff comments:
According to the applicant, the garage has been located to line up with the existing structure,
necessitating front setback relief.
SEQR Status:
Type II-no further action required”
MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening, welcome, and if you could state your name for the record, and if
you have anything additional to add to that, we’d like to hear so.
MS. WHALEN-Okay. My name is Janet Whalen and I live at 15 Meadowbrook Road,
Queensbury, and I really don’t have anything to add to it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Do any Board members have any questions at this time?
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes. What are the drawbacks associated with placing the garage on the Cline
Avenue side? You have a trailer parked over there.
MS. WHALEN-The problem with that is entrance into the house. At that end of the house, there
are two bedrooms and a bathroom.
MR. KOSKINAS-And where does the deck open to?
MS. WHALEN-The deck is open from a small room off of the kitchen.
MR. KOSKINAS-So, well, I was just looking, when I was looking there, there’s a brand new
house next door to you.
MS. WHALEN-Correct.
MR. KOSKINAS-And while I see how this works for you, I was wondering how the owner of that
brand new home will feel when we’re so close to that boundary line. So just asking. I don’t
think what you’re asking is terribly severe, but if it could go on the Cline Avenue side and you
could come in that back entrance, you could probably almost make it without any variance at all,
and I think you can, actually.
MS. WHALEN-I probably could, but it’s really not that feasible where if you come in your front,
I’d have to have a different driveway, and the entrance where you usually enter either in the front
of your house or your kitchen or porch.
MR. KOSKINAS-I just wanted to ask.
MS. WHALEN-I’m 61 now. I can’t see me traipsing through the back up onto a deck and then
into the house.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone else at this time who’d like to ask any questions on this
application? Okay. Seeing no other additional questions at this time, I’d like to open up the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who’d like to address this Board
concerning this application? Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-Including from the adjoining neighbor, no written comment, right? Have you
spoken?
MS. WHALEN-I have a letter of an agreement to it. I sent a letter in that he signed.
MR. URRICO-It’s in the application?
MR. JACKOSKI-It’s handwritten. I’ll go ahead and read this into the record, if I can, because I
can’t say the last name. What’s the last name of the neighbor?
MS. WHALEN-Collette.
MR. JACKOSKI-It is Collette. I, Brad Collette, of 11 Meadowbrook, have no problem with Janet
Whalen putting a garage up at 15 Meadowbrook Road. And it’s signed by Brad Collette on June
12, 2011. Okay. So we’ve read in the public comment. We have no one addressing this Board.
So I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to put forth a motion?
MR. KOSKINAS-I’ll do it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, John.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2011 JANET WHALEN, Introduced by John
Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
15 Meadowbrook Road. Granting the expansion of a nonconforming structure and the following
relief: 0.8 feet from the 30 foot front setback requirement and 20.8 feet from the 25 foot south
side setback requirement, finding that no undesirable change to the character of the
neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties would be created; that the applicant does not
have reasonable alternatives not involving an Area Variance; that the variance is not deemed to
be substantial; that the variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood; and that the applicant’s difficulty is considered to be self-
created. I move for approval.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Thank you.
MS. WHALEN-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2011 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE AGENT(S)
J. LAPPER, ESQ.; S. BITTER, ESQ BPSR OWNER(S) DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE
ZONING WR LOCATION 24 BRAYTON ROAD APPLICANT HAS REMOVED A 665 SQ. FT.
DECK AND PARTIALLY BUILT A NEW 647 SQ. FT. DECK IN ITS PLACE. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
EXISTING DECK. IN ADDITION, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMEABILITY
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE AS A RESULT OF THE PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED
UNAPPROVED 239 SQ. FT. PATIO. CROSS REF AV 45-2011; AV 46-2011; BP 2011-141
DECK; BP 2011-142 BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK; SP 47-2011; BP 99-469; AV 81-1998 AV
81-1999; BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 60,98 APPROVING SANITARY SEWAGE
VARIANCE; BP 98-785 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 13, 2011;
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 239.8-1-13 SECTION 179-3-040
JOHN WRIGHT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-This application has been in front of this Board before, and I don’t know that we
need to read the application back into the record.
MR. OBORNE-I would suggest that you do because the application is back before the Board
because of the patio aspect of this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Roy, read it all in.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2011, David & Evelyn Dufresne, Meeting Date:
September 21, 2011 “Project Location: 24 Brayton Road Description of Proposed Project:
Relief requested from shoreline and side setback requirements for the existing deck. In
addition, relief requested from permeability requirements of the WR zone as a result of the
previously installed unapproved 329 sq. ft. patio.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1.Side setback – Request for 5.1 feet of side setback relief from the 12 foot side setback
requirement for the WR District for the existing deck as per §179-3-040.
2.Shoreline setback – Request for 21.9 feet of shoreline setback relief from the 50 foot
requirement for the WR District for the existing deck as per §179-3-040.
3.Permeability – Request for an additional 201.2 square feet or 1.1% increase in on-site
impermeable surfacing from the existing impermeable surfacing of 49.9% as per §179-3-
040.
4.Expansion of a non-conforming structure requires the approval of the ZBA as per §179-
13-010F.
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 the neighborhood may be anticipated as permeability relief is now
sought, after the fact, for a parcel that currently has 51% impermeable surfacing.
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. Lot limitations and existing conditions
appear to preclude any feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than an area
variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 5.1 feet or 42.5% relief
from the 12 foot side setback requirement for the deck as per §179-3-040 may be
considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Request for 21.9 feet or 44% of shoreline
setback relief from the 50 foot requirement for the deck may be considered moderate relative
to the ordinance. Further, the request for 201.2 square feet or 1.1% increase to on-site
impermeability after the fact for the existing patio may be considered moderate given
existing conditions. Finally, expansion of a non-conforming structure (deck) requires the
approval of this board.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated as any decrease to
permeability on this parcel may be detrimental to water quality.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
A.V. 81-99: setback/FAR relief for 276 sq. ft. porch Approved 7/21/99
A.V. 81-98: setback/FAR relief for 276 sq. ft. porch Denied 11/18/98
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes the removal of two existing sheds totaling 109 square feet. The existing
on-site impermeable surfacing stands at 6,051.8 square feet or 51.0%. With the removal of the
sheds and reduction of 18.7 square feet from the deck, the resulting on-site impermeable
surfacing proposed is 5,923.8 or 49.9%.
The applicant proposes to remove the bump out area which was slated as a platform for the
stairs on the western portion of the deck in order to not encroach further into the side setback.
The installation date of the patio cannot be confirmed at this point in time although it is reference
in the application narrative as 2001. However, Town of Queensbury aerial photographs from
2001 and 2004 appear to show grass in the area of the existing patio and the 2008 aerial photo
is inconclusive.
Planning Board Recommendation handout before board.
SEQR Status:
Type II-no further action required”
MR. URRICO-And then there was a motion to make a second recommendation on behalf of the
Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance No. 45-2011, David and
Evelyn Dufresne, according to the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on
its limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated
with the current project proposal. And that was approved unanimously on September 20, 2011.
MR. JACKOSKI-And this is going back to the Planning Board, correct?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct, sir.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we’ve obviously had this application in front of us. We’ve heard the
narrative now twice and we’ve certainly talked about the patio the past meeting we had. Do you
have anything additional you’d like to add to the discussion?
MR. WRIGHT-Yes, Mr. Chairman. For the record, John Wright on behalf of the applicant, and
as was just discussed, this application was in front of this Board back in July. It was tabled to
today’s date based on some concerns about the patio and the reason the patio is a concern is
that, the main reason is that it increases the impervious area on the lot. With respect to how the
patio came to be, my client’s hired a landscaper to do it and the landscaper assured them it was
compliant. Clearly wrong, but not unreasonable for them to rely on a local guy to know the rules.
So, you know, it wasn’t maliciously done, no malicious intent, and they’ve taken steps with this
new plan to mitigate the change in permeability of the site. This was reviewed by the Planning
Board, as was discussed. There’s a landscaping plan in place that the Planning Board reviewed
and will review again, should we get there, and they unanimously supported the plan that was
put together by Mr. Miller. The applicant’s going to remove two sheds to cut down on the
impervious area of the site, and there’s only about a 1.1% increase in impervious area, and we
think that’s relatively minor, especially in light of the landscaping plan that’s going to go into
effect to deal with any runoff, to more effectively deal with the runoff at the site. With respect to
the setbacks, I know those setbacks, the setback variances are, Staff says moderate effects and
the neighbors are supportive of the setbacks and it was a pre-existing nonconforming deck that,
you know, has not gotten any more nonconforming, but as it stands right now, the deck is
partially constructed. It has no railings, and so we’re hoping to get the Board’s approval tonight
so we can get that finished. As it is right now, it’s not safe for the applicant’s kids and grandkids
to be out there on that deck, and so I have nothing further. If there are questions from the
Board, I’d be happy to address them.
MR. JACKOSKI-The landscaper that was used, is he aware now that hard surfacing that close
to the shoreline is?
MR. WRIGHT-I don’t know if they’ve been back in touch with him to let him know of their current
predicament. I don’t know the answer to that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do you know who that was?
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. WRIGHT-I think we can find out. Do you guys have a name?
DUFRESNE
MR. DUFRESNE-I believe it was Miller.
MR. WRIGHT-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-He did the work?
MR. WRIGHT-That’s what they’re advising me. So, again, you know, they realize now that, like I
said, they shouldn’t have relied on that. They should have looked a little more closely at the
Code, but I don’t think it was unreasonable and it certainly wasn’t malicious, but again, they’ve
taken steps to mitigate it. This is a good plan. It’s going to improve the area. It’s going to
improve the site, and it’s, you know, it’s good for the lake and it’s good for the surrounding area.
So, with that, we’d ask you to approve.
MR. JACKOSKI-Counselor, this lot is severely over built to Code. Has the Water Keeper
reviewed this at all and given recommendations?
MR. WRIGHT-The Water Keeper spoke at the last meeting and I reviewed those minutes earlier
today, and what Mr. Navitsky said was if this Board’s going to grant a variance, we’d like to see
a landscaping plan, and we’ve done that, and it’s a landscaping plan that the Planning Board
has looked at and unanimously supported.
MR. GARRAND-Does the Water Keeper look at that at all?
MR. JACKOSKI-Can I just interject? I don’t think the Planning Board as yet supported that plan.
They’ve come back to us with a recommendation that they don’t see anything that can’t be
mitigated. So they haven’t approved the landscaping plan.
MR. WRIGHT-That’s correct, Mr. Chairman, that’s correct. I’m sorry.
MR. GARRAND-Has the Water Keeper seen this mitigation plan?
MR. WRIGHT-I believe there was some landscaping plan mentioned at the last meeting. I don’t
know that he’s seen the in detail plan as of yet, but certainly we have to go back to the Planning
Board with the specifics of that plan as far as the extent and type and quantity of plantings, and
if past experience is any indicator, I think Mr. Navitsky would probably involve himself in that
process at that time.
MR. JACKOSKI-And fortunately the Water Keeper is here this evening and I have a feeling he’ll
be addressing us during public comments. So we won’t have to theorize what he might suggest
or say.
MR. WRIGHT-That’s fine, and if he doesn’t have a copy, I could certainly allow him to take a
look at it if that would help.
MR. KUHL-The history on this is it was a rotting deck that was going to be repaired and had to
be totally re-built. Is that so?
MR. WRIGHT-That’s how it started. They thought it was going to be a deck repair, and as with a
lot of projects like that, when you start tearing things apart, you find more and more that needs
to be done.
MR. KUHL-And the footprint stayed the same as it was?
MR. WRIGHT-Right. It’s not any more nonconforming.
MR. CLEMENTS-I would just like to ask a question for clarification. As you look at that picture
right there, that part that juts out, the last time we met, was that going to be removed?
MR. WRIGHT-That is part of the plan. That bump out I think it was called is going to be
removed and that’s part of the decrease in impermeable area.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. So the total plan is to remove that and then to do some plantings in
front to help with the absorption of water from the non-permeable surface that’s in front of the
deck?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. WRIGHT-That’s correct. Plantings, essentially, the plan as it’s drawn now, everything on
the lake side of the property is planted except for where the set of steps go down to the lake.
So it’s plantings and mulch.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you.
MR. GARRAND-How many trees are in that planting?
MR. WRIGHT-In the projected proposed, or right now?
MR. GARRAND-What you propose.
MR. WRIGHT-They were too numerous for me to count. Is this something, I mean, I can show
this to the Board if you’d like to have a look at it.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think the Board is struggling, quite honestly, with this much hard surfacing this
close to the lake, being so new.
MR. WRIGHT-I don’t know how well you can.
MR. JACKOSKI-We can see that.
MR. OBORNE-There are no trees as part of this plan. There are quite a few shrubs and quite a
few perennials involved in this. There are, there is a large tree on the southern part of that
parcel.
MR. WRIGHT-And certainly they’re willing to work with the Planning Board on the specifics of
the planting.
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing that we have no additional comments from members of the Board, I
think at this time we’ll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, on this one are there any written records?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-If you could read those into the record first, and then we’ll open up the
audience.
MR. URRICO-I would suggest that I hold one letter until after the public comment period is over,
rd
if it needs to be read in. There’s one letter here dated August 23. “To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter concerning a shed on the property of David & Evelyn Dufresne. The shed
does not block my view and is not an eyesore. It is well constructed and I have no problems
with it. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Ken Piacente” 903
Waterford-Mechanicville Road Mechanicville, NY 12118, and that’s all I have. The other one I
believe was read in.
MR. OBORNE-I will say that the shed that is mentioned in that letter is going away.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is being removed, correct.
MR. OBORNE-For the Board’s edification.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and having read all the current written comment on this application, is
there anyone in the audience who’d like to address this Board? And we do have someone. Mr.
Navitsky.
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We appreciate the
Town of Queensbury’s oversight of the observed unpermitted activities and inquiry about the
patio which were non-compliant with the Town Code. As our previous letter stated, the
variances are requested in a densely developed area of Cleverdale and the lake that was
developed prior to the adoption of the Town Codes. It is our opinion any additional land use and
development in this area must be balanced and have mitigation measures implemented to
reduce the potential negative impacts to water quality as well as for the benefit of the
community. We believe the application does not provide justification or demonstrate a hardship
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
for the construction of both porch structure and patio. It is possible for the applicant to obtain the
benefit without variances granted for both structures within the shoreline setback. There’s a
need to decrease the hardening and impervious covers within the shoreline setback and critical
environmental areas protecting Lake George. The removal of two sheds totaling 108 square
feet, one of which is not within the shoreline setback, does not balance the impacts of the
structures, the porch and patio requesting relief for the shoreline setback. The applicant should
seek alternatives which include potential removal or reductions of the structures. If the
variances are granted, this is consistent with our other letter, if the variances are granted, we
suggest the following conditions to mitigate negative impacts. Substantial shoreline buffer to be
proposed, stormwater management plan should be provided, and since then there’s been a
Town law regarding the fertilizers, but we did have conditions on the restrictions of fertilizers
referenced also. In conclusion it does not appear the applicant has justified the need for the
construction within the shoreline setback or provided a hardship for the structures within the
setback. Again, if the variances are granted, we recommend the requirement of a shoreline
buffer to incorporate additional trees and shrubs and submission of a detailed stormwater
management plan to maximize infiltration. To address the comment on looking at the landscape
plan, I had not seen that. I did not see that as part of the zoning application. I did not look at the
Site Plan application. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else this evening who’d like to address the
Board concerning this application? Okay. At this time I’m going to leave the public hearing
open. I’d like to poll the Board, and you’re all so anxious to comment. All right. John, why don’t
you go ahead.
MR. KOSKINAS-There’s a little question that this is a small lot in a sensitive area, and my
thinking is any construction or modification should be considered carefully for regulatory
compliance, oversight, willful acts of omission or commission are an aside. For me, the removal
of a shed on the other side of Brayton means very little to permeability within 15 feet of that lake
for people who invest to be on Lake George and want to enjoy that lake, it seems practical to
protect that investment. The investment is that lake. Granting expansion of a nonconforming
structure and relief for side setback and shoreline setback for the existing deck makes perfect
sense to me. It makes sense because I think that deck around the house is germane to the
enjoyment of that property that they’ve invested in, but I don’t think a patio of impermeable
surface 15 feet from the lake adds to the benefit of enjoyment. So I don’t see a hardship. The
hardship is having to remove it and for me, as a member of this Board, I’d be in favor of granting
the side setback relief and the 21.9 feet shoreline setback relief for the deck on the condition,
the specific condition, that the patio go.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, John. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I really don’t, it’s kind of convoluted, but I think that it is a rather large patio. Maybe
reducing the size of the patio would make it more palatable. That would be my recommendation
that the patio be reduced in size.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I’m kind of torn on this one. It’s definitely a lot of impermeable surface on this
side. Yes, it would be great if we could remove that patio. The deck is, like Mr. Koskinas said, it
is pretty much germane to the enjoyment of that property, and I would be in favor of it, if they
remove that patio. I’d definitely be in favor of the deck.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Well, I believe that if we put up the proper shoreline buffers that I would be in
agreement with the whole thing, but the buffers are not our responsibility. It’s just whether or not
we give a variance for what’s there, and I’m good for the shoreline and for the side setbacks.
The fact that the patio’s there, how they do it, you know, it shouldn’t be there. The patio
shouldn’t be there. It didn’t have approval. So I would be against the patio and I’d be in favor of
the deck.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-This is a tough one for me, too. I think that I’m going to have to side with the
majority of the Board so far also and say that I would even give the extension of the deck on that
one side, I would leave that and rather get rid of the patio, because I think that’s the part that’s
most important with the lake, and again, as Ron said, I don’t know what the Planning Board’s
going to do about plantings there. So I would be in favor of leaving the deck and going along
with that, but taking the patio out.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. I think it’s such a small lot that I think it’s easy to put a
deck around the house trying to enjoy what you have there, but I think the patio pushes the limit.
It just pushes it beyond, you know, I think a good application, and I’m kind of torn between
saying no to the whole thing, but at this point I would accept the patio being taken out and the
rest of it approved.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. So basically at this point the majority of the Board members would
like the patio removed and they would approve the deck. Joyce would like to see possibly the
patio reduced. Do you have any suggestions for the Board?
MR. WRIGHT-Well, I would just ask if any of the other Board members see Mrs. Hunt’s
suggestion as feasible, and if so to what extent they’d like to see the patio reduced. Obviously I
would then ask the application to be tabled so we can go back to our clients and check.
MR. KOSKINAS-This lot is very small, and allowing that impermeable surface, if you took a
larger lot and you used the same scale, it’s like putting a tennis court on the lakeside of every lot
in Cleverdale. It doesn’t make sense. It’s not good for the lake, and I don’t see the benefit to the
owner. The only benefit I can see is that they don’t have to go through the trouble of removing
that patio, and I understand that that’s a burden, but they should have done their due diligence
before they put it there. I’d be willing to make a motion for this Board granting approval of the
setbacks on the condition of the, on the specific condition that the patio be removed, but that
would be up to the Chairman if he wanted to hear it and you if you wanted us to follow it.
MRS. HUNT-I have re-thought my, I would go along with removal of the patio.
MR. WRIGHT-To that end, the removal of the sheds was really in connection with the patio
concerns and the impermeable surfaces on the property. I would assume then if the condition is
going to be the patio has to go, the sheds would then remain, or is that something?
MR. JACKOSKI-I think the Board members have made the suggestions of removing the patio,
already assuming that those sheds were off the table. If you’re going to put those back on, I
think that opens up whether or not the decking approvals can happen, but I can certainly poll the
Board again if you’d like.
MR. WRIGHT-Well, just because this is all just being discussed, I want to be clear on.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it’s all germane.
MR. WRIGHT-I want to make sure that when I go back and confer with my clients, if the
Chairman will allow us to table the application, we have all the facts in front of us.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is your client here this evening?
MR. WRIGHT-My client’s sons are here. My client is not here.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is it possible for you to reach your client this evening? I mean, would you like
us to give you a little time this evening, and bring you back? So if this Board is in agreement,
and I have left the public hearing open, I think I’m going to continue to do so, if this Board is in
agreement, can we give the applicant some time to speak with the owners of the property and
then call the next application and then bring them back? Is that reasonable to try to get this
resolved tonight?
MR. OBORNE-If I could add, if you are entertaining bringing those sheds back, this will have to
be tabled regardless.
MR. JACKOSKI-Because of notice, correct.
MR. OBORNE-It will have to be tabled because you need setback relief for the sheds.
MR. WRIGHT-And I’m not saying that’s what, I just want to understand what the scope of this.
MR. OBORNE-The application that’s before the Board is the application that’s before the Board.
MR. JACKOSKI-Just so you’re fair. I mean, we’d like to give you the opportunity to come back.
MR. WRIGHT-And I also have one other application on right after this. I don’t know whether you
want to handle that, just to talk about, and then allow me to step out.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. The Savage application.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, John, if you want to step out and we can, you can review the scenario that’s
going on tonight.
MR. JACKOSKI-If that’s okay. All right. So, if you don’t mind, we’ll give you a little time.
MR. WRIGHT-Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. JACKOSKI-Again, we’re going to go a little bit out of order to assist the applicants here.
The next item is under New Business. It is Randy Savage.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2011 SEQRA TYPE II RANDY SAVAGE OWNER(S) RANDY
SAVAGE ZONING MDR LOCATION 303 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
DEMOLITION OF A 168 SQ. FT. SHED AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 336 SQ. FT. SHED.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR DISTRICT.
CROSS REF AV 41-2011; BP 2010-172 SFD; BP 2011-080 INGROUND POOL WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.7-2-4 SECTION 179-
3-040
RANDY SAVAGE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2011, Randy Savage, Meeting Date: September 21,
2011 “Project Location: 303 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes demolition of an existing 168 sq. ft. shed and construction of a 336 sq. ft. shed in the
same general location.
Relief Required:
Relief requested from side setback requirements of the MDR district.
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1.Side setback relief – 9 feet of side setback relief from the 25 foot setback requirement for
the MDR District.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to place
the shed in a compliant location.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 9 feet or 36% of side
setback relief from the 25 foot setback requirement for the MDR District as per §179-3-040
may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on
an empirical calculation and not subjective reasoning.
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 or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 10-172 SFD 4/27/10
BP 11-080 Inground pool 4/8/11
Demo 10-016 1/25/10
Staff comments:
The applicant was before this board on July 20, 2011 for side setback relief as well as for the
expansion of a non-conforming structure. The application was approved, however, the applicant
now wishes to remove the existing shed due to structural issues and erect a new shed on the
previously proposed footprint. According to the applicant’s narrative, shed to be used to store
tools, power equipment and pool/yard furniture as well as for outdoor entertainment.
SEQR Status:
Type II-no further action required”
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and, Staff, for clarification, my agenda says this is application Area
Variance 60-2011, but our Staff Notes say it is 41-2011.
MR. OBORNE-It is 60-2011. My apologies. I recycled the old one for expediency purposes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Staff. Good evening, welcome. If you could identify yourself for
the record and I know we’ve been through this before.
MR. SAVAGE-Yes, Randy Savage, and we went through and got approved to build on to an
existing shed. As I tore that shed back looking for a solid place to tie into, there was no good
place to tie into, and I kept tearing back, tearing back and really I’d like to just build the full size
shed that we spoke of in the same place. In our yard it works well there. It’ll give us a little tiny
bit of shade in the summertime, and our yard doesn’t have any shade whatsoever, and really
that’s about it. Our neighbor’s all for it. He has not problem with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any comments from Board members at this time?
Seeing no comments, I will open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who’d like to address this Board? Seeing
no one in the audience, Roy, do we have any written comments?
MR. URRICO-No written comments. You said your neighbor said?
MR. SAVAGE-That was in the last application. I didn’t bring that with me.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Having no additional written comments and seeing no one in the audience, I’m
going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-Any comments from Board members?
MR. KUHL-I guess if you’d have left one two by four up, it would have still been the addition.
MR. SAVAGE-I’ve got four foot high walls to hold my dogs in right now. Hopefully I can tear
those down and progress.
MR. KUHL-I just want to let you know that I read this and I felt bad that you had to come back,
but if that’s the process, we’re going through the process.
MR. SAVAGE-My own stupidity for not just going for this to being with.
MR. JACKOSKI-But thank you for being tolerant of the process.
MR. SAVAGE-It’s all about the process.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it’s all about the process.
MR. OBORNE-It’s all a process.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, would anyone like to put forth a motion?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion.
MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce will. Thank you.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2011 RANDY SAVAGE, Introduced by
Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
303 Aviation Road. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 168 square foot shed and
construction of a 363 square foot shed in the same general location. Relief requested from the
side setback requirements of the MDR district. The parcel will require side setback relief, nine
feet side setback relief from the 25 foot setback requirement for the MDR district. Whether this
benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, the property is long and
narrow and there’s not much you can do about that, and obviously the old shed had to go. It’s
really in bad shape. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to
nearby properties and the next door neighbor has no problem with it. The request is not
substantial and it will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects and the alleged
difficulty can be considered self-created only because the Savages want to replace a crumbling
shed with something new and that will be an asset to their property. So I move we approve Area
Variance No. 60-2011.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Garrand
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and enjoy your shed.
MR. SAVAGE-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Keith, are they ready, or do they want us to move on to the next one?
MR. OBORNE-Well, I went out there and he’s still on the phone.
MR. JACKOSKI-I’ll move on. I’m not going to wait. Any suggestions from the Board which one
you’d like to take out of order next?
MR. URRICO-Teakwood is next.
MR. OBORNE-No, Farber is next.
MR. JACKOSKI-Farber is next. I guess we’ll go right in order and we’ll begin with Martin and
Susan Farber. Actually, they’re back. So would you like to come back?
MR. WRIGHT-Mr. Chairman, I’m going to request that it be tabled. I’m unable to have a very
communicative discussion with the clients. So I’d ask that it be tabled.
MR. JACKOSKI-We did leave the public hearing open, and the applicant has requested that we
table this. Is it going to be re-submitted with, at all with the permeability updated regarding the
sheds and minus the patio, whatever.
MR. WRIGHT-I’ll meet with Keith.
MR. OBORNE-I just want to make sure that you’re on the record as stating that the patio needs
to go. I mean, they were polled. So I just want to make sure the applicant knows that.
MR. WRIGHT-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Just wanted to make sure. You’re on notice.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. JACKOSKI-Again, this is a tabling motion of Area Variance No. 45-2011, and do we have
any specific dates that we would like to table this to? We have one meeting in October, correct?
MR. OBORNE-You have one meeting in October. Obviously the deadline date is gone. John,
how quickly can you turn out, turn an answer back to me? I think that they’re going to be able to
maybe sneak you in on this coming agenda.
MR. WRIGHT-One week from today?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s going to be too, because the deadline date for the agendas that need
to be published is going to be Wednesday because you don’t have a Planning Board meeting
Wednesday.
MR. URRICO-Or a Zoning Board meeting.
MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry, Zoning Board meeting.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, it looks like we’ll be tabling this to November. I mean, is this a summer
home or a winter home?
MR. WRIGHT-I think it’s a summer home.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. So that means the decks are going to be open, still.
MR. JACKOSKI-That’s what we’re worried about.
MR. WRIGHT-Yes, well, Keith, when would you need something from us, by the end of this
week?
MR. OBORNE-I would say by close of business Friday.
MR. WRIGHT-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-You’re willing to commit to that?
MR. WRIGHT-Yes.
th
MR. OBORNE-And it’s an October 19 meeting.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2011 DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE,
Introduced by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
24 Brayton Road. With a submission date of no later than the end of business of September
th
23, 2011, and we’re tabling this application to the October 19 meeting.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. WRIGHT-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-So we’ll go forward, then, in order.
OLD BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 53-2011 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE, INC.
AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, BPSR/BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) FRANK PARILLO
ZONING CI LOCATION 199 & 203 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE
PLACEMENT OF 4 WALL SIGNS AND 1 FREESTANDING SIGN ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A TACO BELL RESTAURANT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS AND SIZE AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
FREESTANDING SIGN. CROSS REF SP 54-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
AUGUST 10, 2011 LOT SIZE 4.62 AND 0.31 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-2, 3
SECTION CHAPTER 140
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
JOHN WRIGHT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-It is an application that has been in front of us in the past, and, Roy, if you could
just summarize briefly, that would be great. This is an Unlisted SEQRA.
MR. URRICO-The applicant has withdrawn the relief request associated with the (lost word) sign
portion of this variance to install a compliant sign. Did you get the memo? Did everybody get
the memo?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, the memorandum was in our packet. I think, is that sufficient, Keith? Are
you okay with that?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the Board is aware, obviously, that the three additional wall signs are still in
play.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Did you have anything additional you’d like to add on this one? It’s
pretty straightforward.
MR. WRIGHT-It’s pretty straightforward. The freestanding sign is going to comply fully with the
Code. The wall signs, you know, the main impetus for that request is that when the property is
fully developed they want visibility from both sides out to Big Bay and Corinth Road. Honestly,
like all Taco Bells, they’re very nicely professionally done, and to address the Staff Note about
the painted panel, there will be no symbol or wording or anything on these painted panels.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there currently any additional comments from Board
members? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience, I’ll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone in the audience who’d like to address the Board on this matter?
Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-There is no additional comment to my knowledge.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Seeing no additional comment, I think I can close the public
hearing. This is a SEQRA application. We would like to try to move forward with SEQRA. Rick,
you’re good at it.
MR. GARRAND-Sure.
FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2011 BASED ON THE INFORMATION, ANALYSIS AND ANY
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN
ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. SO I MOVE THAT WE GIVE
THIS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption
seconded by John Koskinas:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Would anyone like to put forth a motion on this application?
MR. KOSKINAS-I’ll do it.
MR. JACKOSKI-John, go ahead. Thank you.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 53-2011 HOSPITALITY SYRACUSE, INC.,
Introduced by John Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
199 & 203 Corinth Road. Granting the following relief: Three additional wall signs from the one
allowed as detailed in applicant’s proposal to this variance. Finding that no undesirable change
to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties would be created; that the
applicant does not have reasonable alternatives not involving a Sign Variance; that the variance
is not deemed to be substantial; that the variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and that the applicant’s difficulty is considered to
be self-created. This motion is for approval.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski
.
NOES: MrsHunt
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Okay. Moving on to the next application, it is Martin & Susan
Farber.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2011 SEQRA TYPE II MARTIN & SUSAN FARBER AGENT(S)
STEVEN TURNER OWNER(S) MARTIN & SUSAN FARBER ZONING WR LOCATION 33
ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,357 SQ. FT. DECK
ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM 75 FT. SHORELINE SETBACK
REQUIREMENT OF THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL (WR) DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP
2011-403; BP 2001-626 DOCK & UPPER PORCH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.71 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 239.17-1-10 SECTION 179-3-040
STEVEN TURNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-2011, Martin and Susan Farber, Meeting Date:
September 21, 2011 “Project Location: 33 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to rebuild and replace an existing 1,578 square foot second story deck/patio
roof with a 1,357 square foot deck.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 26.7 feet relief from the minimum 75 ft. shoreline setback requirement of the
Waterfront Setback Overlay district as per §179-3-040. Note: The 75 foot setback requirement
also applies to lands in the Rural Use classification within the Adirondack Park.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited as
lot limitations, existing conditions, and the nature of the proposal preclude any methods
feasible by which to avoid an area variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 26.7 feet or 35.6%
relief from the 75 foot shoreline setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered
moderate relative to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2011-403
BP 2001-626 dock & sundeck Approved
Staff comments:
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
The applicant proposes the removal and replacement of the existing deck due to water damage.
As this is a reduction in size and not an expansion of a non-conforming structure, Planning
Board approval is not required.
Type II-no further action required”
SEQR Status:
MR. JACKOSKI-And just to remind Zoning Board members that this application does not go
back to the Planning Board. Welcome, if you could introduce yourselves, please, and if you
have anything else to add to the comment period.
MARTIN FARBER
MR. FARBER-Martin Farber, owner and applicant.
MR. TURNER-I’m Steve Turner. I’m helping them with the work, contractor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do you have anything you’d like to add at this time?
MR. FARBER-Well, I would add that whether we can re-build the deck or not it doesn’t affect the
fact that the house itself is not in compliance. So, replacing the deck, you know, doesn’t have
any effect on that at all, and we would like to replace a deck that was already there and make it
a little bit smaller, but rather do this than have it fall down.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from other Board members at this
time? Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-You say that the replacement deck is going to be smaller than the one that
was there before?
MR. FARBER-Yes, it’s going to be slightly smaller. There was, if you look at the picture that you
should have where the circular stairs is, that bumps back a little bit on the west side. So we’re
taking out that circular stairs and bringing the front end of the deck back that two feet
approximately.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Those circular stairs are still there.
MR. FARBER-No, they will be removed.
MR. CLEMENTS-They will be removed. They’re there now, though, right?
MR. FARBER-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional comments or questions from Board members? Seeing none at
this time, I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who’d like to
address this Board concerning this application? Mr. Water Keeper.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. The Water Keeper
is not opposed to the application to replace the existing porch with one that is slightly smaller in
area, but views the application as an opportunity to implement measures to protect water quality
on a property that fails to reach the current minimum requirement for permeable cover. In
considering the application, we would recommend that a shoreline buffer be proposed. There is
not one that is currently on the property, and with the high percentage of impervious cover and
limited vegetation we feel that that would improve infiltration, improve stormwater runoff, and
also a stormwater management plan should be considered which would include possibly low
impact development measures such as rain gardens.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Water Keeper.
MR. FARBER-Can I respond to that?
MR. JACKOSKI-Certainly.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. FARBER-As I pointed out that the deck, whether it’s there or not, does not really affect the
impervious surface because it’s only covering other impervious surface, and in the 10 years that
we’ve been there, with some pretty heavy rain event, we’ve never noted any sogginess or
anything. There’s a garden of perennials right off the walkway below the deck which seems to
be pretty good at sucking out water and we’ve never noticed any runoff beyond that.
Furthermore, I would say that there is some buffer, not right in front of the house, but the grass
area that we inherited when we bought the house has been planted as a wildflower garden with
winterberries and a hazelnut tree and a cedar tree as well.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience who’d like to address this Board
regarding this matter? Is there any written comment, Roy?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. No written comment.
MR. FARBER-Actually, I do have letters signed by my two neighbors on either side. No, you
know, with no objections.
MR. JACKOSKI-If you wouldn’t mind, if you could give those to the secretary and then he can
read them into the record.
MR. URRICO-“To Whom It May Concern: I am aware of the Farber’s plan to re-build their deck
at 33 Antigua Road in Lake George and have no objections. Sincerely, Craig Brown 27 Antigua
Road”
MR. JACKOSKI-And just for the record, it’s not the same Craig Brown who’s the Zoning
Administrator here in Town. I’m sure he’s not able to live up on the lake.
MR. URRICO-The second letter is “I am aware of the Farber’s plan to rebuild their deck at 33
Antigua Road in Lake George and have no objections. Sincerely, Paul Valente” Same thing,
same letter, Margaret Bishop Maynard & Jarrett William Maynard. And who’s the next one?
MR. FARBER-Gillis Ahapados.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Same letter.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we’ve read the written comment into the record, and we have no
additional comments from the public. I am going to leave the public hearing open until I poll the
Board on this application. So you are aware of the Town of Queensbury’s buffering
requirements along the shoreline?
MR. TURNER-Not in any particular, I have tried.
MR. FARBER-When we took over the place, the previous owners idea of landscaping was astro
turf and plastic geraniums, and I think we’ve done a pretty good job in changing the character of
the land and I’m pretty proud of my trillium and my ferns and what not, and, yes, there is a
grassy area there, but as I said, it does not, to the best that I can see, produce any kind of runoff
into the lake.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I’m going to poll the Board on this application, and I’ll start with Ron.
MR. KUHL-I think it’s straightforward. I see it as it was existing and he’s making it better. I think
that some shoreline buffer would be nice. I also live by a body of water, and we talk a lot about
buffers. If the gardens you have, and I just looked at your property from the driveway, I didn’t go
down into the front, but if you have plantings that do absorb, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t be against
this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I have no objection to it, either. I think it’s actually probably an improvement
over their previous deck. We’re reducing the size, which is a step in the right direction. I would
ask, also, that the buffer be considered, only because this is not going to the Planning Board
after us, and it’s something that the Town is asking that we buffer up a little bit because of the
problems with the runoff going into the lake, and I think it would be nice. I’m not going to ask
that it be mandated, but I think it would be nice to include that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Brian?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. I think it’s a good project. It’s nice that the deck is going to be a
little bit smaller. I also agree that a buffer would be a good idea, and maybe you ought to review
with Staff what the recommendations are for lakefront, but I’d be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I agree with my fellow Board members. I have no problems with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I have to agree with Mr. Urrico on this. He was talking about the buffer. All one
has to do is drive down that area where this house is and you can see the devastation with all
the trees. The trees are devastated throughout the area. Many are down. What’s going to
happen is you’ve lost the root structure. There’s actually potential for mudslides and other
things now that you’ve got so many of those trees that are down. So I think a buffer would be a
good idea.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. KOSKINAS-Have you ever seen the Water Keeper shoreline buffer? It’s kind of like a do it
yourself guide. It’s a nice handout, and they give it away free, and I’d suggest to you that you
get one, but I would not want to, I think your property’s doing well with water runoff there and I
think you’ve done a nice job with it, but it’s a nice reference point as you go forward with your
property because it features native plants, and the cool thing about these native plants is there’s
zero maintenance and they absolutely thrive here, but I would not offer it as a condition to
approval. I’m in favor of your project as it is.
MR. FARBER-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I guess my Planning Board roots here are coming to fruition. I would
prefer to condition that on some type of a buffer along the lakeshore, as well as at least some
identification of stormwater management. I think that the property does slope down toward the
lake. So there has to be, with all the impervious surface, some water that could be captured
back on to the property, but my fellow Board members have suggested that they’re all in favor.
MR. OBORNE-Now, if I may say, from what I get out of this is most of the Board members, the
majority of the Board members, would want to buffer, but maybe not condition it. If, for some
reason, you are going to condition it, and with deference to the Water Keeper, it’s very difficult
for Code Compliance to comply to the Water Keeper. We do have a Code that would be
followed called shoreline buffering.
MR. JACKOSKI-And is the Staff willing to take on the responsibility of assuring that, or do we
want to bring it back to this Board?
MR. OBORNE-No. We certainly can have that level of cooperation with the applicant. We
certainly can do that, condition it upon 179-8-040, Shoreline Bufferings, that would be something
that would fall under the Code Compliance and we’d be able to handle that. Now, if the
applicant wishes to table that to review that shoreline buffer requirement, which the species are
pretty much the same as the Water Keeper has, but it is a 15 foot buffer from the shoreline.
MR. FARBER-Of plantings.
MR. OBORNE-Of plantings, correct.
MR. TURNER-If I can describe the property a little bit, from the lakeside.
MR. JACKOSKI-And just so you know, some of us have actually seen it from the lakeside.
MR. TURNER-Yes, I understand. There is a low sea wall and then a retaining wall that’s about
four feet high. As I understand the buffer, correct me if I’m wrong, it would require the retaining
wall to be removed.
MR. JACKOSKI-No.
MR. TURNER-Okay, but at its present condition it’s terraced at different levels, and each of the,
the retaining wall and several other low walls are elevated above the grass. So any water that
runs surface along the grass is stopped by those retaining walls and is absorbed into the soil. I
know the Farbers very, very well, and they’re going to do everything they can to protect the lake.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
I think if you’re asking them to go ahead and follow the buffer zone requirements as close as
possible, they’re more than willing to do that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. At this time, is there someone on this Board who’d like to
put forth a motion? Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. Do you want to do it with the buffer?
MR. URRICO-I really don’t want to make it conditioned on the buffer.
MR. KOSKINAS-Me, either.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. I’ll do it straight.
MR. KUHL-Do it straight.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2011 MARTIN & SUSAN FARBER,
Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Koskinas:
33 Antigua Road. The applicant proposes to re-build and replace an existing 1578 square foot
second story deck patio roof with a smaller, 1357 square foot deck. The applicant requests 26.7
feet of relief from the minimum 75 foot shoreline setback requirement of the Waterfront setback
overlay district as per Section 179-3-040. In making the determination, the Board shall consider,
Number One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood. A desirable change should be produced. Number Two, whether benefit sought
by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than
an Area Variance? Feasible alternatives appear limited. Number Three, whether the requested
Area Variance is substantial? Actually it’s going to be a smaller deck so it would be better.
Number Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts can be
anticipated, and whether the difficulty was self-created. It may be considered self-created.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas
NOES: Mr. Jackoski
MR. JACKOSKI-But thank you. You have one of the best views on the lake.
MR. FARBER-Thank you, Board.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thanks again.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2011 SEQRA TYPE II TEAKWOOD BUILDERS, INC. AGENT(S)
TEAKWOOD BUILDERS, INC. OWNER(S) ANDY & KIM CARAYIANNIS ZONING SR-30 AT
TIME OF SUBD. APPROVAL LOCATION 15 ROBERTS COURT, SOUTHERN EXPOSURE
SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,084 SQ. FT. DETACHED
GARAGE. PROPOSAL CONSTITUTES A SECOND GARAGE ON PARCEL WHERE ONLY
ONE IS PERMISSIBLE. CROSS REF BP 98-218 SFD; BP 2011-348 DET. GARAGE
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 LOT SIZE 0.75 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 308.18-2-71 SECTION 179-5-020
THAD SMITH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I need to recuse myself on this matter because Teakwood Builders, as well as I
have a business relationship with Teakwood Builders and I also, the Carayiannis are customers.
So I’ll turn it over to the Board.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2011, Teakwood Builders, Inc., Meeting Date:
September 21, 2011 “Project Location: 15 Roberts Court Southern Exposure Subdivision
Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,084 sq. ft. detached
garage on a 0.75 acres lot in the Southern Exposure Subdivision.
Relief Required:
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
Proposal constitutes a second garage on parcel where only one is permissable as per 179-5-
030D.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to
expand the existing garage to the maximum extent practicable.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional garage or
100% relief from the requirement of only one garage permitted per dwelling as per §179-5-
020D 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 impacts to the physical and
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 1998-218 SFD Approved 1998
BP 2011-348 Detached Garage Pending
Staff comments:
The survey denotes that “NOT ALL IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED” and as such staff cannot
ascertain if permeability relief is required. As noted in the Site Development Data page of the
application, permeability stands at 79% with a proposed permeability of 73%; minimum
requirement as per the subdivision approval is 30%. Aerial photography appears to show
substantial patios and driveways not depicted on the survey or calculated on the site
development data sheet. Although permeability relief is most likely not required, the Zoning
Board of Appeals may wish, as a condition of approval, to direct the applicant to provide revised
calculations concerning permeability to include any additional driveway extension associated
with this proposal as well as all other existing hard surfacing not denoted on survey.
Type II-no further action required”
SEQR Status:
MR. GARRAND-For the purpose of the record, please state your name.
MR. SMITH-Thad Smith with Teakwood Builders.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
ANDY CARAYIANNIS
MR. CARAYIANNIS-I’m Andy Carayiannis, homeowner.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, and please tell us what you’re looking to do here.
MR. SMITH-Building a second structure on the property. It’s a very nicely developed piece of
property as far as the homeowner has done. It’s a substantial size piece of property. Obviously
(lost words) the permeability is right now. The structure is situated on the back portion of the lot,
and taking extra care to brick the structure with brick corbels matching the house exactly, very
nicely done all the way around to make sure that any neighbors that see anything or say
anything will have the same view as the homeowner is. I believe the driveway, the areas that
were discussed that weren’t noted on the site survey, is a paver patio in the back that’s all over,
cement dust, stone dust and sand and driveway is actually, it’s stone. So nothing has been hard
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
surfaces, per say. They’re all (lost words). Just a nicely developed piece of property, nice
structure.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. Any questions from Board members?
MR. KUHL-Yes. This is a garage?
MR. SMITH-Yes.
MR. KUHL-What’s the height?
MR. SMITH-It’s a single story. I believe it’s 22 at the ridge. I apologize.
MR. KUHL-I think it’s about 21, 22.
MR. SMITH-Yes, I think it’s just shy of 22.
MR. KUHL-I thought our regs, Keith, were 16 on garages?
MR. OBORNE-It’s in the Waterfront Residential. So that leaves 24.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Let me get that number for you.
MR. KUHL-While you’re getting that number, will there be any more stone driveway to this
garage, or is it just going to be coming off the grass?
MR. SMITH-No, it’ll be an expansion of the existing driveway back where you see the black
pickup truck, it will extend back to that truck to where the garage was.
MR. KUHL-Is that where your classic car is going to go, the Corvette?
MR. CARAYIANNIS-No, not here. I’ll be able to park my truck in the garage.
MR. GARRAND-Other Board members, any questions? Okay. Now this is going to be used just
for storage of equipment?
MR. CARAYIANNIS-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-Nothing else?
MR. CARAYIANNIS-No.
MR. OBORNE-It’s 24 feet, Ron.
MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you.
MR. GARRAND-Okay, at this time, no questions from the Board, I’ll open up the public hearing.
Anybody from the public wish to speak?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. GARRAND-Crickets. Okay. I’ll close the public hearing.
MR. URRICO-I have one written comment. “As the immediate neighbor of this project, I have no
objections to the construction of a detached garage, assuming that it will coincide with the rest of
their castle. Gary Randall 5 Roberts Court Queensbury, NY 12804” He did have a happy
face on it. I didn’t know how to express that verbally.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. GARRAND-Okay. There is some question as to permeability on this site. Currently the
driveway is unpaved.
MR. CARAYIANNIS-Correct.
MR. GARRAND-Is it going to stay that way?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. SMITH-No, the plan will be paved when complete.
MR. OBORNE-Just for the Board’s edification also, gravel is considered impermeable because it
will be impermeable over time, based on compaction. So we treat it as impermeable, if it is less
than a Number Two stone.
MR. URRICO-I do have a question. The Staff has suggested as a possible substitution, adding
on to the existing garage rather than building a second garage. Is that possible? Have you
thought about that?
MR. CARAYIANNIS-Thought about it 10 years ago and didn’t have enough money to build a
three car garage. So we went with a two car garage, and 13 years later we’re able to build an
additional structure, and it’s really not feasible to modify the existing structure without tearing off
the whole roof and extending the footprint of the whole garage and with the patio that’s now in
the backyard, it would pretty much destroy the whole, the function of the that space.
MR. SMITH-And I think architecturally, the way that the, given the elongated design of the
house, it would be a challenge to do something that was (lost words).
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. KOSKINAS-It would absolutely sabotage that beautiful work you’ve done behind your
house.
MR. CARAYIANNIS-And I’m not done yet. Still got a little more, trying to get it done.
MR. GARRAND-You’ve been working on it since you built it.
MR. KUHL-I guess there is some permeable type asphalt you could use, right? If you’re going
to put asphalt on top of the stone, you’re going to do a driveway, you’re going to do asphalt.
There is a permeable type asphalt. I don’t know the cost between regular asphalt.
MR. SMITH-I imagine it’s difficult to get.
MR. OBORNE-Well, with the permeable asphalt, you have to have a different substrate.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. GARRAND-You can also get that rubberized stuff. I mean, like crushed stone does have a
certain amount of permeability to it that you won’t get with asphalt. I mean, you’re never going
to achieve 110% compaction on crushed stone.
MR. OBORNE-You’d be surprised.
MR. GARRAND-They go over it with pneumatic rollers and not like vibratory.
MR. CARAYIANNIS-Just as kind of a point of information. We got some pretty substantial rains
here a couple of weeks ago and other than a couple of small puddles in the backyard that
developed during the rain, within an hour the rain stopped (lost words) six seven inches (lost
words).
MR. GARRAND-Now with asphalt, you know, I think you’d see some.
MR. CARAYIANNIS-I’m sure I’ll see probably a little bit more than I have now.
MR. GARRAND-Are you going to put any kind of stormwater control for that amount of asphalt
that’s going in?
MR. CARAYIANNIS-No, I’ll probably direct it into the backyard which does slope to the center of
the grass area, and like I said, it seems to disappear perfectly.
MR. SMITH-And he’s got basically, you’ve seen the wall, I mean, directing it towards the back
pretty much the whole back side of the property that buffers the road is a swale.
MR. OBORNE-And I will say, I really have no concern over the permeability. It’s just it’s not, it
hasn’t been calculated.
MR. KOSKINAS-We’ll include the need to provide a calculation within 45 days.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. OBORNE-If you so condition approval on that. Again, I’m not too concerned about it, but if
the applicant comes back and wishes to expand the house, those numbers would have been
captured previously, and if the applicant wishes to expand his house, I guarantee you if I’m still
here I’ll ask you for proper numbers. So, you know, either way.
MR. KOSKINAS-I’ll make a motion, if you like.
MR. GARRAND-I closed the public hearing. I’ll entertain a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2011 TEAKWOOD BUILDERS, INC.,
Introduced by John Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
15 Roberts Court, Southern Exposure Subdivision. Granting the construction of a 1,084 square
foot carriage house as a second garage on the premises on 15 Roberts Court. This variance
approval is conditional upon the applicant providing to the office of the Town Zoning
Administrator revised calculations concerning permeability to include all anticipate or existing
patios, drives and walkways illustrating that permeability conforms to the minimum requirements
within 45 days of this granting. Finding that no undesirable change to the character of the
neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created; that the applicant does not have
reasonable alternatives not involving an Area Variance; that the variance is not deemed to be
substantial; that the variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood; and that the applicant’s difficulty is considered to be self-
created. I move for approval.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Jackoski
MR. GARRAND-Congratulations.
MR. SMITH-Thank you.
MR. CARAYIANNIS-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-And it’s a great house, Andy, just for the record.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2011 SEQRA TYPE II DEAN & PAMELA ROMER AGENT(S) S.
BITTER, ESQ./J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNERS DEAN & PAMELA ROMER ZONING
MDR LOCATION 641 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A ,1800
SQ. FT. ACCESSORY BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
SIZE OF 1,100 SQ. FT. FOR A GARAGE ON A PARCEL LESS THAN 5 ACRES. FURTHER,
PROPOSAL CONSTITUTES A SECOND GARAGE ON PARCEL WHERE ONLY ONE IS
PERMISSIBLE. CROSS REF BP 2002-428 SFD; AV 61-2010 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 LOT SIZE 3.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.10-1-49
SECTION 179-5-020 D
MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t see that the applicant is here. We do want to open the public hearing
because it was advertised this evening. It is a Type II SEQRA, and before we do that, I guess
we need to have Roy read the whole application into the record.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if that’s necessary at this point. If you open up the public hearing,
nobody’s here, basically, to hear it.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So I’ll give a general description of the project, at least, and that’ll be
appropriate at this time. It is 641 Ridge Road. Area Variance No. 56-2011. The applicant
proposes construction of an 1800 square foot accessory building. Relief requested from
maximum allowable size of 1100 square feet for a garage on a parcel less than 5 acres.
Further, proposal constitutes a second garage on a parcel where only one is permissible. So,
having opened the public hearing, is there anyone here in the audience?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-Since there is no one in the audience, we will leave the public hearing open.
Has there been any written comment on this, Roy?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment, we’ll leave the public hearing open. Can I get a motion to
table this application?
MR. OBORNE-If I may, there has been a request by counsel for the applicant to table this to
ththth
October 26. Unfortunately we do not have an October 26 available date. We do have a 19,
and I had put out feelers to the applicant’s counsel, which is Bartlett Pontiff, and they failed to
respond.
MR. JACKOSKI-So we’re going to go ahead and table this to the November meeting.
th
MR. OBORNE-No. I would prefer that you table it to the October 19 meeting.
MR. JACKOSKI-I’m worried about the length of that agenda.
MR. OBORNE-That would make it six.
MR. JACKOSKI-What else is on that agenda?
MR. OBORNE-Off the top of my head, I don’t know.
th
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Well, is the Board okay with adding this to the October 19 meeting?
MR. GARRAND-I’d rather see November.
th
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. I just wanted to throw it out there. The request was an October 26
meeting.
th
MR. JACKOSKI-And because October 26 was the latter meeting, and because of a short
deadline for any re-submission of any sort, I think we need to move it to November.
MR. GARRAND-I concur.
MR. JACKOSKI-I’m getting a lot of nodding heads.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2011 DEAN & PAMELA ROMER, Introduced
by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
641 Ridge Road. Tabled to the first meeting in November, with the typical submission
deadlines.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of September, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any further business to be brought in front of this Board?
MR. OBORNE-If I could, I’m sorry. Just talking about shoreline buffers, and, you know,
obviously it’s typical of the Board to not place conditions of approval on applications for
shoreline buffering. I will say that it is wholly reasonable to do that when this is not going before
the Planning Board. It’s a wholly reasonable condition of approval, but if you’re uncomfortable
with it, you’re uncomfortable with it. That’s fine.
MR. KOSKINAS-Sir, the issue’s not being uncomfortable with it. You have a requirement. It’s a
regulation.
MR. OBORNE-No, it’s a regulation under Site Plan Review.
MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. Only under Site Plan Review. I feel that when you have a project, this
particular project, you’re talking about Antigua.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is it okay for us to talk about this project?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. KOSKINAS-When you look at a project that’s as benign on new impact as this one, it’s a
replacement of an existing structure, and if you went out there, you see, that fellow is spending a
great deal of money right now.
MR. OBORNE-Sure, absolutely, absolutely.
MR. KOSKINAS-And I think to have this Board impose, and if his property looked like some of
the others do, where there’s real water runoff, it would be maybe an issue, but I was out there in
the rain, and I walked down there, and water’s coming down his driveway. It doesn’t even get
past that first wall.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine, and I’m not saying that this is a requirement of the Town. What I’m
saying, it is a reasonable condition.
MR. KOSKINAS-It’s a reasonable condition, but let’s go up and down the street, up and down
Cleverdale, up and down Assembly Point, and look at the opportunities for improvement. This
wasn’t one of them, in my mind.
MR. OBORNE-That’s fine.
MR. KUHL-I’ve got a question for you, Keith. If we make that a condition, how does it get
enforced?
MR. OBORNE-You would make the condition based on the Code reference, and then it would
be enforced off of the Code reference.
MR. KUHL-Well then you’re saying we’ve got to put the Code reference into the minutes when
we make the recommendation.
MR. OBORNE-That’s why I offered you the Code reference, because I thought you were going
down the path of conditional approval.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I made note of that Code reference, just in case.
MR. KOSKINAS-I think it’s a slippery slope when we exercise this conditional approvals of
variances. I’m concerned that, Mr. Chairman, our chairman, when he took over here, said one
of his objectives was that this Board should be a community friendly environment, and I think it
should, too.
MR. OBORNE-Sure.
MR. KOSKINAS-And when we put conditions on, where there’s not a specific need for it, I think
we’re becoming a little more autocratic.
MR. OBORNE-The key word is reasonable, that’s the key word, John.
MR. GARRAND-It’s got to be related to the variance, otherwise it won’t stand the judicial
challenge.
MR. OBORNE-All Board members need to feel comfortable with these decisions. Absolutely.
Again, my purpose to bring up the Code reference was if you were going to condition it, this is
the Code that you condition it upon, that’s all. Neither here nor there. Fortunately or
unfortunately, this did not require Site Plan Review, and if it did, I guarantee you that there
would have been a shoreline buffer put on there, as a condition of approval, but it didn’t, and you
guys acted fine, and again, the key word is reasonable. If you don’t feel it’s reasonable, do not
put it in there.
MR. KOSKINAS-Looking for your approval is certainly one of our objectives.
MR. OBORNE-I hope not.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So does anyone have any additional information or things to bring in
front of the Board? Do I have a motion to adjourn?
MR. HUNT-I move we adjourn.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. Do I have a second?
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2011)
MR. GARRAND-Second.
MR. JACKOSKI-All those in favor?
EVERYONE SAID YES IN UNISON
MR. JACKOSKI-Opposed? Abstained? We’re adjourned.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
34