08-22-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 22, 2012
INDEX
Area Variance No. 35-2012 Blue Moose Tavern/Daniel & Ellen Nichols 1.
Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18 and 19
Use Variance No. 37-2012 Christopher Patten 5.
Tax Map No. 309.11-1-52
Area Variance No. 38-2012 Paul R. McPhillips 19.
Tax Map No. 289.13-1-25
Area Variance No. 39-2012 Jo-Anne Norton 22.
Tax Map No. 301.7-1-1
Area Variance No 40-2012 Jay & Patricia Cardinale 25.
Tax Map No. 226.15-1-40 and 41
Area Variance No. 41-2012 Jay & Patricia Cardinale 31.
Tax Map No. 226.15-1-40 and 41
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.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 22, 2012
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JAMES UNDERWOOD
RICHARD GARRAND
JOYCE HUNT
BRIAN CLEMENTS
MEMBERS ABSENT
RONALD KUHL
MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. Welcome. I'd like to open the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Board of Appeals meeting for this evening. For those of you who haven't been here in the past,
on the back table there is an agenda. There also is a sheet that identifies how the meetings will
be run concerning public comment. For those applications where public comment has been
advertised, we will open the hearings for public comment. It's quite frankly a very simple
process here. We will call up each application. We'll read the application into the record. The
applicant will provide additional information. The Board will ask questions. We'll open a public
hearing when appropriate, and then we'll move on from there. So, as a matter of housekeeping
here, we do have the approval of the minutes from the meeting of June 20th. Do I have a
motion?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 20, 2012
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 2012, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Brian Clements:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, everyone.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED BLUE MOOSE TAVERN/DANIEL&
ELLEN NICHOLS AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ. & S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR ZONING CI
LOCATION 8 GLEN LAKE ROAD & 1300 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 400
SQ. FT. DINING ROOM EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING 3,465 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AS
WELL AS 2,500 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO EXISTING DECK TO INCLUDE NEW BATHROOMS
AND BAR. FURTHER, CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,500 SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING AND 10,770
SQ. FT. BANQUET FACILITY WITH 4 GUEST SUITES ON SECOND FLOOR IS PROPOSED.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK, TRAVEL CORRIDOR
OVERLAY AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS REQUIREMENTS OF THE Cl ZONE.
FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE.
MR. JACKOSKI-We will read this application into the record. However, because of last
evening's Planning Board meeting, this application is going to be tabled this evening, but I will
open the public hearing for public comment for those of you who may have come tonight to
speak about the project. So I'll turn it over to be read into the record.
STAFFINPUT
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2012, Blue Moose Tavern/Daniel & Ellen Nichols,
Meeting Date: August 22, 2012 "Project Location: 8 Glen Lake Road & 1300 State Route 9
Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 400 sq. ft. dining room expansion to
existing 3,465 sq. ft. restaurant as well as 2,500 sq. ft. expansion to existing deck to include new
bathrooms and bar. Further, construction of a 4,500 sq. ft. retail building and 10,770 sq. ft.
banquet facility with 4 guest suites on second floor is proposed.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
New Entrance
1. Front yard setback - Request for 44 feet and 63.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot front
setback requirements from Glen Lake Road and State Route 9 respectively.
2. Travel Corridor Overlay - Request for 63.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor
Overlay requirement of the CI Zone.
Restaurant Expansion
1. Front yard setback - Request for 36 feet of relief from the 75 foot front setback
requirement from Glen Lake Road for proposed expansion to the east to include
proposed walk-in cooler.
2. Front yard setback - Request for 42.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot front setback
requirement from State Route 9 for proposed restaurant expansion to the south to
include proposed dining room expansion and proposed bar deck expansion.
3. Travel Corridor Overlay - Request for 36 feet and 42.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot
Travel Corridor Overlay requirement for both the portion of the expansion to the north
and south respectively.
4. Expansion of a non-conforming structure will require relief from the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Banquet Hall
1. Height - Request for 15 feet of relief from the 40 foot maximum height allowed for
structures in the CI zone.
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 traffic patterns, stormwater
and hard-surfacing changes are proposed.
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 to be
limited concerning the restaurant as any expansion would require an area variance.
Concerning the banquet hall proposal, design of a height compliant structure may be
considered a feasible method by which to avoid an area variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. See attached.
New Entrance
• Request for 44 feet or 59% relief from the 75 foot front setback requirements from Glen
Lake Road for the new entrance may be considered moderate to severe relative to the
ordinance as per§179-3-040.
• Request for 63.5 feet or 85% relief from the 75 foot front setback requirements from
State Route 9 for the new entrance may be considered severe relative to the ordinance
§179-3-040.
• Request for 63.5 feet or 85% relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay requirement
for the new entrance may be considered severe relative to the ordinance as per§179-4-
030.
Restaurant Expansion
• Request for 36 feet or 48% relief from the 75 foot front setback requirement from Glen
Lake Road for proposed expansion to the east to include proposed walk-in cooler may
be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
• Request for 42.5 feet or 57% relief from the 75 foot front setback requirement from State
Route 9 for proposed restaurant expansion to the south to include proposed dining room
expansion and proposed bar deck expansion may be considered moderate to severe
relative to the ordinance.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
• Request for 36 feet or 48% relief and 42.5 feet or 57% relief from the 75 foot Travel
Corridor Overlay requirement for both the portion of the expansion to the north and south
as described above as per§179-3-040.
• Expansion of a non-conforming structure will require relief from the Zoning Board of
Appeals as per§179-13-010F.
Banquet Hall
Request for 15 feet or 37% relief from the 40 foot maximum height allowed for structures
in the CI zone as per§179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor adverse 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,
SP 42-12 Commercial expansion Pending
BP 09-580 C/O Blue Moose 2009
S.P. 28-92 Outdoor music and bungee jumping use Denied 6/16/92
Staff comments:
Both parcels associated with this proposal are required to be merged in order to avoid additional
area variances.
SEAR Status:
Unlisted due to commercial height relief request."
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I will open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the
audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, can you just fill us in as to what happened last night?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. What happened last night is the Planning Board, it was, they were to seek
Lead Agency for this project, but the applicant had not submitted a map plan and report for the
extension of the sewer district. They have also not submitted a Long Form EAF, which was
required for this, and as such they could not issue a Seek Lead Agency, and obviously if they
did tonight we'd ask you to acknowledge that, but at this point in time they have not seeked. So
it won't be until next week, next month. What we're asking is for a tabling to September 19th, and
at that point in time that'll be on as an Administrative Item only for Acknowledgement of Lead
Agency Status sought.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That's all we'll do at that time?
MR. OBORNE-That's correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. The sewer does go by there now?
MR. OBORNE-The sewer does go by there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But they want to extend the district to accommodate that?
MR. OBORNE-Because there's two lots associated with this parcel. That is why.
MR. GARRAND-Have they combined them?
MR. OBORNE-They have not combined them yet. They will. They're required to combine them
as a condition of approval. They will be required to combine them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are there any limiting factors on the sewer for the capacity?
MR. OBORNE-See, we don't know because we don't have the map plan and report at this point.
So the Planning Board has to forward that to the involved agency, in that case it would be the
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
Town Board, and you already have your variance here for the height and all the other myriad of
variances that are associated with this. So that's where we're at with that, kind of in a holding
pattern waiting for documentation.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So after that discussion, is there anyone else here in the audience that
would like to address the Board? Please, sir, if you could come to the table and identify
yourself.
ROBERT TOMPKINS
MR. TOMPKINS-1 live on 32 Glen Lake Road, the second house in, and I was wondering, I don't
see a layout of the property. How far east it's going to go? Robert Tompkins, 32 Glen Lake
Road.
MR. GARRAND-Have you seen any of these drawings that they've submitted?
MR. TOMPKINS-No, nothing.
MR. GARRAND-Would you like to take a quick look at them?
MR. TOMPKINS-Yes, I just want to see how far they're going to go east and if they're going to
have any outdoor entertainment.
MR. OBORNE-That's a good question.
MR. TOMPKINS-Yes. In the summertime when they do have the outdoor and it's loud.
MR. GARRAND-There are some topographical, basic, some topographical, the way it is now,
but what they're proposing is going to look something like this. To give you an idea what they're
looking at.
MR. JACKOSKI-And, sir, just so you know this evening, these documents are on file in the
Town, so that you don't have to feel pressured to, you know, truly understand them, because
there is a lot of data on those drawings.
MR. TOMPKINS-Right. There's an existing house next to mine. There's a lot in there, there's
an existing house there. Is that house going to remain there?
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 believe so.
MR. URRICO-Yes, I think the property they're talking about is going south on Route 9 from
where its current location is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's essentially the width that you see now when you're there, that's the
maximum width of it, and then it goes to a pie shape down towards the sand pit.
MR. TOMPKINS-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, my suggestion would be to stop in to the Planning Office and pull the file
and you can take your time with it, and I'll be there as your resource if you have any questions.
MR. TOM PKINS-Very good. Okay. That was just what my interests are, is just the how far east
he's going and what about outside entertainment.
MR. JACKOSKI-And outside entertainment. No problem.
MR. TOMPKINS-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else this evening who would like to ask the Board any questions or
have any comment? Seeing no one else, I will leave the public hearing open. Can I have a
motion to table this project to September 19tn?
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 BLUE MOOSE TAVERN/DANIEL &
ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Joyce Hunt:
Tabled to the September 19th meeting of the ZBA.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. JAC KOSKI-They're aware, Keith, of the submission deadlines for that?
MR. OBORNE-They are aware of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
USE PERMIT NO. 37-2012 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED CHRISTOPHER PATTEN OWNER(S)
CHRISTOPHER PATTEN ZONING MS LOCATION 31 GARNER STREET APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,303 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 2-
CAR GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMITTED USES IN THE DESIGNATED
MAIN STREET ZONING. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE
0.50 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-1-52 SECTION 179 ATTACHMENT 3
DAYRENE & CHRIS PATTEN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 37-2012, Christopher Patten, Meeting Date: August 22,
2012 "Project Location: 31 Garner Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 1,303 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 400 sq. ft. attached 2-car
garage on a vacant parcel in the Main Street zone on the north side of Garner Street.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
• Relief requested from permitted uses in the designated Main Street distict. Specifically,
the requested use is for the construction of a single family dwelling in the Main Street
Zone.
Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provide that return is substantial as
demonstrated by competent financial evidence. The applicant has provided a response to
this requirement with a statement on existing zoning and the wishes of the previous owner
but little to no competent financial evidence has been presented to demonstrate that a
reasonable return cannot be realized.
2. The alleged hardship related to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a
substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. The property is similar in size and
configuration to other parcels in the immediate area to include those parcels located on the
northern side of Garner Street which are also designated as Main Street zoned. There are
multiple vacant parcels on the north side of Garner Street which could be considered
conducive for the potential expansion of parcels fronting on Main Street; this appears to be
the intent of zoning designation for this and other parcels along the north portion of Garner
Street.
3. That the requested Use Variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. The proposed use, Single Family Dwelling, appears to be consistent with the
current surrounding land uses. However, a Single Family Dwelling would not be consistent
with a compliant build-out of this zoning district.
4. Whether the alleged hardship has not been self-created. The alleged hardship can be
interpreted as self-created. The property warranty deed, dated October 28, 2010 and filed
with the county on November 1, 2010 occurred after the most recent zoning revisions dated
April 15, 2009. This information was public record which was available to the previous
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
owners as well as the current owners prior to purchase; the property zoning designation has
not changed since the purchase date.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
BP 2011-384 1,300 sq. ft. SFD w/400 sq. ft. garage Pending
Staff comments:
It appears as though the subject property can be utilized for a host of allowable uses within the
Main Street zoning district, please see attached use table. The intent of the zoning is to allow
for the expansion of parcels that front on Main Street for the purpose of commercial
development.
If this application is approved, site plan review is required for the construction of a single family
dwelling as per the Zoning Administrator.
Please note that deed restrictions are not regulated nor enforced by the Town of Queensbury.
SEAR Status:
Type Unlisted"
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. I assume you're Mr. Patten. If you could identify
yourselves for the record and then if you'd like to add anything or we can simply start to ask
some questions.
MR. PATTEN-In response to the Staff Notes. Is that something you'd like to hear now?
MR. JACKOSKI-Sure, anything you want at this time.
MR. PATTEN-I'm Chris Patten.
MRS. PATTEN-Dayrene Patten.
MR. PATTEN-First off, thank you, members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, for considering my
petition. Your commitment and dedication to the Town and its residents is appreciated. In
reading the Town's response to my application it seems very little consideration is being given to
the specific situation, the circumstances that surround that parcel, or the wishes of the
surrounding neighbors. The Town's consistent response regarding the Main Street corridor
leads me to believe it doesn't really matter if I meet the Use Variance criteria. It seems as if it
will not be approved. Everything, all the responses to my statements just (lost words). I've been
told by my attorney not to waste any more money on an attorney or exercise that avenue any
further. I've had an attorney working on this case for about 10 months and about $1100 worth of
confusion. Anyway, before we got to this point, I feel like I've exercised many avenues in an
attempt to resolve this matter. I've filed grievances with the State of New York against the
realtors that listed the property and sold me the property to no end. I haven't really gotten
anywhere. Grievances with the Warren County Association of Realtors, you guys I'm sure are
familiar with, and definitely many discussions with Supervisor Stec from my attorney Mike
Borgos to try to re-zone this particular property. That ended with Dan Stec explaining to my
attorney that if there were approximately five vacant parcels that shared the same deed
restrictions as mine and also fell in that neighborhood in that particular zoned area that he would
consider a re-zone and we wouldn't be here applying for the Use Variance. There are only two
parcels on Garner Street that have this deed restriction similar to mine and it's the property that I
own and my next door neighbor to the east, and Dan Stec as well as Craig Brown, this is
basically the only avenue to get what my intentions are to do. This is the only possible chance
that I have, a Use Variance. In response to the Town Staff Notes, please consider first, I'll be
just going out of order. Hopefully you guys can just stay with me there. Criteria Number Two,
the hardship related to the property is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the
district or neighborhood. The Town states that the property is similar in size and configuration to
other parcels on that street. In response to that, I do not believe the Town's response answers
the question correctly. The question does not ask, is the size of the property unique. The
question states, the question is asking about the unique hardship related to the property, and
why I need a Use Variance. I believe the question refers to my unique hardship. In addition to
the other unique hardships as outlined in my response to the application, such as deed
restriction and loss of use, the Town has created additional unique hardship as it ideally sees
my property as a parking lot to a potential Main Street business. My property cannot be turned
into a parking lot without property on Main Street being sold in conjunction with mine. How is
that supposed to come about and when, and my intentions certainly by buying this parcel were
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
not to develop Main Street and so on. Part Two, Town states multiple vacant parcels on north
side of Garner Street are conducive for expansion. Google Earth shows.
MR. OBORNE-Google Earth, is that on your?
MRS. PATTEN-Or the tax map.
MR. PATTEN-Yes, right there.
MR. OBORNE-That's GIS. Okay.
MRS. PATTEN-Can you show from Thomas Street to Richardson? Please.
MR. PATTEN-That should be it.
MRS. PATTEN-That's only Caroline.
MR. OBORNE-You want Thomas Street to Richardson?
MRS. PATTEN-Yes, please.
MR. PATTEN-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Richardson's right here. Is that right?
MR. PATTEN-Yes.
MRS. PATTEN-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-What do you want to do?
MR. PATTEN-Just scroll to the east a little bit.
MRS. PATTEN-Just so we can see Thomas and Richardson.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. PATTEN-This here shows vacant lands. There are four vacant properties on the north side
of Garner Street, from Thomas to Richardson. There are three vacant properties on the north
side of Garner Street from Thomas To Caroline. However, one of these properties is only 50
feet wide. It adjoins my parcel there outlined in blue, and both of these properties are owned
and maintained by one owner. So it's really not like it's conducive. I don't think it's its own
entity. So this leaves only two parcels out of 16 zoned commercial with a commercial deed
restriction. All other properties are grandfathered Neighborhood Residential, from Richardson
all the way to Thomas. So, that's that. If you jump to Criteria Number Three. If granted, use
variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. I believe that we agree on
this point, that by building a single family residential home, it would not alter the character of the
neighborhood. Third, Criteria Number Four, hardship was self-created. The Town says it can
definitely be interpreted as self-created. My feeling is that it can also be interpreted as not self-
created. I certainly wouldn't have purchased this property if I knew, you know, these hardships
were going to come about. In good faith I purchased this piece of property. It was presented
and listed as residential. I would agree I have some responsibility for the situation. However,
this nightmare was not self-created. The previous owner listed the property as residential, and
she had no knowledge of the change in zoning. The family has been very upset by this situation
and would have responded accordingly had notice of change been received, and if you could
pull up the picture, the first picture, it should be identified as Bill Mannis' home, in 2010 I built
this home here in the picture as 105 4t" Street, with the intention of it being my personal home. I
ended up selling it to Bill Mannis, who's here tonight, and began looking for another piece of
land in the neighborhood to build my own home. I actually showed this house that I did, that I
built to a neighbor and that ends up being the lady that I bought the house from, bought the land
from. She saw the property. We did a great job, we really cleaned up, I don't know if you guys
are familiar with 105 4t" Street. It was bad. It was an old trailer. We took it down, cleaned the
whole neighborhood up. Like I said, I was going to live there, but for certain reasons I ended up
selling the piece of property, but that's what the lady who I bought the piece of property from,
that's what her intentions were, to have me build something of that similarity. At the same time,
my realtor was looking for property in the area and that's how I actually ended up acquiring this
Garner Street property. I've already got 26 neighbors to sign a petition, one I've been working
back and forth with my attorney Borgos and talking with Dan Stec. The Town has seen this and,
excuse me, it's just basically focusing on this particular area. Twenty-six neighbors signed a
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
petition requesting that the Town look at this particular area, the 193 yard long section of Garner
Street, and modify the Commercial zoning to Neighborhood Residential. Everyone I spoke with
told me they were unaware of the zoning changes made in 2009. Several were relieved to know
that their homes were grandfathered. The Town's re-zoning created a unique situation for 31
Garner Street. The deed that was filed in 2010, it was when I purchased the property, that
included the deed restriction as outlined in the 1965 deed. The tax bill and assessment
currently shows the property as residential vacant land. I am told the Town is not responsible for
updating those records and currently has no plans to do so. I've been told never to rely on Town
or County printed material, but only to rely on the tax map at the Town offices or by speaking to
someone over the phone. It does not seem reasonable, when someone wants to purchase
property, they should actually have to walk in themselves again when represented by
professionals to verify zoning. I believe the Town should make a continual effort to update
information to reflect changes. I think documents that the public is familiar with, such as tax bills
and assessment notices, should have correct information. In addition, I paid an attorney to
represent me during the sale. The contract was written as residential. I worked with Bruce
Ostrander, who's the Town Water Department Supervisor. He's been working with me since I
bought the property to try to bring water, to connect the water line from Thomas to Caroline
Street to provide water to the home. I got easements from other property owners to help this
process. I've actually worked with Dave Hatin, the Town Building Department Town Inspector
who assigned me a 911 number, you know, for making it 31 Garner Street. I've also actually
worked with National Grid in bringing natural gas down to provide natural gas for the home. So I
had a lot of stuff that I was working on, and it was kind of a slap in the face when I got denied,
but anyway, during this time there was definitely informal discussion about the home that I was,
that house that I was building, that I propose to build, and there was no indication of any
problem until I applied for the building permit. So this is a situation that I feel is not 100% self-
created. Last, Criteria Number One states that I cannot realize a substantial financial return.
The Town states I gave no financial evidence. I've provided a sheet showing a $38,000
investment which I would consider being in the hole at this point. First, ideally the Town wants
my property to be a parking lot for a Main Street business. The residential home on Main Street
that adjoins my property is grandfathered and is occupied by a single family residence. This
parcel may never become a commercial business. Second, the Town states that I can construct
a commercial business on the property and realize a reasonable return. Garner Street is not a
commercial area. It does not draw people to its location, and would be a marketing problem for
any potential business. The neighborhood and this section of Garner Street in particular is not
conducive to a commercial business. Apparently the Town sees that some sort of business can
be put on the property. The Main Street Design Guidelines allow for modification of the
Guidelines and in general would recommend the design and character of the commercial
business be in harmony with the neighboring properties. How would the Town interpret my
property for a commercial business? I've actually talked to Craig Brown a couple of times and
he was saying that we could do a retirement home or like a home that you'd have a daycare
center in. So it's very apparent that they want to keep the same character of the neighborhood
and that of building something like a home. I'm surrounded by residential properties. Am I
supposed to build a commercial business that looks like a house, set it up as a random
commercial business and then sell it to someone who fits the bill? I don't believe that this is a
smart investment, and I'm not confident that I would see a reasonable financial return what
appears to me to be a guess. In 1998, the Town required Dunkin Donuts to install curbing and
signage to discourage customers from entering the Caroline and Garner Street neighborhood.
That's shown in the sign there, preventing them from taking a right hand turn. There's also a
curb there, if you could switch to the next photo, that curb there encourages people to visit a
commercial business on, or this does not help encourage people to visit a commercial business
on Garner Street. There's no traffic, which is good for the neighborhood. I mean, and I have
some minutes from that particular meeting. From May 28, 1998 Planning Board minutes,
Lawrence Levine provided a traffic study, and a couple of quotes from that is, as a result I've
had discussions with the architects on the project, and the site plan pretty much follows what I
want to see, in terms of keeping traffic away from, and I agree with the residents in the area.
Everything should be done to keep traffic away from the residential streets in that area. I would
not like to see people using them. And I actually don't, that's it, excuse me. Another quote is,
There were enough opportunities to just scoot out of there, there wasn't a problem. So I really
don't see that people would use Garner Street and Third Street, and I really wouldn't want to
encourage that at all. It's referencing getting from Caroline onto Main Street and staying away
from the Garner Street area. There are bicyclists on Third Street and Garner. There are no
sidewalks. It is a narrow street. The sight distance, if you were to come to Caroline and go
southbound to Third, there's a very limited sight distance looking to the left at that intersection
and then if you go back towards Richardson, there's very little sight distance to the intersection
of Garner and Richardson. So it's a residential area and it should stay that way. Referencing
the petition from the neighbors addressing the safety and traffic concerns in the neighborhood,
much of the traffic will divert from the light at Richardson St. and loop down Garner to Caroline
St. either to access establishment or to avoid congestion. This has already begun. This quiet
neighborhood has too many children and no desire to become a heavy traffic area. This needs
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
to be addressed with safety in mind. We also have concerns of large trucks using the above
mentioned loop as parking for the establishment or layovers. Signs may deter but not alleviate
this problem. There is no way to compare this store to the others due to location. We fear for
the safety of our kids. This neighborhood cannot support this type of business. We are very
aware of the realism that Main Street is moving towards being a commercial district. The factors
we must consider, however, at this time are capacity and the potential impact of the variables.
We the residents feel the process should be gradual and logical. And lastly, almost lastly, this is
Michael O'Connor representing the applicant for the Dunkin Donuts property. We are willing to
do whatever we can to assure people that the traffic will go in from Main Street, on the west end
of our property, come out onto Caroline Street, and go back onto Main Street, without going
through that neighborhood. Planning Board member Mr. Paling, and he's making reference to
the fact that you'd curb Caroline so that you would discourage anybody from trying to make a
right hand turn onto Caroline Street that they would be guided to the left. Mr. O'Connor
representing the applicant, yes, we would also change the radius on the easterly side of the
driveway on Main Street to the extent that we're allowed to, if we are allowed to. All this, all that
evidence that they propose in 1998 was discouraging the fact that they didn't want any
commercial properties in that neighborhood. I believe the Zoning Board of Appeals should look
at this unique street and this tiny road differently and protect the neighborhood by allowing a
single family home at 31 Garner Street. Thank you for your consideration.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any Board members at this time who'd like to ask
the applicant any questions?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Were you proposing to build this for your own use or a spec house?
MR. PATTEN-Yes, for my own use. It is a custom home and I already have it designed. It's
shown in my application I have, I used Dan William and I had a nice home designed for myself.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, in general on that side of Main Street when you're coming in from the
Northway have we had much change over to commercial with the result in change in the road?
Did we upgrade? I mean, I know the hope was to have that process fill in, but, I mean, it's been
pretty slow the last.
MR. OBORNE-It has been pretty slow for obvious reasons, the economy and the climate.
Obviously as soon as Main Street got, was completed, you saw a plethora of For Sale signs go
up also. So that's really the only movement that I've seen, to be honest with you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think there was some speculative buying at the time, when the
plans first were announced.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Yes, there has been some interest on Main Street itself, but that
really has not panned out.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But we haven't seen any attraction on that. I mean, it's just wishful thinking
at this point.
MR. OBORNE-Not at this point in time. That's correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The other question I would have is this. When you look at the corridor and
the way that it's designed with the map, I would assume that the reason that on the south side
you had it so narrow going in is that as far as Garner Street and the other one further down,
which is, you know, as you go down towards the Northway there's one other one that parallels
Main Street, one of the short sections there, but I would think they took into account the fact that
you did have some residential back there and it's sort of off the beaten path residential between
there and the river in general.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, you know, again, I wasn't part of that whole re-zoning, but I mean what it is
is to combine the parcels along there. The businesses would potentially be fronting Main Street
with a buffer along Garner or however it is envisioned at this point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would have thought there would have been more forethought with it,
that they would have had a lane that went down the whole thing, you know, so you could access
the businesses from the rear, you know, for deliveries and stuff like that, but I mean to make all
those in outs, as they propose, you know,just seems.
MR. OBORNE-Right. If you look at the Main Street guidelines, that is what they're trying to
promote is interconnects between the rear for deliveries. All parking is to be in the rear.
MR. URRICO-What is the definition of competent financial information?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MR. OBORNE-Well, I think that it would be submitted by a professional. It would be some type
of research done to answer the question.
MR. URRICO-You said you went through a realtor to begin this process.
MR. PATTEN-Yes.
MR. URRICO-When you first went through the realtor, what date was that, when was that, had
they changed the Zoning Code then? Had they the permitted uses in that area?
MR. PATTEN-Had they already?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. PATTEN-Yes, they had.
MR. URRICO-But your realtor did not inform you of that?
MR. PATTEN-No.
MR. URRICO-When you looked at the property, they didn't do a search on it?
MR. PATTEN-No.
MR. URRICO-What about the title search?
MR. PATTEN-The title search, I am not 100% sure. I'd have to defer to Mike Borgos on that.
MR. URRICO-Have you tried to go back to the realtor and ask them to reassess the financial
capacity of that property?
MR. PATTEN-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Because that's some of the things that we're talking about.
MR. PATTEN-And your question was what would constitute competent financial evidence.
Really, that was kind of tough for me, and I really didn't want to put a whole entire presentation
and do another additional traffic study showing that, you know, there's obviously not a lot of
traffic there. So a commercial business like that of Wendy's or Burger King or something like
that isn't going to work there. Not only would it not be conducive to the neighborhood, but it's
not going to work because of the amount of traffic flow. Things I couldn't prove, and I would
have gotten to a dead end. I cannot prove that an elderly home would not work there. It very
well may, but that's not the business that I'm in, and that really could work in any residential
neighborhood. So to me proving that point and arguing that point tonight wasn't really, wasn't
my intention. I didn't want to do a whole entire.
MR. URRICO-I understand that. I'm trying to draw out where we are in the process right now.
MR. PATTEN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just comment. I think we've been at other points with other parcels,
similar parcels, not necessarily here but on the boulevard and other places like that, where there
were limited uses because of the change in zoning that were permitted, and people, in good
faith in purchasing their property, you know, just sort of got taken to the cleaners on them
because they weren't aware of it, you know, and I think that the Town, I don't know if that's
something that the Town needs to do with the realtors. I mean, I don't know how that message
is conveyed, because this won't be the only time it happens.
MR. OBORNE-I am well aware of that, absolutely. This is not easy for our Department to
process.
MR. JACKOSKI-So how are we as a Board going to support the intent of the Town to create this
Main Street corridor and front all the buildings forward on the property and have all the parking
in the back if we're going to continue to allow residential use? I mean, it was publicly noticed. It
was a two year process. It was done in April of 2009. I heard comment that the neighbors were
not aware that their properties were re-zoned. I don't know that that seems logical to me only
because there was so much construction that went on, there were so many notices, there were
so many meetings. When do we actually stick to the plan that the planners have put forth and
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
create a Main Street corridor? I mean, so then all the houses on Main Street, we're going to
allow them to continue to be houses? We allowed this one. We allow the others too? It's the
corridor.
MR. URRICO-Well, I guess the question is whether, do we put the cart before the horse? If
there are businesses that are chomping at the bit to build there, then we wouldn't have this
issue.
MR. JACKOSKI-But there are no businesses chomping at the bit anywhere in Upstate New York
to build there.
MR. URRICO-Exactly.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, but are we going to jeopardize this Town's future planning for the next 40 to
50 to 60 years because we allowed this to happen because right now we're in an economic
downturn? And this was forward thinking in creating this Main Street corridor.
MR. URRICO-I understand that. I was part of the Comprehensive Land Use Committee.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I know.
MR. URRICO-But I think we also have to be realistic in what we have set up there. If there is a
vacant lot or a lot that needs to be developed and it's not going to be developed because of
future planning, when we have somebody right here, right now, I don't know if that Code is
working. That's just my opinion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What's the, what do you think this place is going to sell for, if we allowed
you to build it, what would it be marketable for? How much?
MR. PATTEN-Well, the house that I showed you up there, it would be very similar in capacity
and everything, and that sold for $219,000, and sustains roughly about a $4 to $5,000 tax bill.
Another point, I didn't really want to get into the financial aspect of it because I'm just basically
trying to be able to build a single family home for myself. I didn't want to argue finances.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, the other side of the coin is this. If we allowed this to happen, even
though it's contrary to what's on the books as far as the rules for the Main Street corridor, if Main
Street corridor becomes a hot item in the future, like Wolfe Road or something, and there's a
real fight for property, $200,000 for some big shot business like Dunkin Donuts isn't just going to
be a pittance compared to what they're going to spend on their building there. They could buy
out the people in the back.
MR. PATTEN-For sure. For the record, you know, I obviously have a lot of vested interest. I
built that house up there. I really do like this particular neighborhood and, Mr. Jackoski, I was
very much for the design of Main Street and all the businesses that were going to be in there,
and I really do want to see that happen, and I think, you know, other people in the neighborhood
want to see that happen, too, but unfortunately this property doesn't have any Main Street
frontage. So for me, I mean, not only that, but I'm not in the position to buy that piece of
property and make this my parking lot. My only concern is with the frontage on Garner Street.
So in order for that dream that they had I guess to come true, and I hope that it actually keeps
going, but I'd have to have three, almost five properties to make this happen, and I really don't
think that it's, I mean, I didn't want to sell because the people in my neighborhood don't want to
see this piece of property become a parking lot. I mean, there's a single family home on the
right, a single family home on the left, single family homes on everywhere.
MR. CLEMENTS-Let me ask you a question. There's three, actually looks like three lots that
border the back part of the property?
MR. PATTEN-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-What if somebody came in there and built a business in there and had parking
out in back on those lots which were, which butt right up against your backyard? How would you
feel about that?
MR. PATTEN-Well, I propose to put a fence up there initially, right from the very get go, a nice
six foot white vinyl fence right along the backside of the property, and, you know, just kind of a
make it a nice buffer because it's a residential neighborhood on my side and out front, I mean,
certainly there's a lot of traffic on Main Street. So I would definitely do a six foot fence or
whatever the Town would allow.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MR. UNDERWOOD-In lieu of us re-inventing the wheel here with the Main Street Code, my only
suggestion would be this, all right. If we allowed you to build a house there, I'd rather see a
modular home, you know, something that was, you know, not necessarily a stick built home as
you propose, but something that, you know, if you were in a situation where everything got
bought up all around you and it was going to turn into an actual Main Street situation there, your
home would no longer be a desirable location to raise a family or live or rent out for any purpose
whatsoever, but at that point in time the home could be picked up and moved and taken to
another empty lot somewhere else in Town. I mean, I'm just throwing that out as an idea for
you, if we were to vote on this and allow it. I don't know if we're going to or not, but I'm just
saying I don't know in the interim if we can allow a use to occur there that's not allowed, unless
we make some kind of arrangements for it to go away in the future if necessary, if there's an
expansion of Main Street and it becomes desirable for commercial.
MR. JACKOSKI-Keith, is there a specific restriction or prohibition that says a residential building
cannot be located in the Main Street corridor?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct. A single family home is not an allowable use.
MR. JACKOSKI-Not allowable.
MR. OBORNE-It's not an allowable use.
MR. JACKOSKI-Not may not be allowable, it says not allowable?
MR. OBORNE-It says not allowable. You can have residential on the second floor in Main
Street.
MR. JACKOSKI-I know, but not a single family residence.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, so, I mean, the flanking parcels which are currently vacant I think you
mentioned, so we would allow houses to be built on those as well? I mean, we set the one
precedent, and then as the applicant pointed out, all the vacant land that we're talking about,
you know, in there, we are now saying five parcels. We're saying if I were the neighbors I'd be
putting in all these applications to get Use Variances or building applications in and make sure I
secured, you know, the precedent of having the ability to sell that for residential purposes.
When are we going to, if we're not going to have a Main Street corridor, you know, the Town
Fathers went through, and the land use folks went through an awful lot of effort to work this thing
out, and I'm sure they had lengthy discussions about all the parcels that were going to be
residential that butted up against this zone, and they drew the lines where they drew the lines.
So, I mean, what do we do as a Zoning Board?
MR. PATTEN-There are so many residential houses that are grandfathered in there, and in all
honesty, there's no way that they're all just going to go away, you know, they're really not. In
talking with Mike Borgos, the decision that was made, I believe, that drew this line on the map
here was they just had to select a number. They had to pick a number, because they were
unwilling to tooth the zoning, so they went 400 feet off the yellow line, and that's, I mean, you
guys probably know better than I, but, I mean, to be honest I don't think consideration was for all
the people that own single family residences.
MR. URRICO-But the point is this was all done before you purchased the property.
MR. PATTEN-Agreed, for sure, and if I had known that this was the intent on this particular
property, then I wouldn't be here, because I wouldn't have bought the parcel.
MR. GARRAND-What did the realtor tell you exactly?
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I don't think we need to get into the discussion about what the claim
may be against the realtors. I think the issue at hand in front of this Board is this use, and how
he got here or why he's here, you know, buyer beware, caveat emptor. They had attorneys
involved, they had realtors involved. This is their fight. We need to deal with the fight we have
in front of us, which is the zone.
MR. URRICO-No, it's hardship, and that's part of the hardship, I think.
MR. JACKOSKI-But then that's a self-created hardship because of the folks that.
MR. URRICO-Well, that's what we're trying to determine.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Right. You're right.
MRS. HUNT-On either side of your parcel there are homes?
MR. PATTEN-There's two pieces of vacant land. On the west side of the property there's a
small 50 foot sliver that's next to my parcel there that's maintained by the current single family
home that's just to the left of that. It's the same owner, and it's Mr. Flint that owns that property,
and he maintains both as such.
MRS. HUNT-So it looks like it's part of their property.
MR. PATTEN-So, it really is, and there's actually a picture that shows that. The other house on
the corner there, that's Mr. Trembley, Don Trembley. He owns the property, Bill Trembley,
sorry. He owns the property in the rear, and he couldn't make it here tonight, but he and I have
had several conversations about him. No way would he want a commercial parking lot or a
business in his backyard. To your point about the modular home, I do intend it to keep, to stay
there. I intend to have that whole road. I hope that single family houses do stay there because
that's what I think a lot of people in the neighborhood. Like I said, I had 26 people sign, and,
yes, I mean I'm sure proper notice was given to them, but not one of them said, yes, we know
that took place, and, I mean, I'm not arguing that it was not identified to them properly, but even
the homeowner that sold me the property, she had no idea.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-May I speak?
MR. JACKOSKI-We'll open the public hearing very shortly, I hope.
MR. PATTEN-Yes. The other point she brings up is this street is very small. It's a very tiny little
street. I mean, it's got kids riding up and down.
MR. JACKOSKI-And we don't know with Site Plan and the Planning Board how they may
designate entrances on and off of that street. It may be that they restrict entrances on and off of
that street because they utilize coming in off the street.
MR. PATTEN-If I were to sell it to somebody.
MR. JACKOSKI-If it were being proposed as a commercial use. I understand. I'm just saying
that it's not guaranteed that there are going to be lots of driveways for commercial purposes on
that street. We don't know what the Planning Board would do. That each parcel is unique and
each application is unique.
MR. PATTEN-For sure. I don't have any intention of selling the parcel to any business. I really
don't care how much they offer me. Because that's not what the neighbors want and that's not
what I want.
MR. JACKOSKI-No, I understand, but see then that puts it in that there's no financial hardship,
because if you're not willing to sell it it becomes no financial hardship because no matter how
much they'll give you, there's no financial hardship. That's what we're trying to weigh here.
That's the difficulty of it.
MR. PATTEN-The financial hardship is just the money that I put down so far. Almost $40,000
and I continue to pay taxes on it every single year, on time. I'm a taxpayer. I mean, I have a lot
of vested interest. I'm actually building another house in Queensbury right now and I work with
the Town all the time. I work for Turner, I actually worked on your, the Queensbury School. I
was the superintendent up there, I worked with Rob Chapman and everybody, so, I mean, I do
have interest in this Town, and if I felt that I was doing something that was completely insane
and opposed to what, you know, your Main Street corridor design allowed, then I wouldn't be
here because I'd be like obviously caveat emptor. I'm the jerk, you know, deal with what I deal
with, you know, the property has to, I don't know, but I really do feel, and so do the
neighborhood residents, that this should be maintained as residential.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any other questions from Board members at this time before I
open the public hearing?
MR. CLEMENTS-1 just want to make sure. You said that the homeowner didn't know this, the
realtor didn't know this and the attorney didn't know this?
MR. PATTEN-Agreed.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MR. CLEMENTS-And the attorney didn't dig that out? Okay.
MRS. HUNT-Well didn't you say it was on the tax rolls?
MR. PATTEN-Yes, I have the tax, that I continue to receive to this day, that shows residential
vacant land on my tax bill. I don't know if you guys received a copy of this, but I'll certainly give
it to you. So self-created, it certainly could be considered self-created. Yes. I should have had
an attorney that was more competent, of course, but, you know, when you pay a professional to
represent you in a real estate transaction, I suppose that you assume that you're represented
properly.
MR. OBORNE-1 think your key word there is transaction. I mean, that's what they're focused on,
unfortunately.
MR. PATTEN-Claiming a check at the end?
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR. PATTEN-Agreed. So, I mean, if I were to go and pull the Town tax bills, then this would just
have showed me that that parcel was residential vacant land, to this day, and that's what I had
mentioned in my response to the Staff Notes, that, you know, maybe things should be updated,
but that's, you know, not my argument.
MRS. PATTEN-We've also looked into caveat emptor. Caveat emptor really relates to goods
and services. You can say caveat emptor for anything, but by being represented by a
professional, by professional realtors and attorneys, there's also caveat venditor, which is seller
beware, and there's another one that I can't remember which is professionals beware. They
also have responsibility for the situation.
MR. JACKOSKI-And we don't disagree. We understand that's your fight with your, we use that
in general. I'm well aware of that. I'm a little concerned for my own personal reasons here. I
don't know who your realtor was, I'm sorry, your lawyer, and I probably should address this more
thoroughly. For the interest of public disclosure, my wife and Mr. Borgos's are cousins. So
being that they're related, and I don't know what your claim is against the attorneys and stuff, I
think I'm going to have to abstain.
MR. PATTEN-He did not represent me in this transaction. Jake Hogan.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I just didn't want to have a conflict of interest. So I would recuse myself
from that discussion. Well, folks, is there any other discussion before we open up a public
hearing? We've obviously going to have some more here. So I'd like to open up the public
hearing. For those of you who would like to address this Board concerning this application, if
you could come forward to the small table and identify yourself, and just state your name for the
record and your address and make your statement. Is there anyone here in the audience who
would like to address the Board this evening? Welcome.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ANN FRANCATO
MS. FRANCATO-Thank you. My name is Ann Francato. I am Genevieve Garrent, the seller's,
niece, blood relation, and I'm her Power of Attorney. When my aunt decided to sell the
property, she had met Chris. He had shown her through his house and she loved it, and she
thought, it's time, she's 94 at this moment, but she was 92 then, it's time to start liquidating
things, and that was one piece that she thought that if there was a house she could sit on her
deck, look at it and enjoy it. My aunt and uncle bought it in good faith from, I believe, a Holby
man, a Holby estate, and it was stated that no commercial property would ever be put on there
in any way or shape. She sold it in the same good faith. She sold it to be a house, to keep the
integrity of the community. My aunt and uncle love the land. My uncle would be picketing here
tonight. He's rolling over in his grave at the thought of a parking lot being behind his house. We
had, I had no idea that there were any changes. I don't live in Queensbury. I live in Hudson
Falls. My aunt had absolutely no idea, she's 92 years old. She didn't receive a piece of paper in
the mail that said, you know, Mrs. Garrent, this is what's going on. If it was in the paper, she's
92 years old. We sold it in good faith to this young man, or she sold it in good faith to this young
man, and I just think it's terrible that progress is going to ruin the integrity of a neighborhood,
where a school is a very short block away. My great niece and nephew go to Big Cross school.
That's a hop skip and a jump from Garner Street, and I just feel very bad that Mr. Patten's had
any problems with building a house. It shouldn't be. That's a community. It's a neighborhood.
Your corridor has been, it's beautiful, and I'm so glad because it's a beautiful entry into the City,
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
but it took years and years and years and years and years. My aunt talked about it for years,
and she hoped she's live to see it, and she did, but is it going to take years and years and years
and years for that piece of property to be sold, and if as you said, I heard you say, if it's going to
be a big box company, well, they'll buy that property again, and Mr. Trombley, I know Mr.
Trombley. He doesn't want anything behind his house like that. I'm going to tell you, when my
uncle, he was, my uncle would be over 100 now, and when they built there, my uncle said you
buy that land. Find the money to buy that land to protect your house, so that nobody else can
build another house close to you, not a business to build another house, and I just hate to see
progress take away the integrity of a lot of people's homes and their lives, and my aunt's home
will be up for sale at one time or another, it's a beautiful little colonial. A parking lot's not going
to help that, or any, from what I understand the land behind her house is grandfathered, so
homes may be built there. They're not going to want to build across the street from parking lots
either. I don't know. I just was very upset when Chris contacted me because we had no idea
whatsoever that there would be a problem. In good faith, from the Holby's to the Garrent's, in
good faith from the Garrent's to the Pattens, and I guess deeds mean nothing, you know, I don't
know, but that's all. I just wanted to come, because my aunt would just be bereft that this was
going on, because she liked Chris and she loved what she saw and she thought that she'd see it
again. She had no idea whatsoever that this was going to be a problem, or else it wouldn't have
been sold, believe me, it would not have been sold. She would hold on to it and she would have
made the family hold on to it forever and ever, to prevent a parking lot from going there. That's
just the kind of people they were. That's all.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you.
MS. FRANCATO-You're welcome. You're very welcome.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any others? Yes, please. Welcome.
WILLIAM MANNIS
MR. MANNIS-Good evening, Board. I'm William Mannis. I live at 105 4t", and the land directly
behind me is adjacent to Garner Street. Right now there's a little forest in there, but I can
visualize, down the road, maybe a strip mall over there on Main Street, and headlights will be
shining right in my bedroom window, my dining room kitchen window. I'm very disappointed that
this was not common knowledge. I asked specifically when I was considering buying the house
from Chris, I asked the realtor, is this R-1, zoned residential. He said it's zoned residential, right
out to the south side of Main Street. The homes and businesses on the south side of Main
Street are commercial. Everything else is residential, and that was a factor in me buying that
property. I didn't want cars coming and going out of parking lots right, just over the other side.
So I'm very disappointed, and I feel kind of put upon that this was not, I mean, it was knowledge,
but the right people didn't have it. I feel quite bad about that, and that would have been a red
flag for me, if I had known that that was going to be a possible parking lot or strip mall or
whatever over there. It would have made a lot of difference in my buying that property. Go
ahead.
ANGELA COBB
MRS. COBB-My name is Angela Cobb, and my husband and I have lived at 17 Thomas Street
since 1966, and no one, our next door neighbor is also with us, Mrs. Busteed, and none of us
knew that that was commercial property on Garner Street. We were not ever informed.
MR. MANNIS-Jimmy Papa did not know, and he's the realtor that sold me the property. He also
sold my house prior to the sale of the new property, or the purchase of the new property.
MRS. COBB-Well, Jimmy Papa's wife grew up just down the street from us.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MANNIS-Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-1966 was a good year, by the way.
RUSSELL COBB
MR. COBB-I'm Russell Cobb, 17 Thomas Street. I was wondering, now you've got three parcels
that might be coming up for sale on the south side of Garner. Now these properties, they're
zoned residential, I assume, and if somebody erects three nice beautiful houses on those
properties, and they sell they to some young people with some nice kids, small kids that like to
play ball in the street or play ball around, and so if somebody comes along on the main corridor,
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
which I understand right now there's a house on, there are a couple of houses that are not
residential housing, but it's people that own it, are residing there as single family, and if they turn
around and decide to stay 40 years, you can't build anything there anyway, unless you, the (lost
word) says that you can confiscate their homes or the property that Mr. Patten owns to make
your parking lots, because I have here the State says you can put, they can put alleyways and
stuff right there coming out onto Garner Street, so that heavy trucks could come out there and
maybe contact one of these young kids in these new houses that have been built on the south
side of Garner, and I don't think that's proper that that should be allowed, that we have heavy
traffic going in and out right now. Thomas Street right now has become a speedway between
Main Street and Knight Street. We have motorcycles, we have heavy trucks, we have
everything going up and down that street. At one time the Town put, or the City put a radar thing
to show your speed. That slowed the cars down for a while, but now we're back into the
speedway, and now we're going to have cars coming in from Richardson Street, coming down
Garner, the same speedway again, trucks coming out there. They're going to rev their engines.
Like Bill said, they're going to, those lights are going to be shining right in his windows, shining
into these new people's houses that they build over on the south side. It's not right that it should
happen, and that's my point.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, sir, thank you. Welcome.
SALLY BUSTEED
MRS. BUSTEED-Hi. I'm Sally Busteed, and I'm the next door neighbor that she was talking
about. My house has been there since 1948. My father built it, first house on the street, and I've
lived there almost 15 years now. Yes, Thomas Street is very busy, much busier than it used to
be. This is a residential neighborhood. One, I will say that I feel that the residents of our area
should have been notified of the zoning change. It affects all of our values of our house. We
have businesses. We have Walgreens on the corner, and you were saying Main Street corridor,
you're looking for businesses to be built on Main Street, parking lots in the back. We're still in a
major economic downturn. Walgreens has been there for, what, a year and a half now, and all
the rest of the property they've got room for, what, four more businesses. Do you see any going
up in there? No, they've got grass growing and weeds. So your properties on Main Street
corridor are not going to be built next year or the year after, and I go up and down Garner Street.
You go up, you put a business in there. Do any of you go up that street? You take your life in
your hand to get onto Richardson Street because it's a hill, and you can't see the cars coming
up over the rise. You just have to go. So you've got a dangerous intersection, and if you go
down that street, as much as Chris has tried to stop it, you have people throwing garbage in
there, throwing trash in there. Would you like to have a garbage dump in your neighborhood? I
don't. Chris has tried. He's put fences up. He's done everything, and still they put stuff there. I
don't like it. I don't know whether you guys have made up your minds before we started, but it's
a residential area. Yes, we live close to Main Street, which is fine, but don't put Main Street in
our neighborhood. That's it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address
the Board concerning this particular project? Seeing no one, if the applicant could re-join the
table. Are there any questions from other Board members before I take a polling of the Board?
Having no other questions, is there anything else the applicant might want to add? What I'd like
to do is poll the Board, before I close the public hearing, to get an idea of what the Board is
thinking to help you and us decide where we might be able to go with this. Is that okay?
MR. PATTEN-Sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-Great. Rick, why don't we start with you.
MR. GARRAND-Certainly. Alleged hardship is unique, does not apply to a substantial portion of
the neighborhood. The applicant brought into evidence that this situation applies to two out of
sixteen of the properties in the neighborhood. I would call that unique. The variance will not
alter the character of the neighborhood. That part of the neighborhood is residential. It cannot
realize a reasonable rate of return substantial as shown by competent financial evidence. I'm
going to go by what's in the property records, $30,000 purchase price. He, to this point, has
realized zero rate of return. He's actually lost money on the property. I'd be in favor of the Use
Variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-1 have to, I can see the Chairman's point here because of the re-zoning that
was done. However, I think I have to agree with Rick's comments, and I also would have to say
that the hardship would be the homeowner, the realtor and the attorney not knowing about this
before he bought this, I really don't see that as a problem. I think that an arbitrary line has been
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
drawn by the Town of Queensbury. In this instance I looked at the map here, and I know that
the property depths are different, but along Garner Street there, there are two properties deep
off of Main Street and going west the rest of the corridor there is one property deep, although
some of them are mostly one property deep. If a precedent was set here, I think that probably
that wouldn't bother me because if somebody else came up and wanted to build a residence in
this area, I would agree. So I would also be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think it needs to be pointed out that area variances, as a rule, should be
very difficult to obtain. A use variance is even more difficult to obtain. That's something that we
take a lot of, we don't usually get very creative with it. It's really very spelled out very specifically
what we can do and what we can't do. That being said, we're talking about one property here,
one specific case. I do not see it setting a precedent because whatever case comes before us
again they're going to have to prove the same hardship, and I don't think we're going to see the
same hardship because this seemed to overlap the Town's change, and maybe the word didn't
get out as quickly as we had hoped when the zoning was changed. So I agree with Rick. I do
agree that in this case the use variance is deserved and should be obtained.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with my fellow Board members. In a sense the use is not
changing. It's the same use that's been there before, so I would be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think that when we changed the Code down here on Main Street there
was a lot of wishful thinking on the part of the Town Board that we were going to make some
major transition and it was going to occur very rapidly. There were a lot of dollar signs in a lot of
people's eyes and a lot of great hopes that it was going to happen, but with the economic
downturn and keeping in mind the fact that this has always been a residential neighborhood
down here, 400 feet back in off Main Street, just a long ways back to that road back there, and I
think at this point in time, if we were going to be strict in our interpretation, as Brian said, I think
that, you know, we would undoubtedly tell you tough luck, you know, you're out your money and
you can just sit on it until some big honchos come in and want to buy you out, but I don't think
that's our purpose here on this Board, all right. We're human beings, too. This can happen to
anybody, and I think it would be, if our Board is competent, we would ask that the Town Board
re-notify all property owners in the Main Street newly created district, at this point in time, that
their properties are no longer viable as far as residential properties, all right. In this instance
here, we're going to be doing this for one property. I don't think, as Roy said, we're going to be
creating a precedent here by any means. Certainly if anybody else came in with some sob story
and people started buying up these lots to speculate and build houses tomorrow, I think our
Board would be very aghast at that, but I think it's incumbent upon the Town Board to make a
resolution and reacquaint all the owners of property down in that district with the facts as they
are, as the Chairman said, you know, if we're going to be strict about this and we want to see
Main Street make the transition, we're going to have to do this at some point, but I still feel, if
somebody big wants to come in and put up some big box store, they're going to make you an
offer you can't refuse in the end, but I think until that occurs, this is a transitional time. We don't
know what's going to occur down the road for us. I mean, maybe nothing's going to happen for
years. Maybe the economic downturn's going to worsen for all I know, but at this point in time, I
would be willing to grant you the variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. As far as my opinion is, I think we're all forgetting that the Holby
family, a very well respected family in Glens Falls/Queensbury, restricted this land to residential
use back, whenever they did do so, and everyone knows that commercial land is usually more
expensive than residential lands. So they already, you know, so to speak, reduced the potential
value of the property by making it, or requesting that it stay residential. So it's my opinion that
because of that covenant in the deed, it was always intended by the family when they sold it to
whomever they did over the years, that it was to stay residential. So I'd be in favor of it
remaining residential. So, having polled the Board, this is an Unlisted SEAR. I will close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And ask for a motion.
MR. OBORNE-You need to accomplish SEAR first. Short Form.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MOTION THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED, THIS BOARD DEEMS THAT,
BASED ON THE INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION,
THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND GIVES A NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING USE
VARIANCE NO. 37-2012 CHRISTOPHER PATTEN, Introduced by Richard Garrand who
moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. JACKOSKI-Now may I have a motion for the Use Variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 37-2012 CHRISTOPHER PATTEN, Introduced
by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
31 Garner Street. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,303 square foot single family
dwelling with a 400 square foot attached two car garage on a vacant parcel in the Main Street
zone on the north side of Garner Street. Under the relief required, the parcel will require relief
from the permitted uses in the designated Main Street district, specifically the requested use for
construction of a single family dwelling in the Main Street zone. As far as making the
determination, the Board has carefully considered the fact that, even though owners should
have been notified in the neighborhood, specifically that their properties were no longer viable
as residential properties, that they were only viable as commercial properties, our Board feels
that there has not been significant notice given. The applicant has provided a response to his
requirement that the existing zoning and previous owner's intentions for this property to remain
residential, even though they're at loggerheads with the current zoning in the Town of
Queensbury that makes this a commercial zone only, our Board recognizes that at a 400 foot
depth that this lot is, and sits on a street back there, that from Main Street it may be a significant
time period before all of the Main Street corridor is developed as a commercial property, and in
the interim period, that at this point in time we can allow this house to be constructed on this site.
The general feeling of the Board is that at some future date, if it does become a viable
commercial district down there and all the properties are purchased, that the offer could be
made to the owner to part with his property for, you know, whether or not that occurs in the
future. As far as the single family dwelling being on site not being in current use with the
surrounding land uses, our Board does feel it does meet the current land use because it is in a
transitional zone between that of a residential zone and a commercial district on Main Street.
So, I'd move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as making the determination, the Board has carefully considered the
fact that, even though owners should have been notified in the neighborhood, specifically that
their properties were no longer viable as residential properties, that they were only viable as
commercial properties, our Board feels that there has not been significant notice given.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim, I don't know that the whole Board agrees to that. So can we maybe leave
that out of the motion?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I'm putting it in. If you don't want to vote it, then don't vote it.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt
NOES: Mr. Jackoski
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. You're all set. You have your variance.
MR. OBORNE-I just want to state for the record that you will be required to apply for a variance
now for, to build the house, and you need to follow Main Street guidelines for that. So that was
in my notes, and just to let you know, you know, give me a call and we'll go through that. You
will be before this Board one more time.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MRS. PATTEN-Can you explain that one more time?
MR. OBORNE-You will be before this Board one more time. You are still in the Main Street
zone.
MRS. PATTEN-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-You were granted a use variance to build a single family dwelling, okay. You still
have to abide by the Main Street zoning guidelines.
MRS. PATTEN-So the modifications that are discussed in there that are possible, that, that's
something we can address also.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. They're allowing you to build a single family dwelling. So that's, that
use is now allowed for that specific parcel.
MRS. PATTEN-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-But the Main Street guidelines, depending on how you design this house now,
you're going to need some relief.
MRS. PATTEN-Okay. So we're not going to put in sidewalks. We're not going to put in lighting.
MR. OBORNE-Your biggest lift is over with.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. That's exactly correct.
MRS. PATTEN-So we'll talk to you soon.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MRS. PATTEN-All right. Thank you. Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-You'll get there. You'll get there. Okay. For the audience. Thank you, again
for participating in this this evening. Again, Chris, sorry about the.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2012 PAUL R. MC PHILLIPS SEQRA TYPE II OWNER(S) PAUL
& SUZANNE MC PHILLIPS ZONING WR LOCATION 45-49 BIRCH ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT OF 9,278 OR 0.213 ACRES. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE FOR AN
EXISTING GARAGE STRUCTURE. CROSS REF BP 609 YEAR 1969 SFD WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.30 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-25 SECTION
179-3-040
PAUL MC PHILLIPS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2012, Paul R. McPhillips, Meeting Date: August 22,
2012 "Project Location: 45-49 Birch Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes property line adjustment of 9,278 sq. ft. or 0.219 acres with neighboring property.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1. Side setback- Request for 4.1 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement of
the WR zone for an existing garage located on the lands of McPhillips.
2. Lot Size - Request for 0.94 acres of relief from the 2 acre lot size requirement for the WR
zone for the Lands of McPhillips.
3. Permeability - Request for 2.19% of permeability relief from the 25% minimimum
allowable impermeabilty for the WR zone for the lands of McPhillips; total impermeability
is 27.19°/x, existing is 26.7%
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to
no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited
based on the proposal and existing conditions.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 4.1 feet or 20.5% relief
from the 20 foot side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 for the WR zone may be
considered minor to moderate relative to the code. Further, request for 0.94 acres or 47%
relief from the 2 acre minimum lot size as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate
relative to the code. Finally, request for 2.19% of permeability relief from the 25%
minimimum allowable for the WR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered minor 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,
BP 609: Single Family dwelling 2009
Staff comments:
Applicant's application states that 0.20 acres or 8,712 square feet to be conveyed when in fact,
as per the survey provided, 0.219 acres or 9, 278 square feet to be conveyed. Site development
data page will need to be updated to reflect this calculation change.
SEAR Status: Type I I"
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Pretty simple application. If you would state your name for the
record.
MR. MC PHILLIPS-Good evening. My name is Paul McPhillips.
MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening, Mr. McPhillips. Is there anything you'd like to add at this
moment, or would you like us to just start asking questions?
MR. MC PHILLIPS-1 hope I get my variance, but God bless you, how do you do this? My
goodness. Thank God for the volunteers. Yes, just really as you can see, I own, I purchased
the land from my family, but the land really sits behind two adjacent neighbors, and basically I'm
in the insurance business. Where the land sits it can't help but be encroached upon. They had
an easement to get in and out of their lands, but it's impossible not to have people on your
property, and being in the insurance business, I didn't like it. It was aggravating to me. I
realized it was going to cause problems with my neighbors, and one of my neighbors said would
you consider selling the land to me, and, Mr. Mackey, right here, and so I just thought, wow, I
think in the long run I think that's going to save a lot of problems, and it's kind of a goofy old
setup, and I just thought it would kind of make things a little better for all involved, and that's the
sole purpose.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time?
It is pretty straightforward. I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience
who'd like to address this Board concerning this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written record?
MR. URRICO-1 do not see any.
MR. JACKOSKI-No written. I'll poll the Board at this time. I will start with Jim this time.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I live across the lake. I paddle by your place all the time, and there's
not going to be any profound change that occurs with this. No one's even going to know if you
went and did it and didn't tell anybody.
MR. OBORNE-It's a line on a piece of paper.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, you know, it's just on a piece of property. That's it. I have no problem
with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree. I have no problem. It's a matter of bookkeeping.
MR. JACKOSKI-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-1 don't have a problem with it either.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in agreement with everybody else.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I don't see how benefits can be achieved by any other means feasible to the
applicant.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Having polled the Board, I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And this was a Type 11. So I'll ask for a motion.
MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion.
MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Joyce.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2012 PAUL R. MC PHILLIPS, Introduced
by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
45-49 Birch Road. The applicant proposes property line adjustment of 9,278 sq. ft. or 0.219
acres with neighboring property. The variances required: The side setback request for 41 feet
of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement of the WR zone for an existing garage located
on the lands of McPhillips. Number Two, lot size, request for .94 acres of relief from the 2 acre
lot size requirement for the WR zone for the lands of McPhillips. Three, permeability, request for
2.19% of permeability relief from the 25% minimum allowable impermeability for the WR zone
for the lands of McPhillips. Total impermeability is 27.9°/x. Existing is 26.7%. There will be
minor to no impacts anticipated on the neighborhood. The feasible alternatives seem to be
limited based on the proposal and existing conditions. The request for 41 feet or 20.5% relief
from the 20 foot side setback requirement from 179-3-040 for the WR zone may be considered
minor to moderate. Further the request for 0.94 acres or 47% relief from the 2 acre minimum lot
size per Section 179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the zone. Finally the
request for 2.19% of permeability relief from the 25% minimum allowable for the WR zone as
per Section 179-3-040 may be considered minor relative to the zone. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated, and the difficulty
may be considered self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 38-2012.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. You have your variance.
MR. MC PHILLIPS-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MR. MC PHILLIPS-And I had no idea what it was going to involve when we made an agreement,
but I want to say Keith and Craig Brown were very helpful to us when we came in. Thank you
very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2012 SEQRA TYPE 11 JO-ANNE NORTON OWNER(S) JO-
ANNE NORTON ZONING MDR LOCATION 25 CENTENNIAL DRIVE WESTLAND
SECTION 12 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL IN
THE NON-ARCHITECTURAL FRONT YARD ON POTTER ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM PLACEMENT OF A POOL OTHER THAN THE REAR YARD. CROSS REF BP 2009-
525 RES ALT/ADD; BP 2009-526 SEPTIC ALT; BP 95-670 ADDITION; BP 1327 SFD YR.
1971 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.7-1-1
SECTION 179-5-020 C,2
DAVE & JO-ANNE NORTON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2012, Jo-Anne Norton, Meeting Date: August 22, 2012
"Project Location: 25 Centennial Drive Westland Section 12 Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to place an inground swimming pool in the non-architectural front yard
adjacent to Potter Road.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
• Setback relief - Relief request for 22 feet for the placement of a pool located other than
the rear yard as per§179-5-020C(2).
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. A feasible alternative would be to
place the pool in the rear yard in order to avoid an area variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The applicant has requested 22 feet of
relief for the placement of a pool in other that the rear yard as per§179-5-020C(2).
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.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
BP 09-525: Residential alteration/addition 10/27/09
BP 09-526: Septic alteration Withdrawn
Staff comments:
A review of the building permit for the residential addition denotes the leach-field and holding
tank is located on the north portion of the parcel. The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to
ascertain the amount of rear yard that is available for the placement of a pool.
SEAR Status: Type I I"
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Again, a pretty simple application. If you would like to identify
yourselves for the record, please, and if you have anything to add to the application before we
ask the Board members to ask you questions.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MR. NORTON-I'm Dave Norton.
MRS. NORTON-And Jo-Anne Norton.
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Is there anything else you'd like to add at this time, or would you like
us just to ask you questions?
MR. NORTON-One thing I guess I'd like to add. We bought the property in 1997 I think, and so
we're not the original owners that it was built for or anything like that. So we're not really sure
exactly where the leach field is, but we do know that the septic tank is located in this vicinity right
here, and based upon the area of the land that was cleared, it does not appear as though there
was room to extend the leach field out to the property line. We believe, based upon the snow
melt, that the leach field, it comes out of the septic tank and we believe the leach field is in this
area here, which is why we're looking at avoiding that leach field and putting the pool in this
area.
MR. JACKOSKI-We understand, and you're saying when you say snow melt, that's because in
the wintertime when there's snow, that area melts first?
MR. NORTON-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And I will state the building permit may be wrong. We just don't know, and there
was no indication during my site visit where it was, but I didn't even think about snow melt, to be
honest with you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, but the applicant has experienced, unless you're spreading salt on your
lawn, which I doubt you're doing. Okay, at this time I'll have Board members ask questions, if
you don't mind.
MR. NORTON-Okay. Are there any questions from Board members? Again, it is pretty
straightforward. Everyone's okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is
there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So is there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-No written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. I will poll the Board. I will start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-I see no problem with this application. I'd be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it appears to be a reasonable request based upon the siting of the
leach field. It's the only place you could put it, plus it's on the south side, it would be in the sun.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I live on a corner lot. I'm grossly prejudice. I'm in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. We've done other ones of these on corner lots and so I'd be in favor also.
MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes, I agree with my fellow Board members. We've been this way before and I
have no problem.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sure I'm in favor. I do want to just briefly talk about fencing, what your plans
are for screening of the pool.
MR. NORTON-We currently have, I don't know if you have any of those pictures.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, they didn't transfer over, but you have a four foot high privacy fence?
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MR. NORTON-Yes, around.
MRS. NORTON-1 think in your packets.
MR. JACKOSKI-We do, we just want to go on the record, that's all.
MR. NORTON-I'm not sure when this picture was taken, but I believe this is, the fence line runs
from here, here, here, and back into the garage. So there's an existing four foot fence with vinyl
slates for privacy.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. NORTON-The side by the road, Potter Road, is elevated, so that is actually more than
four foot.
MR. NORTON-The fence is four foot, but from the elevation of the road to the elevation of the
bottom of the fence, there's a grade there. So anybody driving by on the road is not going to see
it.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, I remember they excavated that about 15 years ago, they widened it and
took all the soil there.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick, do you have a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2012 JO-ANNE NORTON, Introduced by
Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
25 Centennial Drive. The applicant proposes to place an in-ground swimming pool in the non-
architectural front yard adjacent to the Potter Road. Setback relief, relief requested for 22 feet
for placement of the pool located other than in a rear yard as per 179-5-020C(2). Whether
benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant lives on a
corner lot. They're limited by the lot configuration as well as the septic placement. This is the
only means feasible. Whether this will produce an undesirable change to the neighborhood or
character of other properties, it will produce no change in the neighborhood. Is this request
substantial? I would deem this request moderate. Whether this request will have adverse
physical or environmental effects, I don't foresee any adverse effects whatsoever from a pool. Is
this difficulty self-created? I do not believe so. The homeowner has stated they did not have
this house built for themselves. They built the house pre-existing. The Code is what makes this
a little bit difficult for placement of the pool. So I move we approve Area Variance 39-2012.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations.
MRS. NORTON-Thank you.
MR. NORTON-In terms of paperwork on this, where do we go from here?
MR. OBORNE-You'll get a letter in the mail. You've got to close out the variance application,
and I would go ahead and come on in to the office tomorrow and submit your building permit for
that, if you haven't already.
MRS. NORTON-1 think that the man putting in the pool did submit it.
MR. OBORNE-You should verify, definitely verify.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it would be great to check with Staff tomorrow and make sure that they
can get it going for you.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MRS. NORTON-Absolutely.
MR. JACKOSKI-Again, congratulations.
MR. NORTON-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. NORTON-Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2012 SEQRA TYPE II JAY & PATRICIA CARDINALE AGENT(S)
GARY HUGHES OWNER(S) JAY & PATRICIA CARDINALE ZONING WR LOCATION 10
CROSSOVER LANE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED TWO ROUND DECKS TOTALING
680 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE. RELIEF REQUESTED, AFTER THE FACT, FROM SIDE AND
REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF BP 2006-791 SEPTIC ALT; BP 2005-670
ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE
0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-40 AND 41 SECTION 179-3-040
GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I have had questions, though, asked of me, should we combine these two into
one, and Staff, I guess I'd look for your guidance.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. No, because they're two distinctly and separate applications in our
estimation. You might like portions of one and not the other.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think there was concern there could be tradeoff here and there on both. So,
but, okay, we'll treat them as individual.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2012, Jay & Patricia Cardinale, Meeting Date: August
22, 2012 "Project Location: 10 Crossover Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
has constructed two round decks totalling 680 square feet in size. Relief requested, after the
fact, from side and rear setback requirements as well as relief for expansion of a nonconforming
structure.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1. Side setback - Request for 19.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement
for the existing western deck.
2. Rear setback - Request for 14.5 feet of rear setback relief from the 30 foot rear setback
requirement for the existing western deck.
3. Rear setback - Request for 29.5 feet of relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement
for the existing southern deck.
4. The expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
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 to avoid an area
variance appear limited based on existing conditions and lot limitations.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 19.5 feet or 97.5%
relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the existing western deck as per §179-3-
040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 14.5 feet or
49% relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for the existing western deck as per
§179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request
for 29.5 feet or 98% relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for the existing southern
deck as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Finally, the
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
request, after the fact for the expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
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,
A.V. 41-2012 Setback, permeability, FAR Pending
BP 06-791: Septic alteration Issued 11/6/2006
BP 05-670: Residential alteration Issued 8/30/2005
Staff comments:
This application to be reviewed in tandem with Area Variance 41-2012 which deals with a
proposed garage located to the east of the existing decks.
SEAR Status:
Type II"
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you for reading that into the record. Welcome, Gary. It's a pretty simple
application. Do you have anything else you'd like to add to it?
MR. HUGHES-Not really. It's pretty cut and dried. The applicant supposedly had a builder or a
contractor put the decks in and thought that he was going to take care of any permitting or any of
the other things that might have been required. That didn't happen, of course I told him, I said,
you know, that you're ultimately responsible for your own property. It's not something that, you
know, you can maybe depend on someone else, and the decks were put in I believe soon after
the house was built. So they've been there quite a few years. I did the work on the original
renovation of the house back in the mid 90's, and I told him, you know, we have to go back for
relief.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Was the relief discovered because of the request for the garage?
MR. HUGHES-That's correct.
MR. OBORNE-And I added something else to what Gary said, because when they came in for
relief, they had to have a survey and it was found that a portion of the shed, I believe it was, and
a portion of the propane tank was straddling over off the property. They have since moved it.
It's compliant now.
MR. HUGHES-Yes, they have moved that over on to their own property.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions from Board members?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Now the letter talks about combining lots and then nothing would be
necessary as far as the garage goes, Keith? I mean, there was something in there that I was
reading about combining lots would relieve the relief for the garage.
MR. OBORNE-It is required that they combine the lots because it's an accessory structure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. You can't have an accessory structure without.
MR. OBORNE-Right, not without a primary.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I had a question about combining the two lots. What were the lot
numbers on them, do you know? I've got 110, 109, 108 down to 99.
MR. HUGHES-1 believe those were the old subdivision. The tax map numbers are lots 40 and
41 I believe.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MR. HUGHES-Apparently, and I don't know what this was ever going to be, I never really did
any research on it, but it looked like it might have been an area where there was going to be a
campsite type thing where you could pull in a camper or whatever. That's what it looks like it
was maybe intended to be years ago, and I think that's where that came from, the 109 and 110.
MR. CLEMENTS-Do you know where the two lots are, to the west or the east of the existing
structure? Do you know whether the lots to be combined are to the west or east of the existing
structure?
MR. HUGHES-It's to the east. Did you get a survey map?
MR. JACKOSKI-If you look at what Keith has up on the computer. Are there any other
questions at this time?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I had another one. Did they talk about purchasing any land from the
person behind them?
MR. HUGHES-No.
MR. CLEMENTS-Nobody's asked?
MR. HUGHES-No, he didn't. Jay has not talked to the owner behind them. What he did,
though, is the owners around him created letters which are in the packet, showing that there was
really no objections to the setback and as far as use of that land or it didn't bother them, and
there's a piece of concrete walk that actually does go over on the neighbors to the south, and
that neighbor does not have a problem with that.
MR. CLEMENTS-There's also a balcony on here that doesn't show. It goes out toward, it goes
to the north towards Crossover Lane.
MR. HUGHES-Which balcony is that, sir?
MR. CLEMENTS-It's the second floor balcony.
MR. HUGHES-On the house itself?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Well, what's the issue with that?
MR. CLEMENTS-Do you have a picture of that?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. CLEMENTS-1 just wondered how far that was away from the, setback was away from the
road from the balcony that sticks out there.
MR. HUGHES-For the house or the garage?
MR. CLEMENTS-For the house.
MR. HUGHES-1 didn't know there was a balcony that stuck out past the front line of the house.
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, there's a porch there and then along that front wall that is parallel to
Crossover Lane, there's a second floor balcony.
MR. HUGHES-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Can you pull up the assessment pictures, Keith? Because I think it's on those.
MR. OBORNE-1 don't see what the issue is, though. It's pre-existing, nonconforming.
MR. HUGHES-1 drew that about 15 years ago and I can't recall it. That's right, there is a
balcony.
MR. OBORNE-Just for the record, this is a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. So it's legal.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MR. CLEMENTS-Even with the balcony?
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, it's been re-done in the last few years. So then, I mean, if you had that
argument, Keith, you'd argue that these decks were pre-existing, nonconforming.
MR. OBORNE-But they weren't.
MR. JACKOSKI-The balcony, I assure you, wasn't there 10 years ago, or 15 years ago.
MR. HUGHES-1 believe it was.
MR. JACKOSKI-When it was Malcolm's house, it wasn't there. That I know.
MR. HUGHES-1 did the drawing work on that, I'm going to guess in 2005, 2006 and I recall a
balcony. My old brain doesn't remember much anymore, that far back. I think 41 is vacant and
40 has the house.
MR. OBORNE-41 is the house, 40 is residential vacant land. That's what it says. Is it 41, Gary?
MR. HUGHES-Yes, that should be it.
MR. JACKOSKI-There you go, Brian.
MR. GARRAND-That's the balcony.
MR. OBORNE-That's nice. So what's the point? Do you want to table this so they get a
variance for that also?
MR. CLEMENTS-1 thought you might have an answer for me.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you've got '09 and then, yes, it definitely was installed in '09.
MR. JACKOSKI-When were these decks installed that we're talking about this application?
MR. HUGHES-I'm not really sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, if they were installed in '09, too, then.
MR. OBORNE-This Board did not see this house at all before my arrival here at the Town? You
don't remember seeing this?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Never.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-I wasn't here then.
MR. JACKOSKI-The balcony projection is certainly more than 18 inches, right?
MR. HUGHES-1 believe it is.
MR. JACKOSKI-Which is allowed from, I mean, we all know that that 18 inch number is. Well,
what does this Board want to do at this time concerning this?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Let's proceed because we need to hash out what we started, and if we end
up that everybody wants to table this, but I think that we should continue on because we need to
figure out what we're going to do with what's been done so far.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is that okay, Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. Fine.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. I will open the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone
here in the audience that would like to address this Board concerning this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any written comment for the record?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "Dear Board: We are in total support of the approval for both of
these variances. The Cardinale's have done a wonderful job in improving the property they own
on Crossover Lane and it is our belief that the addition of the proposed garage would only
enhance the property they have already improved. As for the decks, they are extremely well
maintained and compliment the architecture of house very well. We believe the approval of
these variances will only enhance what the Cardinale's have already accomplished. Sincerely,
Thomas and Susanne Irish 162 Lake Parkway"
MR. JACKOSKI-Is that the only letter?
MR. URRICO-That's it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. OBORNE-There should be another one in there.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is it for the other application?
MR. OBORN E-Potentially.
MR. URRICO-There's one back here. Jo Kelly.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. HUGHES-Yes.
MR. URRICO-"Dear Mr. Cardinale: I have received and reviewed the plot plan for your
proposed garage on Crossover Lane. As the owners of the adjacent lots behind you (formally
known as the Bellewood property), we support the proposed garage setback from our property,
as shown on the plot map dated 5/18/12 (i.e. 8 ft. vs. the required 30 ft.) subject to: - the
combining of your two lots on Crossover Lane into one lot - the garage not being used as a
temporary or permanent residence in any form - the garage passing all other code, zoning and
planning dept. requirements - total structures and driveway areas complying with the town's
maximum impervious surface requirements. - our review and approval of the complete and final
total plot and building plans (including exterior material and color choices) Thank you for
seeking our support on this proposal. Regards, John & Helen-Jo Kelly"
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Seeing no other written comment or anyone else in the audience,
I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think if we look at the subject property, we can note the fact that it's inland.
It's not going to have an effect on the lake what's been done here. However, I think that the
Board and the Town's wishes are that people follow procedures in building, but I don't think that
there's enough eyes out there wandering around looking to see who's in compliance and who's
out of compliance. I don't really see what the point would be at this point in time to tearing this
all down. It fits with the property. It's a reasonable use of the property. It's an overuse, though,
when we look at the size of the lot, which is .14 acres. If we combine this to do this garage, what
are we going to end up with as far as square footage? Is it still going to be 14 and 14 together?
So 2.8?
MR. OBORNE-.28, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, .28 is what we're going to have. So I mean it's a tiny, tiny lot that's
overbuilt in essence is what we're looking at here, and, you know, I think if this was on the
waterfront you'd be looking at tearing out everything that's been built here. It's only the fact that
it's not on the waterfront, in my book, and it's way inland, that I would give you any kind of slack,
but I'm going to wait and listen to see what everybody else on the Board thinks.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, there used to be a Chairman of this Board who would always ask that we
look at this as if you came with clean hands. In this case, I don't think the hands are dirty
enough to make you do some of the repairs to the Code that would require us to make this
compliant, and I do agree with Jim. I think given the situation and where the changes are
located, I don't think it's serious enough to sort of roll back the clock a little bit, and I would be in
favor of what we have before us right now.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MRS. HUNT-Yes, thank you. Yes, I have to agree. I don't think it's really going to change the
neighborhood or feasible alternatives would be to eliminate what had been done, and it's been
in place for quite a while, and I would have no problem with this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I think the relief is excessive, but the neighbors don't seem to have a problem
with it, the affected neighbors don't seem to have an issue with the decking. Also the fact that
one of the Board members brought up that it is inland and it's not directly waterfront. So it's not
going to have a terrible environmental impact on the area, so I'd have to be begrudgingly in
favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I'm going to have to agree with Rick. I would be begrudgingly be in favor of it
also, but I think that the possibility of asking the person out in back there to buy some of the
property would cut a lot of the variance down, not only the variances, but the impermeable
problems. So I'd be in favor of this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I begrudgingly, I mean, I'm a little concerned here because we've got one
Board member who's reserved and we've got three Board members begrudgingly moving this
forward. I mean, you know about building permits, and this is certainly not simple landscaping.
This is definitely, let's go and do this major construction project. So it is very attractive. I
understand that there's, you know, no neighbor concerns that we're aware of, but it's hard for
me to believe that in two or three years all this work was done without permits, and without
paying attention to setbacks. So I'm a little bit frustrated with it myself. I will address some of
the comments of the Board. It's my understanding that Mr. Kelly, you know, the whole
neighborhood up there, when Mr. Kelly bought these large parcels of land here known as
Bellewood, he is not interested in selling any of it. He had lots of little cottages and he's trying
to improve that whole neighborhood, but he wants control of that property. I believe he's an
attorney downstate. So he's not looking to sell any of it, at least that's what my understanding
is, but maybe we'll go back to Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I'm fine with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-He's okay with it. Okay. So I guess I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And ask for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2012 JAY & PATRICIA CARDINALE,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
10 Crossover Lane. The applicant has constructed two round decks totaling 680 square feet in
size and relief is requested after the fact from side and rear setback requirements as well as
relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The Board recognizes the very tiny nature
of this lot, at .14 acres, and that these decks were not applied for, but at the same time their
effect is not negative as far as the property values or whether it fits with the property, but at the
same time we recognize the fact that, you know, if this were Waterfront Residential lot we
probably would really make you take the whole thing down, but because of the fact that this is
inland from the lake, that we can allow it to be continued in use in perpetuity. We do not feel
there's an undesirable change. There is a problem with runoff, as far as the permeability on this
property, and we feel that this has been overbuilt and we would expect that there would be no
further expansion or use of this property contemplated in the future. That the Board has been
given knowledge of the fact that these two parcels have been combined so we no longer have a
.14 acre lot, but we have a .28 acre lot, with the two combined properties, and that occurred this
year 2012.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-Any discussion. I would like to note, would we be willing to, with this particular
motion, allow for the combining of the two lots, because of how it's overbuilt, and address that
now, and make that a condition of this particular variance, in case the other one doesn't move
forward?
MR. HUGHES-The lots have been joined.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MR. UNDERWOOD-So they're already done.
MR. HUGHES-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Legally done?
MR. HUGHES-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-How do you combine them if you have two separate tax bills?
MR. OBORNE-You'd have to ask the applicant that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, again, I mean, if you have two separate tax bills, they aren't combined.
MR. HUGHES-By deed they are combined.
MR. OBORNE-That may have happened this year. I mean, I don't know.
MR. HUGHES-Yes, it just happened.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, again, could we maybe clarify that the, Jim, would you be willing to add
that in?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Great. Thank you very much.
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2012 SEQRA TYPE 11 JAY & PATRICIA CARDINALE AGENT(S)
GARY HUGHES OWNER(S) JAY & PATRICIA CARDINALE ZONING WR LOCATION 10
CROSSOVER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,064 SQ. FT. 3-CAR
GARAGE WITH SECOND FLOOR STORAGE. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM
REAR SETBACK, HEIGHT, FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2006-791 SEPTIC ALT; BP 2005-670 ALT.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.14
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-40 &41 SECTION 179-3-040
GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2012, Jay & Patricia Cardinale, Meeting Date: August
22, 2012 "Project Location: 10 Crossover Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 1,064 sq. ft. 3-car garage with second floor storage. Applicant
requests relief from rear setback, height, floor area ratio, and permeability requirements for the
WR zone.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1. Rear Setback- Request for 22 feet of relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for
the WR Zone.
2. Height - Request for 9.5 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement for
accessory structures in the WR Zone.
3. Floor Area Ratio - Request for 1,722 square feet of relief from the maximum allowable
FAR of 2,599 square feet for this parcel. Note: Total proposed floor area is 4,321 square
feet which equates to a Floor Area Ratio of 36.6°/x.
4. Permeability - Request for 1,074 square feet of permeability relief from the maximum
allowable permeability of 2,953 square feet for this parcel.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
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
reduce the size of the garage to lessen the severity of relief requested in regards to the FAR
and height requirements. Concerning permeability, the proposed 38 foot wide driveway
leading to the proposed garage could be reduced in size to reduce the severity of the relief
requested and/or permeable pavement be pursued.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 22 feet or 73% relief
from the 30 foot rear setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate
to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 9.5 feet or 60% relief from the 16
foot maximum allowable height for a detached garage in the WR zone as per §179-3-040
may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request
for 1,722 square feet or 66% of additional floor area above the allowable floor area of 2,599
square feet for a ratio of 22% as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe
relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 1,074 feet or 36% relief from the 25%
allowable permeability as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the
ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
A.V. 40-2012 Setback relief for decks Pending
BP 06-791: Septic alteration Issued 11/6/2006
BP 05-670: Residential alteration Issued 8/30/2005
Staff comments:
The applicant appears to have offered permeable pavement for the new driveway and as such a
reduction of 837 square feet of impermeable surfacing may be realized. The zoning board of
appeals may wish to ascertain if in fact the applicant is offering up permeable pavement and if
so a reduction to the relief request would be in order.
SEAR Status:
Type II"
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome, again. If you could state your name for the record.
MR. HUGHES-My name is Gary Hughes, and I'm representing Jay & Patricia Cardinale. I'm
open to any questions.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members?
MR. URRICO-How can we reduce the height of the garage?
MR. GARRAND-This is a garage. It's not a house. I mean, there's no reason for a garage to be
that tall.
MR. JACKOSKI-What's the second floor going to be used for, Gary?
MR. HUGHES-Storage.
MR. GARRAND-What's the next owner going to use it for?
MR. HUGHES-Storage? I don't know, I can't project the future. With the site conditions up
there at this point, when did the initial work on what was kind of an old dilapidated house which
was ready to fall down and we put a foundation under it. That foundation is a very little crawl
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
space at this point, and the floor plan's a little open in the center and there really is no room for
anything to store in that basement. It's a damp crawl space. It's not even a basement. He has
a small shed on the property and really he's kind of limited to storage. So he'd like to, you know,
have the ability to store items up over the garage. What he does is he's a, I don't know if you're
familiar with the gentleman. He owns Bodies by Jay in South Glens Falls. It's a body shop, and
what he does is he collects corvettes, and he has them in storage, and he'd like to have a place
to keep them rather than at his garage at his business, keep one or two of them, because when
he brings it home he really has up to the lake for the weekend or one of them up to the lake for
the weekend, he really has no place to keep it out of the elements. So that's why he's proposing
the garage that he's proposing, and with the lack of space, as far as a basement or an attic in
the existing house, he's really very limited on storage.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I'm questioning the same thing Roy is about the height of what you've
got upstairs there, because it could easily be converted, at some point in the future, and, you
know, if you had knee walls and you just had actual storage space up there, no windows, I might
buy into it, but the way it is now, it's just too many open doors plus it's a three car garage on this
tiny little lot. We started up here on the lake with little cottages, and we've gone to homes.
We've started with tiny little boathouses. Now we're going to mega everything, and, you know,
this lot, more than anyone else, even though it's inland, it doesn't have an effect on the lake, it
does have an effect on neighborhood character because every time everybody biggers up and it
forces everybody else to jump and say, I want that, too, you know, you gave it to him, so why
can't we all have something like this, but I understand needing storage for cars occasionally,
but, you know, it's a lake, it's supposed to be a camp, you know, it's not supposed to be a.
MR. HUGHES-This is his only residence, though.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 know, and I think everybody understands that, but a two car garage to me
would be much more appropriate. Even that would be a bit of a stretch. If you had storage
space over the top, I might buy that, too, but three car, to me, seems excessive.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members at this time?
MR. URRICO-1 just want to follow up on what Staff asked about the permeability of the new
driveway. Is there such a thing as a reduction of impermeable surface?
MR. HUGHES-Yes, the Town engineer, when we do a permeable surface, he allows 50% of
what the manufacturers think that it's worth, and that's what I've calculated into the project,
proposed project.
MR. URRICO-Is that the answer we're looking for?
MR. OBORNE-That is how that calculation came about, yes.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-At this time, any other questions before I open it up for a public hearing? We
do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd
like to address this Board concerning this application? Mr. Water Keeper, if you could.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We do have
concerns about the requested variances, since the floor area ratio and permeability cover are
design standards based on the capacity of the land to support and mitigate impacts, it's our
opinion the proposed project exceeds the supportive capacity of the land, especially with the
shallow groundwater table and alternatives are available to minimize the requested variances.
The requested variances are not the minimum necessary for the applicant to achieve their
intended use and can be considered substantial. I think the Board has touched on the garage.
We feel that it could be reduced in the floor area ratio by reducing the size of the proposed
structure. Again, we feel this is in the Critical Environmental Area. It may not be right on the
shore, but it is within the Critical Environmental Area, and we do think that the FAR and the
permeability are important to follow. Regarding permeability, a 38 foot wide driveway is
excessive, which could accommodate four car widths, and should be reduced as well as
consider permeable pavement. Additionally, the existing driveway could be considered to be
eliminated as well. The requested variances may have potential negative impacts on the
environment. We do support the use of the rain garden which is proposed, but the project does
not address stormwater management from the existing impervious cover. Also we had a
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
question on the second floor and whether that was intended living space or storage. The floor
plan did show a bathroom in there, I recall, which makes you believe that there's possible further
demand on the property and the septic system. So we think that alternatives should be
reviewed. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. There is no one else in the audience at this moment. Is there
any additional written comment, other than the one letter read in from Mr. Kelly?
MR. URRICO-No. I mean, there's the same letter that I read in earlier.
MR. JACKOSKI-Should we read it in again?
MR. OBORNE-That's up to you. It's on the record for the other one, but, yes, whatever you want
to do.
MR. URRICO-And there's also the same letter from the Irish's as well.
MR. GARRAND-I don't think it'll be necessary.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think it's necessary, either. It is part of the public comment, I'm sorry, in
the minutes of these proceedings. So having no additional written comments, and hearing
public comment from those in the audience, I'll poll the Board.
MR. URRICO-I do have one question about one of the letters. Can a letter, can a neighbor
make those types of demands, where he said a review and approval of the complete and final
total plot and building plans including exterior material and color choices?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-And the answer is no, and I think what we have to do is treat that that if we don't
assure what was in that letter, then we would have to, it would be suggested that then he would
not be in favor of the project.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-And that would be the most conservative way to approach that.
MR. URRICO-All right.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll start with Joyce.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I think this proposed construction is way over the top. I think a three
car garage is too much for the property, and I certainly am not in favor of the height, the second
floor, and the fact that there's a bathroom up there. I would not be in favor of the application.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I agree. I think the structure is too large. I think it's overkill, and I think that I'd
like to see it compliant.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I agree. Brian hit the nail right on the head. This hasn't been constructed yet
and there's every reason to expect that this could be compliant.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in agreement. I think that this garage is really a deal killer for me. I think the
height, the excessive size of it, the permeability of the driveway, I mean, everything could be
scaled back quite a bit. So I would not be in favor of this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-There would have to be a significant reduction in the size contemplated
here. I'd like to see a two car garage contemplated, and I would like to see a more reasonable
storage space upstairs with knee walls so it couldn't be converted for any other purpose and the
elimination of the toilet downstairs, too, I think that's redundant.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, Gary, are you going to be requesting a tabling of this application?
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MR. OBORNE-Submit revised plans.
MR. JACKOSKI-If you could submit revised plans based on the comments of the Board, and
since the applicant is formally requesting a tabling of this application, I'd turn to Staff to find out
approximately when we should try to reschedule it?
MR. OBORNE-This would have to be out to October, October 17th would be fine.
MR. JACKOSKI-So with a September 15th submission deadline.
MR. OBORNE-September 17th
MR. JACKOSKI-The 17th because of the weekend. Okay. September 17th deadline with an
October 17th date. Would anyone care to make a motion? And, just for the record, I have not
closed the public hearing.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2012 JAY & PATRICIA CARDINALE,
Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
Until October 17th with a September 17th deadline for submissions.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Gary.
MR. HUGHES-Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. JACKOSKI-At this time is there any additional discussion by Board members on any other
matters?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we've got this joint meeting thing we've got to discuss, and remind
everybody to hang on to your Blue Moose stuff because that's going to come back at some
point, right? Will we not see that for a couple of months?
MR. OBORNE-You won't see that for a couple of months. Definitely hang on to it.
MR. JACKOSKI-So if Staff maybe could brief us on what has just been handed to us this
evening.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. The Town Board, on Monday, has formed a committee, of which two Town
Board members, Craig and myself are a part of, and this is to facilitate a special meeting for
Queensbury Partners to attempt to come to some sort of reconciliation as to what, or direction
would be the better word for that, to get the two Boards together, to get the applicant together
and the committee all in one room and try to figure out how we can move this project forward.
All we're asking for right now in this resolution is to set the date of that meeting. Counsel will
also be there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Proposed September 12th
MR. OBORNE-September 12th, exactly. This is a general discussion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We sat down with them in one session initially. A second session was
requested after the input that we gave at that point. At that point it was still in conceptual plan.
Are we still dealing with a conceptual plan exactly as presented to us previously?
MR. OBORNE-That's a great question. I'm not sure, to be honest with you. I don't know how far
they've already revised it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, I know that our Board tried to get some concrete direction, as
to the fact that we weren't totally against this plan, but we expected that there would be some
movement on their part, too. I mean, we talked about moving stuff back from the road, bringing
it more out of the Travel Corridor Overlay and things like that, some commonsense stuff,
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
directions. I know for myself I said the boulevard in the back, shrink that down to two lanes, and
everything could get pulled in towards the center. I think it would get rid of a lot of the relief that
was requested previously.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think, though, that because we haven't noticed that we're going to be
discussing this project as a Zoning Board, I feel that we shouldn't really talk about the merits of
the project at this time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but it was a conceptual plan, so we can talk about a conceptual plan
because it was not like a final plan signed off on and we had gone through our ZBA checklist.
We weren't asked, they were not asking us, at that point, they wanted our opinion as to what
had been previously proposed, you know. So I would think that we would expect, if we were
going to have this meeting, that they would come in with some feasible alternatives to their
original, what they had produced.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I think all that we're asking for right now is to set that meeting, and I will
guarantee you, I'm not going to guarantee you anything, but I would suspect that as a result of
this meeting, you will have revised materials, and I think that's the bridge we're trying to gap
here.
MR. GARRAND-Okay, because we got nothing last time.
MR. OBORNE-1 know.
MR. GARRAND-I mean, there was no feedback whatsoever. Nothing.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So at this point is the Board willing to put forth this motion that has been
requested of us to hold this joint meeting with this committee that has now been formed by the
Town and the applicant concerning this project?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Absolutely.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So would someone care to make this motion?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I'll do it.
MOTION TO APPROVE SETTING A SPECIAL MEETING BETWEEN THE QUEENSBURY
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, QUEENSBURY PARTNERS AND THEIR DESIGNATED
PROJECT AGENTS, QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, AND PLANNING ZONING ISSUE
RESOLUTION COMMITTEE ON THE FOLLOWING DATE: Introduced by James Underwood
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
Wednesday, September 12, 2012; 7 pm
Location: Queensbury Activities Center, next to Town Hall
742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2012 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. JACKOSKI-Now that we have that completed, is there any other business to be brought
before the Board this evening?
MR. OBORNE-1 don't have any other business except I do have a comment to make on what we
will be going forward to on September 12t". We don't know what we have to do, but we need to
get a discussion going. If you have any questions, contact me as one of the committee
members, or contact Craig, as one of the committee members, or Montesi, or Strough, okay.
Obviously I'm probably the easiest ones to get a hold of. I can tell you what the status of
documents is at this point. You certainly can come in and we can talk, and that's the purpose of
this committee.
MR. URRICO-1 have a question, though. This says the resolution committee and appointing its
members. That means that not everybody's going to be a part of this resolution committee?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, you guys were appointed.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
MR. OBORNE-We were appointed on Monday for that committee.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-It seems, Keith, too, that can we just get 100% clarification. Is there an actual
completed application in front of us?
MR. OBORNE-There is a completed application in front of the ZBA, not necessarily the Planning
Board. It denotes all the relief that they are requesting.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. They're requesting the same previous relief?
MR. OBORNE-They're not requesting anything. All they're requesting is some guidance and
there's going to be some horse trading. There has to be, obviously.
MR. JACKOSKI-And this meeting will be open to the public.
MR. OBORNE-It will be open to the public, but will not be entertaining public, there's not a public
hearing component to it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Who is actually Chairing the meeting?
MR. OBORNE-I have not even gone down that path at this point.
MR. JACKOSKI-I do think that we need to establish who the facilitator will be.
MR. OBORNE-The facilitator will be the committee.
MR. JACKOSKI-The four of you?
MR. OBORNE-The four of us, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it'll be much more constructive than the way it went before, and I
think it would have been redundant for us to come back a second time, as we said before, this
seems to be a way to move things forward.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, and the committee is formed to facilitate this. As far as who's going
to be the lead on the committee, we have a committee meeting coming up. We'll decide that. I'll
broach that subject.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, the reason you're having the meeting, it seems to me, is to facilitate the
Zoning Board to get through this process, which I certainly understand. It may be, you know, I'd
be curious as to who's going to actually lead the facilitation.
MR. OBORNE-Well, I would differ, I would beg to differ with that. It's not to facilitate the Zoning
Board. I think it's to facilitate both Boards, specifically, you know, if we're talking about the
Planning Board, specifically why they put the Zoning Board in that position, and let's come, let's
get it together here. It's yin and yang as far as I'm concerned.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume you guys are going to focus on not just this project, but the
whole corridor and the guidelines as we currently, because our Board, I think, is in a position
where we're looking at it from the Bay Road corridor guidelines, and if there's going to be some
movement to deviate from that, that's, I mean, we're open to any proposals.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I know you are.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don't think we're close-minded.
MR. OBORNE-I think absolutely the whole corridor is up, you know, as far as the guidelines for
that corridor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I think, keep in mind, too, with your group of four, I think it's
important to key in on what's been done and why we would deviate from that model that we
follow to a tee so far, and also we have other remaining properties that are open on that corridor,
what is the impact going to be on them. I mean, are we going to offer them the same
opportunity? And that's key, because I don't want to see it just be a unique situation where
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2012)
we're only dealing with this one parcel and we're going to bend over backwards for them and not
everybody else.
MR. OBORNE-Well, that's the precedent that gets set.
MR. GARRAND-People have sacrificed in order to be compliant. Bear in mind.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Again, we're going to go through all the merits of this thing, but the
bottom line is we're going to have this joint meeting as the four parties come together. Is there
anything else we need to discuss this evening?
MR. OBORNE-That's it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion to adjourn?
MRS. HUNT-So moved.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. Can I have a second?
MR. CLEMENTS-Second.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Brian.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
AUGUST 22, 2012, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian
Clements:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
38