07-22-2015 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 22, 2015
INDEX
Area Variance No. 88-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 2.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48 & 49
Sign Variance No. 87-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 2.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48 & 49
Area Variance No. 36-2015 Michael Hutsenpiller, Jr. 2.
Tax Map No. 279.19-1-25
Sign Variance No. 37-2015 Church of the King, Inc. 7.
Tax Map No. 289.19-1-16
Sign Variance No. 38-2015 Cedars I, L.P. 10.
Tax Map No. 289.19-1-15
Area Variance No. 39-2015 Dwight & Kim Campney 13.
Tax Map No. 289.9-1-46
Area Variance No. 40-2015 Elizabeth Little Hogan 17.
Tax Map No. 289.14-1-14
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.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 22, 2015
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
RONALD KUHL
RICHARD GARRAND
JOHN HENKEL
MICHAEL MC CABE
MEMBERS ABSENT
KYLE NOONAN
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Welcome, everyone. It's seven o'clock. I'd like to call to order the
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for Wednesday, July 22nd here at the
Queensbury Activities Center. For those of you who haven't been here before, it's a very easy
process. We'll do some housekeeping first, then we'll call these applications to the table here.
We will read the application into the record. We will ask questions of the applicants. We'll poll
the Board. We'll open a public comment period when one is advertised and then we'll take
action accordingly. So the agendas are on the back table, and we'll begin right away here with
the approval of the meeting minutes of June 17t". Can I have a motion to approve?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 17, 2015
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2015, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Noonan
MR. JACKOSKI-And then we'll do the meeting minutes of June 24tH
June 24, 2015
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2015, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Noonan
MR. JACKOSKI-We do have an administrative item to deal with tonight. It is regarding the
McDonald's application on Route 9.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: TO FURTHER TABLE OR DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
THE FOLLOWING:
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2014 MC DONALD'S USA, LLC
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2014 MC DONALD'S USA, LLC
MR. JACKOSKI-They have the option of either denying without prejudice or actually tabling the
matter. I would propose that we further table the matter.
MRS. MOORE-1 do have additional information from them. They had obviously restructuring at
McDonald's. So they weren't sure if they were going ahead, but I just received information from
them over the past few weeks that they are going ahead with projects for McDonald's, this one
in particular, to tear it down and rebuild it, and they have submitted information that some of the
Board members saw previously about increasing the permeability, though not great, but they did
increase it some, and they are working, I have communicated to them that they need to provide
some information about that agreement between the adjacent property owner that actually has
the building on it. So I'm waiting for that information to come in, but they did submit information
for the August meeting. So I would table them to the first August meeting.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So it's Staff's recommendation that we have a motion to table the
McDonald's applications, both of them, to the first August meeting and they've already submitted
and made the deadline for July.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
McDonald's USA, LLC for an Area Variance. Applicant proposes demolition of existing 4,800
sq. ft. restaurant as well as demolition of the existing 411 sq. ft. detached shed/garage.
Applicant proposes construction of a new 4,365 sq. ft. restaurant. Relief requested from
minimum front yard setback requirements as well as from maximum permeability requirements
in the CI zoning district.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
McDonald's USA, LLC for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of
Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of 6 new signs. Three wall signs proposed to read
as a single letter"M" and two wall signs to read "McDonalds"where wall signs total 108 sq. ft. in
lieu of the maximum allowable two wall signs to total 30 sq. ft. each. Also, one compliant 45
sq. ft. freestanding sign will be installed. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs
for a business and maximum size.
The Public Hearing was not opened and will be re-noticed.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2014 & SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2014 MC
DONALD'S USA, LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Ronald Kuhl:
Until the first August meeting with material to be submitted by the July deadline.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Noonan
MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, I assume that that's also Sign Variance 87-2014?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, both applications.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2015 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL HUTSENPILLER, JR.
OWNER(S) MICHAEL HUTSENPILLER, JR. ZONING MDR LOCATION 185
SUNNYSIDE EAST APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 570 SQ. FT. SHED.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ALLOWABLE 500 SQ. FT. LIMIT FOR SHEDS ON
PARCELS LESS THAN 3-ACRES. CROSS REF BP 2010-374 RES. ALT.; BP 2010-338
SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2015 LOT SIZE 1.38 ACRE(S) TAX
MAP NO. 279.19-1-25 SECTION 179-5-020
MIKE HUTSENPILLER, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-2015, Michael Hutsenpiller, Jr., Meeting Date: July 22,
2015 "Project Location: 185 Sunnyside East Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 570 sq. ft. shed.
Relief required
Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-3-040 Establishment
of districts -dimensional requirements and 179-5-020 Accessory structures -yard requirements.
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Sq. ft. shed limit < 3 acres Minimum property line setbacks
Required 500 sq. ft. 25 ft.
Proposed 570 sq. ft. 8 ft.
Relief 70 sq. ft. 17 ft.
Criteria for considering an area variance pursuant 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 maybe 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 maybe available
to reduce the size or alter the location to be more compliant.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
substantial relevant 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. The ,project as ,proposed may
ha ve little to no impact on the physical or en vironmental conditions of the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff Comments
The applicant proposes to construction a 570 sq. ft. storage shed that does not meet the
required setbacks of the zone and exceeds the size of accessory structure. The applicant has
indicated that the location was to allow for visibility of the backyard area. The applicant has also
discussed with the adjoining neighbor and has indicated they agreed with the 8 ft. setback. The
information submitted shows the location of the shed and elevation."
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. It's a very straightforward application. Is there anything you'd like
to add before we ask questions?
MR. HUTSENPILLER-No. Actually my name is Mike Hutsenpiller, but the applicant is my son.
He's on vacation so he sent me in his place. I would certainly like to have him build the shed so
he can get the crap out of my house and put it in his house. So I guess if you have any
questions, I'd be glad to answer them for you. I don't know if you need me to explain any further
than this gentleman described in regards to what my son is attempting to do. He does have a
good rapport with his neighbor who's lot is somewhat impacted to the right hand side there, and
if you look at his lot, if you notice it's kind of long and narrow. So if he adheres to the side yard
setbacks, it kind of puts the shed in the middle of his property, and as a result would diminish his
view to the back part of his property. It's all grass land and as you can see to the north there,
and it's a nice parcel, and I think they've mentioned the shed would be in keeping with the
neighborhood in regards to what's out there.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any Board member questions at this time?
MR. KUHL-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Are you going to put any electric or water in there?
MR. HUTSENPILLER-I believe there would be electric. To my knowledge there's not going to
be any water.
MR. KUHL-So it's not like he's building it for you to move into.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
MR. HUTSENPILLER-No.
MR. KUHL-Just electric will be in there?
MR. HUTSENPILLER-Yes. It's just thereto run the power tools and the outside lights.
MR. KUHL-And it'll be just used for storage?
MR. HUTSENPILLER-He's got a big mower he wants to put in there.
MR. KUHL-Thank you.
MR. HENKEL-There's no other reason they're not moving that over? There's not something in
the middle of the yard there? I know I did see the garden there.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-The garden was just something we put in a few years ago.
MR. HENKEL-It seems like he does have enough space that he could, you know, do away with
at least the setback.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-Yes, well, again, if you move the setback, the setback's 25 feet.
MR. HENKEL-Right, but you'd have to go 17 feet more from where he is, to the west. He'd
have to move it to the west 17 feet more to get that 25 feet.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-Correct, and then the 25 feet from the other side. So he's kind of locked
n to the middle of the lot to meet the setback requirements.
MR. HENKEL-He's got 70 feet on the west side to play with there.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-Right.
MR. HENKEL-It looks like a house.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-Well, it is to a certain degree. I mean, that's the look of it, but it's not
meant to be as habitable space, and that's just what he likes to do. He likes to build and does a
good job at it, and I think when it's all said and done it's going to look very, very nice.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, it's a nice looking building. Just out of character with the rest of the area,
with other people's sheds.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-Yes, he's gone around and priced sheds and what not. He feels he can
build one for cheaper than he can buy one.
MR. JACKOSKI-So we're tasked with, you know, the minimum amount of relief necessary to
allow you to have the project. It's pretty hard for me to grant all of that relief from the setback
when there's clearly property available to put the shed on. I'm comfortable with the increase in
size. Quite frankly I'm comfortable with that because it looks so nice architecturally, but I am
struggling with granting that much relief, crowding that lot line, when there is property that could
be utilized. So if you utilize the 17 extra feet, you'd still be 53 feet off the one line, and 25 feet
off the other line. The center line of the view of the yard is only 30 feet. So you're still able to
look straight up the middle of the lot.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-That's true, but again, I guess he's looking to maintain the view that he
has and really, if you put the shed up, more than likely that's going to block the view. Again, his
neighbor has no issue in regards to the setback. So he's just seeking relief to maintain his
property.
MR. JACKOSKI-There could be others, as John mentioned, the trees are right there. There's
leaves on the trees, but those are very large trees blocking that view.
MR. HENKEL-You could switch it to the other side, have it on the west side of the lot behind
those two trees there, and that still gives us 25 feet of relief, so we wouldn't have a side setback.
Then that would take care of the problem there. You wouldn't have to worry about the view
because the views are going to be blocked by the trees.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-Well, the trees are, we call them trees, but they're limbs.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is it more important for the larger shed or the lot line?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
MR. HUTSENPILLER-You know, I talked to him before I came in. I guess it's more important
for the lot line than the size of the shed. He said he's willing to reduce the shed size, as a way of
negotiating, I guess, in regards to not giving up everything.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, let's see if we have any public comment. Do any Board members
have any further questions at this time? No other comments. Are there any written
comments? I am going to open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes. "I recently spoke with my neighbor Mike Hutsenpiller, Jr. who resides at 185
Sunnyside East about a proposed shed he wants to construct on his property. The location of
his shed is within setback limits opposing my west side property line. After the conclusion of
our conversation, we both agreed to have the east side wall of his shed be 8'-0" minimum from
my property line. I have agreed to this relief from the 25' setback from side property lines that
both of us are governed under per tax maps. This agreed upon 8'-0" distance from my side of
the property line is fine. I did review his design plans in regards to the concept of the shed and
have no disagreements with the structure. I know the quality of work that Mike is capable of is
very attractive and look forward to this completed shed project. Sincerely, Scott Bruno Owner
of 187 Sunnyside East"
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other public comment?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board
concerning this matter? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board.
Thank you for reading that letter. It is important for me to hear that the adjoining neighbor is in
agreement with the placement as applied for. I'll start with Mike.
MR. MC CABE-1 took a look at this. The location's pretty rural. I wondered what the
requirements were if he went a little bit to the east in Washington County, would he have the
same restrictions. You can't really see it, and I think he should have shed enough to support
the equipment he has. I'd hate to see any little auxiliary structures, and again, it's nice to have
the view. So I would support the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. I also would support the project if he moved the shed over to the west, but I
would not support it as is.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-1 think there's some leeway for him to move it over.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I think the lot supports the effort that this gentleman is trying to do. The fact that the
neighbor is not against the eight foot. I'm in support of that. I think he's pushing us on the 70
feet because if he's building it, he could build it at 500, but all is said and done, I think the
property can support it and I would be in favor of it the way it is.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. When I look at the test, I see minor impacts to the neighborhood. The
feasible alternative might be, would have been to reduce the size of the shed, which he's agreed
to do. I realize it's too close, he still needs a variance for the side setback, but the neighbor
willing to concede that seems to satisfy me. The relief may be considered substantial
otherwise, but I think we've mitigated that somewhat. The project as proposed may have little
or no impact on the physical or environmental conditions, and I think the difficulty is self-created,
but on balance I would be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and you would reduce it to the 500 square feet or less to not have that size
variance?
MR. HUTSENPILLER-Yes, he said he would knock off about four linear feet of the shed to gain
that 70 fee.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
MR. JACKOSKI-But can we just knock this down to the one variance, which is the setback
variance, I'd also be in favor of it because of the neighbor and because of that. So I'm going to
close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm going to seek a motion for approval of just the one variance for side
setback relief. Staff, do we have to actually deny the?
MRS. MOORE-No, the applicant, if he chooses to withdraw that, then it sounds like you're
withdrawing that portion?
MR. HUTSENPILLER-The size of the shed.
MRS. MOORE-The size of the shed. Okay.
MR. KUHL-Can I make that recommendation, Mr. Chairman?
MR. JACKOSKI-Please.
MR. KUHL-Thank you.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Michael Hutsenpiller, Jr. Applicant proposes construction of a 500 sq. ft. shed. Relief requested
from minimum property line setback requirements. The relief he's requesting is in the property
line setback. The requirement is 25 feet. The proposed is 8 feet. The relief is 17 feet.
SEAR Type II - no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 22, 2015;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because we believe that minor impacts to the neighborhood are
anticipated.
2. Feasible alternatives would be to move it, but seeing as how the neighbor is in
agreement and he's just replacing an older shed, I think that that speaks for itself.
3. Whether the requested Area Variance is considered substantial. You might say it could
be considered substantial relevant to the Code.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district. I don't believe there is because of where it is on the property.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
36-2015, MICHAEL HUTSENPILLER, JR., Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2015 by the following vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, for clarification, does the 500 square feet trigger the size variance, or is it
499 and a half?
MRS. MOORE-1 think it's 500 square feet.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
MR. JACKOSKI-We said 500, but we want to make sure that 500 doesn't actually trigger.
MRS. MOORE-1 think it's 500 or less.
MR. HENKEL-Should we put in the conditions that he can't put a garage door in it, because that
would be a second garage.
MRS. MOORE-If that happens, then he would be asking for.
MR. JACKOSKI-He'd have to come back.
MRS. MOORE-He'd have to come back.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, not even a garage. If you have a certain sized opening that could be
determined to be a garage.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-Do you know what sized doors?
MR. JACKOSKI-Staff does. Six feet?
MR. HUTSENPILLER-The only reason I ask, he's got a big mower.
MR. JACKOSKI-I just wanted to make sure that we didn't trigger.
MRS. MOORE-No more than 500 square feet. So 500 square feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-So 500 square feet or less. So we're all set. Thank you.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-If you look at the drawings, it just shows a double entrance.
MR. JACKOSKI-It's up to our Zoning Administrator to determine that.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-So 500 feet or less is good to go.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's what Staff has said.
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Henkel
ABSENT: Mr. Noonan
MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck.
MR. HUTSENPILLER-Thank you very much.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 37-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED CHURCH OF THE KING, INC.
AGENT(S) TOM HUTCHINS, P.E. - HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) CHURCH OF
THE KING, INC. ZONING OFFICE LOCATION 681 BAY ROAD (INTERSECTION OF
EVERGREEN LANE AND BAY ROAD AT CEDARS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY)
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RETAINING WALL BETWEEN
EVERGREEN LANE AND CHURCH OF THE KING FOR INSTALLATION OF 12 SQ. FT. SIGN
ON THE WALL FOR THE CEDAR SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNS. IN
ADDITION, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS
ON THE PROPERTY. CROSS REF SV 38-2015; SP 56-2000; BP 2007-143 DECK; BP 2003-
009 SIGN; BP 2010-392 NEW CHURCH; BP 97-678 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 98-075 DEMOLITION
BARN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2015 LOT SIZE 3.06 ACRE(S) TAX MAP
NO. 289.19-1-16 SECTION CHAPTER 140
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-This is tied, as everyone knows, to the next application, which is Cedars I, L.P.
We'll start with this Sign Variance first.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 37-2015, Church of the King, Inc. Meeting Date: July 22,
2015 "Project Location: 681 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
proposes construction of a 12 sq. ft. off-premises freestanding sign to be placed on the northerly
entrance drive to identify Cedars Senior Living Community. The freestanding, off-premises sign
to be constructed on top of a new retaining wall; wall owned by Church of the King.
Relief required
Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 140-6 Signage -
placement and number.
Parcel will require sign variances as follows:
Front Setback Side yard setback Maximum #of signs
Required 15 ft. 15 ft. Allowed -1 free standing
Proposed 9.7 ft. 0.6 in 2 Free standing
Relief 5.3 ft. 14.6 ft. More than one free standing sign
Criteria for considering a SIGN variance pursuant to chapter 267 of town law
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to
no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives maybe limited as
Church of the King is,pro vided,permission for Cedars to install a stone wall on the,property
that extends onto the church property.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
substantial relevant 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. The ,project as ,proposed may
have minimal to no impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff Comments
The applicant proposes to install a 12 sq. ft. sign on a 4 ft. new stone wall feature at the north
area entryway of the Cedar's Senior community. The plans show the location of the proposed
signage to be on the church's property. The applicant proposes the same sign on the south side
of evergreen however and would be consistent with one another."
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. It's a very easy application. We apologize for dragging you in here,
but if you'd like to add anything for the record at this time, or the Board can just ask questions.
MR. HUTCHINS-I think it's pretty clear. We can go with questions. This is Tom Goetz from
Green Mountain Realty who has the ownership of the Cedars.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time? We do have a public hearing
scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is none.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board
concerning this application? This is an Unlisted SEAR for everyone. I'll poll the Board. I'll
start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-I see no problems granting this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-No, I have no problems with this. I'm in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
MR. MC CABE-I'll support the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I'd be in favor of the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-1 have to disagree with the Staff Notes. Staff says the relief may be considered
substantial. I think it's moderate at best.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm in favor of the project as well. So I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion for SEAR. Rick?
Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 37-2015, Church of the King, Inc. based upon the
information provided by the applicant and the supporting documentation, this Board finds that
this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative
Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Henkel:
Duly adopted this 22"d day of July, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Noonan
MR. JACKOSKI-May I have a motion for approval?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Church of the King, Inc. for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of
Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a new retaining wall between Evergreen Lane
and Church of the King for installation of 12 sq. ft. sign on the wall for the Cedars Senior Living
Community. Relief requested from minimum front and side yard setback requirements for signs.
In addition, relief is requested from maximum number of allowable signs on the property.
SEAR Type: Unlisted;
Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 37-2015, Church of the King, Inc. based upon the
information provided by the applicant and the supporting documentation, this Board finds that
this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative
Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Henkel:
Duly adopted this 22"d day of July, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Noonan
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 22, 2015;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a
detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign
variance? No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? It's not really practical to seek benefit by
another method.
3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? The requested sign variance is not substantial.
It's moderate.
4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? It will not have an adverse impact on the
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The alleged difficulty is self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 37-2015,
Church of the King, Inc., Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded
by John Henkel:
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may
request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires;
B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to
review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking
any action until the APA's review is completed;
C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building & codes personnel'
D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt
of these final plans;
E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed
project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the
Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or
department.
Duly adopted this 22"d day of July, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Noonan
MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations on that one.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 38-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED CEDARS I, L.P. AGENT(S)
TOM HUTCHINS, P.E. - HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) CEDARS I, L.P. ZONING
OFFICE LOCATION 35 EVERGREEN LANE; INTERSECTION OF EVERGREEN LANE AND
BAY ROAD AT CEDARS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY APPLICATION PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 12 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN TO BE PLACED ON THE
NORTHERLY ENTRANCE DRIVE; CEDARS SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR
SIGNS. CROSS REF SV 37-2015; BP 2002-816 COWL BLDG. WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING JULY 2015 LOT SIZE 5.54 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-15 SECTION
CHAPTER 140
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 38-2015, Cedars I, L.P., Meeting Date: July 22, 2015
"Project Location: 35 Evergreen Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a new retaining wall on the south side of Evergreen Lane for installation of a12
sq. ft. sign on the wall for the Cedars Senior Living Community.
Relief required
Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 140-6 Signage -
placement and number.
Parcel will require sign variance as follows:
Front Setback Side yard setback
Max Allowed 15 ft. 15 ft.
Proposed 9.7 ft. 3.5 ft.
Relief 5.3 ft. 11.5 ft.
Criteria for considering a SIGN variance pursuant 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 maybe 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 maybe limited as
the driveway entrance to the Cedar's is 30 ft in width and the lawn area is less than 20 ft.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
substantial relevant 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? The ,project as ,proposed may
have minimal to no impact on the,physical or en vironmental conditions in the neighborhood.
The applicant ,proposes to remove an existing non-compliant sign that is located on the
adjacent property to install the new sign.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff Comments
The applicant proposes to install a 12 sq. ft. sign on a new 4 ft. stone wall feature at the
entryway of the Cedar's Senior community. The plans show the location of the existing sign to
be removed and the new sign. The new sign is proposed to have mostly dark lettering. The
applicant proposes the same sign on the north side of evergreen however that sign is to be
located on adjoining property due to the stone wall configuration."
MR. JACKOSKI-If you could state your name for the record, and if you'd like to add anything
before we ask questions?
MR. HUTCHINS-I'm Tom Hutchins.
TOM GOETZ
MR. GOETZ-And Tom Goetz.
MR. JACKOSKI-Questions again? Any Board member questions at this time?
MR. HENKEL-The only question I've got is, it is a nice sign, but it's so dark, how are you going
to see that from a distance? It's going to blend in pretty good. I mean, it's a great sign.
MR. GOETZ-We've got some samples that we've looked at. It does look dark here on the
picture, but.
MR. HENKEL-No lighting?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
MR. GOETZ-No lighting.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written
comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's no written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this
Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I will poll the Board. The public hearing is
still open. I'll start with Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I'm in favor of the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I'm in favor of the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm okay with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I have no issues with this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 have no problems with it. I would support the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll close the public hearing, and I'll see a SEAR resolution.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 38-2015, Cedars I, L.P.; based upon the information
provided by the applicant and the supporting documentation, this Board finds that this will not
result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration,
Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 22"d day of July, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Noonan
MR. JACKOSKI-May I have a motion for approval?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Cedars I, L.P., for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury.
Application proposes construction of a 12 sq. ft. freestanding sign to be placed on the northerly
entrance drive; Cedars Senior Living Community. Relief requested from minimum front and side
yard setback requirements for signs.
SEAR Type: Unlisted;
Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 38-2015, Cedars I, L.P.; based upon the information
provided by the applicant and the supporting documentation, this Board finds that this will not
result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration,
Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 22"d day of July, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 22, 2015;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a
detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign
variance? We've determined that an undesirable change to the neighborhood will not be
produced.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? The benefit cannot be sought by other
practical methods.
3. Is the requested Sign Variance substantial? We feel it's moderate.
4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? No.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 38-2015
Cedars I, L.P., Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald
Kuhl:
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may
request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires;
B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to
review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking
any action until the APA's review is completed;
C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building & codes personnel'
D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt
of these final plans;
E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed
project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the
Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or
department.
Duly adopted this 22"d day of July, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Noonan
MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck.
MR. GOETZ-Thank you very much.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2015 SEQRA TYPE II DWIGHT & KIM CAMPNEY AGENT(S)
MICHAEL SCHUSTERITSCH OWNER(S) DWIGHT & KIM CAMPNEY ZONING WR
LOCATION 20 SULLIVAN DRIVE - GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF 672 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 713 SQ. FT.
SINGLE-STORY HOME; FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) INCREASING FROM 24 PERCENT TO
36 PERCENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FROM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS
REF BP 2007-600 RES. ALTERATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE
0.14 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-46 SECTION 179-3-040
DWIGHT CAMPNEY& MIKE SCHUSTERITSCH, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2015, Dwight & Kim Campney, Meeting Date: July 22,
2015 "Project Location: 20 Sullivan Drive - Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of 672 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing 713 sq. ft. single-
story home.
Relief required
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Front yard setback Side yard setback FAR % permeable
Required 30 ft. 15 ft. 0.22 75 %
Proposed 18.30 ft. SE; 18.42 ft. 5.43 ft. NW; 5.33 ft. 0.36 70%
SW SW
Relief 11.7 ft. SE; 11.58 SW 9.57 NW; 9.67 ft. 0.14 in excess 5%
Criteria for considering an area variance pursuant 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. The information through Real Property
indicates there are garages detached and attached on neighboring properties.
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 due to the lot size at 0. 14 acres.
3. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate relevant 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? The project will have minimal to
no adverse effects or impact on the,physical or the environment conditions of the area. The
applicant has indicated the garage addition will be consistent with the existing home.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created
Staff Comments
The applicant proposes to construct a 24 ft. by 28 ft. attached garage. The proposed garage
does not meet the required setbacks for the front or east side and exceeds the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR). The applicant has indicated when the existing home was rehabbed, a full basement was
installed. The project included enclosing a front-porch area - Area Variance No. 34-2008, see
,photos from previous staff. The existing open front porch was added at a later time. The plans
show the location of the attached garage and front elevation sketch."
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could state your name for the record, please, and if you'd like
to add anything else that should be made available to us concerning information on the project.
MR. CAMPNEY-My name is Dwight Campney.
MR. SCHUSTERITSCH-I'm Mike Schusteritsch.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
MR. JACKOSKI-So I think one of the first questions I have is, being 28 feet deep, is there any
way that it could be only 24 feet deep so you could avoid four feet of relief? It does stick out
quite far from the house.
MR. CAMPNEY-Well, the thing is, I want to be able to get two cars, a motorcycle and an ATV in
there.
MR. SCHUSTERITSCH-And this way he doesn't have any outdoor storage.
MR. CAMPNEY-Right. Because I really have a small lot.
MR. JACKOSKI-Can you push the garage back? Why does it have to be so close to the road?
MR. CAMPNEY-Because I have a sliding door right there on the side that goes into the living
room, part of it, and I'd have to close that in.
MR. SCHUSTERITSCH-And actually because the house sits on a little slight angle, when you
go back, it's going to be close to the property line.
MR. HENKEL-I see you have a well outside of the house there. I didn't see any well house.
MR. CAMPNEY-No, that's gone.
MR. JACKOSKI-We didn't know if it was underground.
MR. SCHUSTERITSCH-That was eliminated.
MR. HENKEL-So that would not interfere, obviously, with that.
MR. SCHUSTERITSCH-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions?
MR. KUHL-Well, this was a small lot, and it was a real old house that they replaced and they
upgraded the lot and the whole area.
MR. HENKEL-It looks good.
MR. KUHL-I mean, it's an improvement to the neighborhood. If you had to give up the four feet
to get this approved, would you?
MR. CAMPNEY-I hate to, because then I'd have to put an outbuilding out or something.
MR. HENKEL-You can't put another?
MR. JACKOSKI-Twenty-four foot garage, that still leaves five feet of space.
MR. CAMPNEY-Yes, width wise.
MR. JACKOSKI-But it's 24 wide and 28 deep, correct?
MR. CAMPNEY-Right.
MR. KUHL-If you had to give up four foot of your depth, could you still live with it?
MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, can you put up the bird's eye view while he's answering that question for
Ron.
MR. HENKEL-Wouldn't that be easier just to do that with a new door?
MR. KUHL-No, no, that's his living room.
MR. HENKEL-The problem is the topography. He's boxed in.
MR. KUHL-He's boxed in.
MR. HENKEL-And he's got a rock wall to the side there.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
MR. JACKOSKI-It just really is so far forward of the house. Any other questions at this time for
the applicant from Board members before I open the public hearing? We have a public hearing
scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "We are the owners of the property to the east of Campneys at 12
Sullivan Drive and live across from them at 17 Sullivan Drive. We have no objection
whatsoever to their proposed addition. All the work they have done so far to the property has
improved the neighborhood and increased the value of our property. They have shown great
taste in the improvements they have made to the property and always ask us neighbors for
approvals before starting new projects. They have been good neighbors and we hope their
variance is approved. Larry Dickinson Marianne Dickinson"
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board
concerning this particular application? Seeing no one else, I'll leave the public hearing open
and I'll poll the Board. I will start with Ron.
MR. KUHL-Yes, as I said, I think you really improved the whole property, I really do. Even if
you cut your garage four feet, you'd still need relief. I think it's an improvement to the
neighborhood, and begrudgingly I'd be in favor of this.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-1 think it could be cut back four feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm okay with the project as proposed.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I've just got a question. Now, if they took off just two feet, would that help with
the FAR variance a little bit? Because you've got permeability five percent of relief they're
looking for, and also .14 in the FAR. Would that?
MR. JACKOSKI-It's only 50 square feet.
MRS. MOORE-1 was going to say.
MR. JACKOSKI-They'd still have to have an FAR variance.
MR. SCHUSTERITSCH-1 have a question. If you set that back any further, are you any
smaller? So it's further from the front road. You're only increasing the driveway a little further
and you're still not going to have the permeability.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, we realize that. It's just that we're trying to better understand the
neighborhood. You're sitting so close to the road. So, John, as proposed?
MR. HENKEL-As proposed. I guess I'll be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-As Ron said, I think they've made an improvement to the property, and the
neighbors testified that they've always covered things with them. I'm impressed by that. So I
would support the project as it stands.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm simply against it because it's just too many variances and too much.
I think there's a way to shrink it down a little bit, but you don't need my vote to get approval. So
we're going to close the public hearing and seek a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion?
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Dwight &
Kim Campney. Applicant proposes construction of 672 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing 713
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
sq. ft. single-story home; Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increasing from 24 percent to 36 percent.
Relief requested from minimum front and side yard setback requirements as well as from Floor
Area Ratio requirements. Requirement for the front yard setback is 30 feet. The proposed is
18.30 feet southeast; 18.42 feet southwest. Relief requested is 11.7 feet southeast and 11.58
southwest. Side setback requirement is 15 feet. The proposed is 5.43 ft. northwest; 5.33 ft.
southwest. The relief requested is 9.57 northwest; 9.67 southwest. The floor area ratio should
be at .22. They're proposing .36. That gives them required relief of .14. The permeability
should be at 75%. Proposed is 70%, and relief requested is 5%.
SEAR Type II - no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 22, 2015;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because we believe that minor impacts to the neighborhood are
anticipated.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are limited due to the size
of the lot, which is .14 acres.
3. Whether the requested Area Variance is considered substantial. It could be considered
moderate relevant to the Code.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district? This project will have minimal to no effect on the physical or
environmental conditions of the area.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
39-2015, Dwight and Kim Campney, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
ABSENT: Mr. Noonan
MR. JACKOSKI-You've done a great job with the project, thank you. Keep it up. You're all set.
Congratulations.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2015 SEQRA TYPE II ELIZABETH LITTLE HOGAN AGENT(S)
MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S) ELIZABETH O'CONNOR LITTLE IRREV. INC.
ONLY TRUST; ELIZABETH LITTLE HOGAN TRUSTEE ZONING WR LOCATION 11
PIONEER POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES REBUILDING AN EXISTING 420 SQ. FT. +/-
COVERED BOATHOUSE WITH A SUNDECK. THE NEW BOATHOUSE WITH A SUNDECK
WILL BE OPEN SIDED AND TO BE LOCATED IN THE SAME POSITION AND HEIGHT AS
THE PREVIOUS ONE. A PORTION OF THE BOATHOUSE WILL BE A REAR 48 SQ. FT.
STORAGE CLOSET. THE EXISTING CONCRETE DOCK IS TO REMAIN AS CURRENTLY
LOCATED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACKS FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION IN THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. CROSS REF SP 46-2015;
BP 2015-273 BOATHOUSE ALTERATIONS; BP 2001-808 GARAGE; BP 2001-759 DECK
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.21
ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-14 SECTION 179-5-060 (7)
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; BETTY LITTLE, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2015, Elizabeth Little Hogan, Meeting Date: July 22,
2015 "Project Location: 11 Pioneer Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 470 sq. ft. open sided boat house with sundeck.
Relief required
Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-5-060 Docks,
Boathouse, moorings.
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Side yard setback
Required 20 ft.
Proposed 9.7 ft.
Relief 10.3 ft.
Criteria for considering an area variance pursuant 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 maybe 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 to be
limited due the configuration of the existing dock area where the boathouse is to be
constructed.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate relevant 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. The project will have minimal to no
adverse effects or impact on the,physical or the environment conditions of the area. The
applicant has indicated the existing boathouse and sundeck was in disrepair and was
demolished.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff Comments
The applicant proposes to construct a 420 sq. ft. open sided boathouse with a sundeck. A
portion of the existing boathouse has been removed. The new structure does not meet the
setbacks for the north side of the property. The information submitted shows the existing and
proposed details of the project."
MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board introduced a resolution prepared by Staff
that based on its limited review they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot
be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted July 21, 2015 unanimously.
MR. JACKOSKI-Would you identify yourselves for the record, please.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I'm Mike O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I
represent the applicant. With me is Betty Little who is the primary beneficiary of the trust that
actually owns the property. Elizabeth Little Hogan is her daughter, the Trustee of that Trust,
and the only comments I'll make is that I own the property immediately to the north of this
boathouse. I have no objection to it. My sisters, Ruth Ogden O'Connor and Mary Lois
Moynihan own the property immediately to the south of it and they have no objection to the
project. Thank you. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions from Board members on this application?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
MR. KUHL-Is the head wall, the head wall you left off, is that coming down, Mike, or are you just
going to build from that?
MR. O'CONNOR-That's also coming down. The back end of it.
MRS. LITTLE-It's a three foot closet, existing closet.
MR. KUHL-That stays? Okay, you're just going to build out from there.
MR. O'CONNOR-1 didn't know the first part was coming down.
MRS. LITTLE-You did so. You told me to get the permit.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions? I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-There is no one in the audience. So I'm not going to ask if anyone in the
audience would like to speak. Is there any written comments?
MR. URRICO-There's no written comments. I'll poll the Board and leave the public hearing
open. Ron?
MR. KUHL-I think it'll improve what was there before. I don't know if many people know what
was there. It was a wreck, and it's kind of a shame that when people make improvements like
this they've got to go through this process at the expense.
MR. O'CONNOR-It was built in 1960 with lumber that was probably about 50 years old. So it
did last for a while.
MR. KUHL-I have no problem with this, Mr. Chairman.
MR. GARRAND-1 have no problem with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I'm in favor of the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I'm in favor of the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm all yeses.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is he billing you by the hour?
MRS. LITTLE-1 haven't found that out yet. You better go quickly, just in case.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-I will seek a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Elizabeth Little Hogan. Applicant proposes rebuilding an existing 420 sq. ft. +/- covered
boathouse with a sundeck. The new boathouse with a sundeck will be open sided and to be
located in the same position and height as the previous one. A portion of the boathouse will be
a rear 48 sq. ft. storage closet. The existing concrete dock is to remain as currently located.
Relief requested from minimum setbacks for new construction in the Waterfront Residential
zone.
SEAR Type 11 - no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 22, 2015;
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and
upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town
Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as
follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because it's actually going to be an improvement to the area.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, but are not practical.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because it essentially replaces what was there
before.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district?
5. Is the alleged difficulty is self-created.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
40-2015, Elizabeth Little Hogan, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Noonan
MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations.
MRS. LITTLE-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you, and we thank Laura for her assistance in getting this on in a
very judicious way and helping the application.
MRS. LITTLE-Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Any other business in front of the Board this evening? Could I have
a motion to adjourn?
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
JULY 22, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Noonan
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you everyone.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2015)
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
22