01-19-2017 01f18/20,17)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 18, 2017
INDEX
Area Variance PZ 253-2016 Josh Kenyon 2.
Tax Map No. 307.-1-8
Area Variance Z-AV-0002-2017 Mark Dickinson 4.
Tax Map No. 289.9-1-40
Area Variance Z-AV-0003-2017 Michael Fiacco
8.
Tax Map No. 296.18-1-5
Area Variance Z-AV-0004-2017 Frank Perrotta, Jr. 12.
Tax Map No. 239.7-1-38
Sign Variance Z-SV-000 1-2017 Smart Wash of Queensbury, LLC
26.
Tax Map No. 303.15-1-12
Area Variance Z-AV-000 1-2017 Mike Regan 29.
Tax Map No. 279.19-1-8
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.
"I
01/18f2017)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 18, 2017
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD
JOHN HENKEL
HARRISON FREER
MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone, to the Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Queensbury
meeting this evening Wednesday, January 18th. For those of you who haven't been here
before, it's actually an easy process. There is an agenda on the back table with some
guidelines as to how we operate, but basically we'll call each application up to the little table
with their agents. We'll listen to the application be read into the record by Roy who has the
most tedious task here this evening. We'll then ask for any updates from the applicant. We'll
ask the applicant some questions. When there has been a public hearing advertised, and
every one of these applications this evening has had a public hearing advertised, we will give
the public a chance to speak, including any written comment that we, the Board, may have
received. We'll ask the applicants to re-join us back at the table. We'll maybe ask some more
questions, and then we'll poll the Board and determine how we want to move forward. Moving
forward to a simple approval, a potential vote for denial, or possibly the applicant asking us to
postpone the application and maybe get some more information and move forward at another
meeting. So I'm going to start this evening right away with the approval of meeting minutes for
December 21St. We have to do some housekeeping here. Can I have a motion for approval?
MR. FREER-I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes of December 21, 2016.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 21, 2016 with correction
MRS. HAYWARD-1 have a correction to the minutes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead.
MRS. HAYWARD-On Page 33 of the minutes, Steve Jackoski got quoted and I quoted.
MR. JACKOSKI-So we'll have the minutes. So the Staff simply used my name instead of
Michelle's on the Mason project that was Takundewide Cottage Number Ten. I recused myself
from that meeting. It's just the formality at the top. Page 33. So I do have an approval of the
meeting minutes with the correction that Michelle has identified for December 21St. Do I have a
second?
MR. MC CABE-I'll second.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 21, 2016, Introduced by Harrison Ford who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michael McCabe:
With correction noted on Page 33, Steve Jackoski got quoted on the Mason project, should be
Michelle Hayward.
Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr.
Jackoski
NOES: NONE
2
01/18/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. The first item on tonight's agenda, and this is good news for
everyone, these are all New Business items. So there's nothing that's been carried over from
prior meetings. This is Josh Kenyon, Area Variance No. PZ 253-2016. This is 11 Tuthill
Road, Ward 4. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to
be read into the record and if the applicant could join us here at the small table.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE PZ 253-2016 SEQRA TYPE 11 JOSH KENYON OWNER(S) JOSH
KENYON ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 11 TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 480 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING 960 SQ. FT. DETACHED
GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS
REF RC 735-2016 GARAGE ADDITION; BP 89-516 IN-GROUND POOL; BP 88-500
ADDITION; BP 88-449 PORCH; BP 86-070 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 5.02 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 307.1-8
SECTION 179-5-020
JOSH KENYON, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 253-2016, Josh Kenyon, Meeting Date: January 18, 2017
"Project Location: 11 Tuthill Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 480 sq. ft. addition to existing 960 sq. ft. detached garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the rural residential 5ac
zone.
Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirements RR5A zone
The applicant proposes the construction of a 480 sq. ft. addition to an existing 900 sq. ft. garage
where a setback of 49.5 ft. is proposed from the north side setback and a 75 ft. setback is
required.
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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the
neighboring properties as the new construction is to an existing garage.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible
alternatives may be limited to due to the location of the existing garage.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 25.5 ft.
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 be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site
or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The project as proposed may be
considered self created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a 480 sq. ft. addition to an existing 900 sq. ft. garage for a
total of 1,380 sq. ft. The addition is to be an enclosed pole barn built on the existing open area.
The addition is to be at 16 ft. high where the existing roof line is at 14 ft. and to remain. The
applicant has indicated when the property was purchased the garage was in the existing
location."
3
01/18/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. A lot of stuff, right?
MR. KENYON-Yes.
MR. JAC KOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. KENYON-I'm Joshua Kenyon.
MR. JACKOSKI-Joshua, is there anything you want to add at this moment or just have Board
members ask you questions?
MR. KENYON-No, I think it's pretty straightforward.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public
hearing?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I've got one. What's the reason for the extension in the back instead of
going off the side where you wouldn't have to infringe on the setback? Were you trying to get
more length to the garage? Have you got to put something longer in there?
MR. KENYON-1 need something taller. I've got a tractor to plow the driveway, and the existing,
I believe it's a kit garage with a low, like a seven foot door. It's much cheaper to build a higher
pole barn off the back than to tear the existing structure to raise it to get the tractor inside under
cover.
MR. HENKEL-So side addition wouldn't help going to the south?
MR. KENYON-To the south is the leach field, septic tank.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. That's a good explanation.
MR. KENYON-Yes, and then there's a bank off to the right side. To extend the roof out, to do
on that side, it would be even closer, well, it would be about the same variance, I think, area
wise, to the property line. So the cheapest way to go seemed to be to build off the back.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, because we didn't have anything that said leach field on that side or
anything. It didn't show that. So that makes sense.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? We do have a public
hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board
concerning this application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open temporarily until
we poll the Board. I'll poll the Board to see what the will of the Board is at this time. Does
anybody want to go first?
MR. MC CABE-1 took a look at the property. It's a challenge, topographically, and building on
to an existing building also limits what you have. So it kind of makes sense to me. I have no
problem with the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Michelle.
MRS. HAYWARD-1 agree. I have no problem with the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a five and a half acre lot. It's in the middle of nowhere basically, but I
think in a practical sense what you're proposing makes perfect sense because it's easier to do
the construction. A pole barn is going to go up in no time at all with minimal disturbance to the
site. So I'd be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, I support this application. Just be careful driving home.
01/18/2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also support this project, no problem. Go for it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. I believe it satisfies the criteria.
MR. JACKOSKI-See how easy this is. Right? Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing
and seek a motion for approval.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Josh
Kenyon. Applicant proposes construction of a 480 sq. ft. addition to existing 960 sq. ft.
detached garage.
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the Rural Residential 5-
Acre zone.
Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirements RR5A zone
The applicant proposes the construction of a 480 sq. ft. addition to an existing 900 sq. ft. garage
where a setback of 49.5 ft. is proposed from the north side setback and a 75 ft. setback is
required.
SEQR Type 11 — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 18, 2017;
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're simply extending a building that already exists.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not reasonable, again
because of the existing configuration of the land.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's moderate at worst.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, 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. PZ 253-2016, JOSH KENYON, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Duly adopted this 18th day of January 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr.
Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck.
5
01/18f2017)
MR. KENYON-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Next on the Board's agenda this evening is Mark Dickinson. It is 42 Sullivan
Place. Area Variance No. Z-AV-0002-2017, a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing
scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-0002-2017 SEQRA TYPE II MARK DICKINSON AGENT(S)
DEVIN DICKINSON — D.L. DICKINSON ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) MARK DICKINSON
ZONING WR LOCATION 42 SULLIVAN PLACE GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 672 SQ. FT. 1-STORY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO
INCLUDE BACK DECK AND AN ENTRYWAY TO BASEMENT FLOOR AREA. EXISTING
HOME IS 2,500 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT); PROPOSES TO BE 3,230 SQ. FT. AND EXISTING
FLOOR AREA 3,800 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 5,200 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MAXIMUM PERMEABILITY AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 96-463 PORCH, BP 96-264 POOL, BP 92-743 2-
CAR ATT. GARAGE, BP 89-577 SFD, AV 81-1989; BP 89-577 SEPTIC WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-40 SECTION 179-3-
040
DEVIN DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MARK DICKINSON,
PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-002-2017, Mark Dickinson, Meeting Date: January 18,
2017 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 672 sq. ft. 1-
story residential addition to include back deck and an entryway to basement floor area. Existing
home is 2,500 sq. ft. (footprint); proposed to be 3,230 sq. ft. and existing floor area 3,800 sq. ft.
and proposed is 5,200 sq. ft.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from maximum permeability and Floor Area Ratio requirements for
the WR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirements WR zone
The applicant proposes a 672 sq. ft. 1 story residential addition and basement addition where
the floor area is to be 28.9% where 22% is the maximum allowed and the site permeable is to
be 66% where 75% is required.
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. The expansion
allows the reconfiguration of bedrooms and includes access to the basement.
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
may be limited as the project is an addition that currently meets the setback requirements
and the request is for WR zone FAR and permeability.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The floor area proposed 28.9% relief is for 6.9% in excess
and permeability proposed at 66% and relief requested is 9% in excess.
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
will have minimal impact to the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Staff comments:
6
01/18f2017)
The applicant proposes a 672 sq. ft. single story addition and basement area. The addition
includes a basement access door. The applicant has proposed an infiltration area 3 ft. X 3 ft.
and 70 ft. wide as part of stormwater management on the site. The applicant has indicated the
addition will include a master bedroom, a new bath area, and closet. The home will remain as a
3 bedroom home as shown on the plans."
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record.
MR. DICKINSON-My name is Devin Dickinson. I'm from Dickinson Associates. I did the
survey and engineering work. My cousin Mark Dickinson is the owner.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anything that you'd like to add on to the application at this time or
would you like to have the Board members ask you questions?
MR. DICKINSON-1 think that pretty well covered the gist of what we're trying to do here. It's a
one story home. It's a 1300 square foot home. It's got a breezeway and attached garage.
Obviously in the floor area ratio all that stuff is combined. It makes it seem like it's bigger than
it is, but I think everything is there.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any Board member questions at this time? We do have a public
hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address
the Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "My wife and I will not be able to attend the Zoning Board of
Appeals hearing on Wednesday, January 18th. However, we would like to say that we approve
of this addition that Mark and Melissa Dickinson have planned for the west side of their house at
42 Sullivan PI. They have discussed such plans with us, and we have no objections.
Sincerely Robert L. Harris Patricia L. Harris 46 Sullivan PI." And another letter. "We will be
unable to attend the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing scheduled for Wednesday, January 18,
2017, as we will be out of town on vacation. However, we would like to make it known that we
are direct neighbors of Mark and Melissa Dickinson on Sullivan Place and have no objections to
the Area Variance for that property that is being requested. The Dickinson's are good and
responsible neighbors and we have discussed the plans for the new addition with Mark and
have no objections to the plan to build an addition on their house at 42 Sullivan Place.
Sincerely, Nancy S. Quillinan Walter K. Quillinan I'm sorry I don't have their address here, but
they are neighbors.
MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. Aren't they asking for 1240 square feet over the allowable?
Is that what they're asking for? Are you asking for 1240 square feet above the allowable floor
space?
MR. DICKINSON-1 believe that's correct because the basement would be included. Yes, so it's
672 square feet on the first floor and we've got the.
MR. HENKEL-But you are staying within the boundaries of the setbacks? Nothing's outside the
setbacks, right?
MR. DICKINSON-Correct. Yes, we've worked through the plans trying to make sure everything
fits but also trying to limit as many variances as possible.
MR. HENKEL-There's no way of adjusting that permeability at all? It's, again, 66%.
MR. DICKINSON-Yes. We're at 70% right now.
MR. HENKEL-Right, but you're going to be going down to 66%.
MR. DICKINSON-Right. So what I tried to do with the stormwater management was, there's no
stormwater devices on the property right now. I've put the infiltration trench in to collect the
water from the addition and portions of the existing impervious trying to offset any kind of
environmental concerns.
MR. HENKEL-That's at the west side, right?
MR. DICKINSON-Yes, correct, southwest. Yes, that peak runs the long way of the house so
you're going to collect a lot of the water in the back there, and it naturally flows to that area, and
7
01/18/2017)
we're right at .21 now with the floor area ratio. So it's difficult. I mean, even ifyou went up
with a second story, you're still adding to the floor area ratio.
MR. HENKEL-You were talking that the lots were combined?
MR. DICKINSON-Yes, we actually combined, the lot that this sits on is actually a vacant lot and
we've combined it which obviously allows them to do the addition, without needing a setback
variance, but also adds to the overall area of the property.
MR. HENKEL-And obviously some of that pool's on still Dickinson's property rights, that's on
someone else's.
MR. DICKINSON-1 think, yes, there's a little shed there.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? The public hearing is still open, but I'll
poll the Board. Anyone like to go first? Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, I support the project. It looks like you've tried to be as minimally non-
compliant as the circumstances. I appreciate that. Again, I sound like a broken record, but
having neighbor's input is important to me in making that decision. So I support the project,
and just a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do have to leave for another commitment between five
and ten after eight. So thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-No problem. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project as proposed.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think if this were directly located on a waterfront lot I think we would
have a different take on it, but I think because you're located on Sullivan Place, you're nowhere
near the lake. I don't think there's any impact, and I think it's a reflection on what it is, but I think
as everybody has mentioned before, it's been carefully planned, and even though it's over the
top, it's agreeable.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 agree with Jim. I'd be more concerned with the permeability and the FAR if it
were closer to the lake, but it's far enough back and again, I'm impressed that your neighbors
have commented and are in agreement, and so I'll support the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm also in favor of the project, and I appreciate the stormwater management.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, my concerns were all answered, so I'd be in favor of this project as it is.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Mark Dickinson.
Applicant proposes construction of a 672 sq. ft. 1-story residential addition to include back deck
and an entryway to basement floor area. Existing home is 2,500 sq. ft. (footprint); proposed to
be 3,230 sq. ft. and existing floor area 3,800 sq. ft. and proposed is 5,200 sq. ft.
The applicant requests relief from maximum permeability and Floor Area Ratio requirements for
the WR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirements WR zone
The applicant proposes a 672 sq. ft. 1 story residential addition and basement addition where
the floor area is to be 28.9% where 22% is the maximum allowed and the site permeable is to
be 66% where 75% is required.
8
01/18/2017)
SEQR Type 11 — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 18, 2017;
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.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but this is the most logical way to add on.
We view it to be reasonable.
3. The requested variance is substantial but we find it to be moderately substantial
because it's not directly located on the waterfront.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they want the addition.
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. Z-AV-2-2017, MARK DICKINSON, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Duly adopted this 18th day of January 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr.
Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck.
MR. DICKINSON-Have a good night.
MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on the agenda is 63 Quaker Road, Keith Buff is the agent, Area
Variance No. Z-AV-0003-2017. It is a Type 11 SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for
this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-0003-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 MICHAEL FIACCO AGENT(S)
KEITH BUFF OWNER(S) MICHAEL FIACCO ZONING CI LOCATION 63 QUAKER
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPGRADE FIVE MAIN FACADE ENTRIES FOR
TENANTS IN A BUILDING COMPLEX. SECOND STORY ENTRY DOOR IS FOR FRAME
ENHANCEMENT. FACADE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE NEW LIGHTING, BUILDING EDGE
LANDSCAPING AND ROOF EXTENSION AT ENTRANCES. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR
SETBACKS & FAR. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW AS PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 179-3-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, UPGRADE OF EXTERIOR FACADE
AND ADDITION OF NEW ENTRYWAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
KEITH BUFF, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MICHAEL FIACCO, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-0003-2017, Michael Fiacco, Meeting Date: January 18,
2017 "Project Location: 63 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to upgrade five main fagade entries for tenants in a building complex. Second story
9
01/18/:017)
entry door is for frame enhancement. Fagade improvements include new lighting, building edge
landscaping and roof extension at entrances.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from setbacks & FAR in the Cl zone (Commercial Intensive).
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone
Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay—Quaker Rd
The applicant proposes a renovating the fagade for five main entry areas and include new
canopies. The closest new canopy to Quaker Rd is to be 44 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is
required.
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 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
may be considered limited due to the location of the existing building on the site.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 31 ft. for the front
setback/travel corridor overlay.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant
proposes building edge landscaping that will assist with the permeability on the site.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to modify the exterior of the existing building and will upgrade five main
entryway areas. There is an existing entry-door for the second floor that will also be upgrade
and to be consistent with the new fagade. The plans show new entryway overhangs and a new
display window will be added to the Bennington Furniture entryway area. The new overhang is
to be 6 ft. 8 in where the existing is 4 ft. 8in. The entryway fronts will be enhanced with a cedar
siding for a portion 12 ft. +/- x 16 ft. +/- and depth of 1 ft. 11 in. The plans show new signage
for each tenant to be an internally lit LED signage lettering. The applicant has included details
on the fagade lighting and the existing site lighting. There are four existing pole fixtures on the
west end of the site and one pole light with two lamps at the south side adjacent to Quaker Rd.
The applicant intends to maintain the existing configuration of access points, parking (126
parking spaces), and loading/unloading areas on the site. The information submitted shows the
location of the fagade work and architectural rendition of the entryways."
MR. URRICO-Then the Planning Board, on January 17th passed resolution based on its limited
review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current
project proposal, and that was approved seven to nothing.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. BUFF-I'm Keith Buff, architect working on behalf of the owner.
MR. FIACCO-Michael Fiacco. I own the plaza.
MR. JACKOSKI-Anything you'd like to add at this time or just simply have Board members ask
you questions?
MR. BUFF-Well, what I'd like to do is just kind of go over two items with you, and I brought a
quick PowerPoint. If you could just fan to slides five or six. Just to kind of explain the project
1
01/18/2017)
alittle bit. Next one. So the existing plaza built mid-70's. It's a one story brick building with
the exception of what's on Quaker Road. That second story is actually a stucco box that sits on
top of the brick, and what we're proposing in general is we're going to remove all of the existing
porches, all the porches on the building completely. All the brick's going to get painted a dark
gray. The stucco box that's on top will get painted a light gray, and we're going to re-work all
the entrances, and if you go to the next slide, there's five main entrances that we're going to be
re-working, and the top is just a 3-D view of what those are. There's two on Quaker that
currently house Realty USA and Passano Paints. There's going to be another one that's on the
mid-point of the western fagade there which is going to be Bennington's new entrance, and then
there's two on sort of the back western fagade, which is a hair salon and a doggie daycare, and
really what this is about is an exterior transformation, kind of bringing this plaza up to something
a little more modern, a little more simple, a little more sleek, and when you talk about materials,
it's painted brick. It's exposed wood. It's painted steel columns. It's tongue in groove cedar
siding to wrap those entrances, to really identify those points of entry, and if you go to the next
slide it's exterior elevation. This is the elevation that's going to be on Quaker. Again, the first
floor all painted brick, dark gray, the top is going to be a light gray, painted stucco box. You've
got the two entrances sort of framing this entrance which actually is Northeast Parent and Child.
They occupy the entire second floor. That is their main entrance, and then this western fagade
is the one that's on the back of the parking lot, which is the hair salon and the doggie daycare
which are going to be downplayed a little bit, not as grand as the one there on Quaker. They
just have a simple hanger canopy that'll be accenting that entrance. If you go to the next one.
This is the western fagade starting on Quaker Road. There's a match line right here. So you
can imagine this thing kind of being a continuation. Because another big piece of this is
bringing natural light in. There's no windows. The lighting is at the storefront entries. So
we're going to be punching large openings in here, you know, and then Bennington Furniture
can have display inside, you know, so then there's sort of this transparency between out and in,
and one of the other big features of Bennington's entrance is this display window, and this is
where sort of the Area Variance comes in. This is about 65 square feet of area we're looking to
add, and to go to the next one. Just a couple of 3-D views. This is obviously the Quaker Road
entry. This is, the corner of this canopy is the one in question. That's the one that's 44 feet
from the property line. The existing Passano porch, I'll call it, is 47 feet 11 about. So we want
to bump out a little bit more with our canopies. So that's sort of the pinch point there, and then
the Bennington entrance, I mentioned this display window because this is our 65 square feet
that we want to bite out of this little parking lot here, and that's really, you know, he can set up
furniture in there, you know, hang a chandelier in there. It's really sort of this box, this glowing
box, that sort of identifies that entrance. So between that added 65 square feet and then the 44
feet that we're looking to get the front setback. That's it in a nutshell.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions from the Board members before I open the
public hearing?
MR. MC CABE-The first thing is it says they're looking for an FAR variance, but it doesn't say
how much.
MR. HENKEL-Sixty-five square feet didn't it say?
MR. BUFF-Yes, it should be in there. We're allowed 40, 751. Currently in the building as it
sits is at 50,910. So it's already about 10,000 square feet over, and we're looking to buy
another 65 square feet.
MR. URRICO-1 have a question for Staff. What came first, the travel corridor overlay or this
building, or this project in the 70's?
MR. BROWN-1 would say this building was in Town before the Travel Corridor was in place.
MR. HENKEL-1974, so, yes.
MR. URRICO-And that has changed, the Overlay has changed since then as well, right, from
when it was first put in?
MR. BROWN-Yes, the setback hasn't changed. It's always been 75 feet. I think what has
changed since this building's been here is Quaker Road has already been widened. It was
widened in the early 80's sometime. So instead of basically a five lane road right now, two
travel lanes and a turn lane.
MR. URRICO-And we're not anticipating a six lane to be added?
MR. BROWN-Not that I've heard of.
01/18f2017)
MR. URRICO-No. Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? Seeing no other questions from
Board members, at this time is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this
Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment, no public comment as well, I'd like to poll the Board. I'll
start this time with John.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's needed to keep up with the other businesses in the area.
Definitely much needed. Go for it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-1 think this is a needed update. I think it's going to make that plaza much more
attractive and I don't see it inhibiting in any way the criteria that we've been asked to look at as
well. So I think I'd be in favor of the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project. I think what you're requesting is minimal.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think it's a much needed upgrade. It's a well thought out plan.
MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, I support the project. It meets the criteria that we're charged with and I think
it will actually improve it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 don't think it's a big change and I think it's an improvement and therefore I'll
support the project.
MR. JACKOSKI-Having polled the Board I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for
approval.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Michael Fiacco.
Applicant proposes to upgrade five main fagade entries for tenants in a building complex.
Second story entry door is for frame enhancement. Fagade improvements include new lighting,
building edge landscaping and roof extension at entrances. The applicant requests relief from
setbacks & FAR in the Cl zone (Commercial Intensive).
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone
Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay—Quaker Rd
The applicant proposes renovating the fagade for five main entry areas and include new
canopies. The closest new canopy to Quaker Rd is to be 44 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is
required.
SEQR Type 11 — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 18, 2017;
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:
12
01/18f2017)
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because the change will actually make the neighborhood more
attractive.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but not really practical because of the
location of the existing building.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. The changes are essentially very small.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, 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. Z-AV-3-2017, MICHAEL FIACCO, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
Duly adopted this 18th day of January 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr.
Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. BUFF-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Next item on this evening's agenda is Frank Perrotta, Area
Variance No. Z-AV-0004-2017. It is a Type II SEQR with a public hearing scheduled for this
evening. It is Assembly Point, Sunset Hill Farm. Dennis MacElroy is the agent. I'll turn it over
to Roy to be read into the record.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-0004-2017 SEQRA TYPE II FRANK PERROTTA, JR. AGENT(S)
DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) FRANK PERROTTA, JR. ZONING WR LOCATION
ASSEMBLY POINT — SUNSET HILL FARM SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES A
3,800 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 8,361 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND
ASSOCIATED SITEWORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM HEIGHT
RESTRICTIONS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MAJOR STORMWATER
AND PROJECT WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. CROSS REF P-SP-4-2017; BP 2005-556
BOATHOUSE; SB 11-1996 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2017
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 5.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-38
SECTION 179-3-040
DENNIS MAC ELROY & MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-0004-2017, Frank Perrotta, Jr., Meeting Date: January
18, 2017, "Project Location: Assembly Point — Sunset Hill Farm Subdivision Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 3,800 sq. ft. (footprint), 8,361 sq. ft. (floor area)
single-family home and associated site work.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the maximum height restrictions of the Waterfront zone.
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement WR zone
The applicant proposes construction of 3,800 sq. ft. home with three levels where the height
proposed is 35.7 ft. and 28 ft. is the maximum allowed.
13
01/18f2017)
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 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
may be considered limited due to the design of the home to work with the slopes of the site.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for -7.70 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to 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.
Staff comments:
The project site is lot 6 of the Sunset Hill Farm Subdivision with access from Knox Road next to
a home at 54 Knox Rd. The project is for the construction of a 3,455 sf home that is located
within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. The land disturbance is 27,300 sf with the home being built with
slopes of the property. The driveway is a shared driveway as part of the Sunset Hill Farm
Subdivision that will have access on Knox Road. Shallow grass swales are prospered on the
site and new grading is directed to the swales for stormwater. The well location is west side of
the home and the septic is on the east. There are existing overhead utilities for neighboring
homes. The elevations show the home being constructed using the slope of the site. The west
side of the home will have the main entry way, garage access and driveway area; the east side
will include the outdoor patio area, main floor deck area and view towards the lake. The
engineer has also noted the height as 35.7 ft. to the lowest adjacent grade —where height relief
is requested from the 28 ft. requirement.
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board, based on its limited review did not identify any
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that
recommendation was passed on January 17th by a unanimous vote.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Dennis.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental
Design, representing the property applicant and owner Frank Perrotta who's with us here
tonight, as well as project attorney Michael Borgos. Steve Adler is in the front row. He is the
representative of the Eastern Adirondack Home and Design, the designers of the proposed
house. As was introduced, this project is for a lot that is referred to as Lot Six of the Sunset Hill
Farm subdivision, which was approved by the Town of Queensbury back in 1993. It's been
vacant since that time. There've been several owners. Mr. Perrotta is the current owner,
having purchased it through the years, three years ago and is now hoping to move forward with
new construction, building a house on that 5.5 acre property. The unusual thing, somewhat,
about this lot is that its access is gained from a driveway easement off of Knox Road. There's
technically Town road frontage on Assembly Point Road, and that's connected with a short front
area with the dock. Vehicular access was never intended or allowed through that point of
access. Again the access is from an easement that is across Lot Seven, which is currently a
vacant lot that was also a part of that subdivision. That was always the intended means of
access to the property to the house site. Our plan has been developed and we find that we
need a variance for building height. That's what we're here to seek tonight. As indicated the
Planning Board had granted the referral, a positive referral to this Board. I think this now is the
next step. We have hopes to return to the Planning Board to address any and all site issues
that are to come up based on the development of the site. Again, tonight is the building height
variance request and we hope to address any of the concerns that the Board or the public has
regarding that. I want to just make a couple of points about the siting of the house and the
character of the property. The lot, as indicated, it's a five and a half acre lot, pretty good sized
lot for Lake George area. It falls within the Waterfront Residential zone of the Town of
Queensbury and therefore it has a 28 foot building height standard. This isn't really the type of
lot that that standard was geared for. It's not a shoreline, direct shoreline building site. The
,1.rd.
01/18/2017)
house itself is planned to be 650 feet from the shoreline. It's up a hillside, but it's not next to
other houses, and again, it isn't the character of the building condition that it was geared for the
building height restriction. The siting of the house, again, it's back about 650 feet from the
shoreline. The house itself has a walkout configuration, and that was, the design and the siting
of the house we tried to sink that walkout down lower than we might normally so that the
building height isn't exaggerated any more than it already seems by the math of it. Thirty-five
point seven feet is a good number, compared to the twenty-eight, but what I look to say is the
apparent height. It's more related to the gable ends, the north gable end of the house and
that's more in the order of thirty-two point four feet. The walkout configuration kind of
exaggerates in the fact that we're cut into the slope and the fact that by definition building height
is from the lowest adjacent grade, including cut grades. So we're, by putting it down further it
helps as far as the apparent appearance of the house, but we're hurting ourselves because you
have to go from the cut grade as opposed to the native grade. That works a little bit against us.
It would be an Adirondack style home, very fitting and complimentary to the area. It's somewhat
isolated as far as the building site is concerned. The closest houses would be three to five
hundred feet away and it's really the same character as the housing, the other house conditions
along the waterfront area, and the block, the proposed home won't block any views of the lake,
the prominent views that people are after. The way the house is sited, we don't expect that we'll
have any blocking of views that would be another important factor in terms of building height. I
guess I'd turn it over to Mike and let him comment somewhat about that as well.
MR. BORGOS-Thank you, Dennis. For the record, Michael Borgos on behalf of the applicant.
Mr. Perrotta came to me and explained to me what he wanted to do here, what he was hoping
to accomplish. I had met him some years before through his ownership of a property on Knox
Road. So he's owned property on Assembly Point and enjoyed living there. A couple of years
ago he sold that property and purchased this with the hopes of building his dream house.
Aesthetically this is what he believes is his dream house. When he engineered and designed
this he was informed the Waterfront Residential zone had this 28 foot height requirement. As
we delved a little bit deeper into the perceived intent of that 28 foot height at the time that the
Town Board adopted that Code it seemed obvious to us that aesthetics and impact upon
neighbors and the public at large, the greater community utilizing the lake, is what drove that 28
foot height. As we looked at this site, as Dennis mentioned, it's not direct shorefront
development that we're talking about. This is decidedly away and removed from it. In fact,
hurricane or tropical storm Irene when it blew through a few years back, took care of all the lot
clearing necessary to construct this house. So none of the existing vegetation had to be
removed. In fact there's already some secondary growth coming back, which will add to the
shielding from view of the construction. I have approached it from this standpoint. I think what
would we see if we were boating on the lake in Harris Bay and looked up, what would we view,
if anything, of this property if developed at a compliant height of 28 feet? I don't think the
incremental difference as measured from this cut grade as required is going to be noticeable,
but if the intent of the 28 foot height originally was the aesthetics of it, my personal opinion, this
is very subjective I understand, a house of this style is more aesthetically pleasing than say a
glass and steel compliant house of 28 feet. That could be much more jarring and impactful,
and I think that's one of the considerations this Board should be entertaining when evaluating
any variance to be granted. The standard is set, but the Zoning Board of Appeals has that
pressure relief valve to say, okay, it can't apply equally to all lots and all cases because of
certain factual distinctions and circumstances. So what we're distinguishing here is that this lot
is unique. It's five and a half acres in an area of residential development that is decidedly
smaller lots. Obviously they vary from historical development, but if you were to compare it to
say Rockhurst or Assembly Point Road, there are many lots that are much, much smaller.
There are no immediately adjacent neighbors or are going to be impacted by the restriction of
sunlight, air, view. None of that is going to be impacted. The location of the house on the five
and a half acre site was chosen with care. There is an undeveloped lot to the west, and it was
evaluated where the likely house site for that would be, and a necessary part of consideration is,
when you have five and a half acre, you're seeking some degree of isolation. You don't want to
be right on top of anybody. You don't want to impose your construction on top of your
neighbors, and I think that's why this site location was chosen. Because of the slopes, it's been
designed to take advantage of that walkout capability. It just so happens that the aesthetically
pleasing design has these great room type impacts with the roof structure. That's why we're
here. If Mr. Perrotta had to comply, I'm sure he could come up with a design or come up with a
flat roof style that would not be to his liking, is not his dream house, and we may not like it
either. So we're making a request for all the right reasons here, and we're happy to entertain
any questions that you have.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public
hearing?
15
01/18/2017)
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I've got a few. That particular lot, is that probably one of the highest
elevations of that peninsula?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-And did that particular position of that house on that lot, is that the highest point
of that lot, too?
MR. MAC ELROY-It's not the highest point, but it's close to it.
MR. JACKOSKI-By how many feet do you think it's not the highest? I mean I guess what the
biggest question is, is this going to look like the castle on the hill?
MR. HENKEL-That's the problem, you know.
MR. MAC ELROY-1 think, first to answer your question of the highest point in that area, it's
roughly 405, 406 elevation.
MR. JACKOSKI-And where are you building at?
MR. MAC ELROY-The finished floor of that proposed house would be at 404.
MR. JACKOSKI-So within a foot.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. HENKEL-So what's the reason for picking that spot? Could you pick a little bit lower spot,
or what's the reason for that particular spot?
MR. MAC ELROY-It's to stay away from the steeper slopes below.
MR. JACKOSKI-It's a tough lot. There's no doubt about it.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. FREER-Which view are you emphasizing on the design?
MR. MAC ELROY-It's an easterly facing slope.
MR. FREER-Okay. So you're not building this higher so you can get a west and an east view?
MR. MAC ELROY-No. And another thing I would point out is that there's significant back drop
on even the edge of the existing vegetation of this lot certainly as well as Lot Seven to the west,
which faces primarily to the westerly views. The ridge along that little spine of Assembly Point
is sort of the division and I'm sure it was intended when the subdivision occurred that this would
be the easterly facing and the other as the westerly facing. Due to the storm event, Hurricane
Irene, Lot Six, this lot, is a little bit more prominent at this time because of the loss of vegetation
that occurred. It almost seems quite natural, if you are on the site, that this is, you know, ready
made for a house location, any particular house location. It's an approved subdivision lot. It's
intended for that development. It's five and a half acres. The question is, is this the
appropriate house.
MR. HENKEL-But let's say you put some helium balloons up at the 35.7 and see what it, kind of
get an idea of what it would look like. I know that sounds a little goofy, but to give it a height, to
give it an idea of the projected height of what it looks like on that.
MR. BORGOS-Yes. What they're very concerned about what that might look like. Two
observations. One is that we're not going to, well the house location provides for filtered views
because we're not removing anymore vegetation and there's secondary growth coming back,
we think that that's going to continue to increase, affording more privacy, which is desirable.
The second thing is that the height differential here that we're talking about is not to capture like
in a tower a better view by the owner of the house but it's just rather the structure of part of the
design. So it's those roof peaks that we're talking about, not a deck or a viewing spot.
MR. URRICO-If it was set back further into the hill, that would raise the lowest point, right?
MR. MAC ELROY-If it was pushed back westerly?
16
01/18/2017)
MR. URRICO-Yes. Wouldn't that raise the lowest point and therefore reduce the height of the
roof by making the lowest point?
MR. MAC ELROY-You'd still have that cut grade situation.
MR. HENKEL-So the lowest grade, it's based on the lowest grade, so it's still going to?
MR. MAC ELROY-Right. You're cutting the grade to sink the walkout area. It's this being on a
slope tends to work more favorably for the walkout configuration.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If we go to the natural existing grade, though, what are we talking as far as
height? Are we talking it's going to be under 28? From 405?
MR. MAC ELROY-Obviously it's on a slope. The high side on the west side. The low side on
the east. So, yes, there would be, if you took the gable end on the north end of the house,
that's what I had referred to as the apparent building height, not taking into consideration the cut
grade of the walkout, and there we're still at approximately 30 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I think that's important for me, Dennis. So you're saying regardless of the
walkout, if you avoided the walkout, you didn't do the manmade cut down, you'd still be at 30
feet high?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Because there's, the ridgeline of that portion of the house is
slightly higher than the ridgeline that we're talking about on the gable end.
MR. BORGOS-If you look at Page Six of Six, on the drawing here.
MR. JACKOSKI-We get it, we're very cognizant of these height variances.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Dennis, what is your access point going to be for getting to the lake to
docks, boats, etc.? You're going to be off the west side to do that?
MR. HENKEL-The east side.
MR. MAC ELROY-If you look on the site, on the variance plan, right, you'll see a little tax map,
vicinity map. There's a little finger down to Assembly Point Road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you have that flag, it looks like a typical flag lot?
MR. MAC ELROY-Right, flag lot type situation and that is pedestrian access to the dock
because there's docks on the shoreline at that point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that dock going to be like a substantial boathouse?
MR. MAC ELROY-That dock is already there. Correct. It's kind of a clever design because it's
simply a wharf that has a sundeck above the wharf almost above the pier, as opposed to a U-
shaped dock that has the sundeck above with boats underneath it. He won't be able to park a
boat under the sundeck but because of the limited frontage, I think it's 50 feet, you can only put
a.
MR. JACKOSKI-How much of the house is going to be visible? That seems to be the thing
that's getting avoided here. How much of this house is going to be visible from the lake?
Without the leaves on the trees and that stuff?
MR. MAC ELROY-At this time of year it will be a house that will be visible from the lake, just as
many others are visible at this time of year. I think in the summer months it will be hard to see
that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is it going to be the beacon on the hill, lots of glass windows, big bright lights all
that good stuff? That's what the neighborhood's concerned about.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR. JACKOSKI-That is the change in the character of the neighborhood, and we're trying to
figure out how to make this happen.
MR. BORGOS-Sure, and we've been very conscious of that, and that's why we've focused on
the fact that with no removal of vegetation, with the existing tree height to the west of the house
17
01/18/2017)
location being present, it will not be silhouetted, but to your question, you know, if we did do the
compliant 28 foot glass and steel structure that I was suggesting as a less desirable alternative,
my subjective opinion, you could light that thing up and see it, too. Whatever is up there is
going to be visible and when that subdivision was approved in 1993, it was deemed appropriate
and acceptable at that time to expect a house to go in there. We're here tonight because we
want a design that is more aesthetically pleasing to the owner of the property than a compliant
design.
MR. JACKOSKI-As John Mason did on Cleverdale, a very nice cedar shake roof that blended
into the environment or a nice green metal roof or red metal roof that's sticking out like a
beacon. You've got to help us understand why that extra height is an extra, for me, visibility, is
necessary.
MR. UNDERWOOD-When you get in to the actual three story height up there of your roof, what
are you talking for a height off that bedroom? You're talking 12 feet, are you not? From floor
level up to the peak, the side dimension. I'm just looking at the house as pictured there, you
know, and if you go lower story, center story and then the top floor up there where the
bedrooms are going to be, up above.
MR. MAC ELROY-The height from where to where?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm talking from the top of the second floor up to the peak of the roof. Are
you talking 12 or 14 feet on that?
MR. BORGOS-Interior ceiling height on the second story.
MR. MAC ELROY-In that great room that has an open ceiling from the first floor to the second
floor.
STEVEN ADLER
MR. ADLER-Upstairs is a vaulted ceiling, 12 12 pitch.
MR. FREER-I apologize. I have another commitment. I'm glad I don't have to vote on this.
MR. ADLER-For the record, Steven Adler, Eastern Adirondack. Fortunately Frank has already
seen this house up in Canada, and we've been through it, and it was his dream house and
we're hoping that we can help you understand that this house is not really big and impactful. It
actually looks fairly compact. It's on the lake in Canada as well. It's a vaulted 12 12 ceiling
because the rooms upstairs are livable only with the ceiling height with their dormer areas. The
peak of the roof has a flat area for ductwork and everything. So we're approximately 11 and a
half feet to the top, and most of that is in the vault. On the edge of your walls, you know your
wall height is probably six, seven feet. It's got the knee wall type construction. So you have
the vaulted bedroom with the dormer where your bed area sits. This is basically a, like I'd call
one and a half story, although it's got a big roof line on it. It's got a regular size first floor and
then it's got a steeply pitched 12 12 roof with living quarters above the bedrooms. I could show
you the pictures of the house if we had those, but the impact is pretty moderate. The great
room kind of diminishes the scope of the additional wings, and, you know, I don't know what
other questions you have about the construction, but it is going to, like I said, it's not going to
have a bright metal roof on it. Frank has already discussed that.
MR. HENKEL-So what is the roof going to be?
MR. ADLER-It'll either be a shake asphalt with an accent metal dormer, just the dormers in the
valleys to avoid ice buildup and snow, but that, again, will be a black or flat finish. It won't stick
out. All the sidings are earth tone neutral colors. It fits very well into the site. It just about
disappears on the lake that's up in Canada, and his actually is the larger version of this house,
and I was surprised when I walked, same kind of configuration. It's a walkout, walk up. So
you're actual natural, the grade is higher so your apparent height, even from this side, isn't
going to be the 35 feet. The apparent height is going to be much less than that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions?
MR. UNDERWOOD-If you went from a 12/12 to an 8/12 pitch roof, would it totally mess up?
MR. ADLER-You wouldn't have your bedrooms upstairs. The bedrooms would actually
disappear.
18
01/18f2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? I'm
going to open the public hearing and ask Roy if there's any written comments.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, is there any public comment here from individuals
who are here this evening?
LORRAINE RUFFING
MRS. RUFFING-Good evening. My name is Lorraine Ruffing. I live at 66 Bay Parkway, and I'd
like to say that as you know Mr. Perrotta has lived on Assembly Point and is considered to be a
good neighbor and so we're glad to welcome him back in the future. However, his property has
an unfortunate and unusual history, in that, as it was mentioned it was severely damaged by
Hurricane Irene in 2011, and as a result, the former owner of this property clear cut it, and I
have pictures of this, which I will distribute. Therefore we are concerned about the impact of
the height of the house and its positioning in terms of stormwater runoff. The houses below the
ridge have basements which flood, and everyone knows that we always have flooding
conditions on Assembly Point Road during rain events. So I think extreme care has to be taken
with the design of the house and the landscaping. It was mentioned that some scrub has
grown back on this road, but I don't think it's sufficient in terms of what was lost. As you know,
we lost over 700 trees on Assembly Point during Hurricane Irene, and most of them were lost on
this particular ridge. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mrs. Ruffing, can I ask you, in terms of the flooding on Assembly Point Road, I
know of the flooding in front of the former Adams' house, but what flooding is near this house?
MRS. RUFFING-It's all along Assembly Point Road. The intersection of Knox and Assembly
Point Road.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, the old Adams' house.
MRS. RUFFING-And then farther up you have flooding because you have driveways that have
a pitch that comes right down off the slope and with the driveways and right now we have very
icy conditions up there because of the, you know, what comes off of the property. So that's
why if you have a house that's, even when you're higher up, you have to be very, very careful.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I think the Planning Board will certainly look at site conditions when they
review this. It certainly does happen when you get to that.
MRS. RUFFING-Yes. I know the Planning Board is supposed to address the stormwater
runoff, but when you have a structure, you also have runoff off that structure, and that's what
you're considering tonight.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, very, very much.
ROLF AHLERS
MR. AHLERS-My comments for you, very brief comments. My Rolf Ahlers. I am a permanent
resident on Assembly Point on Knox Road, not far from the site, the Perrotta proposed site.
We have some objections. The Perrotta proposal does not adequately address topological
sensitivities at a steeply slanted site within proximity to the lake. Between the building site and
the lake there are other houses and also Assembly Point Road. The Road is, by its very
location, unstable causing even now too much runoff into the lake, even prior to the building of
the proposed house. The whole area is unstable. The clear cutting effect of Hurricane Irene
on the building site caused more soil instability that will be accentuated by a house by a fairly
large footprint. We think proposed remedy the soil instability problem can be addressed on the
fairly large lot, five and a half acres, with adequately engineered soil, erosion and tree re-
planting measures. The Perrotta's agent, Mr. Dennis MacElroy, knows how to handle both of
those issues, but those measures weren't significantly matched to the price of the building of the
house. Plans for an environmentally successful outcome must therefore include those
expenditures. The effect of Irene's clear cutting of property must be reversed by re-planting
native trees and shrubs and pines. Bushes are not adequate. Maple and Beeches are
invasive trees and should not be planted. I wish to make, in conclusion, some general
observations. The existing Assembly Point community welcomes Mr. Perrotta with our
neighborly greeting of friendship. Our community fosters values of mutual support and feels
19
01/18f2017)
obligations of stewardship towards the lake which motivate these comments. We suggest that
Mr. Perrotta honors those values of stewardship, together with Mr. MacElroy's advice. He will
be highly rewarded doing so. We will monitor the progress of the project with keen vigilance.
My comments are terminated. Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is anyone else here in the audience to speak?
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Chris Navistky, Lake George Water Keeper. We do have comments and I'll
provide a copy for the record after this. The Water Keeper does have concerns regarding the
type and extent of development on the sensitive steep slopes within the Critical Environmental
Area surrounding Lake George. This type of development will change the character of the
neighborhood and is not compliant with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town. The Water
Keeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply the Town's regulations regarding the
criteria, granting an Area Variance in compliance with the Code regarding sewer and sewer
disposal during your deliberations. The proposed application is not compliant with 136,
wastewater treatment. The on-site wastewater treatment system proposed is a fill system as
defined in 136-6, any sewage disposal system involving earth fill above existing grade. That
Code states that the maximum allowable grade for any existing surfaces for fill systems shall be
10%. The existing grade where this system is, is 20%. We feel the application should provide
a compliant system design prior to the consideration of any Area Variance to insure that the
property is adequate for development. The variance will result in an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood with the granting of the variance. The granting of the Area
Variance for building height on a pronounced visible ridge line on Assembly Point will change
the character of the neighborhood, especially from the popular bays on the lake. The variance
request is in complete conflict with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan adopted
by the Town, and I have a section of that attached to my letter that talks about development on
the ridge lines. The variance will be even more pronounced with the significant clearing that
has occurred on the site. The application is stated the project is removed in that it will not stick
out as there are no nearby structures. However, if you think about it, if the building is set apart
from others it probably will stick out more than if there were buildings closer to blend in. So I
think that that, this application will actually be more pronounced, especially when you have a 90
foot long structure that exceeds the entire height restrictions. In addition it's back 600 feet from
the lake, but it's also elevated 70 feet from the lake so again, it'll look more pronounced I think
as you, as it's been referred to as a beacon on the hill. There are alternatives available for the
applicant other than an area variance. I do have a question about the building height being 35,
7 when I feel it's actually 38, 7 because they don't go to the top of the ridge line. So if there
could be clarification on that, that exceeds the variance by more than 10 feet, and again, you'll
see that entire ridge line the entire length of the structure. You can obviously eliminate floors,
eliminate the basement, spread the building out more. Again, the variance is substantial, 37%.
However, the site conditions will increase that variance again being a large structure located in
the ridge line with minimal natural clearing remaining on the parcel. Those pictures did not
make it up on the screen. So again, we think that this will have a significant impact,
environmentally, with the significant earth work and excavation and recommend that you deny
the variance as proposed.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Navitsky.
MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourself for the record, please.
CAROL COLLINS
DR. COLLINS-My name is Dr. Carol Collins, a resident of Assembly Point my entire life on Knox
Road. We have the adjoining property to the west. That lot is our adjoining property which is
vacant. I would like to say that that backdrop that they were speaking of earlier that provides
some forested area is actually my trees. It's not along that property, it's those backdrop of
trees as well, the undeveloped seven acre lot. So we urge you to deny the area variance as
requested by Frank Perrotta. The applicant is requesting an additional building height of what
we calculated to be nine and a half feet over the twenty-eight foot maximum. This is my
husband John Collins. The Town of Queensbury and State authorities, including the
Adirondack Park Agency, have traditionally rejected exceeding the maximum height
requirements on Lake George and other lakes. We've certainly seen that on Sunnyside and
Glen Lake. The proposed structure sited on the ridge line on 15 to 25% slopes would be
extremely visible and out of scale with the environment. The environmental impact of this
expansive structure would also be intensive. Exceeding the maximum height will contribute
20
01/18f2017)
unnecessarily to these impacts on the environment. The cuts and serrations associated with
the project will impact stormwater, the Class Double A stream, and the jurisdictional wetlands
down grade. It will also impact the down grade septic systems which we've already seen and
the drinking wells that are intricately connected to the runoff generated from the site. Simply
put, hardscape next to ground plus it's going on steep slopes damages likely, and this is in all
documents on building on steep slopes, it's likely to spread to areas not originally disturbed.
Steep slopes are naturally unstable, primarily related to soils and particularly significant in the
Messina soils which occupy this site. We had a well dug there and it's older, and Messina soils
down to at least 70 feet. So big concern. A large part of the site is 15 to 25% grade. As such
the impacts should be considered as much a part of the variance review. Removing so much
earthen material will also reduce the absorption and runoff capacity of the soils that is critical to
the Lake George watershed. An open area, this is the site history. An open area was cleared
on and around the ridge line after the Sunset Farm subdivision was created. This large
opening de-stabilized the slope. It also contributed to the Hurricane Irene since the kinetic
forces were eliminated that protect the forest. The owner at that time clear cut much of the
remaining trees, and that's what you see on the photos that were passed around. So this was
already clear cut after Irene. These actions caused runoff down grade. The nature of this site,
the proposed development will also exaggerate this. We have some specific questions related.
One is has a jurisdictional inquiry form been submitted to the Adirondack Park Agency to
determine whether an APA permit or variance is needed for this project. Two, will a
performance bond be required for the following: building construction on the right of way to the
property, blasting and mining if needed, a stormwater management maintenance plan, since
Queensbury is an MS-4 community, the septic systems down slope and well water and the
erosion and sediment control plan. In addition has an erosion and sediment control plan been
prepared and made available for review? This is required on slopes that exceed 15%, sites with
severe erosion potential, sites within 100 feet of a wetland and with colloidal soils. Four, why
has there not been a variance required for the septic system located on steep slopes? So we
ask why give a variance to this extremely visible and vulnerable site? Why give a variance in a
Critical Environmental Area? Why in 15 to 25% slopes that drain into a jurisdictional wetland
and Class Double A stream? Why, when the area has not been restored to its natural
conditions? Why for such an expansive scale and why, when it's already caused problems for
neighbors on Assembly Point Road? A 25 foot house can and should be built. That is the
dream of many of us who live along the lake and don't live in castles, and I think this can be
done. The scale is just way out of proportion. So thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
JOHN COLLINS
MR. COLLINS-My name is John Collins. I live on Assembly Point on Knox Road. I just want
to not go through everything that Carol did, but I want to comment regarding a few of the
comments made in the presentation. Carol covered the trees, the fact that there have been
statements made that there is going to be no vegetation cut. Well there's hardly any vegetation
left on that site for all the reasons Carol enumerated, and when you get into the summer
session, you ask Dennis MacElroy would you be able to see the house. In the wintertime he
conceded yes. In the summertime I think his words were probably not. There's no trees there
so you can't have any filtering with the leaves up there. Another important point. Carol and her
sister own the adjoining lot. The well is already in place up there. It's close to the property
line. Given the slopes on Carol and Rene's property and the property in question, there is
limited spaces that you can put a home. It's up close to the ridge because otherwise you're in
the severe slope area. So to say well you build a 35, 38 foot house, whatever the right number
is, nobody will see it. If Carol and her sister decide to build a house and it is their right to build
a house on it, just like it's the right to build a house, not as proposed, but on the site in question,
it will be in their face, right up close. So to minimize the impact, yes today there's no house, but
if we decide to build a house there, it will be right in our face, and that can't be discounted.
There is one more design that can go on that property. The design that has been selected is
too high given the height requirements. The other alternative is not a steel and glass house. It
can be that same style but scaled down so it doesn't require the variance. Given the slopes,
the fact that there are no trees there, all the problems that Assembly Point has with washouts,
and it's not just at the prior Adams' property, but the next door and the old McCall house, that
road is always wet there, and it all comes through because so much of the wetland was filled in
way back in the day, and if you were to talk to all the property owners down at the base of that
hill where the runoff comes and that stream that is clearly marked. If you go back to the original
subdivision maps, it'll show the wetlands and they're down there. That is all very problematic,
and a project of this scale is only going to exacerbate the situation. So I strongly recommend
that the variance and have them go and do their homework and come up with a house that fits
the land. Thank you very much.
2„1
01/18f2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-Before you leave the table, may I ask, and I don't usually ask the public this
type of question. If they kept the same amount of square footage and simply were four feet
lower in height, they could build this house without any variances whatsoever.
MR. COLLINS-1 don't know if four feet's the right number.
MR. JACKOSKI-In front of us at the moment.
MR. COLLINS-The far east side is where that seven and a half feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-But regardless, our Zoning Administrator has determined that the variance
request is four and a half. Is that what it is, Craig? Or seven, whatever the number is.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I think seven.
MR. JACKOSKI-So if they chose to develop a larger footprint because they have the capability
with so many acres, and they are well within the side line, front line, rear line, back line lot
requirements, the real question, it seems to me that I'm understanding from the neighborhood
is, site plan.
DR. COLLINS-1 think the precedent for height is really important.
MR. JACKOSKI-We understand that.
DR. COLLINS-Is that what you're saying?
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm trying to understand what the community is looking for. The height really is
disturbing to you, even though they could simply widen the house a little on just the same
amount of footprint, the same size home. It's just going to be that little bit shorter.
DR. COLLINS-Well, it's sort of a difficult question because, yes, I mean, but can that site really
do that with that slope that you're talking about? I mean, I don't think we really looked at what
the slopes are.
MR. JACKOSKI-I walked the property many times myself. My in-laws have been on the Point
since the 50's so I know the property well. I certainly think they could build a much longer
house than shorter.
MR. COLLINS-In answer to your question, if they're proposing a house that doesn't require any
variances, assuming it gets through planning and everything else, they have a right to build that.
MR. JACKOSKI-So that's what I'm trying to understand. I heard a lot of the flooding issues that
you're suggesting, they're are all site plan issues, but not much about height.
MR. COLLINS-Right, and we'll be back. Let's say a new design comes in that doesn't require a
variance, and now it's not before you, it's before planning. We're going to be there at planning
to make sure that the Town understands the sensitivities of the people that live on the Point and
all the challenges. How many times have you heard the Town talk about all the problems on
Assembly Point with the roads and the runoff and the stormwater and everything else?
Everybody knows the problems on Assembly Point, and the question is, going forward, how to
we best address the designs of new houses to minimize the impact and hopefully improve upon
the situation to reduce the problems going forward? Mr. Perrotta called Carol I don't know a
month or so ago and he was saying to Carol my concern is the lake and where should my
money be going. Should I be contributing to certain organizations and Carol said, put your
money in the house, make it the best house that.
DR. COLLINS-1 didn't' mean house. I meant site development.
DR. COLLINS-Yes, to minimize the impact on it, and that was our answer, and so he has a right
to build on the property. That's not the issue. All I heard tonight was I want this house here,
and that's it. I won't consider anything else.
DR. COLLINS-The 25 feet is really important. It's going to look really big from the lake. It's
going to look really big from Buck Mountain. It's going to look big from Cleverdale and
Rockhurst.
MR. JACKOSKI-And, Craig, again, is it 7.?
22
01/18/2017)
MR. BROWN-Seven point seven.
MR. JACKOGK|-Gevenpoint seven.
MR. HENKEL-It's 28 feet's the height that it can be.
OR. COLLINS-Right, and | mean | just think that these things are there for a naason, and, you
knovv, those things are important in |ife, and we need to just focus on Ulern and, you knovv, just
because you see this thing in a magazine and that's your perfect home, well, you knovv, we all
have that perfect dream and vvedon't necessarily have b» act onit.
MR. COLLINS-One of your questions was, well what if you had a shingled roof instead of
metal roof. That's what we have a shingled house with a shingled roof. When you're on the
lake, it's hard b» see our house. It just, itblends in, and that was agreat idea. Gowhether they
pursue that route or not, who knows. What the overall site development's going to be like,
that's an issue for another day. Today isthe height variance.
MR. JACK(]GK|-You may not have seen or been here toexperience other applications in front
of this Board regarding height. No matter what the waterway is, you're in the Town of
Queensbury, but | can assure you vveare aware. VVeknow what the scale is. We understand
the visibility issues, the aesthetic issues. Go you're preaching to the choir asfar as.
OR. COLLINS-No, I've seen you very concerned about afoot on a house on Sunnyside. I've
seen that, and | think vvehave tobefair toeverybody and consistent.
MR. J/\C KC)GK|-Consistent. Thank you.
DR. COLLINS-Thank you.
MR. JACK(]GK|-AndI'm sorry that took alittle extra time.
BC>BGLANOC>N
MR. GLANO(]N-Hi, my name is Bob G|andon and |'m also a Knox Roader. Some of you may
remember me from dealing with 87 Knox Road which was our neighbor, and if Mike Chrys or
the prior owner were sitting here, they'd b*|| you about taking eight feet off ofone end of their
building and three feet off of the other and removing steel beams to drop in over a built house.
MR. JACK(]GK|-Butagain, that was onthe lake.
MR. GLANO(]N-(]n the |ake, but if you look at the area that's right close to this, you know, I've
got a little cabin and one of the concerns the Town always had was someone would buy it and
build big. There are lots with a lot oflittle cabins that are future sites for big houses, you know,
there's a2OOfoot lot with alittle cabin onit. You know anybody that ever buys that isgoing to
want to build their own castle. So we have a precedent here, and this would be within three or
four hundred feet where, you knovv, three or four hundred feet away from a guy you just made
drop his roof, vvelet this 0oupseven and ahalf and it's not, when you look at the drawing, that's
at the cut end, but the main peak all the way across is the one that sits up at32.4feet, which is
a four and a half foot variance the entire length of that house. Go the solutions are roof peak
and pitch which someone mentioned here, go to 8/12 instead of 12/12, or with a steep slope like
this, if you have a one story house on the high side and two stories on the other side, you can
stay within the distance of the out, especially in this desi0n, it was pointed out that the windows
are all down. If you look above the window line, he's got much more than 10 feet of roof up
there. Go it's not like they're trying to, they're gaining some great, grand view from inside.
They're glass is actually dovvn, and if their roof pitches were a little f|atter, they'd bring it down
and they could get within the limit without effecting their view or just change the design of the
house. | think that this being a 7.7 feet on 28 feet, that that's a significant variance being
requesb*d, and to refer to it in the notes as moderate | think is possibly a little tongue in cheek
unless you've got some numbers, a scale that matches that up. but | think it was understated,
minor ornoimpacts b» the neighborhood. | think there's agreat deal ofimpact interms ofview
and the precedent being set. Feasible alternatives may beconsidered limited due b» the design
of the home. Three full sb»ries, you knovv, you already said you could stretch it out, you know,
you could make a ranch house here, and get your 8,000 square feet, if you really wanted it. Go
| don't think that feasible alternatives may be considered limited. | think that is a great piece of
writing. It's almost like speechifying here. Go | think the criteria here and how you've treated
them in the Staff suggestions understate the problem. The difficulty may be self-created. |
think it is self-created. Go | think we've possibly understated it. and | guess that would be all
23
01/18f2017)
except I'd say in the spirit of make America great again, and why are we sourcing this house
from Canada? But that's a different story. Thanks a lot.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else in the audience? Seeing no one, Mr. MacElroy, Mr.
Borgos, you can come back to the table. So I assume you're going to want to address some of
the public comments.
MR. BORGOS-Absolutely. I heard a lot of concern, as the Chairman noted, with stormwater,
with visibility from Buck Mountain, those sort of things, but I think as the Chairman's questions
brought to light, any house there, especially a house with the same square footage but spread
out instead of stacking the stories, if they did a single story, the sticking out part is going to be
just as much, if not greater. So it comes back to the differential in the height, and this is what I
started out by saying. The elements of the design that contribute to the need for the height
variance have nothing to do with the desire to achieve greater view. The presence of any
house there is going to drive those site plan review concerns that the Planning Board is going to
address. We're very cognizant of those issues, and I know Mr. Perrotta has told me, and I think
he wishes to tell you how he feels about his willingness to address doing the right thing to
improve the soil stability on that site, but this is a narrow focus here at this Board on the height
variance, and I appreciate your consideration of that narrow question. Dennis?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, of all the comments, and they were primarily site related, obviously this
is a variance for building height that we're trying to address, but a couple of things that I would
just point out. Number One, Chris' comment about a fill system. It's a shallow absorption
wastewater system. It's a site issue, but just for clarification, it's built at grade or in the ground,
just in the ground, shallow absorption. A step down the slope so it's not a fill system, and the
other, stormwater is such a, it's easy to say those words, stormwater management, stormwater
control and the impact and what not. The presence of this house doesn't make it rain anymore.
It doesn't create more runoff because there's a stormwater management plan that takes the
runoff from the new impervious area and manages it within stormwater devices that are in
compliance with Town and by Town meaning Lake George Park Commission regulations. So
the house doesn't make, doesn't create any more runoff, any more rain to fall from the sky. So
all those concerns, again, it's easy to throw it out there, stormwater management. The houses
are going to flood down below and issues like that. It's all the same water. It falls out of the
sky. This gets managed and controlled at rates that are meant to be based on the regulations.
MR. JACKOSKI-So as the water hits the impervious roof structure, you're contending that the
flow of that water will be managed within the site?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That's the basis of the regulations. It's captured, controlled. I
always say the simple way to think of stormwater management is capture that runoff and get it
into the ground. Now, again, it doesn't create anymore runoff into the ground. It just manages
it and puts it into devices that controls that runoff into the groundwater system that it eventually
gets.
MR. JACKOSKI-Could it improve the situation of runoff from that five acre site?
MR. MAC ELROY-I certainly think that development of this site as it is right now could be
improved as a result of development, but, you know, that's a function of doing the proper job on
the site, which should be assured through the Town process and having proper management of
the job and having proper contractors doing the work. So, yes, there could be a clearing, a
cleanup of that site, and help with the re-vegetation of that site. There is a good amount of
second growth that's coming back, and there are trees that do block and filter the views with the
leaves. They, a lot are down at the lower portion of the property, but I would still repeat that in
the summer months it would be hard to see that house from a number of different areas
because of the visual filtering of that vegetation and it will only continue. If you go out there
you'll see a great number of second growth of the white pines and hemlocks returning to the
site.
MR. HENKEL-What's the length of that ridge that's 35? That's going to be 35.7? What's the
length of that ridge that's facing?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, that's a gable end. It's a gable end on the.
MR. HENKEL-I got 81 feet. Does that sound all right or no?
MR. MAC ELROY-That would be the total ridge line of that house, the north, south ridge line.
MR. HENKEL-Which is going to be back from the lake.
24.
01/18/2017)
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, but you've got roughly about 81 feet that's going to be facing at that height.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it steps down a little at the garage, but that's the highest physical part of
the.
MR. HENKEL-Then of course you've got the chimneys and all that, too. One chimney at least,
well, two of them.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other Board member questions at this time? I'm going to poll
the Board. Jim, I'd like you to go first.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think we should be conscious in our decision here this evening, and I'll
reiterate why that is. In the past we've had numerous requests for homes on waterfront
residential properties that exceeded the 28 foot height variance. Normally, you know, when we
listen to the applicants, you know, there's a reason for that, and in the case of this applicant
here I think the reason is because of the design of the house is driving the height of the house.
All right, but over on Hannaford, you just mentioned one that was down on Knox Road that we
made them lower the height of a pre-constructed building because they did not meet the height
as proposed by the Town at the time, but I think the reason for that is one of two things. On a
house on a higher promontory type lot as this one is here, it is going to be seen from the lake.
It's in the view shed of the water from being out on the lake and I think that's significant. That
that is a significant thing. Number Two, height of a building is driven by what the applicant
appears to wish for, and the floor area ratio in this instance here being 8,000 square feet, it's a
huge house as compared to almost any other house in the neighborhood. It dwarfs that
property. We should keep in mind the fact that with a five and a half acre lot, you could
probably build a 30,000 square foot house if you wanted to and you would be compliant. So
8,000 square feet isn't like out of the ballpark crazy large or anything like that, but I think that
what it comes down to is what we're charged with and that is the height, and to give one or two
feet of height variance difference to me would be reasonable, if they were asking for that, but I
think in this instance here where they're asking for 7.7 and there's some question as to whether
that is purely accurate along the whole ridge line, keep in mind the fact that you've got a 9 foot
long ridge across that roof there, you're going to see that from the lake, wintertime or
summertime, and that's because the lot has been destroyed by Hurricane Irene. There's
nothing you can do to change that. You can't blame the applicants because they're not
responsible for what happened in the storm event either, but we should keep in mind the fact
that when we build things and it's new construction we can build things compliantly so they
reflect the Code. I think for us to not reflect the Code and give 7.7 feet of relief would be
exclusively way over the top. So I would not be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm in agreement with Jim, and I'll add to that that even greater care needs
to be taken because of the location of the house and the ridge line. I think the height only
accentuates that height, and under normal circumstances I would be reluctant to grant a height
variance, and this is one of those situations where it's even more accentuated because of the
higher visibility. So I would not be in favor of this based on that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 listened to the arguments and we can't really say much about stormwater
control. We're looking specifically at the height and to pass judgement on the height variance,
and to be consistent this Board has been pretty stringent with height. We're not stuck on 28,
but we don't give away height real easily, and in this particular case almost eight feet is a bit
more than what I'm comfortable with. So I can't go with this variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, the problem is that actually this could be, because there's a two way area, it
could be actually two homes of the same size built on those two lots, but there again, the size is
not the problem it's the height, and I do have a problem with that height. So I would not be in
favor of this application.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
25
01/18/:017)
MRS. HAYWARD-1 am not in favor of this project, either, mostly because I wouldn't want to set
a precedent and Number Two I think because of the size of the lot you have a lot of space to
produce some alternatives that would be compliant with the Code.
MR. JACKOSKI-So there's a few things that can happen at this stage.
MR. MAC ELROY-We can count.
MR. UNDERWOOD-My suggestion would be that you go back and re-design your roofline with
an 8/12 pitch. I think it's going to get you down more in the ballpark where we might give you a
little bit of relief to get you what you want. It's still going to allow you to achieve most of what
you're trying to in your design, but at the same time I think it's going to bring you down within the
realm of reality that we have to live with.
MR. JACKOSKI-And there's no way to site, I mean I think the architecture of the home is
spectacular. I mean, I think it is exactly what Assembly Point needs, but there's no way of
lowering it off the ridge line, of lowering it so that it's not sticking so far up?
FRANK PERROTTA
MR. PERROTTA-Just to introduce myself I'm Frank Perrotta. I've met some of these neighbors
and I've lived on Knox Road, and I just want to make something clear. The drinking water that
me and my family shared was derived from the lake. So I do have respect for it. I certainly
have a lot of thought. I'm back here because it's a beautiful looking location. When I purchased
that lot it was because of the privacy and how large it was and I didn't really understand,
because this is my first attendance at a Board meeting, at a Town meeting, that there were
going to be restrictions that, you know, would fall upon that lot because of the privacy issue, you
know, I thought there's really no neighbors here, and as I was walking the lot, it was just, when I
talked to Steven, it's just conducive to the walkout. So it wasn't the intention to go and build a
three story home. It just, you know, the drop off, you know, if I was sitting back home, you
know, originally in Connecticut and I had the same lot I'd go, yes, you'd want to do a walkout.
So I just want to tell you how, you know, the origination of the design, and I'm an Adirondack fan
and a timber frame guy. So that is really why I had selected this plan because it's beautiful and
it fits the location and it's an asset, I think, to Assembly Point, I would hope, and my intention
was not, I don't own an 8,000 square foot at home, and that was what my intention really was.
So I just wanted to share some thoughts, and I don't know what we could do to re-design, you
know, I'm not really sure, but like you guys are saying, you know, if I went outward, you could
certainly build a larger home but it would be, I don't know, you know, I'm just thinking out loud,
you know, I certainly want to be respectful of design and I selected a location engineer for a
reason. I know Dennis. I trust him. I thought he could do the right thing for the lot, for the
runoff, and whatever design he came up with I would adhere to, and whatever colors and
minimize the impact so I could use the right colors and whatever I had to do in terms of colors
on the roof, you know, I heard statements about a metal roof. I mean, I don't know these
things. So this is why I have experts that just give me advice and I would adhere to whatever
they told me to do.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Perrotta, I can tell you myself that having a home sit within one foot of the
ridge line is probably the biggest problem for me. If I knew the home were sitting seven feet
lower in the hill and I could argue that 28 feet at 405 or whatever the number puts me at 433,
but if you sited it at 392 and it brought it up to 433 still, I'd say, well, he could build at the top of
the hill and still be at that same point, I might be able to allow that extra height because quite
frankly you could do a 28 footer there or you could do, you know, a 35 footer lower into the site.
Sitting on a ridge line is like looking out your windows at Pilot Knob and just seeing that ridge
line having somebody just stick a house up there like Batease did on West Mountain, it just
doesn't feel good. That's the problem. It just does feel like it's going to change the character
of that neighborhood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I'll speak from practical application. I live on waterfront residential on
Glen Lake. When I designed my house and built my house I had to go to an 8/12 pitch roof to
get to the 28 feet, and it worked for me. It's not ideal, but we're not tall guys.
MR. MAC ELROY-1 think obviously we're going to go back and re-visit.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are you requesting a tabling?
MR. BORGOS-Yes.
26
01/18f2017)
MR. JACKOSKI-So the attorney for the applicant is requesting a tabling motion. Can we
please make a motion to table? Dennis, when do you want to table it to?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, obviously it's not going to be January, it's not going to be February.
March would be the earliest.
MR. JACKOSKI-Based on the February submission deadline.
MR. MAC ELROY-February 15th, and I'll look to Steve because it's really a house design.
MR. JACKOSKI-And you may come back and find out you don't even need a height variance.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Frank Perrotta, Jr. Applicant proposes a 3,800 sq. ft. (footprint), 8,361 sq. ft. (floor area)
single-family home and associated sitework.
The applicant requests relief from the maximum height restrictions of the Waterfront zone.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-0004-2017 FRANK PERROTTA, JR.,
Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Tabled to a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in March with the appropriate materials to be
submitted mid-February.
Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Freer
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Perrotta, I really do think you have the right people involved. It's just a
matter of getting through the process.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you for your input.
MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on the agenda is Smart Wash of Queensbury on Quaker Road.
Sign Variance No. Z-SV-0001-2017. This is an Unlisted SEAR. There is a public hearing
scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. Z-SV-0001-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SMART WASH OF
QUEENSBURY, LLC AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S) SMART WASH
OF QUEENSBURY, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 708 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN EXISTING 36.25 SQ. FT. DOUBLE-SIDED FREESTANDING
SIGN LOCATED ON THE DIX AVENUE SIDE OF THE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN. CROSS REF
SPR 51-2015; SIGN VAR. 1425 YR. 1988; BP 2003-113 SIGN; BP 847 YR. 1970 SIGN; BP
727 YR. 1970 SIGN; BP 725 SIGN; BP 679 SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
JANUARY 2017 LOT SIZE 3.83 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-12 SECTION
CHAPTER 140
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-SV-0001-2017, Smart Wash of Queensbury, LLC, Meeting
Date: January 18, 2017 "Project Location: 708 Quaker Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes to maintain existing 36.25 sq. ft. double-sided freestanding sign
located on the Dix Avenue side of the parcel.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback
requirements for a freestanding sign.
27
01/18f2017)
Section 140-6 Siqns for which permits are required
The applicant requests to maintain a 36.25 sq. ft. sign located 6.1 ft. from the front property line
on Dix Avenue where a 15 ft. setback is required.
Criteria for considering a Sign 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 sign variance. Minimal 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives
may be considered to move the sign to a compliant location.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 8.9 ft.
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 impact on the environmental conditions of the district.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant has indicated the new sign is placed on the existing sign base. The sign is
consistent with the signs on the site. The survey shows the location of the sign to be
maintained. The site history indicates a sign variance was granted in 1988 #1425 for a second
sign but no setback relief."
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Steves.
MR. STEVES-Good evening, Matt Steves representing the Smart Wash of Queensbury on this
application. It's been in front of the Planning Board for the Site Plan and it was approved about
a year ago, and he installed all the new equipment and upgraded the facility and put in these
new signs, the new pole signs on the existing light bases that were existing, one on Quaker
Road and the one on Dix Avenue, and the one on Dix Avenue the current model pole sign
would be mounted and utilized and not require setbacks and then I believe as you've stated that
a sign variance was granted for the sign quite a few years ago. No changes to the site
whatsoever with the proposed variance. It's just to place the sign on the current sign base.
The base, as was stated is about 12, 11 feet from the property line, with the sign being four and
a half, I think five foot wide, is 6.1 feet from the property line, but it is about 28 feet back from
the edge of the pavement from Dix Avenue. Moving the pole to the compliant is possible but
we get into the drive lane and the asphalt of the existing self-serve bays that have been there I
think about 28 years.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, can you help us understand why they're in front of us? The pole is
already there. It's been there for how many years.
MR. BROWN-Yes. The current Town Sign code says all non-conforming signs need to be
brought into compliance within a certain timeframe. There's a sunset clause in the provision
when the Code was changed in 2011, and that's a five year window. So that clock has run so
all signs need to be brought into compliance, and the way we have been administering that is
each time a new application comes in for a new sign or a sign change, we make it come into
compliance. In this case, while the variance was granted for a second sign, there was no
setback relief, so now they're here because it was probably put in the wrong spot in the first
place in 1988, never checked, and now we're paying the piper.
MR. JACKOSKI-So having heard from Staff, are there any questions from Board members at
this time?
MR. HENKEL-So height hasn't changed at all. It's just a round sign put on top of that same?
28
01/18/2017)
MR. STEVES-It's actually smaller, it's one of those rectangular signs. Correct, no other
change.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll open the public hearing. Is there any public comment written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone in the public who would like to address this matter? I'll hold
off. I'd like to poll the Board. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-The same here.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No problem.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing, and seek a motion for approval.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-SEAR.
MR. JACKOSKI-SEAR.
MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. Z-SV-1-2017, SMART WASH OF,
QUEENSIBURY, LLC: BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE
ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD
FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Michael McCabe who
moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 18th day of January 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Freer
MR. JACKOSKI-After doing SEAR, may I please have a motion for approval.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Smart Wash of Queensbury, LLC for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The
Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to maintain existing 36.25 sq. ft. double-sided
freestanding sign located on the Dix Avenue side of the parcel.
The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback
requirements for a freestanding sign.
Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required
The applicant requests to maintain a 36.25 sq. ft. sign located 6.1ft from the front property line
on Dix Avenue where a 15 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type: Unlisted [Resolution /Action Required for SEAR]
29
01/18/:017)
Motion regarding Sign Variance No. Z-SV-1-2017, Smart Wash of Queensbury, LLC.
based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation
provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant
adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by
Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 18th day of January 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Freer
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 18, 2017;
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? There will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the
neighborhood nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by granting the requested
Sign Variance.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? I suppose it could, but it doesn't make
economic sense. The sign already exists and so we'll just leave it where it's at.
3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It's not substantial considering the sign's been
there for quite a period of time.
4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? Not really, again, because it's existed there for a
long time.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Certainly it is.
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. Z-SV-1-2017, SMART WASH OF QUEENSBURY, LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe,
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
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
3
01/18/2017)
Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or
department.
Duly adopted this 18th day of January 18, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Freer
MR. STEVES-Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-And finally, the last item on tonight's agenda, Mike Regan, 55 Jenkinsville
Road, Area Variance Z-AV-0001-2017. It is a Type 11 SEAR. There is a public hearing
scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-0001-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 MIKE REGAN OWNER(S) MIKE
REGAN ZONING MDR LOCATION 55 JENKINSVILLE ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO FINISH CONSTRUCTION OF THE 108 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION
ONTO THE EXISTING 1,386 SQ. FT. HOME FOR STORAGE/CLOSET SPACE. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING
DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2004-599 RES. ADDITION, BP 2001-879 PORCH ROOF, BP
98-529 PARTIAL DEMOLITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.62
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.19-1-8 SECTION 179-3-040
MIKE REGAN, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-0001-2017, Mike Regan, Meeting Date: January 18,
2017 "Project Location: 55 Jenkinsville Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to finish construction of the 108 sq. ft. residential addition onto the existing 1,386 sq.
ft. home for storage/ closet space.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from side setback requirements for the MDR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements MDR zone
The applicant proposes to finish construction of 108 sq. ft. addition to an existing home where a
25 ft. setback is required and 6.7 ft. is proposed.
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. The
applicant has indicated the home has been through renovations.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible
alternatives may be limited as the existing home is noncompliant for setbacks.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested for setback
may be considered minimal where 6.7 ft. is proposed and the relief is for 18.3 ft. The
survey shows both corners where south west corner is 7.1 ft. from the side property line.
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 be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions
of the site or area.
31
01/18/:017)
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty maybe considered
self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to finish a 108 sq. ft. addition for closet/storage for an existing bedroom.
The applicant has explained the area was proposed for a porch area and instead they propose
a closet area. The applicant has indicated the exterior will be similar to the existing home. The
survey shows the location of the addition."
MR. REGAN-Hi, Mike Regan. I just want to finish my addition. It's just a little closet.
MR. JACKOSKI-And, Staff, could you kind of tell us how this all came about?
MR. BROWN-1 believe one of the Building Inspectors discovered it.
MR. REGAN-Apparently somebody noticed it or something, but I've talked to all my neighbors
and nobody has a problem with it.
MR. BROWN-Right. So probably one of the Building Inspectors in driving by just noticed the
construction underway, didn't see a green card or a building permit up.
MR. HENKEL-Obviously it's going to meet the Code as far as building and construction.
MR. BROWN-Absolutely.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? There
is a public hearing scheduled for this evening, and seeing there's no one in the audience, is
there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's no written comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do you by chance have any letters or anything from your neighbors?
MR. REGAN-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-So before I close the public hearing, I'll seek comment from the Board
members. I'll start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Yes, I don't see any problem with the application. It seems pretty straightforward.
MR. JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-It would be nice if you had some input from your neighbors, a letter or something
like that. I don't really have a problem with it, either.
MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-It's a minimal request. I'm in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No undesirable change as far as I'm concerned.
MR. JACKOSKI-And Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Everything's pretty tight there, so I don't have a problem with it. I don't think it
makes any changes to the neighborhood.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and I'll seek a motion for approval, please.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mike
Regan. Applicant proposes to finish construction of the 108 sq. ft. residential addition onto the
32
01/18/:017)
existing 1,386 sq. ft. home for storage / closet space. The applicant requests relief from side
setback requirements for the MDR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements MDR zone
The applicant proposes to finish construction of 108 sq. ft. addition to an existing home where a
25 ft. setback is required and 6.7 ft. is proposed.
SEQR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 18, 2017;
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 the construction being proposed here is very minimal. It's
a tiny little addition.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but it's such a small house it's a reasonable
request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. We recognize the fact that the house was
built on the property line and any kind of construction would be non-compliant.
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 but it was basically self-created by the fact that the
house was located so close to the property line.
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. Z-AV-1-2017, MIKE REGAN, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 18th day of January 2017 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Freer
MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry you had to sit through all that, but you're done. You can move forward.
Any further business in front of the Board this evening? A motion to adjourn.
MR. HENKEL-Actually I suppose we should talk to our guest and see what he thought and see
if he could make any suggestions for improvement.
MR. JACKOSKI-Listen, he gets paid by the hour. You don't need to make any improvements.
MR. CROWE-No, you know, just observing the questions and the feedback and I think the
observations that you were making from the information you had available, everything seemed
perfectly in place to me and I thought everything that you were doing had the rationale basis
which is always what.
MR. JACKOSKI-In other words he's assuring us no Article 78's. That's what we don't want.
MR. CROWE-Right, yes, exactly. So, I thought everything was very smooth, and thank you for
having me.
33
01/18f2017)
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
JANUARY 18, 2017, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Henkel:
Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Freer
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
34.