03-28-2018 gq.,�IIV.a`u`IIII VII"r ��u`u"�IIII,.jla",u qu o/„.m'o
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 28, 2018
INDEX
Area Variance Z-AV-19-2018 Diana & Matthew Suders 1.
Tax Map No. 309.17-1-9
Area Variance Z-AV-18-2018 Ernest Hilpertshauser 8.
Tax Map No. 303.5-1-64
Area Variance Z-AV-17-2018 Kris D. Roglieri 12.
Tax Map No. 302.7-1-37
Area Variance Z-AV-16-2018 Tamarra Ellsworth 16.
Tax Map No. 288.8-1-29
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 28, 2018
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JAMES UNDERWOOD
JOHN HENKEL
MICHELLE HAYWARD
BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. FREER-Okay. I'd like to call the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to
order, here on the 28th of March. Welcome everyone. For those who haven't been here this is
a pretty simple process. We'll actually call up people to the table. If you haven't seen a
meeting there's some information on the back table that you're welcome to. We'll read in the
application. We'll ask questions, and then open up a public hearing. I believe we have a
public hearing for all the applications this evening. I'll then poll the Board after we hear the
applicant and the public hearing input and then we'll make a motion as applicable, then we'll go
on to the next application, and I don't think we have any agenda items for meeting approval this
evening. Is that right?
MS. HEMINGWAY-Correct.
MR. FREER-Okay. So I think we're ready for the first application, and that's the Suders, Diana
and Matthew.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-19-2018 SEQRA TYPE II DIANA & MATTHEW SUDERS
AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, P.C. ZONING MDR
LOCATION 42 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 864 SQ.
FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WITH ADJOINING 320 SQ. FT. GARAGE (CONDO UNIT).
THE EXISTING HOME IS 2,000 SQ. FT. WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE NEW UNIT
WOULD BE TO THE REAR AND WEST SIDE OF THE HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A
DUPLEX STRUCTURE ON A LOT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS
IN THE MR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A
LOT SIZE 0.77 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-9 SECTION 179-3-040
STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. FREER-Roy, could you read this into the record, please.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-19-2018, Diana & Matthew Suders, Meeting Date: March
28, 2018 "Project Location: 42 Eagan Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 864 sq. ft. residential addition with adjoining 320 sq. ft. garage
(condo unit). The existing home is 2,000 sq. ft. with an attached garage. The new unit would
be to the rear and west side of the home. Relief requested for a duplex structure on a lot that
does not meet the lot size requirements in the MDR zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from a density requirement for a duplex in the MDR zone.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —moderate density
residential zone
The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing home converting the home where
4 ac is required per dwelling and existing is 0.77 ac.
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 character may be anticipated from a
single family dwelling neighborhood by adding a two family unit.
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 if the request is for additional living space to the home without a second
kitchen area which would reduce the density request.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is 3.23 acres.
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 applicant proposes an addition to an existing single family home to a two family home. The
plans show the location of the existing home and the addition location."
MR. FREER-Hi, welcome. Could you please identify yourself for the record?
MS. BITTER-Welcome. My name is Stefanie Bitter. I am the attorney for the Suders who are
present in the audience this evening. If I could give just a brief presentation relative to the
application. The Suders never planned for the caring of their parents when they designed their
home in 1996. They are the original homeowners. It's a raised ranch. It's a four bedroom
home and it's on .77 acres in the MDR zone. Eagan Road, if you had a chance to go and visit
the site, is located off of Big Bay Road which is mixed use. It's a subdivision in nature but then
it's not a cul de sac. So there's mixed uses that surround it. Behind this property is Town of
Queensbury land that looks like it's part of the Highway garage, maybe salting, things of that
nature. So there's mixed uses all around this house. In 2016 Mrs. Suders' father suddenly
died and her parents were living across the country. So her mother came back to Queensbury
after selling their home and started to reside in this house. Due to her age and her health,
navigating the stairs in a raised ranch became extremely difficult, to the point that she's fallen
and had to go to the emergency room due to the fall sustained because of the weakness in her
knees. As a result they realized that they had to consider another alternative. They proposed
constructing this in-law apartment that I will refer to it as, understanding that Queensbury's
definition calls this a duplex, it really is just that, an in-law apartment. It will provide for a one
story living apartment, or living environment for Mrs. Suders' mother. The new addition will be
864 square feet of living space with a 320 square foot garage. Due to this addition not having a
direct connection to the home, it's then considered to be that, a duplex. In the MDR zone a
duplex requires four acres because this parcel only maintains public water and not public sewer.
It would only require two acres if it had both public water and sewer. With the Suders' parcel
being only .77 acres any addition would require a variance because it doesn't meet the
minimum lot size requirement. The duplex or two family definition under the Code is one
dwelling unit containing two dwelling units that are attached by a common wall. This is
extremely common, at least in my experience and what my friends are experiencing, my parents
friends are experiencing. In-law apartments, Au pair areas, or areas for our adult children that
just won't leave are very common in what's being considered a living environment. What is
evolving is that duplexes shouldn't be feared. It's really reality. Evaluating the request, the
Board has to weigh the benefits, and we understand that, but we believe that if you look at the
factors in this application, the benefit to the applicant is definitely outweighed by any detriment
that can be deemed to exist in the community. No undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood should be deemed to exist. The addition will be along the back of the existing
structure. It'll have little visibility from the road. It'll meet all the setbacks. It'll meet the green
space and the property, as I mentioned, in the rear is owned by the Town of Queensbury, and
there's mature vegetation along the property lines that will be maintained. As to other
alternatives, having her mother live in her house is obviously extremely important. In most
families it is, it would be the only alternative. Due to this lot being under an acre any addition
would be considered to require relief, and connectivity to the two is not feasible due to the fact
that stairs would be required in that connectivity situation because of it being a raised ranch,
which due to her knees is not really an alternative. Is this considered a substantial request? It
shouldn't be because the only relief being sought is that of lot size. Not for setback, not for
green space. It shouldn't be considered too large for this lot. It's just that the Code has
evolved since 1996, not to mention the only visible change would be that of a garage. No
adverse impacts. There's no encroachment that's going to be exhibited to the neighbors. In
fact the neighbor that's the closest that will be impacted actually recommended a contractor for
this project. So that person is in support of this project. Should this be deemed self-created?
Yes, but only because 22 years ago the Suders didn't have the foresight to consider that they
would have to help their parents out in the future. This application hits home for me because I,
like Mrs. Suders, lost my father in 2016 and my mother moved into my home. So this is a
reality. This is a problem that's existing for a lot of people in their 40's they want to take care of
their parents the best way that they can. So I'm going to open it up to any questions that you
might have.
MR. HENKEL-I've got a question.
MR. FREER-Go ahead, John.
MR. HENKEL-There's not going to be any separate utilities? There's going to be shared
utilities?
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. FREER-Any other questions from Board members?
MR. URRICO-I have a question for Staff. If they included, if they attached the apartment or the
space to the main house but had a separate entrance, would it still be considered a duplex?
MRS. MOORE-It's the kitchen, the two kitchens.
MR. URRICO-So the extra kitchen is what makes it?
MRS. MOORE-The extra unit.
MR. HENKEL-The problem is later on when it's not needed, that's the problem is it becoming an
apartment later. That's the problem, which would be not right for that neighborhood because
the neighborhood, looking at the neighborhood, I walked down the road, I didn't see any other
duplexes. It's all single family dwelling.
MS. BITTER-Right. And like I said, the visibility will stay, and it will look like a single family.
MR. HENKEL-Obviously it would look like it's still an addition to the house.
MS. BITTER-And the Suders actually considered this because they thought that they may also
end up in that additional space when their children grow older and want to reside in the main
living area.
MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anybody in the audience
that would like to speak to this application? Please join us and identify yourself.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RICHARD MC LENITHAN
MR. MC LENITHAN-I'm Richard McLenithan. I'm here with my wife, Katie. We live at 58
Eagan Road on the street in question and in particular I know the husband, Matt, very well, and
I understand the situation they have. We are, you just stated, I think, the situation very
correctly. The concern is that this is a single family residence street and we're, the
neighborhood is going to change in a sense that this is going to be a two family house that
doesn't really fit in this area, and subsequently it isn't going to easily be able to be sold as a
single family residence but as a commercial property with two apartments, and I would wish
they would consider finding another way to meet this situation and problem. I understand the
need for making space for other relatives and things like that, but I'd like to consider that they
would find a way to accommodate or make other arrangements in the house that would work to
their needs. My wife and I have owned exactly this type of house in Hudson Falls years ago
and I understand, we made some additions to it and changes to it to enlarge it and things like
that. It was all within the structure, but they can be a challenge, I understand, but we really do
think this does make a big difference in our neighborhood. It's as simple as that.
MR. FREER-Okay. Is there anybody else? Are there any written comments, Roy?
MR. URRICO-There is. I am a homeowner at 51 Eagan Road. I am against the approval of
the proposed construction of an 864 square foot residential addition with adjoining 320 square
foot garage for the following reasons: One, the current zoning for Eagan Road is for one family
residences which does not allow for two family residences. The request is an undesirable
change for the current homeowners. It will affect current and future property values and it could
open the door for other homeowners to ask for the same Area Variance request. The lot size is
only .77 acres which is too small for a two family home with a total of 2,864 square feet plus two
garages. It will have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. This is a substantial request by
the applicant and totally inconsiderate of the other homeowners in the neighborhood. The
applicant can meet their needs by moving to a neighborhood that accommodates their needs,
for example a neighborhood that allows for two family residences or a house with an apartment
already attached. Please consider my reasons for opposing this Area Variance. Sincerely
Charlotte A. Minogue. This one was received by the Planning Office from Paul Fritsch, 59
Eagan Road. "Paul's been in the neighborhood since the 50's. Paul has the following
concerns: 1. The size of the Suders' addition is the same size as Paul's whole house. Too
much house for the density of the lot on three quarters of an acre. 2. Concerns for what's
going to happen on the other 11 lots on the property. Paul's concerned duplexes will be built
on them. 3. Paul states a hydro study was done in the past and all drainage drains down to
the river. He's concerned with drainage problems and his well on his property. 4. He's
concerned if the variance is approved others will want to do the same thing on their property."
That's it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Would you like to step back up and if you have any comments to address
to those inputs.
MS. BITTER-If I could, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to correct one misconception. In the MDR
zone duplexes are allowed. It is a permitted use. What we're seeking is an Area Variance
based on the lot size. So duplexes would be allowed, and in this circumstance it is unique
because this is a raised ranch. There are other houses that are single story ranches in this
neighborhood. So to say that this was zoned for single family residences is not entirely true.
So I just wanted to respond in that regard. Drainage, obviously the contractor knows that you
can't drain the property onto adjacent lands or onto the road. So those things will be adhered
to as well as soil conditions which I understand to be sand. So they have considered that.
MR. FREER-Okay, and so now I'm going to poll the Board.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question for Staff. If they have an entry way with stairs into the
current part of the house then this would not be considered a duplex at that point. Correct?
MRS. MOORE-It's the kitchen that's triggering this duplex. So if the kitchen were to be
removed, and that's what I mentioned in my notes, too.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think that we got into this discussion at a previous meeting about
what quantifies it as a kitchen, and that is, you know, it has to have a fridge. It has to have a
stove. It can have one or the other or you could have a hot plate in lieu of that and that would
not count as a stove. So I don't know if it's something that can be worked out. It seems to me
there's a defined need for the request and it doesn't seem like it's out of whack with reality and
as Ms. Bitter mentioned also a lot of people will be facing the same situation. I think, you know,
in the mixed residential zone duplex is an allowed use. So I don't think that we have to worry
about the allowed use factor here. I think the only thing we're looking at is the size of the lot,
and in four acres, I don't imagine that if we went around Town that we would find too many
duplexes located on four acres. If we were in the City of Glens Falls I think we would find even
less. So I would just mention that fact. So I think we should deliberate a little bit more with the
Board before we go, but I think it's a, at this point in time I think the request is reasonable. I
don't think it puts a burden on the neighborhood because I don't think that she's going to be
driving, if she's driving now, or in the future, and as far as the future, I think we always
extrapolate worst case scenarios. If every house turns into a duplex, which I do not see
occurring, I think this is a minor request. It's one request in the neighborhood. It's not like
they're requesting to re-do the whole neighborhood, the whole street. If we come to that we
have to look at each one individually.
MR. FREER-Okay. Brent, comments?
a
MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Harrison. I, too, while I do appreciate the neighbor's input, a
duplex is an allowable use, and I don't believe that undesirable change is occurring here. I
think from a visibility standpoint being along the back we're meeting green space requirements.
The Town of Queensbury property being contiguous and to the rear. To me visibility is a key in
all of this, and I just want to obviously note one variable which, while it's not necessarily in our
wheelhouse, is that the contractor be cognizant of drainage as indicated. That's very important
to me, especially due to the water and the proximity to the water. So on the surface we are
dealing in a world today where populations are getting older. I have a 74 year old father
myself. Thank God he's in good health, but I'm going to probably be faced with this someday.
So we have to be reflective and appreciative in certain situations to accommodate our friends
and our neighbors in this community. So I believe the balance here I'd have to be in favor of
this project.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-First I probably need to disclose my background is in home care, and I've
been working in home care for many years, and I grew up in a raised ranch in Queensbury and I
have a mom who will probably be ready to move soon. So I can really sympathize with your
plight. On the other hand, as a Zoning Board member, my concern is that this Area Variance, if
granted, it would run with the land, and it's not a duplex neighborhood. It's a single family
residential neighborhood. So I think, as far as alternatives, have you considered a stair lift?
Raised ranches are notoriously bad for anyone with mobility issues, but that might be an easy
fix, or, as Mr. Underwood mentioned, modify the kitchen plan, but at this point, as proposed, I
cannot be in favor of this project.
MR. FREER-Okay. I guess my only way to sort of support this project is with a sunset clause
which I think we've done in the past, and so as we go down the road we'll have to, because 1,
too, have a concern with precedence and the waiver running with the land, and we actually have
another application this evening that's a new construction duplex. So we are facing this, this is
probably the fourth or fifth one we've had this year where the mother-in-law application. I
believe the two precedence ones established a kind of sunset on the approval. I'm not exactly
sure how we did that, but I would like to discuss that further as well. So right now, with an
unconstrained application, I wouldn't support it. John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. This is getting to be a problem. There's no doubt older people need a
place to live instead of going into an independent living place, but I do have a problem, they had
three neighbors that were pretty much against it. No neighbors came in support of it, and it is a
single family dwelling area. I do have a little bit of a problem with the size of the garage. It
doesn't need to be that large of a garage, and also that large of a duplex. I think that that
creates a problem. So I don't support it quite as is, but I understand the need for a place for a
loved one to live, but I can't support it as is.
MR. FREER-Okay. Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Yes. It's easy to sympathize with the situation at hand, but unfortunately it goes
on and on. I would feel a little bit better if the lot were bigger, but it's not, and so I cannot
support this project.
MR. FREER-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I would only consider a yes on this if we made some concessions, and I
think that one of them would be either putting in the sunset clause that we've done in the past.
We've included that in there, or attaching it to the house some way. Even if it wasn't used very
much it would certainly make it part of the structure currently and/or taking out the second
kitchen, taking out that kitchen or making it not a kitchen. And that way that would also remove
the need for considering it as a duplex. So those are three options that are available. I think
those are alternatives, but I would not be in favor of the project as currently proposed.
MS. BITTER-Well, as to the sunset clause, I guess I would have to understand the details. The
kitchen part, if everyone was healthy and fantastic I would understand that that would be a
feasible alternative if I had an adult child, but I can appreciate the difficulty in navigating from
one kitchen to the other if the folks are at work, or the other folks are at work. So I'm not sure
that removing the kitchen would be the best option. Obviously if there's connectivity it's not
going to be something that she's going to probably be able to enjoy, and I don't think that that
gets it out of the definition of duplex if I understand Laura's comment that it's really the kitchen
that's keeping it.
MR. URRICO-What's the definition of a kitchen, Laura?
a;b
MRS. MOORE-Area to prepare food.
MR. URRICO-1 mean does it include a stove and an oven?
MRS. MOORE-All of that, yes.
MR. FREER-So you've heard that if we.
MS. BITTER-Sunset clause I guess is what I'm looking for more information on, how that was
defined in the past. If it was at the time of a sale that the kitchen is removed or?
MRS. MOORE-There's been, the one that I'm thinking of is that after 20 years the kitchen was
to be removed.
MR. FREER-Right. Or 10 years.
MR. HENKEL-I think we checked. It was three, I think, one time.
MRS. HAYWARD-It was five or something.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, to make sure that person is still living there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think the issue is the ten or twenty year clause because you know you're
going to make a significant investment on building the thing and then knowing that it's just going
to get demo'd. There's got to be justification on the part, trying to accommodate to begin with,
which is maintaining somebody's independence while they're still dependent upon you or being
there when necessary.
MR. URRICO-Well you have to protect the Code.
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think what really needs to happen at the Town Board level is the Town
Board needs to take another better look at this because we're having so many of these pop up
on the radar screen that we need to re-define and dial in what would be acceptable because it
should be acceptable at some point.
MR. FREER-Yes, and so I think from my standpoint the fact that it's on a very small, relatively
small lot for the zone, less than an acre, and the addition is pretty substantial with regard to a
mother-in-law suite, so there's a couple of things that we can do. Right? And you can back
and talk and figure this out in terms of, you know, coming back or if we want to continue the
discussion and decide what kind of sunset clause would be acceptable, but even then you still
are short making.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We're making the Code if we're doing that and we shouldn't be doing that.
MR. FREER-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They should go to the Town Board.
MR. FREER-So you don't have the votes to get this approved as is. So you have to decide
whether you want us to vote on it and reject it or table it and try to figure out if there's some
other alternative that would be more acceptable.
MS. BITTER-If I understand it correctly, I think I'm going to table it, but I just want to make sure I
understand. The concern is that it's considered a duplex? The concern is the lot size.
MR. FREER-Which you can't do anything about.
MS. BITTER-The lot size I can't do anything about. And even if it's an addition that lot size is
still a factor. Just so that we're all, it's not changing.
MR. MC CABE-An addition would be a totally different situation.
MS. BITTER-But then the kitchen would be removed, other than discussions I'll have with the
Building Department as to what it could be incorporated as, the kitchen.
MATTHEW SUDERS
MR. SUDERS-My name is Matthew Suders. I want to take care of my mother-in-law. A
couple of things just to clarify. This wasn't our first choice. So we did look at homes. One of
the people that opposed, her home's for sale. She doesn't live there. We looked at that home,
and the stairs we had to rule out. So we did, we had a realtor, Corrina Strassburg Nolan. So
my wife and her mother did go around and look at other homes. So this wasn't our first option.
It actually is our last option. Her mother just re-located here last August from Washington. My
wife's an only child. She lost her husband a couple of years ago. We knew this day would
come where we would either re-locate to Washington State or she would re-locate here. So
she's been through a lot in the last year, but we're putting it all together and we're at the point
now where we need to figure out what we're going to do. As far as the neighbors in opposition,
supporters, my three closest neighbors, the two on either side of me and my neighbor across
the street that's a sheriff's officer, do support the project. They're not here to tell you that. I
understand I did have a nice conversation with Dick and his wife the other day. On two
occasions I spoke to Dick, and I understand their opposition, but they also made it very clear,
and it sounds like tonight the sticking point is the own entrance way and own exit, in other words
being connected where she can go in and out of this structure from our house. Everything
being the same, the garage the same size, the structure the same size, the setbacks the same,
they don't oppose it if she can go in and out of our house to this house, and I understand their
concerns, because I don't want to make my house an apartment. We rented for years until we
built our home. So we don't want, the last thing I want, I work in law enforcement, is a stranger
living attached to my house. You know what I mean? So that's not what we're aiming to do.
This is a very independent woman. She spent the last 30 years in Washington State, by herself
with her husband. She had a nice sized home. So I mean it doesn't matter what she was
used to, but she's been through a lot, and I do understand, besides her health reasons,
someone wanting to have a little bit of their own space. No matter how you tell family you're
not imposing, you can't change what someone's used to. Her mindset is she's imposing on us,
and she's not. It's family. So you understand that argument's never going to change her
mindset. I mean so we really think that this is, again, it's what we have to do. We need to
have her nearby. She's had diabetes all her life. So her sugar's a constant. Coming here I
asked her what her sugar level was. She's very good at staying on top of it, but she needs to
be checked on so she needs to be nearby. So we tried to look at our neighborhood. The only
home for sale didn't work out because the basement, she can't go up and down stairs. So we
did, like I said, we tried other options. This is where we're at. I just wanted to let you know
that we did consider. We didn't come here as a first alternative. We're coming in here as.
MR. FREER-Okay, but you've got to listen to us. Our charter is to give the minimum relief
necessary, and so you just heard from these people that this application as presented doesn't
pass our test of establishing for a precedence and for this lot size and this addition size and the
proposal is not going to pass.
MS. BITTER-1 think he was just asking that if he provides for connectivity, which in this instance
would be through the garage, if that would change some of the opinions of the folks that had
negative comments. It would obviously still be classified as a duplex because the kitchen
would still be there, but it would have connectivity to the other unit.
MR. MC DEVITT-You had mentioned alternatives.
MR. MC CABE-1 think we'd have to see it.
MR. MC DEVITT-That was my suggestion, because it might not address your issues, but it
addresses the opposition's concerns.
MR. FREER-Well, I've been pretty straightforward on this Board in that one of the things that I
take input on are what the neighbors have to say.
MR. MC DEVITT-As do 1.
MR. FREER-If this guy comes back and says, you know, your new proposal is okay and your
other three neighbors, you know, write a note that it's good to go, that will influence my position
with what you're proposing.
MS. BITTER-I'm just saying that the one that did have a negative comment is one that doesn't
even reside there and has their house up for sale. The ones that are immediately affected, we
can get the ones that are immediately adjacent, we can get letters from them as well.
MR. FREER-So are you ready to table it?
MS. BITTER-Table it.
MR. MC CABE-For how long?
MS. BITTER-Until next month. If that's okay we can make a submission probably.
MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry. So it would be in May. So the submission time would be April 16tH
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Diana & Matthew Suders. Applicant proposes construction of a 864 sq. ft. residential addition
with adjoining 320 sq. ft. garage (condo unit). The existing home is 2,000 sq. ft. with an
attached garage. The new unit would be to the rear and west side of the home. Relief
requested for a duplex structure on a lot that does not meet the lot size requirements in the
MDR zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from a density requirement for a duplex in the MDR zone.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —moderate density
residential zone
The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing home converting the home where
4 ac is required per dwelling and existing is 0.77 ac.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-19-2018 DIANA & MATTHEW SUDERS,
Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt:
Until the May meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals with plans to be submitted to the Town by
the middle of April.
Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt,
Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Good luck.
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay the next application is Ernest Hilpertshauser, Area Variance Z-AV-18-2018.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-18-2018 SEQRA TYPE II ERNEST HILPERTSHAUSER
AGENT(S) D & T CREATIVE PROPERTIES OWNER(S) D & T CREATIVE PROPERTIES
ZONING MDR LOCATION 323 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT REQUESTS TO COMPLETE
A 96 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY DORMER AND TO CONSTRUCT A 72 SQ. FT. COVERED
FRONT PORCH TO AN EXISTING 1,357 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) HOME. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF RC 40-2018
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2018 LOT SIZE 0.44 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO.
303.5-1-64 SECTION 179-3-040
TAMMY CREEDEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. FREER-Roy.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-18-2018, Ernest Hilpertshauser, Meeting Date: March
28, 2018 "Project Location: 323 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
requests to complete a 96 sq. ft. second story dormer and to construct a 72 sq. ft. covered front
porch to an existing 1,357 sq. ft. (floor area) home. Relief requested from minimum setback
requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from setback requirements of the MDR zone.
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone
The applicant proposes to complete a 96 sq. ft. second story dormer and to construct a 72 sq. ft.
covered porch that will be 15.7 ft. from the front property line where a 30 ft. set back is required.
(Note current dormer construction is located 21.7 ft. from the front property line and is subject to
the variance to be completed)
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 existing house location.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be
considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 14.3 ft. for the porch and
8.3 ft. for the dormer.
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
has shown the location of the home.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to complete construction of a dormer and to construct a covered porch
at the front of the home. The dormer under construction currently does not meet the setback at
21.7 ft. where the applicant was informed during construction the project would require a
building permit and an area variance. The applicant has provided information for the covered
porch to be built in the future."
MR. FREER-Welcome. Can you identify yourself, and if there's anything you'd like to add to
the application.
MS. CREEDEN-I'm Tammy Creeden and what I would like to add is that we are trying to
improve the property tremendously. We bought it as a foreclosure. We are going to reside in
the home. We have letters from neighbors that we brought and photos prior to, what it looked
like before we started. We have photos of what it looks like now that we're in process of, and
that's pretty much what I had to say.
ERNEST HILPERTSHAUSER
MR. HILPERTSHAUSER-Yes, the dormer on the front is, as far as, we didn't know we were
changing the footprint of the house by adding that dormer on the front. We weren't aware that
we would need a variance or anything. Basically we had 42 square feet of living space because
you had a knee wall that came back in four feet from the existing outside wall. So by bumping
that wall, that dormer, we didn't go out any farther from the front of the house. So we didn't
know we were changing our setback or you don't need a variance or anything like that.
Because we got into the roof, re-shingled the roof, and there was a lot of rot. This house was
just in poor condition, let go. So there were broken rafters and we got them fixed, and that's
when we decided, well, a door in the front of the house would make the house, aesthetically,
look so much more appealing. It had a blue tin roof on it. It looked like the Smurf's house. It
was a hideous looking thing, and then the front porch we just want to make that the same width
as the dormer, the 12 foot and just come out, because it's only four foot, three foot and then a
step down. So to make that look aesthetically correct, match the dormer, and like I said, we
have letters from two of our neighbors across the street, the one to, looking at the front of the
house, to the left, and I have pictures of what it looked like and what we are doing. I can bring
them up to you.
�a�
MR. FREER-Okay. Well let's just stay there and see if there's any questions from the Board for
you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. So I think we have a public hearing, and I'd like
to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here? Sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BRIAN STRAUB
MR. STRAUB-This is their house. This is my house. I also own this kind of vacant lot there.
My name is Brian Straub. I moved into that house in 2003, moved from Boston. When I was
looking at the house I saw one day a for sale sign on the empty lot. I walked over to look at it
and the gentleman who was residing in the house in question came running over yelling at me
saying you can't sell that lot, it's not buildable. I said I'm not looking to sell it. I'm looking to
buy it. He said okay. For 14 years I endured living next to this property. The house was in
really poor shape. The inside, I can't imagine anybody living there, but they did. The smell in
that house was awful. No repairs were made to the outside. There was plastic flapping on the
back porch in the wind. Harrison's been to my house a number of times, and we used to joke
that my landscaping was trying to prevent anybody from seeing this house. The grass was
never cut. Sometimes it was three feet in the back. I would go up in my mower and try and
mow, but I had to do it inch by inch because you never knew what was in there. The last time I
mowed that lawn I found a metal rack from inside an oven in the lawn. . I found all kinds of
things in that lawn. There was traffic in that house, going to the house, stopping by all night
long, year after year, people would pull up, go inside for two minutes, come back out, go away.
It was the worst house in the neighborhood, and so when they bought this house, I wasn't quite
sure what to expect. Well, I don't know them. I've talked to them a few times. I went away
from a business trip, and I came back and there was a fence around the property, and I thought
well that's a good looking fence, and I thought, wait, and I went down and I said, that's on my
land. So I really didn't want to do this, but I walked up and said nice fence, it's my land. We
walked out and looked at it, and after a couple of minutes they said we don't want to be bad
neighbors. We're not trying to pull anything on anyone. We'll move it. A lot of people would
have argued. The next week they took up the fence and they moved it a foot or something and
it's on their land. I've heard them working from early morning until nine, ten, eleven o'clock at
night. They're doing their damdest to build this into a home that they can live in. The dormer
in question is a terrific addition to this house. It balances the dormer of the exact same size on
the other side. It improves the look of the house. For once we have a chance in the
neighborhood of residing not next to the worst house in the neighborhood, but to a house that
actually has some character. It is in keeping with the neighborhood. I couldn't be stronger in
my support for this project. Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else that has input on this application? Roy, any
written comment?
MR. URRICO-Yes, there's one. "My husband and I reside at 324 Ridge Road and live directly
across the street from 323 Ridge Road-Ward 2. We will be unable to attend the public hearing
tonight. We would like to extend our support for D & T Creative Properties request to complete
a 96 sq. ft. second story dormer and to construct a 72 sq. ft. covered front porch to an existing
1,357 sq. ft. (floor area) home. We support the project and hope you will consider a relief
request from the minimum setback requirements. The work that D & T Creative Properties is
looking to complete will improve the property. We appreciate you reaching out to the owners of
the properties in the immediate vicinity and giving us an opportunity to be heard. We thank you
for your considering our letter of support in our absence. Sincerely, Dr. Kerri Erin Zappala-
Piemme & Jobe C. Piemme" And that's it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Brent, comments and your position?
MR. MC DEVITT-I went by the house today, met the applicants. It's nice to meet you folks.
This is a gateway into Queensbury. It's a marked improvement. We need more of this. I
have no opposition. I have nothing but positive things on this project.
MR. FREER-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I drive by your house every day, twice a day, and we've restored several
homes in the area. So I can appreciate what you're doing, and it really does look great. I
guess one question maybe comment is the porch, to me, you can't change the dormer, you
know, in line with the house, but the porch itself, you're adding a couple of feet to it it looks like.
MR. HILPERTSHAUSER-Coming out two feet farther, and then the stairs would come off facing
the driveway side.
MRS. HAYWARD-1 can see by your diagram. So I think that's, in my opinion, minimal because
it's a tiny porch in front. So to me it's a minimal request. I'm in favor.
MR. FREER-1, too, am in favor of this application and do appreciate the work that you're putting
into the community and appreciate the inputs from the community. So it meets all the criteria
that we're required to consider and I'm in favor. John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. I'm also in favor. The little bit of relief that they're asking for it's going to be
a big improvement to the neighborhood so I'd be definitely for it.
MR. FREER-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Yes, the requested variance is minimal and the improvement to the
neighborhood is substantial, and so I believe that that'll, it makes it a go for me.
MR. FREER-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project for the same reasons given by my fellow Board
members.
MR. FREER-And Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm all in favor of what they're trying to do.
MR. FREER-Okay. Can I get a motion?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Ernest Hilpertshauser. Applicant requests to complete a 96 sq. ft. second story dormer and to
construct a 72 sq. ft. covered front porch to an existing 1,357 sq. ft. (floor area) home. Relief
requested from minimum setback requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from setback requirements of the MDR zone.
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone
The applicant proposes to complete a 96 sq. ft. second story dormer and to construct a 72 sq.
ft.covered porch that will be 15.7 ft. from the front property line where a 30 ft. set back is
required. (Note current dormer construction is located 21.7 ft. from the front property line and is
subject to the variance to be completed)
SEQR Type 11 — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 28, 2018;
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 requested construction will improve the appearance of
the property.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable at this
particular time.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. At worst, it's moderate.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district. We believe that it will improve the present conditions of the
neighborhood.
5. The alleged difficulty is not really self-created. It was created when the house was
originally built. Everything is pretty close to the road there.
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;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE
Z-AV-18-2018, ERNEST HILPERTSHAUSER, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe,
Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-Good luck.
MR. HILPERTSHAUSER-Thank you very much.
MR. FREER-Okay. The next application is Kris Roglieri.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-17-2018 SEQRA TYPE II KRIS D. ROGLIERI AGENT(S)
BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, P.C. ZONING MDR LOCATION 40
NORTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,000 SQ. FT. PERGOLA
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED POOL PROJECT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
MAXIMUM TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON
THE PARCEL. CROSS REF AST 793-2017; Z-AV-79-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
MARCH 2018 LOT SIZE 14.11 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-37 SECTION 179-5-
020
STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-17-2018, Kris D. Roglieri, Meeting Date: March 28, 2018
"Project Location: 40 North Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to
construct a 1,000 sq. ft.. pergola associated with the proposed pool project. Relief requested
from maximum total square footage allowed for accessory structures on the parcel.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the maximum total square footage allowed for accessory
structures on the parcel.
Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—pergola:
The applicant proposes to construct a 1,000 sq. ft. pergola over a proposed pool and pool patio
area. The parcel currently has 4 garages (attached 1,250, detached 390 sq. ft., classic car
storage 3,000 sq. ft., , and equipment shed 626 sq. ft.). The existing wood shed is 470 sq. ft.
and the pergola at 1,000 sq. ft. are the two accessory structure and exceeds the total square
footage maximum allowed is 750 sq. ft. and proposed is 1470 sq. ft.
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 to reduce the pergola size.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested 720 sq. 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 difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a 1,000 sq. ft. pergola structure to be associated with a
pool project that is under construction. The plans show the location of the pergola and the artist
renditions shows the type of structure to be built."
MR. FREER-Hello again.
MS. BITTER-Good evening, Stefanie Bitter for the applicant. Most of you are familiar with the
Roglieri parcel because I was here in December. This is a 14 acre parcel which has not only
the circumstances of being so large but it's bordered by two commercial properties, a forever
wild, and then the residence on North Road which due to the extensive vegetation it's difficult to
actually see the residence. So it has its own little private area. So saying there's no impact to
the adjacent lands is absolutely correct. There will be no impact to the adjacent lands. There
are a number of accessory structures but because of the size of the parcel it can sustain this
number. They are within distances of each other and they're nicely placed on the parcel. He's
in the process of constructing this pool area on the east side of the residence and landscaping
area. I think you have these depictions of the project with the landscaping and how the pergola
will fit into the aesthetics of the pool area. The size is obviously so that it can be not considered
teeny tiny within the magnitude of what the pool area landscaping is as proposed. It's
obviously decorative in nature but unfortunately regardless it's still considered accessory
structure. It's not fully enclosed. It's got timbers along the top and columns along the ends.
So it's not something that they're going to reside in or place anything in. It's truly for
recreational purposes. When you review the criteria we feel that it definitely weighs in favor of
the applicant. The first no undesirable change. Obviously it will help the aesthetics. With the
14 acre size of the parcel it can sustain another accessory structure without there being any
negative impact that can be deemed to exist. Other alternatives, although a smaller pergola
would be considered feasible with regard to the magnitude of the landscaping project it wouldn't
work with the aesthetics, and due to there being little to no impact, it shouldn't be considered a
feasible alternative that should be pursued. It shouldn't be deemed substantial in nature
because, again, of the acreage and the fact that he's just improving on the aesthetics of the
property and this landscaping project that he's pursuing. And although it may be deemed self-
created, I would hope that it wouldn't be considered detrimental on the request being presented.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I've got a question.
MR. FREER-Go ahead, John.
MR. HENKEL-And it's basically a problem I have. It's a very nice piece of property. It's a nice
project, but what I have a problem with is there is a lot of accessory buildings there and when I
asked you back in December to maybe, to waiver the building because he built this building
without a permit and he asked for forgiveness after, and I just thought there had to be some kind
of pay back with all these accessory buildings and I asked you to remove this one here, which is
a very old building. I'd never ask you to have a new building taken down, and the reason was
because you take the fountain apart during the winter.
MS. BITTER-Right. Which was covered when I saw that.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MS. BITTER-I've been on the property a lot of times.
MR. HENKEL-It's still written in our application today and that's a false statement. So how is
that? I imagine all you guys went there and you saw this apparatus hooked around the
fountain. We were told in the application back last year that the reason for this building is they
take that fountain apart, which obviously you can look at that fountain you know that they're not
taking that fountain apart every year and putting it together. You wouldn't do that. So they
played us a little bit. So I'm feeling that there's kind of a little bit of some untruths here.
MS. BITTER-1 wouldn't go that far, John. I understand your concern because I was at the
property and saw it covered since I've been on the property three times this month because of
the pool construction, but there has to be a use for that building that if you want me to go inside
and inspect it to make sure that there's not something happening in there, I can do that, but
since the time when I submitted that in December, or February 15th, that was my understanding
of what that use was, as it was when I submitted in November 15th. It wasn't until I was present
on the property this month. The use of that building which is in the far left hand corner along
the side of the property which barely can be viewed if you're on the property. I think I can
definitely get that information to you, but in the totality of the application it's such a limited
impact, and I understand you're looking at numbers, but you're also looking at numbers of
accessory structures that would be allowed for a parcel that's an acre in size, that all four sides
would be viewed by neighbors, okay. So I'm not presenting untruths to you. That wasn't my
intention. I apologize if that misrepresentation was made because that's what I was advised
that structure was used for, but in sum I think whatever the use of that garage is, whether or not
there's a pergola as an additional accessory structure is so minor in impact when you're
weighing the Area Variance. If you would like to know the uses, if that's going to make a
determination as to how you weigh this Area Variance, I can table and find that out.
MR. FREER-Well let's see what.
MS. BITTER-1 didn't want him to think that I was coming in telling him that, because I wasn't
aware of that.
MR. HENKEL-Right. I understand that.
MR. FREER-Thanks for bringing that up, John, because I wasn't here at that meeting, and I live
around the block.
MR. HENKEL-I feel, to me, this is too much project.
MR. FREER-Well, that was, you were asking a question. Now we're going to open the public
hearing. We'll get back to what your position is in a minute. Okay. So we have a public
hearing. Is there anyone here who wants to make a comment on this application? Seeing no
one, is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR. FREER-Okay. Now I'll poll the Board. Michelle, will you go first.
MRS. HAYWARD-Hearing what Mr. Henkel had to say is of interest, but looking at the project in
totality on 14 acres the request I think fits in the scale at least the scale of the project and the
home, the size of the pergola and being my opinion there's no roof on a pergola. It's open, I'm
in favor of the project, but I do have some concern about Mr. Henkel's point.
MS. BITTER-I'm going to go in that garage.
MR. FREER-So 1, too, support the project. Again I live around the corner. So I don't think it's
going to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. In any case, I think it will improve the
environment and not take away from it. So I support the project. John?
MR. FREER-Like in the past we've given hard times for people building a little deck on the front
of their house and not getting a permit, and now we have this guy building a 3,000 square foot
super garage and we forgive it without paying any consequences. I just don't understand how
we can do that. It's just not fair in other applications, and I think there's too many structures.
Yes, it's a 14 acre lot. Yes it's beautiful, but then to build something that's that big without a
permit and then ask forgiveness because they got caught because they're going to build a pool
it's not fair to other people that we give a hard time to that, you know, have a little dinky house
or whatever. So I can't accept it without giving something back.
MR. FREER-Okay. Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 agree with John's point, and I feel that we would have approved any of these if
they'd have come before us ahead of time.
MS. BITTER-The pergola wasn't constructed.
MR. MC CABE-Right. The garage was.
MS. BITTER-Yes, but that was December.
MR. MC CABE-1 know, and we approved it. That's right, and I'm going to approve this one, but
I'm going to say that, you know, I'm a little concerned that the applicant here might be taking
advantage of our good nature. The reason I'll approve this is because it is a unique property.
It's not something that can be viewed very easily unless you go out of your way and it is 14
acres in an area where there's not other 14 acre lots. So I believe that they should be given
privileges that other people haven't gotten, but I do wish that, you know, we'd be dealt with in a
straightforward manner.
MR. FREER-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I have one advantage that I visited this property over 35 years ago when it
was owned by somebody previously. So I know that it's always been sprawling. It's always
had multiple buildings on it, but this is starting to smart to me like a piecemeal project that keeps
being added on to and I'm not really comfortable with it. I think John's point's well taken. Yes,
the size of the lot does cover a lot of problems, but it's not necessarily covered in the Code.
The Code says you have 750 square feet as the maximum square footage of accessory
structure and now you're almost double that. It's not even a little bit. It's a lot. So I'm going to
come down on the negative side on this. I don't support the project.
MR. FREER-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-A pergola is basically an ornamental structure, and I don't really consider it
to be a covered structure, and I think that we're getting a little bit off base here because I think
that, you know, we should be concerned because we have a large number of buildings on the
site, but all those buildings, with the exception of the new garage, were all pre-existing
previously. I don't think that we really could come up with a list of negative factors on a 14 acre
private estate which in essence this is, you know, surrounded by no neighbors that will ever see
anything that's built here, and I think if we stay focused on what we're asking for here this
evening, and that's a little bit of relief for the size of the pergola that's allowed, I don't really think
it's a big deal. I think we're making mountains out of mole hills.
MR. FREER-Okay. Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-No neighbors. Little relief. There's no roof on the pergola. I have no
problem.
MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle, you're still good with it?
MRS. HAYWARD-Yes.
MR. FREER-Okay. And I'm still okay with it based on the input from the rest of the members.
So I'll request a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kris
D. Roglieri. Applicant proposes to construct a 1,000 sq. ft. pergola associated with the
proposed pool project. Relief requested from maximum total square footage allowed for
accessory structures on the parcel.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the maximum total square footage allowed for accessory
structures on the parcel.
Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—pergola:
dna
The applicant proposes to construct a 1,000 sq. ft. pergola over a proposed pool and pool patio
area. The parcel currently has 4 garages (attached 1,250, detached 390 sq. ft., classic car
storage 3,000 sq. ft., , and equipment shed 626 sq. ft.). The existing wood shed is 470 sq. ft.
and the pergola at 1,000 sq. ft. are the two accessory structure and exceeds the total square
footage maximum allowed is 750 sq. ft. and proposed is 1470 sq. ft.
SEQR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 28, 2018;
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. As recognized this is a large 14 acre parcel with no neighbors that
will ever view this property.
2. Feasible alternatives would be to construct just the pool without a pergola but a pergola
will definitely add to the enjoyment of the applicants' use of their pool.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because of the small amount it is over the
requested allowable allowance.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district if we approve this as is. As recognized the Board sees that
there are already four covered structures but the Board feels that the open nature of the
pergola at 1,000 square feet will not significantly impact or create any negativity as far as
its building on the property.
5. The alleged difficulty is in effect self-created because the applicant wants a larger
structure than is normally allowed.
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;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-
AV-17-2018, KRIS D. ROGLIERI, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 28th day of March 2018 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Before you take your vote, you need to close the public hearing.
MR. FREER-I'll close the public hearing.
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer
NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel
MR. FREER-Okay. So your application has been approved, but you might want to make sure
you pass along the input from the Board coming back with any other things that there was
discontent with the previous. The observation of the story that we got about the use of the
other auxiliary structure.
MS. BITTER-Yes, I will make sure. I will check that myself.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Good luck.
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. Area Variance Z-AV-16-2018. Tamarra Ellsworth.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-16-2018 SEQRA TYPE II TAMARRA ELLSWORTH AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) TAMARRA ELLSWORTH ZONING RR-3A
LOCATION 15 FRENCH MOUNTAIN DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION
OF A 2,054 SQ. FT. RANCH STYLE, SINGLE-STORY DUPLEX; ONE UNIT IS PROPOSED
TO BE 760 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH COVERED PORCH; SECOND UNIT IS PROPOSED
TO BE 1,294 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH BASEMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR A DUPLEX STRUCTURE ON A LOT
THAT DOES NOT MEET LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN THE RR-3A ZONING DISTRICT.
CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.70 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-29 SECTION 179-3-
040; 179-5-100A
LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. FREER-Roy?
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-16-2018, Tamarra Ellsworth, Meeting Date: March 28,
2018 "Project Location: 15 French Mountain Drive Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 2,054 sq. ft. ranch style, single-story duplex; one unit is
proposed to be 760 sq. ft. (footprint) with covered porch; second unit is proposed to be 1,294
sq. ft. (footprint) with basement. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and for a
duplex structure on a lot that does not meet the minimum lot size requirements in the RR-3A
zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setbacks and for a density requirement for a duplex
in the RR3A zone.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —rural residential three
acre
The applicant proposes to construct a duplex on an existing 0.68 ac parcel where 3 ac is
required per dwelling. The home is to be located 78 ft. from the front and 66 ft. to the rear
where a 100 ft. setback is required, then 63.5 ft. from the north side and 35 ft. from the south
side 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 impacts to the neighborhood character may be anticipated from a
single family dwelling neighborhood by adding a duplex.
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 if the request is for additional living space to the home without a second
kitchen area would reduce the density request. Although, new construction of a single
family dwelling would require at least setback variances due to the zoning requirement of
the Rural residential 3 ac zone.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for front setback of 22 ft.
rear setback of 34 ft., then side setback on the north side 11.5 ft. and the south side 40 ft.
Lot size relief is 5.32 acres.
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 project
includes an on-site waste water system.
n
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to a duplex of a 2,080 sq. ft. (footprint) and associated site work. The
plans show one unit to be 3 bedroom unit and a second unit to be 1 bedroom unit."
MR. FREER-Welcome. Could you identify yourself and you can add anything to the application
that you'd like.
MR. DOBIE-Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record Lucas Dobie with Hutchins
Engineering. With me the applicant and land owner Tamarra Ellsworth, and just for the record
could we correct, I believe on the Staff Notes it read in one of the units as a three bedroom unit.
On the agenda that shows as a two bedroom. So the master unit, if you will, is two bedrooms
and the lease unit is one bedroom. I just wanted to clarify that.
MRS. MOORE-That's fine.
MR. FREER-So it's really the two should be a three on the.
MRS. MOORE-The Staff Notes.
MR. FREER-Or three should be two.
MR. DOBIE-Correct, three in totality.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. DOBIE-So the long and short of the project is the young lady bought the parcel from her
brother in the Fall of 2016. He owns the parcel to the south with the mobile home which is
where she lives now and quite honestly given the cost of construction we won't ask. So we're
hopeful that by having the rental unit she'll be able to get a little higher appraisal to get a little bit
better mortgage loan and then she'll obviously offset some of her mortgage. The parcel, it's an
old parcel, 150 by 200. So when we apply the setbacks there's no building envelope. So to
build anything it would require an Area Variance for setbacks. The density relief certainly is
substantial, and we knew that coming in but we won't know if we don't ask and the style of the
home we're happy with. It will essentially look like the commonplace ranches that are being
built around with the garage kind of out the front, that similar width just without the garage door
on it. So it will look like, it'll be quite substantial, quite in conformance with the neighborhood we
believe. A new, modern septic. There did used to be a mobile home on here we believe, her
brother bought the property approximately five years ago, which has been removed, and we
believe that had a nonconforming septic relevant to there's a spring house in the front. So we
don't believe that the old septic met that. So there will be some neighborhood improvement if
we're able to proceed with this project to clean that area up. I believe it's a modest size, again,
with 760 square feet for the lease unit which is nominally 16 feet wide, and a one story home.
So we're not asking for a towering duplex with the garages and everything. Just something
where she could offset her mortgage some and possibly someday her father may move in
because he's getting older, but we don't want to commit to that by giving any possibly untrue
leads on that. It's just something that may happen, and we situated the home farther to the
south so it'll sit mostly where it's been previously cleared. So the most substantial setback
relief is to her brother's parcel with the mobile home on it. We tried to keep it away from the
northerly neighbor all that we could, and that's about all I have in my notes. So we're here to
ask for your comments, hopefully your support, and we'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you for having us.
TAMARRA ELLSWORTH
MS. ELLSWORTH-Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. Are there any questions from the Board?
MR. HENKEL-Does your brother support the project?
MS. ELLSWORTH-He does.
MR. FREER-Any other questions? We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is
there anyone in the audience? I don't see anybody besides our civics' observers, so I'll guess
no, and is there any written comments, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There are no written comments.
MR. FREER-Okay. So I guess it's my turn to start and while I understand the situation, we just
had another applicant that was asking for a duplex and relief in terms of lot size and I didn't
support that and I don't support this project, that from a zoning standpoint this is way out of what
the zoning Queensbury rules are, and so with our charge of giving the minimum variance, this
just doesn't work for me. So I can't support it. John?
MR. HENKEL-You can go on to somebody else for a second.
MR. FREER-Okay. Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Yes. I took a look at this and on the surface it appears very similar to the other
application we had, but I see a number of significant differences. One, the structure is
connected. Two, it's much smaller than the other. Three, the neighborhood is much more
eclectic. So you can't say that, you know, it's predominantly single family homes. There's not
that many homes involved, and it's also out of the way. It's not as if that's going to be a built up
area at any time in the near future. So I think that it's a worthwhile project and I would support
it.
MR. FREER-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I disagree. I think, given the size of this lot, yes, it could be defrayed and out of
sight, but still the fact still remains it's only a .66 acre, .68 acre parcel and three acres is
required per dwelling. It's still a duplex and it's not zoned for a duplex. So I would be against
the project.
MR. HENKEL-It is zoned for a duplex, if you've got enough property.
MR. URRICO-But there's not enough property.
MRS. MOORE-The density.
MR. FREER-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I have mixed feelings about it. I think that, you know, it is an allowed
use in the zone, and I think if we were looking for something that approximates what we're
hoping to do on this project here it's very similar to Surrey Fields project. I don't know if you
guys remember Surrey Fields. Those were all duplexes on pretty small lots. There was a lot of
open conservation type area and this is kind of in a similar situation here because you guys
back up onto French Mountain, and I think that the big issue for me would be, if we allowed this
one, why wouldn't we allow your brother to build next door too, you know, and then you could
double down on it, you know, and I think if we took a greater look at the whole neighborhood
and we said to ourselves, you know, maybe this is something that would work up here because
it is kind of off the beaten path. It doesn't generate a lot of traffic and like you said there's a lot
of mixed use up there with mobile homes, single family all mixed in between. I would still be
open-minded about it at this point.
MR. FREER-Okay. Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I can understand the perspective of the negative comments and potential no
votes, but I have to look at it and weigh the fact that it's mixed use in the area, and to me that
means something. I see this as an improvement to the neighborhood so I actually would be in
support of this project.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. Well, first I've got to give you credit for being beautiful. It really would
be a lovely addition to the neighborhood. I went and looked at today, but I'm also looking at it
from a Zoning Board perspective and looking at the balance test, and for the reasons that I
won't repeat, but the substantialness, I guess if that's a word, of the request and the fact that it
is self-created. We don't have to consider self-created, but I think in this circumstance, you
know, requesting that you need a duplex to help defray the cost, that's really a self-created
difficulty. So for that reason at this point I'm going to have to say no.
MR. FREER-Okay. John?
MR. HENKEL-It's definitely a really nice improvement to the neighborhood. It's a nice looking
project, but unfortunately with the lack of land, if it had a little bit more land I would definitely be
in favor of it, but with the .68 acres I would not be in favor of it as is.
MR. FREER-Okay, Mr. Open-minded?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think that, you know, how many other empty lots do you guys have
over in the area there, just the two?
MS. ELLSWORTH-Just that one, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just the other one next door. That's it. I'm going to say that I would still
be in favor of it at this point in time. I think I could be open-minded about the mix of housing
and I don't think we're going to see like everybody wanting to convert to duplexes up there any
more than we did in the previous application.
MR. FREER-Okay. You've been keeping track of the vote.
MR. DOBIE-I'm not very good at math.
MR. FREER-Let me review it for you. There's three yeses and four noes. So again I think the
Board is sympathetic, but you've heard from some of us the notion of a small lot and the duplex
piece is not going to get past our requirement to issue the minimum relief necessary. So I don't
know what you want to do.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would prefer to table the application if we could and
not have that on the record of a denial. Could I ask perhaps a favor, if you will, of Staff and
yourselves? If we're able to re-group, come in with a single family, smaller footprint, is there
any way we can submit the middle of next week to try to get back on, or are we already set for
that? We're just trying to keep things moving.
MRS. MOORE-So our April agendas are already set.
MR. URRICO-There's only one meeting, right?
MRS. MOORE-And there's only one meeting at this time. I mean, if the Board wishes, we
haven't canceled that room yet or have we?
MS. HEMINGWAY-We have not canceled that meeting.
MRS. MOORE-So I could break that meeting up a little bit to have two meetings if we wish to.
So there is an opportunity to break up that one meeting that was originally scheduled. Those
agenda items are already set. I could break them into two meetings. I wasn't anticipating that
because it's six items on.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because this is just simply asking for relief, dimensional relief from the
setbacks, right? I mean, that's the only thing that we would be looking at. So it would be a
pretty simple affair, in my mind.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So at this time, we can decide that with the Staff and Chairman whether
to have two meetings or one meeting. If you wish to table it, then you could potentially table it
to the first meeting for the Zoning Board of Appeals and then pick a timeframe that you want this
information back in by.
MR. FREER-So is there an urgency that I don't quite understand?
MR. DOBIE-Well, it's just months seem to roll out. We're going to lose April and we'll be in May
for a decision, and by the time we get final plans and try to get the mortgage in, we're probably
into June, maybe July before we're breaking ground. We're just trying to accelerate things.
MR. FREER-Okay. So you want to make a commitment to re-submit soonest? What
timeframe do you think you're going to have?
MR. DOBIE-1 could do probably a week from today. All I have to do is the site development
data, change the plot plan.
MR. URRICO-Is that enough time?
MRS. MOORE-April 3d? Yes.
MR. MC CABE-So I'll make a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Tamarra Ellsworth. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,054 sq. ft. ranch style, single-story
duplex; one unit is proposed to be 760 sq. ft. (footprint) with covered porch; second unit is
proposed to be 1,294 sq. ft. (footprint) with basement. Relief requested from minimum setback
requirements and for a duplex structure on a lot that does not meet the minimum lot size
requirements in the RR-3A zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setbacks and for a density requirement for a duplex
in the RR3A zone.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —rural residential three
acre
The applicant proposes to construct a duplex on an existing 0.68 ac parcel where 3 ac is
required per dwelling. The home is to be located 78 f from the front and 66 ft. to the rear where
a 100 ft. setback is required, then 63.5 ft. from the north side and 35 ft. from the south side
where a 75 ft. setback is required.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-16-2018 TAMARRA ELLSWORTH, Introduced
by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
Tabled until the first Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in April with the new data to be submitted
a week from today.
Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward,
Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-Okay. We'll see you soon.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you for your time.
MS. ELLSWORTH-Thank you, everyone.
MR. FREER-So what's the consensus? My consensus is one meeting.
MR. HENKEL-One meeting is good with me.
MRS. MOORE-It would be April 18th
MR. FREER-I need a motion to adjourn.
MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting.
MR. MC DEVITT-Second.
MR. FREER-Thank you, Brent.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
MARCH 28, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Brent McDevitt:
Duly adopted this 28th day of March, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico,
Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Harrison Freer, Chairman