09-19-2018 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
INDEX
Area Variance Z-AV-42-2018 Christopher Dwyer 1.
TABLE TO 9/26/18 Tax Map No. 288.-1-65
Area Variance Z-AV-28-2017 Seaton Property Holdings, LLC
2.
FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55, -56, -58, & -61
Area Variance Z-AV-43-2017 Stephen & Deborah Richards 3.
FOR SHED Tax Map No. 297.7-1-26
EXTENSION OF APPROVAL
Area Variance Z-AV-14-2018 Joseph & Cynthia Didio 5.
Tax Map No. 239.20-1-7
Area Variance Z-AV-45-2018 Rasheed Bhatti (King Hendrick Motel)
11.
Tax Map No. 288.8-1-11.2
Area Variance Z-AV-58-2018 Daniel Hajeck 15.
Tax Map No. 308.15-1-2
Area Variance Z-AV-60-2018 John Kokoletsos 18.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-26
Area Variance Z-AV-61-2018 John R. Buchanan 23.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-38
Area Variance Z-AV-62-2018 Gregory Garafalo 28.
Tax Map No. 308.11-1-49.21
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.
,r
(Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN
MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
JAMES UNDERWOOD
MICHELLE HAYWARD
RONALD KUHL
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. FREER-I'd like to open the 19 September Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals.
For those who haven't been here before the process is pretty simple. On the back table there's
information about each application and a bit about the process. We'll call each applicant to the
table. We'll then let them present. The Board will ask questions. We'll open a public hearing.
I'll poll the Board and then we'll make some kind of determination on how to move forward,
either a proposal to approve, to table or some other activity. Then we'll go on to the next
application. However, I want to stress to everyone who gets their application approved that you
will get a letter from the Town with additional information that is mandatory compliance. So just
because you get approval for a variance at the Zoning Board, that doesn't mean you have all
the other Town processes waived. So please be cognizant of that so that we all stay good
neighbors here. Okay.
MR. MC CABE-We've got a bunch of administrative stuff.
MR. FREER-Yes, let's do that. Thanks, Mike. Okay. We have a request for an extension.
MR. MC CABE-Let's approve the meeting minutes first.
MR. FREER-Okay.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 22, 2018
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of September, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.
Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-All right. Now let's do the Dwyer one first because we're only putting that one
off by a week.
MR. FREER-Yes.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-42-2018 SEQRA TYPE II CHRISTOPHER DWYER AGENT(S)
STEFANIE DILALLO BITTER, ESQ., BPSR OWNER(S) CHRISTOPHER DWYER
ZONING MDR LOCATION 1232 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
MAINTAIN TWO SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ON A 1.37 ACRE PARCEL; 1,632 SQ. FT.
(FOOTPRINT) AND 1,140 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT). REQUESTING THE SECOND DWELLING
TO BE A GUEST COTTAGE AND NOT TO BE RENTED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
MINIMUM LOT SIZE RESTRICTIONS FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT LOCATED IN THE MDR
ZONING DISTRICT; MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS 2-ACRES PER DWELLING UNIT. ALSO,
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM RESTRICTION THAT ALLOWS ONLY ONE DWELLING UNIT
2
(Queen bburry ZII:3A Meetling 09/19/2013)
PER LOT IN THE MDR ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2018 LOT SIZE
1.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-65 SECTION 179-3-040
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Christopher Dwyer. Applicant proposes to maintain two single-family dwellings on a 1.37 acre
parcel; 1,632 sq. ft. (footprint) and 1,140 sq. ft. (footprint). Relief requested from minimum lot
size restrictions for each dwelling unit located in the MDR zoning district; minimum requirement
is 2-acres per dwelling unit. Also, relief requested from restriction that allows only one dwelling
unit per lot in the MDR zone.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-42-2018 CHRISTOPHER DWYER,
Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
Tabled to next week's meeting, Wednesday, September 26, 2018.
Duly adopted this 19th day of September 2018, by the following vote:
MR. FREER-Laura, is that going to work?
MRS. MOORE-It will work and should open the public hearing and leave it open.
MR. FREER-Okay. Should we do that now?
MRS. MOORE-As part of your motion you can do that.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr.
Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-Okay. Now I'd like to open the public hearing on the variance that we just
delayed, that's Christopher Dwyer, Area Variance 42-2018. Is there anyone here who wants to
make a comment about that variance who might not want to come back or had planned on
making comment today? Okay. Seeing no one, is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MRS. MOORE-I believe there is written comment from the last meeting that we had opened the
public hearing at, but I would suggest since there's no one here at this time, if we need to re-
read that we do it next week.
MR. FREER-Do it next time. Okay. I concur. Okay. So we'll keep that public hearing.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. I'm going to suggest that we table the Seaton Property Holdings first and
then do the Hicks variance.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
FURTHER TABLING PENDING TOWN BOARD ACTION
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-28-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A-1
TREEWORKS)
308 AND 310 CORINTH ROAD
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Seaton Property Holdings, LLC (A-1 Tree Works). Applicant proposes operation of a wood
processing facility with a new 15,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for wood products and to install
two 1,200 sq. ft. kiln units on the site. Project includes merger of lots 308.16-1-55, -56, -58 &
61. Project includes continued auto facility for C& J automotive. Project includes already in use
new storage area, maintaining 4 existing buildings on the merged properties, additional clearing,
installation of a gravel parking area and material storage area (logs, woodchips etc.). Relief
requested from minimum lot size requirements for the firewood processing facility in the CLI
zoning district were 100 ac is required. Planning Board: Site plan and Special use permit for
lighting manufacturing of wood products for a logging processing company.
The applicant requests relief from minimum lot size required for a sawmill, wood product
operations, and firewood processing facility in the CLI zoning district were 100 ac is required.
179-10-010 Special Use Permit Criteria for Commercial light industrial zone.
3
(Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
The applicant proposes a wood product operations (Defined as SAWMILL, CHIPPING and
PALLET MILL-Any building, site or place used for the cutting or milling of raw timber into
dimensional lumber, pallets, chips or other wood products.) where 100 ac is required and the
existing site is 9.4 ac.
SEQR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017 and Left Open;
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-
AV-28-2017, SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A-1 TREE WORKS), Introduced by
Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Until the December 2018 meeting with pertinent information to be submitted by the middle of
November.
Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.
Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Now I'm going to do the Shed first for 65 Hicks Road. We've got to do them
one at a time because the fence is not straightforward.
MR. FREER-Okay. So John's going to recuse himself for that. So, Cathy, you're on board for
a vote on this?
CATHERINE HAMLIN, ALTERNATE
MRS. HAMLIN-I guess so.
MR. FREER-Okay.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL:
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-43-2017 RICHARDS (SHED) AT 65 HICKS ROAD
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received a request for an
extension of approval from Stephen H. & Deborah A. Richards for the shed which was
originally approved with conditions on December 20, 2017
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF APPROVAL (SEE NOTATION BELOW) FOR AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-43-
2017 STEPHEN H. & DEBORAH A. RICHARDS, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved
for its adoption, seconded Ronald Kuhl:
To extend for one year.
Duly adopted this 19th day of September 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.
Freer
NOES: NONE
• The above request for extension of approval was approved by the Zoning
Board of Appeals with the condition that the building permit not be issued
pending resolve with the fence location.
MR. MC CABE-Now the next one, the fence, we have a letter, so I guess you should discuss
that.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-67-2017 RICHARDS (FENCE) AT 65 HICKS ROAD
STEPHEN & DEBORAH RICHARDS, PRESENT
4
(Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 00/10/2015)
MR. FREER-Yes. So I think the applicant is here to make a comment about, as a result of the
letter. So why don't you step to the table and you can give us an update on what's going on.
Please identify yourself for the record.
MR. RICHARDS-Stephen Richards and my wife Deborah Richards.
MR. FREER-Welcome, and I understand there's been some discussion between yourself and
the Water Department and that there's no longer a requirement to extend this variance?
MRS. RICHARDS-No. October 15th we're moving the fence back.
MR. FREER-Right, and the letter asked that it be done by the 22nd of October, right?
MRS. RICHARDS-Yes, something like that.
MR. FREER-Okay. So you want to withdraw this request for extension?
MR. RICHARDS-Yes, that's fine on that.
MRS. RICHARDS-Yes, we're not doing that work. The fence company's just coming back.
MR. FREER-Okay. So are we good with that?
MRS. MOORE-We are good with that.
MR. FREER-Okay. So thank you very much. We understand the issue and appreciate your
cooperation. Thank you.
MR. RICHARDS-Can I say something.
MR. FREER-Go ahead.
MR. RICHARDS-There's a stipulation in our first one that we had to get along with the Water
Department. Does that stipulation still stand in the first one?
MR. MC CABE-The first one disappears.
MR. RICHARDS-I mean our building. The shed.
MR. MC CABE-The shed. Did we condition the shed?
MR. RICHARDS-Yes, you did.
MRS. RICHARDS-Can we just call Craig when we finally get the building down?
MR. RICHARDS-Well that was going to be my next question. We said we would tear down a
little garden shed and I was hoping if we could change that. It's a lot of work.
MR. FREER-Does it impact the Water?
MR. RICHARDS-It has nothing to do with the water.
MRS. RICHARDS-It's the building that was there when we bought the house.
MR. RICHARDS-In the original one we had a little garden shed and I said we'd tear that down to
put this up.
MRS. MOORE-The Board conditioned it that that shed be removed because of the shed being
installed.
MR. MC CABE-Well then we can't really, we can't let you do that and extend the variance.
MRS. MOORE-Correct. So the current variance that stands has those conditions on that. If
you'd like to amend the Area Variance application you would have to come back to the Board
and request an amendment of the application.
MR. KUHL-We agreed that the stipulation was that you'd remove that shed.
5
(Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 00/10/2018)
MR. RICHARDS-You're right. You're absolutely right. I totally agree with you, but it's a lot of
work. We'll get to it.
MR. FREER-Okay. We're giving you an extra year.
MR. RICHARDS-Yes. No problem.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board? I don't think we need to do
any voting.
MR. MC CABE-We voted on the first one.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. RICHARDS-Thank you. Thank you very much.
MR. FREER-Now we're ready to go to Joseph & Cynthia Didio, Area Variance 14-2018, and
Michelle is going to recuse herself.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-14-2018 SEQRA TYPE II JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO
OWNER(S) JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO ZONING WR LOCATION 2966 STATE
ROUTE 9L APPLICANT REVISED APPLICATION FOR SECOND STORY ADDITION TO
BE 36 FT. 9 IN. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 560 SQ. FT. SECOND-
STORY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO EXISTING 1,096 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME.
HOME IS 2,056 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) CURRENTLY AND PROPOSED FLOOR AREA
WITH ADDITION WILL BE 2,616 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS, FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN
THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR
EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL
AREA. CROSS REF P-SP-10-2018; AV 34-2003; AV 26-2007 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING JUNE 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRE(S)
TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-7 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010
JOE & ANDREW DIDIO, PRESENT
(CATHERINE HAMLIN, ALTERNATE, SAT IN FOR MICHELLE HAYWARD WHO RECUSED
HERSELF FROM THIS APPLICATION)
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-14-2018, Joseph & Cynthia Didio, Meeting Date:
September 19, 2018 "Project Location: 2966 State Route 9L Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant revised application for second story addition to be 36 ft. 9 in.
Applicant proposes construction of a 560 sq. ft. second-story residential addition to existing
1,096 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Home is 2,056 sq. ft. (floor area) currently and proposed floor
area with addition will be 2,616 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements,
floor area ratio requirements and height restrictions in the WR zoning district. Planning Board:
Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical
Environmental Area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from expansion of a nonconforming structure, floor area, height
and from minimum setback requirements for such structure in the WR zoning district.
179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements
The applicant proposes to construct a 560 sq. ft. second floor addition. The addition is over an
existing main floor -on the north side the setback is to be 6.83 ft. where a 15 ft. setback is
required. The proposed height is to be 36 ft. 9 in. where 28 ft. is the maximum allowed. The
floor area is increased from 2,056 sq. ft. to 2,616 sq. ft. where 1,613.7 sq. ft. is the maximum
allowed.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
6
(Queen bburry II:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
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 new
addition is over an existing main floor.
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 size of the addition. Other alternatives may be limited due
to the location of the home on the parcel and size of the existing home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for side setback
is 8.7 ft., and Floor area relief is 13 % in excess, 35%.
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 may be
considered to have minimal impact.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a 560 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing home. The elevation
plan was revised and now shows the existing decks and each side of the building with the new
addition, roofline, and windows. The applicant has provided a floor plan showing the new
second floor with 3-bedrooms. The applicant has explained the roof water runs off to splash
block with gravel aprons to prevent hillside erosion. In addition, the existing ground —cover and
stone retaining walls are to remain in place also to prevent erosion. The applicant has indicated
the construction materials would be staged in the driveway and the existing deck stairs and
interior of the home will be used to move materials needed for the construction. The septic
system was recently upgraded with a new tank for up to 4-bedrooms."
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on their limited review in the motion has
identified the following areas of concern: The height variance which has increased significantly.
And that motion was passed, adopted on June 19, 2018 by a unanimous vote.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Please identify yourself and make any additional
comments that you'd like for the Board.
MR. DIDIO-My name is Joe Didio and I'm represented here today by my son Andrew who is a
Sienna grad in Biology and Environmental Scientist and a scientist and civil engineering project
manager that works extensively with the New York State DEC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the SEQR process. I have a little statement of sorts. Do I do that now?
MR. FREER-Yes, if you want to add information to your application. Go ahead.
MR. DIDIO-Yes, it's just basically background statement. I've lived on Lake George at our
family residence on Warner Bay since I was two years old. I still own that property with my
sibling. For the past 16 years or so I've lived year round in Dunham's Bay. My father and his
siblings built and have owned three residences since 1952. My father was an Adirondack
sportsman having hunted and fished the Lake George Adirondacks since he was a child. One
of his best friends and constant fishing companions, Tony Deet, was a known and sought after
Adirondack guide since the age of 12. My father was one of the original subscribers and
contributors to the Conservationist. We were raised to be stewards of the lake and the
Adirondacks since we were born. My father's worry was that the common man, the working
man would not have access to this lake and it seems to be becoming a reality. While I am a
common working man I come here looking for variances needed to put a modest addition to my
modest home to accommodate our families. I've worked hard to provide access to the lake to
my children and grandchildren. We have taken all of your concerns from the past meeting and
have done everything possible and have painstakingly come up with the only alternate plans
possible. The only other alternatives are to add to the footprint, increase impermeable
surfaces, building closer to the lake and possibly affecting our neighbors. Again we are truly
stewards of the lake. For three years my wife has worked on the North Queensbury Water
7
(Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
District Advisory Board. Since we've owned the property I've built hundreds of feet of slope
stabilizing retaining walls to stop and to impede road and other impervious runoff through our
property. All of the soil I've used to replenish the soil is soil that is indigenous to the property.
I rake each fall and mulch and compost the leaves to create the soil utilized on site to replenish
the soil lost. We continually add plants as suggested by Kathy Bozony to hold back and absorb
any runoff. Additionally at significant expense we've installed a new porous wastewater system.
As it stands now we have three letters from our neighbors that actually reside in the homes near
us endorsing our addition. With this new addition we will be below the existing height of our
existing building and will not affect any neighbor's vision or view in any way. No additional
footprint, no additional non-permeable surfaces that will be added. We simply need suitable
sleeping and storage within our home. I have no garage and my basement is approximately
seven foot by ten foot and I pay for two storage units on Route 149 to keep tools, household
and seasonal items. We appreciate the Board's concerns with the variances requested and
have modified the plans to the greatest extent practicable, impact to the neighboring properties,
receiving waters and community character with no appreciable impact. Thank you for your
consideration.
MR. FREER-Okay. Do you have anything to add, Andrew?
MR. A. DIDIO-Yes. Andy Didio. I just wanted to talk about the revisions that were made to the
actual addition plans. Originally the proposed addition was 41 feet 11 inches in height from the
lowest adjacent grade which would have increased the nonconformance because the existing
home is about 38 feet above the lakeside. As we've talked about at the last meeting, their
house is kind of tiered in a sense because they live on a hillside. So we had originally proposed
a six on twelve asphalt shingled roof which would have matched the asphalt shingle in the
existing second story. The draft has been revised to go to a roofline similar to what the existing
roofline is over the living room above which the addition would be constructed which is now to a
one on twelve. So an EPDM roof. So it's a lower pitched roof so it got us below the existing
roof line on the Route 9 side, 9L side. So we're proposing a 36 foot 9 inch ridge height on the
addition so it actually wouldn't be visible from the 9L side and doesn't increase that
nonconformance. In addition the original application was to carry the addition out to the whole
width of the living room, which actually cantilevers over the lowest portion of the house.
Looking at the structural bearing lines we were able to pull back the addition two feet from the
south edge which actually reduced it by about 50 square feet, 48 square feet because we're
able to use some of that cantilevering that's happening with the existing ceiling joists that are
there. To pull it in any further impacts basically the floor plan as far as establishing three
bedrooms upstairs as well as the structural. You'd have to establish a new bearing line that
would have to carry all the way down through the house. So it would be a significant basically
destruction of the house to carry that bearing line all the way down. So we've pulled it in to the
bearing line below so we're able to utilize that cantilever with some bracing down below for
below the living room space. When it comes to the, I think some of the concerns were runoff,
impact to the neighborhood. Obviously the five kind of variance standards that are associated
there. We're not increasing the square footage as my dad mentioned. The only alternatives
really are to increase the square footage. To build closer to the lake, it's a small constrained
lot. Right now they've got basically a master bedroom upstairs, a small bedroom with a twin
bed upstairs that barely passes as a bedroom, and then a bedroom in what would be
considered a basement because it's on basically the third story down if you will because of the
kind of tetris style house it is, and it makes it difficult both for my family, our extended family,
when we have gatherings, to have the kids in separate rooms and it just makes the living
arrangement difficult. So the intent is to make it so that you've got three bedrooms upstairs
where kids can be located if we come and visit. We're all upstairs and actually like he
mentioned he's got a seven by nine basement. So he doesn't have any place for his tools.
Again, the environmental impact is minimal, no increase in impervious surface. Right now as
he discussed he's built retaining walls since they purchased the property. It was basically just
a slope that ran right down to the lake and there was actually some erosion that was occurring
when they bought the property so it the built stone walls to help hold that back. They planted a
number of different ground cover vegetation to try and hold back the bank, stabilize the bank
with splash blocks to prevent erosion from roof leaders.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. We have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here who
wants to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, is there any more written
comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. URRICO-Yes, there is some written comments from June. Most of them were submitted
earlier. "I'm writing this to inform the members of both Boards that the project that the Didio
family is planning for their home will have no impact on us. In fact, we are all for it! Best
8
(Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
regards, Lisa Cadena, 2962 State Route 9L" "I, Albert Turcotte, living at 2970 State Route 9L,
Lake George, NY have no problem whatsoever with Joe's plans for expansion and addition to
his property at 2966 State Rt. 9L, Lake George, N.Y. Albert Turcotte" "I am writing regarding
the addition my neighbors Joseph and Cynthia Didio of 2966 State Rt. 9L are proposing on their
property. It does not impact my property at all and I recommend the Boards pass the variances
and allow the addition. Eleanor Strack, 2968 State Rt. 9L This is from Gary Banta, 2969
State Rt. 9L. "I am writing because I cannot attend this meeting because of health reasons. At
the meeting 4-25-07 the issues of the property in question was the reason my attorney and I
were there. Because of the illegal actions of the Didio's. This is documented in minutes of that
meeting 4-25-07 of unapproved decks, dock, stairs areas. Three years prior to 4-25-07 Didio's
began the additions of decks of 326 sq. feet without the application or approval of the Town of
Queensbury. The existing buildings and additions will be in violation because there are not
legal setbacks in place now and continuing to add on will only create further problems. The
proposed addition will cause further environmental impact on the lake as it has on my property.
This was determined in the meeting 4-25-07. When the Didio's purchased the property the
damage began when I did not object to the plans for the new docks which was much larger.
The building material was to be moved over my property with my father present and myself, and
was to be done in the ways dad knew were safe for the beauty of our property. The heavy
building materials were to be placed on rollers, heavy pipes, large diameter, rolled down
carefully. Didio's did not notify us when this was happening and when we arrived the major
destruction of the pathways with hundreds of years of established natural firmly established
rocks, foliage, grass and perennials were very torn up, from the way lumber was dragged down
the hill with no concern for our property. We could not stop this damage when Didio's had not
notified us as agreed they would do. The next damaging erosion was caused by Didio's paving
the entire front of their property which runs off on the top of my property causing further erosion
to my lot. The next cause of erosion was the dropping of building materials on my land for the
deck project with no approval by the Town or me. Then the hot tub was delivered without
permission by us over my property again causing further erosion and placed on my property line
approximately 15 ft. from waterline exactly on northeast border of my land sitting directly on
property line causing further erosion and making the path inaccessible to my docks which now
have to have steps because natural existing natural path has become entirely eroded. The
area which is covered by building decks and hot tubs allows very little places for natural
absorption of stormwater on their land. This future proposal of construction will only further the
erosion currently occurring to my land. Since my assessment has been determined to be
$380,000 from $360,000 I attempted to have it toward an appeal to no avail because of existing
conditions and damage caused by Didio's. The Didio's have no way of getting building
materials onto their property due to the existing stairs they built on their property and I will not
allow them access to my property to enable further damage. If inspectors view the property
they will be aware of the impossibility to get materials due to such construction. I have
photographs but due to illness I have not been able to get down in the files to get them. As
soon as possible I will provide you with them. Yours Respectfully, Gary Banta"
MR. FREER-That was submitted in June, the last time we heard this?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. A. DIDIO-Prior to the last meeting.
MR. KUHL-Who wrote that letter?
MR. URRICO-Gary Banta. He's at 2969 State Route 9L.
MR. DIDIO-He's a landowner to the neighboring property.
MR. FREER-Okay. I think you commented about the last letter at the initial meeting and do you
want to add anything based on public comment?
MR. DIDIO-Well, I mean Andy can speak to it, but everything that is on that property has been
permitted, gone through the process. Ninety-eight percent of what is in there is totally
inaccurate. He just, again, at best, I think, delusional, quite honestly. He's an absentee
landlord. He has blamed everything, I think it was 2007 these rains that his path was washed
out. Guys who were building my dock dropped materials probably three feet onto my property
and maybe four feet onto his. He came and showed it to me. I had them remove it.
Everything was carried down through my property. I put topsoil in where maybe his grass was
dented a little bit. All of the things that he speaks to are just totally inaccurate. Again,
everything has been permitted, built properly and inspected. Back to the washout, the problem
with Mr. Banta is in the 16 years I've been there he's raked the property twice maybe partial.
He does no repairs. We've all had washout back in 2004, '07 whatever it was, and I took
9
(Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
photos and I actually have articles from all the newspapers from all the driveways. We've seen
enough of it on the lake and everywhere, and we repaired docks. Everyone else repairs things.
MR. Banta doesn't repair anything. He has three little cabins that I think have 50 gallon drums
underneath them for septic. He's got a house that is in total disrepair. He's got a barn full of
rusting junk, and he tries to rent these out and he doesn't do a very good job of it because they
are just in total disrepair, and basically that's all I can say.
MR. A. DIDIO-And I can just tell you it's been, for some reason it's been an adversarial
relationship since the outset. I think we were there a month and I was out getting the mail and
he approached me because of something and it wasn't let through on his property. It was like
an aggressive kind of engagement and he's like welcome to the neighborhood kind of thing and
I didn't get it and from that point on it's just been an adversarial thing. We can't put it together.
MR. DIDIO-He's done a number of things that are quite odd, but there's a person living in one of
his buildings now that I think does it to kind of maintain the property. Although I haven't seen
him do anything, and he actually was like a third cousin or whatever. He came over to me two
days ago and said, you know, I know how you treat people. They rent docks to people and they
think that it's illegal. I don't think he has a marina permit, and he says I've talked to all the
people you deal with here, he said you've been very kind. He said I want you to understand I'm
not involved with any of the stuff that my uncle, cousin, monkey's uncle, whatever he is has, and
he said I understand that he's a bit difficult, and I said I have no problem with you.
MR. A. DIDIO-Not to downplay it, but a comment letter from a person, neighbor of the property
owner in the community, but honestly we really don't take a lot of stock in that letter because we
know for a fact that as my dad said, 98% of that is just false information. For some reason he's
got an edge.
MR. DIDIO-And he's still sick. I'm sure he got a notice that this was moved and tabled and
would be occurring tonight. So he would have every opportunity to be here.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. So we've had the public hearing, read in the remarks. So I
will poll the Board, and I'll start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's always important that we do what's correct in all respects and I think
that we expect that when we have applicants before us that we expect that they will try to come
around to our point of view when we give them hints as to what we expect as far as our
expectations go, and I think the key impact that we are looking at here is this is only a .17 acre
lot. So it's very constrained by the small size of the property. It has had an upgrade with the
septic system to bring it into compliance so it's actually functional, and that's always our
greatest hope when we these projects proposed before us. The current home on the site has a
square footage of 1,613 square feet and they're proposing 2,616 square feet, and that's
approximately, in other words it's over that Floor Area Ratio at 22% and they're proposing a
Floor Area Ratio of 35% which is pretty exceedingly over the top. I don't think that the project
as it's been proposed by the applicants is out of ordinary because I think everybody would hope
to probably have at least three bedrooms in a camp up on Lake George, but in this instance
here I think they've tried to lower the height down. It's still way over height at near 37 feet in
height as opposed to the 28 foot. The APA guidelines allow up to 50 feet, you know, and that's
something I think that we should consider, too, as a Board at times because ours is much more
restrictive. So at this time I don't think I'm ready to approve it because I still think it's way
oversized for the size of the lot.
MR. FREER-Thanks, Jim. Ron?
MR. KUHL-I'm going to pass.
MR. FREER-Okay. John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. This is a tough one but the stickler for me is definitely the floor ratio. You're
talking about almost 1,000 feet above the allowable floor ratio for square footage. The height
doesn't really bother me too much like Jim said, and the setback doesn't bother me too much,
and I know the permeability has nothing to do with this, but they're at 56% permeability, like they
said has already been approved in prior projects, but the stickler for me is the square footage. I
can't accept 1,000 feet over the allowable.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I have a problem, too. The setback is fine with me. We've done worse than
that, and so I would approve the setback at 6.83 feet. I can understand the Floor Area Ratio.
10
(Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 00/10/2018)
That's kind of in this situation because of the size of the lot. It's hard to do anything with a
small lot, but we've argued over six and nine inches over height and I could not put my name on
an approval to over 36 feet. I mean that's just way beyond what we've normally done. So I
can't go with this project.
MR. FREER-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I think if this was presented with one variance, each of the variances, maybe
there would be a possibility of me considering it, but when you put the three of them together
and then the size of the variances, it really puts it way over the top in my estimation. So I could
probably live with the setback but I'm not happy about the height and certainly the floor area is
well above what it can be for the size of the property. So I would be against the application at
this point.
MR. FREER-Okay. Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I appreciate the efforts that they made to try to satisfy some of the
concerns of the Board the last time, but if my figures are right and there aren't more figures, you
guys are approaching 1,000 additional. That's a big one for me. The height, because of the
elevation I understand that aspect of it, but again, it's pretty excessive. I'm certainly open to
them trying to modify it some more. I'm against it at this point.
MR. KUHL-I know they made an attempt to drop the height. I agree with everybody else. I
think you're trying to overbuild a lot. So I'd be against it.
MR. FREER-Okay. So I also collectively am not in favor of granting the entire suite of
variances requested. I know that 10, 15, 20 years ago, no problem. As a matter of fact there's
houses on Rockhurst that are way more floor area ratio on smaller lots. However our charge is
2018 and the zoning that we're given. So you wanted to make a statement?
MR. A. DIDIO-Yes, I think it was just that the, I appreciate the fact that the height is a concern
with the intent of the revisions they're not increasing the non-conformance with the height
variance. It's 38 feet now. We're proposing something that's actually lower than that. So we
don't, theoretically I don't see the issue with the height because we're not actually increasing the
non-conformance. I can appreciate the Board's position on Floor Area.
MR. FREER-So I'll tell you, I'll give you my feedback. As soon as we pass a six foot nine inch
height variance, guess what, we've set a precedent and everyone comes in and says well what
about me, and this Board has struggled with six inches on property on the lake, and fought to
get guys from five feet to two feet. So that's, I think one of the concerns of some of the people.
MR. A. DIDIO-And again, I know, as we talked about before, we don't want to belabor it. The
ceiling height in the addition is the lowest possible for the Building Code to allow for head
height, the lowest pitch for an EPDM roof to actually have a shed and not be considered a flat
roof. Again, to not increase, I appreciate. If you're on a flat land and you want to build a 30
foot house or a 35 foot house and your zoning's 28, as the Board always does, takes into
consideration the actual parcel that they're dealing with. So when you talk about a parcel that
literally is basically like a story and a half, two-story at best, at any given point down the hillside,
but when you take the measurements.
MR. URRICO-Are we going to hear this? We've already made our decision.
MR. FREER-Yes, I thought you were going to make a brief comment. So you have some
choices to make. You can table it, which is the easiest, to see if you want to do anything else,
withdraw or have us vote it down and then you have to do the whole process. You have to
decide what to do.
MR. A. DIDIO-1 guess the challenge there, and again, not to belabor it, the challenge is we're
kind of where we were last meeting where the issue was the percentage and lot coverage. So
if the Board is not going to be, you know there's only so much space you can put an addition on
the house and have the bedrooms be added to. If we add two square feet to the upstairs it's
going to be over the, it's an existing, non-conforming structure, right?
MR. FREER-What do you want to do? Sorry. Do you want to table it, withdraw it? Are there
other options, Laura, that you could recommend?
MRS. MOORE-1 mean the option of tabling it allows the applicant to go back through and see if
there's additional floor area that they can reduce it to, only one additional bedroom or
,r ,r
(Queen bburry ZII:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
reconfigure that top portion. Again, the Board didn't seem to have an issue with the height. So
tabling the application may be an option.
MR. A. DIDIO-1 think we'll table it.
MR. FREER-Can I get a motion to table this application?
MR. MC CABE-Until when?
MRS. MOORE-The November meeting would be the next meeting that would be available at
this time.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Joseph & Cynthia Didio. Applicant revised application for second story addition to be 36
ft. 9 in. Applicant proposes construction of a 560 sq. ft. second-story residential addition to
existing 1,096 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Home is 2,056 sq. ft. (floor area) currently and proposed
floor area with addition will be 2,616 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum setback
requirements, floor area ratio requirements and height restrictions in the WR zoning district.
Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a
Critical Environmental Area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from expansion of a nonconforming structure, floor area, height
and from minimum setback requirements for such structure in the WR zoning district.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-14-2018 JOSEPH & CYNTHIA DIDIO,
Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer:
Tabled to the November meeting with new information to be submitted by the middle of October.
Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. A. DIDIO-Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. So we're not doing the Dwyer one. So we're on to Rasheed Bhatti, Area
Variance 45-2018.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-45-2018 SEQRA TYPE II RASHEED BHATTI (KING HENDRICK
MOTEL) OWNER(S) RASHEED BHATTI ZONING Cl LOCATION 1602 STATE ROUTE
9 APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS TO CABIN 1 AT
270 SQ. FT. WITH A 132 SQ. FT. DECK, CABIN 2 AT 294 SQ. FT. WITH A 144 SQ. FT.
DECK. PROJECT WORK FOR CABINS 1 THRU 7 INCLUDE EXTENDING THE ROOF
OVER THE PORCH AREA AND FRONT AREA OF THE CABINS. PROJECT ALSO
INCLUDES REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING 75 SQ. FT. STORAGE AREA ON THE MAIN
MOTEL UNIT BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A 420 SQ. FT. STORAGE BUILDING ADDITION
TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. PROJECT ALSO MAINTAINS PREVIOUS SITE PLAN
TO CONSTRUCT 4 ADDITIONAL CABINS SP PZ 153-2016 AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK.
APPLICANT HAS ACTIVE PERMITS FOR CABINS 3, 4, AND 5; RENOVATIONS IN THE
SAME FOOTPRINT. VARIANCE FOR CABIN 2 REQUIRES SETBACK RELIEF. CROSS
REF P-SP-46-2018; SP PZ 153-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2018
LOT SIZE 3.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-11.2 SECTION 179-3-040
RASHEED BHATTI, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-45-2018, Rasheed Bhatti (King Hendrick Motel), Meeting
Date: September 19, 2018 Project Location: 1602 State Route 9 Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant requests to maintain existing improvements to Cabin 1 at 270 sq. ft. with a
132 sq. ft. deck, Cabin 2 at 294 sq. ft. with a 144 sq. ft. deck. Project work for Cabins 1 thru 7
include extending the roof over the porch area and front area of the cabins. Project also
12
(Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
includes removal of an existing 75 sq. ft. storage area on the Main Motel Unit building to
construct a 420 sq. ft. storage building addition to the rear of the building. Project also maintains
previous site plan to construct 4 additional cabins SP PZ 153-2016 and associated site
work. Applicant has active permits for cabins 3, 4 and 5; renovations in same footprint.
Variance for Cabin 2 requires setback relief.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from setback for Cabin 2.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements
The applicant requests to maintain the additions to Cabin 2 where the building is located 6.5 ft.
where a 20 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 to relocate Cabin 2. The plans from 2016 indicate Cabin 2 location did
not meet the required setback.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for side setback of 13.5 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant
will need to stabilize the disturbed soiled on the entire site including behind Cabins 1 and 2 .
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant has completed exterior renovations on the lodging and cabin buildings. The
applicant requests to maintain existing improvements to Cabin 1 and Cabin 2 and to request
Cabin 2 to maintain the 6.5 ft. setback. The applicant was notified of the Zoning Code violation
for starting work without appropriate approvals including a building permit, site plan and an area
variance reviews."
MR. URRICO-
And the Planning Board based on its limited review had identified the following concern:
requested Area Variance is excessive in nature and self-created. And this was adopted on
September 18, 2018 by a unanimous vote.
MRS. MOORE-It was not a unanimous vote. It should be five to one. I apologize. Sorry.
MR. URRICO-I don't see a negative vote here.
MR. MC CABE-Because we got one where Magowan. Maybe you, or maybe they did it, mixed
up the request because the other one was on the Corinth Road project.
MR. FREER-Okay. So would you like to add anything to what was just read in? Please identify
yourself.
MR. BHATTI-No everything is all good. I'm just requesting for Cabin Two actually for a
variance.
MR. MC CABE-First you have to state your name.
MR. BHATTI-My name is Rasheed Bhatti. I'm from King Hendrick, 1602 Route 9, Lake
George.
13
(Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 00/10/2013)
MR. FREER-Any questions for the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-I was there on Monday and I did talk to the applicant and introduced myself to
him.
MR. FREER-Okay.
MR. KUHL-You've done a lot of work without permits?
MR. BHATTI-Not really. I was stopped and then I came to apply for the permits and then the
rest of the work was done with the permits, and only this cabin was left alone.
MR. KUHL-What about the ground cover? You have asphalt in the other part of your property
and his has stones. Is that what the ground cover's going to be, what's there now?
MR. BHATTI-It's all stones.
MR. KUHL-Is it going to stay that way?
MR. BHATTI-Yes. There's crushed stone when I finish the other cabins and the black crushed
stone is going to stay as is. I put fresh stone and made a nice driveway.
MR. HENKEL-There's no doubt he's done a lot of improvements to it. When you look at it, I've
been in this area for a long time and he's definitely made some good improvements and he's
definitely not bothering anybody. It's only woods around him.
MR. FREER-Let me open a public hearing. So any other questions?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Cabin Two has always been where it's been. It hasn't been moved
or anything. I mean the setbacks have always been the same.
MRS. MOORE-No. So where it is now at 6.5 feet, that's where the addition went onto it. Prior
to that it was maybe, I would say almost 10 feet, 13 feet.
MR. BHATTI-Thirteen something.
MRS. MOORE-So it is closer. So the addition went towards the north side.
MR. BHATTI-Yes, the north side actually, what happened is these cabins were really built a long
time ago. The bathrooms are really, really small. So we're trying to bring the whole place up to
today's requirements what the guest likes. So I added, the wrong side, without knowing, six
feet or eight foot to that cabin to make the bathroom larger and that's when I realized I was too
far. So Craig made a point we had to get some variances and we stopped the work. We
continued working on the rest of the cabins because the rest of the cabins were really in bad
shape. The whole property out front, since 2012.
MR. FREER-Okay. So we're going to open a public hearing. Is there anyone here in the
audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Okay. Are there any written
comments, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There are no written comments.
MR. HENKEL-So I guess if we were to have gone for the permit he would have realized then
that he needed a variance.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. FREER-Okay. So I want to now poll the Board. And I'll start with Ron.
MR. KUHL-Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I took a look at it. I think that, you know,
the bug I have is you did work and you should have had permits and you didn't have permits
and here we are. So I think the work you're doing is good. I think it's an improvement, and
aside from my own little issue I think it's a good project and I would approve it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle?
1
(Queen bburry ZII:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
MRS. HAYWARD-1 agree with Mr. Kuhl. My issue is the permit issue, but that being
outstanding, if I were to look at this independently, I would look with favor on the project.
MR. FREER-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with Michelle on that one. He's not asking for much relief there.
He would have been granted it if he would have come to us first. So I would be in favor.
MR. FREER-So you think we would have granted them 13 feet?
MR. HENKEL-It is minus 13.5 and I think I would have allowed that in the situation where he is
there and not affecting anybody.
MR. FREER-Okay. Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Yes. It was always nonconforming, so really what we're approving is seven
more feet and I think that what we're getting for it is a lot better looking property so I would
support the project.
MR. FREER-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I think he's learned the error of his ways by not coming to us first, but if he
had come to us with clean hands I would approve the project at this point. I don't think it's
anything major.
MR. FREER-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think Mr. Bhatti should be complimented for all the improvements
that are being proposed on the site and have been done so far. I don't think there's any doubt
that we would have approved the variance if he had come in before this.
MR. FREER-Okay. Well I guess I'm a little bit more concerned about the lack of permitting and
doing stuff without following the process that your Town and municipality has put in place. So
I'm not going to support this variance, but you have enough support to get it passed and so I'll
ask for a motion on this application.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Rasheed Bhatti (King Hendrick Motel). Applicant requests to maintain existing improvements
to Cabin 1 at 270 sq. ft. with a 132 sq. ft. deck, Cabin 2 at 294 sq. ft. with a 144 sq. ft. deck.
Project work for Cabins 1 thru 7 include extending the roof over the porch area and front area of
the cabins. Project also includes removal of an existing 75 sq. ft. storage area on the Main
Motel Unit building to construct a 420 sq. ft. storage building addition to the rear of the building.
Project also maintains previous site plan to construct 4 additional cabins SP PZ 153-2016 and
associated site work. Applicant has active permits for cabins 3, 4 and 5; renovations in same
footprint. Variance for Cabin 2 requires setback relief.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from setback for Cabin 2.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements
The applicant requests to maintain the additions to Cabin 2 where the building is located 6.5 ft.
where a 20 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type 11 — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 19, 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 overall the property is being taken care of and looks much
better than it used to in years past.
15
(Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but have been deemed not
reasonable at this particular time.
3. The requested variance, although it seems substantial, isn't really because half of the
request existed for quite a period of time.
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;
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-45-2018, RASHEED BHATTI (KING HENDRICK MOTEL), Introduced by Michael McCabe,
who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 19th day of September 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mr. Freer
MR. FREER-Okay. So just a reminder of what I said in the beginning of the meeting, right?
You're going to get a letter from the Town and there's a process that you need to follow and
make sure that you comply with what's in the letter because this variance doesn't end the whole
process of trying to make sure we all do the right thing. Good luck.
MR. BHATTI-Thank you very much.
MR. FREER-Okay. We're onto Daniel Hajeck, Area Variance 58-2018.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-58-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 DANIEL HAJECK AGENT(S)
DONALD PIDGEON, JR. OWNER(S) DANIEL HAJECK ZONING MDR LOCATION
520 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WHERE LOT 1
(0.61 ACRES) WILL HAVE A SHARED DRIVEWAY WITH LOT 2 (0.73 ACRES). LOT 1
CONTAINS AN EXISTING HOME AND IS TO REMAIN. LOT 2 IS TO BE DEVELOPED FOR
A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS AND LOT SIZE RESTRICTIONS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT.
PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW REQUIRED. CROSS REF SIB PRELIM. 16-
2018; SIB FINAL 17-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2018 LOT SIZE
1.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-2 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-050
DON PIDGEON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DANIEL HAJECK, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-58-2018, Daniel Hajeck, Meeting Date: September 19,
2018 "Project Location: 520 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes a two lot subdivision where Lot 1 (0.61 acres) will have a shared driveway with Lot 2
(0.73 acres). Lot 1 contains an existing home and is to remain. Lot 2 is to be developed for a
single-family dwelling. Relief requested from minimum road frontage requirements and lot size
restrictions for the MDR zoning district. Planning Board: Subdivision review required.
16
(Queen lbuiry II:3A Mee ing 09/19/2018)
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum road frontage requirements and lot size restrictions
for the MDR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes the Lot 1 to be 0.61 ac and Lot 2 to be 0.73 acres were 2 ac is required
in the MDR zone if parcel is not connected to both sewer and water.
Section 179-4-050 Frontage
The applicant proposes Lot 2 to have 50 ft. of road frontage where a 100 ft. is required in the
MDR zone. The applicant also plans a shared driveway where the drive is located on Lot 2 not
centered on both parcels.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives
may be considered to have the driveway centered between the parcels.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for lot size 1.39 for Lot 1 and
1.27 ac for lot 2. Relief is also required for road frontage for Lot 2 for 50 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 may be
considered to have minimal impact.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 1.34 ac parcel where Lot 1 of 0.61 ac will
maintain an existing home and Lot 2 of 0.73 ac is to have a new home to be constructed. The
survey shows the subdivision of the parcel, location of septic to be installed for lot 2, the
approximate house location, and a driveway to be accessed to both lots."
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the
following area of concern: One noncompliant lot being made into two lots which are more
noncompliant. And that motion was adopted September 18th, 2018 by a five to one vote and
one person was absent.
MRS. MOORE-So again I'll explain that that's not accurate. That was a six zero vote. That
was a unanimous vote.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. FREER-Okay so the paperwork on one of them.
MRS. MOORE-Got switched.
MR. FREER-Okay. Did everybody hear that? Thank you. Okay. Can you identify yourself
and then add anything you'd like to the application that was read.
MR. HAJECK-Good evening. My name is Dan Hajeck. I'm the owner of 520 Corinth Road.
We're here tonight just because my personal opinion the original home is close to the road. I'd
like to propose a home on the back of the lot. Very minimal trees. I don't know if anybody
went to the site. It would be to the east there's very minimal trees in the backyard.. We're
going to do a shared driveway with an easement for utilities for less impact on the property
because the west side there's some nice oak trees. We had discussed last night possibly going
,17
(Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 00/10/201 )
to the west side. I really don't like to do that because that's the next property. It rolls off.
There's some beautiful oak trees there. Don and I had come up with this proposal here. We
could set the house in the back corner and there would be one 16 inch pine tree that would be
taken down and we're willing to spin the house basically however. In a nutshell that's it. The
shared driveway, personally I think that's a good idea. That was it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board?
MR. HENKEL-You're saying the existing house is too close to the road. Are you going to sell
that or rent it or what are you going to do?
MR. HAJECK-We would sell the house. We would sell the house. Right now the house is 20
feet from the road and all the property is in the back of the house, the back of the property,
behind the house.
MR. FREER-So can you talk a little bit, you know the reason we have two acre requirements is
water and septic. So you have water I'm assuming, or not?
MR. PIDGEON-Yes, there's water. Don Pidgeon, by the way.
MR. FREER-Okay, and what about septic? I mean that's the reason why we. Has it been
perced or have you looked at it? It's already less than two acres.
MR. PIDGEON-The soils are fantastic. There won't be any problem with the septic there. We
propose an on-site septic system, and the soils are great for it.
MR. FREER-I mean, do you have any?
MR. PIDGEON-We don't have the test pits or what not.
MR. FREER-You haven't done any percing?
MR. PIDGEON-I've done a lot of that. I can guarantee that's going to be very good for a septic
system.
MR. FREER-Okay. So are you the proposed builder?
MR. PIDGEON-I'm the surveyor.
MR. FREER-The surveyor. Okay. Any other questions from the Board?
MR. KUHL-So your idea is to subdivide this, build a new house that you're going to occupy and
sell the other one?
MR. HAJECK-At some point, yes.
MR. KUHL-At what point is that, some point? Some point to build?
MR. HAJECK-Yes.
MR. KUHL-So you're not building right away?
MR. HAJECK-It's not an urgency, no, it's not. Not at this time.
MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions? Okay we have a public hearing scheduled. Is
there anyone here who would like to make a comment on this proposal? Seeing no one, Roy,
is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment.
MR. FREER-Okay. I'll poll the Board and start with Michelle.
MRS. HAYWARD-Well my biggest concern is the size of the lot. It's already a substandard
sized lot and you want to subdivide it. So for that reason I feel very strongly I'm not in favor at
this time.
1
(Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also not in favor as it is. You've got about one and a half acres as a
whole and I do like the shared driveway idea but it's still too much to cut that in half like it is. So
I would not be in favor as it is.
MR. FREER-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-Yes, the reason to establish the medium density zoning is to have more open
space, and we've had a whole series of these requests here in the last few months and I've
been pretty consistent when you have one substandard lot and you try to make two very
substandard lots with it, that's a, you know, it seems to me that's against what the Town is trying
to do and so I can't be in favor of the project.
MR. FREER-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in agreement with the rest of my Board members. I think we can't
create two substandard lots more than they already are substandard.
MR. FREER-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm going to disagree with what everybody else has said so far. I think that
we have to be realistic in our assumptions about buildout in the south end of Town here, and I
think if you look at the average size of lots on the south end of the Town they're much smaller
than this on average than any of the subdivisions that we've approved in the last 10 years for
that matter. I think that, you know, we're looking at lots that are under one acre in size but one
is .73, one's .91 or excuse me 6.81 I guess, acres in size. It's an understood problem that the
current house on site there is too close to the road. It was built decades ago, but I think that
what they're trying to do by putting this house further back, there will be no impact negatively.
The variance they're asking for is for relief from the road frontage and a shared driveway
situation I don't really see that it's going to create any huge impact because even if there's two
households there and we' approve this it's not going to increase the amount of traffic on Corinth
Road dramatically.
MR. FREER-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Well I think that's why we have zoning and this is a substandard, less than required
starting out, so I would not be in favor of subdividing it.
MR. FREER-Okay, and I agree with the majority that I don't support this application as
presented. There's no real justification for doing it and therefore you don't have enough
support to carry this motion. So you've got to decide what to do. Do you want to table it, do
you want to withdraw it? Do you want us to vote it down?
MR. HAJECK-No. Game over.
MRS. MOORE-So it sounds like you're withdrawing it?
MR. HAJECK-Yes.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. We're on to Area Variance 60-2018, John Kokoletsos.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-60-2018 SEQRA TYPE II JOHN KOKOLETSOS AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEER; BPSR; VANDUSEN & STEVES OWNER: JOHN KOKOLETSOS
ZONING MDR LOCATION 132 MONTRAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-LOT
SUBDIVISION OF A 4.28 ACRE PARCEL. ONE LOT OFF ON PINECREST IS TO BE 2
ACRES AND PROPOSED TO HAVE 50 FT. OF ROAD FRONTAGE. THE SECOND LOT IS
TO BE 4.28 ACRES AND TO MAINTAIN EXISTING HOUSE AND ACCESS TO MONTRAY
ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT 2.
PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE NEWLY CREATED
LOTS. CROSS REF SIB PRELIM. 18-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT
SIZE 4.28 ACRES PER SURVEY TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-26 SECTION 179-3-040A
TOM HUTCHINS & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-Prior to you reading it into the record, just a note in regards to Staff Notes. The
acreage that I've placed in the Staff Notes is inaccurate. The lot is truly 4.28 acres. I had put
in 6.2 acres. It's 4.28.
19
(Queen lbuiry Zl:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-60-2018, John Kokoletsus, Meeting Date: September
19, 2018 "Project Location: 132 Montray Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision of a 4.28 acre parcel. One lot off on Pinecrest is to be 2
acres and proposed to have 50 ft. of road frontage. The second lot is to be 2.28 acres and to
maintain existing house and access to Montray Road. Relief requested from road frontage
requirements for lot 2. Planning Board: Subdivision review is required for the newly created
lots.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum road frontage requirements for lot 2 of the MDR
zoning district.
Section 179-4-050 Frontage
The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision with the 2 ac parcel to have frontage on Pinecrest
of 50 ft. where a 100 ft. road frontage 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.
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 due arrangement of the existing home on the parcel.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project 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 a two lot subdivision of a 4.28 ac parcel. Lot 1 of 2.28 is to maintain the
existing home and access to Montray Rd. Lot 2 is to be 2.00 ac where plans show a new home
and access from Pinecrest."
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, based on its limited review, has not identified any
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that
was passed September 18, 2018, and that was a six to zero vote with one person absent. This
is right.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. FREER-Thanks, Roy. Okay, guys, go ahead and identify yourself and make any
additional comments that you feel appropriate.
MR. LAPPER-Sure. Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with the project
engineer Tom Hutchins and Mike Kokoletsos who is the son of the applicant John. The
property has been in Mike's dad's family since 1920 before the neighboring subdivisions were
constructed. Very distinguished from the last application that you looked at. This is more than
the minimum for the MDR zone so in excess of four acres. Both lots will be conforming in every
respect in terms of obviously area but setback as well and the best way to create a lot on this is
to come in through Pinecrest, which, you know, obviously butts up against it so that's why it's 50
20
(Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
feet, but, you know, we don't see that this would have any impact by having variances just for
50 feet rather than 100 feet of frontage. We don't see that there would be any impact of not
having 100 feet of frontage because it's the end of that road and again the size of the lots allow
the neighbors to be buffered and more than sufficient size lot to build another house.
MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board?
MR. KUHL-Does the applicant plan on building?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Mike is going to build his own home.
MR. KUHL-So who's in the house?
MR. LAPPER-John. His dad is in the house.
MR. KUHL-He's moving next door to his father?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. KU H L-Okay.
MR. FREER-Any other questions? And we have a public hearing. Is there anyone in the
audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Okay. There's people here.
Welcome. So we try to keep it to three minutes per input. So if you would keep to that for us,
we have a couple of more applications to go, and please state your name for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KEN ZACHARIAS
MR. ZACHARIAS-My name is Ken Zacharias. I live at 6 Wincrest Drive. My wife and my
property butt up to the development. I am here representing, or excuse me, as a spokesman
for the neighbors on Wincrest Drive that abut this subdivision. That's 2 Wincrest, 4 Wincrest, 6
Wincrest, 8 Wincrest, 10 and 12 Wincrest. I was told that for brevity that if we all were going to
say the same thing that I would come, and so what I say represents what the others feel also,
and if there are any of our neighbors that have something else to say different than what I do, I
certainly encourage them to come up, too. None of us are happy that this parcel is being
subdivided so as to add additional residences. We've all come to appreciate the wooded view
in our backyards. Although extensive maps have been put in the application and it certainly
looks like it's been well thought out, and I see that all the setbacks have been met. We have no
problem with the variance of 50 feet for the front yard. However it seems that the house to be
proposed is 3,000 square foot, I thought I read that on the maps, which on that lot it seems to
me there might be a two story house. I don't know that for a fact, but it very well could be. We
feel that a two story house is pretty inappropriate for this plot. This is an old 1950's
neighborhood of homes half the size of the 3,000 square foot that's being proposed. Also it
appears that the house very well may be out of character, seeing a two story house sitting in
your backyard. Yes, I see the buffer zone and the setbacks have been observed but still it's
going to be like come large, I don't know, some large object staring you in the face which seems
to be inappropriate. Certainly a one story home would be more in fitting with the character of
the neighborhood. We also had some concerns regarding the future use of this one parcel
that's going to be conveyed to Mike Kokoletsos by his father John. Mike is a well-known
landscaping business and he now stores his equipment at this residence on 6 Foster Avenue.
Six Foster Avenue is in a Cl zone. Wincrest and Pinecrest are in an MDR zone. We also want
to be sure that the applicants realize that in this MDR zone that they're only allowed, according
to Zoning Code, to have no more than two accessory structures, no more than 500 feet. Now
these accessory structures, according to the interpretation that I got from Building and Codes,
could be anything, whether it's a movable tent or whatever it is, that's called an accessory
structure. So only two of those are allowed up to 500 square feet. Also that accessory
structures greater than 120 square feet require a building permit and must comply with setback
requirements. A garage, if built on this site, can be no more than 1100 square feet and this
parcel is zoned for single family residences not any two family residences, and I have no idea,
going forward, what is proposed, but it is a single family residence, and also this parcel cannot
be used, since it's in a residential zone, as a business. So with that in mind we just want to be
sure that if indeed it does go forward that all these zoning codes are adhered to, because if
variances would be required for those, I think the neighbors would all agree that we would be
opposed to those variances. Also I know it can be easily remedied if it comes to pass. It's a
sandy area. We don't get puddling of water. None of us have that in our backyards now and I
would assume that if a house was to be built there that stormwater runoff would be adequately
21
(Queen bburry II:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
taken care of. These are the concerns, again, as I said, of every single neighbor that's abutting
the Wincrest side of the proposal. Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience that wants to make some additional
comments that weren't covered? Okay. Please step to the table, identify yourself and tell us
what you think.
DON KEAGY
MR. KEAGY-My name is Don Keagy. I live on Wincrest Drive, and my concern's a little bit
different. It doesn't have to do with the house. It has to do with this area having a natural
wildlife habitat. There are deer, coyotes, I've seen a moose in that territory. It would just be a
shame, we keep heading into Queensbury, build, build, build, and I know people have a right to
build. I know that. It's your property. And I think if I were you guys I'd probably approve it, but
I think that's a real concern what we're doing to the wildlife, and aside from that my big thing is
I'm just afraid that a gentleman with a business like that is going to have bulldozers, backhoes,
piles of wood chips and everything like that that would be suitable for a business but not suitable
for a residential dwelling.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Does anybody else have anything to add? Okay. Seeing no
one, Roy, is there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-There's one comment.
MR. LAPPER-I have two other letters from neighbors.
MR. URRICO-Do these have to be filed or anything?
MRS. MOORE-Just the received date.
MR. URRICO-"I received a public hearing notice on September 13, 2018 for a meeting this
evening for a variance that could impact my property at 9 Oakwood Drive, Queensbury, NY.
Unfortunately I have a scheduled commitment that makes it impossible for me to attend
tonight's hearing. I feel I do not have enough information on the project and how or if it will
impact my property value and the character of the neighborhood. Respectfully, Lynne Boecher
9 Oakwood Dr." "My name is Alfred Strazza and I have lived at 136 Montray Road,
Queensbury, New York for over forty years. Part of my property will border the subdivision and
I approve of this subdivision going forward. Sincerely, Alfred T. Strazza" And that's 136
Montray Road. "I have resided at 126 Montray Road since 1971. My house and property are
adjacent to the property of the applicant, John Kokoletsos. I have discussed this variance with
the prospective owner, Michael Kokoletsos, and his plans for the property. It is at this request
that I write this letter. The proposed variance and his plans for the property will have no effect
on my property or quality of life. Sincerely, Cassius J. Phillips" And he's at 126 Montray Road.
That's it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Roy, and do you guys want to make comments on anything that
you just heard?
MR. LAPPER-Well only that we're relieved because since this is more than double the size of
the neighbors' lots we couldn't understand why we were upsetting them, and it's understandable
that they could think that Mike would be bringing his business here, but he's not. He has no
intention to. We understand that it's not zoned for it and his business is in a Light Industrial
zone and that's where it's going to stay. So I'm glad that was their concern because there's
nothing to be concerned about.
MR. FREER-Okay. So I'm going to poll the Board and I'm going to start with John.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's acceptable. Especially that area, most of those lots are half acre,
some are even a quarter acre and as long as it's within the setbacks, he's only asking for relief
for the 50 foot of because of lack of road frontage there but it's at the end of a dead end street
that's not really being used and it won't be a problem having a driveway there. So I'd be very
much in favor of it as long as he keeps his business out of there, and a lot of those homes
around there, some of them are around that 2,000 square foot that he's talked about building.
So I'd be in favor of this.
MR. FREER-Okay. Mike?
22
(Queen bburry II:3A Meetling 00/10/2015)
MR. MC CABE-Yes. I agree with the neighbors there that certainly on Wincrest there are
single story homes but you'll have to acknowledge that on Montray here are several two story
homes and we're talking about primarily Montray in this area, and we're not judging the project.
We're judging whether to be able to split this lot into two and to approve frontage less than 100
feet which I think given its location on the street the 50 foot that we're asked to relieve here is
not unreasonable. So I would support the project.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I spoke to the project on the fact of it, but I think we need to mention that
the property is not to be used for any commercial endeavors, including storage of equipment
and various items that might be used in his business. I think that's something that the neighbors
have already raised an issue of.
MR. FREER-But isn't that in the Code?
MRS. MOORE-Right.
MR. URRICO-It's something to be aware of, though.
MR. FREER-I think he's hearing it. Right?
MRS. MOORE-And I will note that the MDR zone allows for other uses besides single family
homes. So you would be subject to additional review processes if you were to choose a
different use in that zone.
MR. FREER-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the request before us is only for the 50 feet of relief for the road
frontage that's at the end of the road. So I don't see that there would be any great impact. I
think the onus is on the applicant to get along with the neighbors. He's been a long time
neighbor, living with his father living on the property all these years. I don't see that that would
change at this point in time.
MR. FREER-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with the other Board members. I think it's minimal relief and that's
what we're charged with. So I'd be in favor of it.
MR. FREER-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-Well, I'd just like to say I appreciate the neighborhood input and their
concerns and I want to make sure that they all understand that this is the process. He's
allowed to build this house, but you want to make sure that it stays Moderate Density
Residential for everybody. I know that seems to be what he wants. So is it possible to
maintain a buffer, since you are a landscaper, between the?
MR. LAPPER-We have a buffer.
MRS. HAYWARD-You maintain that buffer that's already there?
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. And the wildlife issue that Mr. Keagy brought up is important to me as
well and I think that's what the Town of Queensbury is trying to do with the two acre zoning,
because you thoughtfully, you and your dad thoughtfully put up this project to split it into two on
four plus acres I'm in favor of the project. Thank you.
MR. FREER-So the question I had, I should have asked before is are you going to put a two
story home on there or not, or you don't know?
MIKE KOKOLETSOS
MR. KOKOLETSOS-I'm not sure at this point.
MR. FREER-Okay. As my colleagues have suggested, not our responsibility in terms of what
you're asking us for, but one of the things that we like to try to do is not create animosity in the
23
(Queen bburry ZII:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
neighborhood. So just realize that whatever home you decide to put up keep in mind where it's
going.
MR. KOKOLETSOS-The business will reside on Foster Avenue in a Highway Intensive
Commercial zone.
MR. FREER-Okay. So I guess we're ready for a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
John Kokoletsos.
Applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision of a 4.28 acre parcel. One lot off on Pinecrest is to be 2
acres and proposed to have 50 ft. of road frontage. The second lot is to be 2.28 acres and to
maintain existing house and access to Montray Road. Relief requested from road frontage
requirements for lot 2. Planning Board: Subdivision review is required for the newly created
lots.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum road frontage requirements for lot 2 of the MDR
zoning district.
Section 179-4-050 Frontage
The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision with the 2 acre parcel to have frontage on
Pinecrest of 50 ft. where a 100 ft. road frontage is required.
SEQR Type II — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 19, 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 applicant's father has owned this site for many
decades.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. The only reasonable access
to the site is via Pinecrest and we feel that the 50 feet, because of the end of the road, is
not going to create any controversy or excess traffic.
3. The requested variance is not deemed to be substantial because it's at the end of the
road.
4. As far as an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district, we realize there will be a change in the neighborhood with the
building of a home and the buffers along the edge of the property lines hopefully will be
maintained to minimize the impact on the neighbors who live on Wincrest.
5. The alleged difficulty is not considered to be self-created due to the fact that the lot is a
long thin lot that is only 130 feet wide and extends for quite a long distance.
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-60-2018 JOHN KOKOLETSOS, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe:
24
(Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
Duly adopted this 19th day of September 2018 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Just to clarify the acreage again. The site is 4.28 acres. The Montray Road
side is 2.28 and the lot proposed is 2 acres.
MR. FREER-Right.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr.
Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. We'll move onto John Buchanan, Area Variance 61-2018.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-61-2018 SEQRA TYPE II JOHN R. BUCHANAN AGENT(S)
JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) JOHN R. BUCHANAN TRUST ZONING WR
LOCATION 66 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT AN EXISTING
92.3 SQ. FT. OPEN PORCH TO A SCREENED PORCH. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES
CONSTRUCTION OF A WHEELCHAIR RAMP FROM THE HOME TO THE BOATHOUSE TO
BE 34 FT. 2 IN. IN LENGTH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SHORELINE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE WR ZONING
DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR HARD
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 58-2018 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.75 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-38 SECTION 179-13-
010; 179-3-040
TOM JARRETT & BILL DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-61-2018, John R. Buchanan, Meeting Date: September
19, 2018 "Project Location: 66 Reardon Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to convert an existing 92.3 sq. ft. open porch to a screened porch. The
project also includes construction of a wheelchair ramp from the home to the boathouse to be
34 ft. 2 in. in length. Relief requested from the minimum shoreline setback requirements for
accessory structures in the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for
hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and expansion of a nonconforming structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the minimum shoreline setback requirements for accessory
structures in the WR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements
The applicant proposes enclosing open porch where the side setback is to be 6ft 10 in where a
20 ft. is required and it is to be 27 ft. 8 in from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required.
The applicant also proposes to update a wheel chair ramp with a new wooden pathway that is
about 34 ft. 2 in in length and is to be 3ft 6 in width with a 4 ft. wide landing area midway of the
wooden path. The wooden path is to be located 3 ft. 11 in from the shoreline where a 50 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 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 limited due to placement of the existing building on the parcel and parcel shape.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 13 ft. 2 in to the side
25
(Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
property line and 22 ft. 4 in from the shoreline for the open deck that is to be enclosed. The
wooden pathway relief requested is 46 ft. 1 in.
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 may be
considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the
area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to alter an existing home to enclose a 92.3 sq. ft. deck, remove some of
the existing deck area, and to redo the front entrance area with a raised roof area. In addition,
the applicant proposes to construct a wood pathway from the existing driveway area to the
shoreline to help a wheelchair bound client to access the shoreline boathouse area of the
property."
MR. URRICO-And then 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
was adopted September 18, 2018 by a six zero vote.
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Roy. Welcome. Please identify yourself and add any additional
information that you feel necessary.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you. Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. Last night I
introduced the gentleman to my immediate right as young John Buchanan. I wish to correct the
record. Young John Buchanan is two chairs to my right. This is younger John Buchanan here
and to my left is Bill Dean of Creative Construction. We are here for five variances. One is
modification of a pre-existing nonconforming structures. Two of them relate to the shorefront.
One is the new walkway which is four feet from the shoreline. That's the significant variance I
think that you will weigh on. The other is the setback to the existing structure where the
enclosed porch will be. We're not aggravating that variance. That is not changing that setback
at all. Another variance relates to the side setback to the south. That's not changing. We're
not aggravating that. Another variance relates to permeability. We are under the 75%
required because of the road, because of Reardon Road. We've been told we need to add that
into our permeability calculations, but we don't own it. The Town owns it and maintains it. If
you exclude the road, we actually are compliant. So really I think the significant variance, from
our perspective, is the new walkway to the shorefront. That is a wooden walkway, essentially at
grade. It's a few inches above grade to preserve the wood materials of the walkway.
MR. FREER-So the reason that we have this many variances is because this property hasn't
come here for the side? He just said the side setback and the lake setback.
MR. JARRETT-Those are all pre-existing.
MRS. MOORE-Pre-existing.
MR. FREER-Okay. So they exist. Why are we?
MRS. MOORE-So it's called new construction.
MR. JARRETT-The reason for this variance is because they're pre-existing but they're non-
compliant.
MRS. MOORE-As Staff it's considered new construction which requires setback relief.
MR. FREER-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-So the only real new relief is the walkway.
MR. FREER-No, if it's new construction it's new relief. To you maybe. That's why I'm asking
the question. Okay. Any questions from the Board?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're going to build a walkway right on top of what you already have as
far as the step down coming down the current one that's on site?
26
(Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 00/10/2013)
MR. JARRETT-Laura, can we get to that picture that shows the outline of the walkway on the
shorefront? Maybe we can explain what we're trying to do.
MR. DEAN-The intent would be to remove the existing one.
MR. JARRETT-With two stairways there, if you're asking that question, they would be removed
in favor of this ramp, and then when the ramp hits grade here would be a flat walkway on grade
to the shore.
MR. KUHL-Is the width going to be enough? You're only going three foot six inches. Right?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. KUHL-Are you sure you don't want to make it wider?
MR. JARRETT-That was developed between the owners and Bill and they felt three foot six was
adequate.
MR. DEAN-It's plenty for the wheelchair.
MR. KUHL-Okay. He doesn't get out of control.
MR. DEAN-As long as his son's with him.
MR. FREER-Any other questions?
MRS. HAYWARD-1 have one question. How steep is the grade, the steepest grade for this
path for the wheelchair?
MR. JARRETT-It's not compliant. It's a little steeper than a compliant pad, but it's private. It's
not a public handicap ramp.
MR. DEAN-It's two and a quarter and twelve. Where handicap is one twelve.
MRS. HAYWARD-Okay.
MR. KUHL-It's an inch a foot.
MR. JARRETT-We would be right at the lakeshore if we made it a compliant ramp. We felt that
was not practical in this situation.
MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you.
MR. FREER-Any other questions? Okay we have a public hearing scheduled. Is there
anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment about this application? Seeing no
one, Roy, do we have any written comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-We do. "I am in support of the conversion and construction applied for. Both
changes will add to the value of the property and the wheelchair ramp will allow access to the
lake for a long time resident. Patricia Pietropaolo 60 Reardon Road" And then "We are
owners of the parcel at 70 Reardon Rd., the immediate adjacent west side neighbor to John R.
Buchanan. We urge approval of Mr. Buchanan's Area Variance Request. We are personally
aware Mr. Buchanan faces a great hardship due to personal physical limitations as well as
disabled parents. His proposed project is important to alleviate disabilities arising from his
situation. Respectfully submitted, Michael Seidel Rachel Murray" And they're beneficiaries
and trustees of the Seidel Family Trust and they're at 30 Sheridan Street in Glens Falls. That's
it.
MR. FREER-Okay, and I'll poll the Board. Starting with Mike.
MR. MC CABE-It's not an unusual request. As I see it what we're really doing is approving the
wooden path and I can understand what they're trying to do. I'm a little bit hesitant because
once we approve the wooden walkway it's there forever and you may not need it forever, but in
this particular situation I do not see any harm being done locating it four feet from the shoreline
and so I would approve the project.
27
(Queen bburry ZII:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
MR. FREER-Thanks, Mike. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the application. The neighbors are in favor of the application.
I don't see a problem with this. I would be in favor of it.
MR. FREER-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think if you look at the amount of disturbance that's going to occur
with building this it's going to be very minimal. The site's very well vegetated and very well
maintained compared to most of the ones on Glen Lake I must say, and in this instance here
enclosing the porch I don't think is going to be controversial either. It's not going to increase
the amount of runoff dramatically or anything that's going to be a negative either.
MR. FREER-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-I'm in favor of the project the way it's presented. My concern was possibly making it
wide enough, but if you feel what you're asking for is what you're going to use then fine. I'd be
in favor.
MR. FREER-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-1 am as well in favor of the project even with the steepness of the grade a
little bit. I think people would take care enough not to go too fast down that ramp. So I'm in
favor.
MR. FREER-1, too, can support this project and understand that we're putting stuff, new
construction closer to the lake than we need to, but it doesn't seem like it's an unreasonable
request. I'm sorry. John.
MR. HENKEL-And I went over to the property. The excavator's doing a nice job and you have
a really nice shoreline there with the plantings which catches a lot of the rainwater, and these
are all pre-existing variances that basically you're asking for. So you're really not asking for
much and I think it's a good project. So I'd accept it as it.
MR. FREER-Okay. Sorry about that, and now can I get a motion?
MRS. MOORE-You need to close your public hearing.
MR. FREER-Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
John R. Buchanan. Applicant proposes to convert an existing 92.3 sq. ft. open porch to a
screened porch. The project also includes construction of a wheelchair ramp from the home to
the boathouse to be 34 ft. 2 in. in length. Relief requested from the minimum shoreline setback
requirements for accessory structures in the WR zoning district, setbacks for new construction
for enclosing porch and permeability. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for hard
surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and expansion of a nonconforming structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the minimum shoreline setback requirements for accessory
structures in the WR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements
The applicant proposes enclosing open porch where the side setback is to be 6ft 10 in where a
20 ft. is required and it is to be 27 ft. 8 in from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required.
Relief from permeability where 68.2 % is proposed and 75% is required.
The applicant also proposes to update a wheel chair ramp with a new wooden pathway that is
about 34 ft. 2 in in length and is to be 3ft 6 in width with a 4 ft. wide landing area midway of the
wooden path. The wooden path is to be located 3 ft. 11 in from the shoreline where a 50 ft.
setback is required.
SEQR Type 11 — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 19, 2018;
28
(Queen bburry ZII:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
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 this ramp will be used by the homeowner and the fact that the
building is pre-existing, nonconforming. The porch is a good addition.
2. Feasible alternatives are really not possible.
3. The requested variance is really not substantial because it's for the use of a wheelchair
and to enjoy the screened in porch.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district.
5. You could suggest that this difficulty is self-created, but it's self-created because of the
use of the wheelchair and the need for it.
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 61-2018 JOHN R. BUCHANAN, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Harrison Freer:
Duly adopted this 19th day of September 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.
Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-The Staff has told me that I need to remind everybody that you can't change what
you've just asked for. You have to get a letter from them and follow it. You guys know that,
but obviously somebody's screwing this up because they told me I have to say it to all the
applicants that are approved. So have a great evening.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you.
MR. FREER-Okay. One more. Gregory Garafalo, Area Variance 62-2018.
AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-62-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 GREGORY GARAFALO AGENT(S)
JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) GREGORY GARAFALO ZONING
MDR LOCATION 375 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT TO PARCEL 308.11-1-49.21 FROM 1.74 ACRES TO 1.23 ACRES. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE 2-ACRE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING
DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION REVIEW REQUIRED FOR
AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. CROSS REF SIB 9-2010 TWO-LOT SUBD.; AV 33-2010;
AD SIB 3-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.74 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 308.11-1-49.21 SECTION 179-3-040
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; GREGORY GARAFALO, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-62-2018, Gregory Garafalo, Meeting Date: September
19, 2018 "Project Location: 375 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment to parcel 308.11-1-49.21 from 1.74 acres to 1.23 acres.
29
(Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
Relief requested from the 2-acre lot size requirements for the MDR zoning district. Planning
Board: Subdivision Modification review required for an approved subdivision.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from lot size restrictions for the MDR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes a modification of an approved subdivision for two of the existing lots.
Both parcels are 1.74 ac and Parcel 49.21 is to be reduced to 1.23 ac. Parcel 49.22 is to be
increased to 2.25 ac. Parcels are to be 2ac in the MDR zone if not connected to both municipal
water and sewer.
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 lot configuration and location of existing home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be
considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 0.77 ac.
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 to modify an approved subdivision to allow the remaining parcel to have
more property. Parcel 49.21 will be reduced in size from 1.74 ac to 1.23 ac and the existing
home and access drive to remain as is. The information submitted by the applicant shows the
lot configuration proposed. Also, the applicant provided a drawing of the approved subdivision
showing the existing homes and the new house location on the adjoining parcel."
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 was
adopted on September 18, 2018 by a six zero vote.
MR. FREER-Thank you, Roy. Hi again.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with the applicant Greg Garafalo. I'm going to be
very simple because I think this is pretty straightforward. It's a shared driveway situation. Lot
Two in the back. The land mass of that lot is made up by that driveway area which isn't too
usable. So what we're proposing is to take away, right now they're even, is to make one bigger
and one smaller obviously but it's pretty important for the lot in the back to just have a better
yard but it'll have no impact on anybody. It's two houses on the exact same piece of property,
and the best proof I have is something that Greg prepared which shows you the before and after
which I'll just present. That's what it looks like now and that's what it's going to look like.
MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing for this application. Is there anybody in the
audience that wants to make a comment about this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HENKEL-Was this property all owned at one time by the person in front or no?
MR. GARAFALO-That was me, yes.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. They added that garage to it, the existing house on Corinth Road there.
30
(Queen bburry ZII:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
MR. GARAFALO-The garage was added before I owned it, quite a long time ago.
MR. HENKEL-It's kind of weird how people chopped that lot up.
MR. GARAFALO-Yes, when I purchased it it was one acre zoning.
MR. FREER-So is there water on this property?
MR. GARAFALO-Yes, Town water.
MR. FREER-Okay. So has everyone asked all their questions? Okay. No written comments.
Okay. Now we can poll the Board. I'll start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of it. This is a cut and dried thing.
MR. FREER-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's just going to straighten things out.
MR. FREER-Ron?
MR. KUHL-It's a good request.
MR. FREER-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I agree.
MR. FREER-John?
MR. HENKEL-Even though it's not a two acre lot, it's definitely going to make a better lot as two
lots.
MR. FREER-And Mike?
MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem with it.
MR. FREER-1, too, can support this application. I'll close the public hearing and ask for a
motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from
Gregory Garafalo.
Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment to parcel 308.11-1-49.21 from 1.74 acres to 1.23 acres.
Relief requested from the 2-acre lot size requirements for the MDR zoning district. Planning
Board: Subdivision Modification review required for an approved subdivision.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from lot size restrictions for the MDR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes a modification of an approved subdivision for two of the existing lots.
Both parcels are 1.74 ac and Parcel 49.21 is to be reduced to 1.23 ac. Parcel 49.22 is to be
increased to 2.25 ac. Parcels are to be 2ac in the MDR zone if not connected to both municipal
water and sewer.
SEQR Type 11 — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 19, 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:
31
(Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment
to nearby properties because in fact we're ending up with one approved lot where we
had two small lots before.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable at this
particular time.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's actually minimal, again, because we're
ending up with at least one conforming lot where we had two before.
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;
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-62-2018 GREGORY GARAFALO, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
Duly adopted this 19th day of September 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr.
Freer
NOES: NONE
MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Good luck.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everyone.
MR. FREER-Okay. I have one further item. Steve Traver is interested in pursuing some
alternatives to already built things and the Planning Board, in discussion with Laura and Craig,
has that authority, and they will have a public meeting and workshop and I told them that I
believe that there was, at least I'm interested in participating and making an input on that.
Anybody else on this Board?
MR. MC CABE-I'm interested.
MR. FREER-So we'll keep the whole Board informed, but I just wanted to make sure. We can't
have a joint Board because of laws. So they're trying to make sure they're doing the process
properly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have approval from the Town Board to proceed at this point?
MRS. MOORE-The Chairman was given direction by the Supervisor to pursue forming a
committee.
MR. FREER-Committee, see they can form a committee.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, that makes sense.
MR. FREER-Okay. So we'll participate. I'll keep you all in the loop. If you guys hear anything
in the background that you want to share with this group, feel free, and we'll try to make sure
that we don't inadvertently muddle any of the things that the Planning Board committee is trying
to do. Okay. Now I'll take a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting.
MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting.
32
(Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 09/19/2018)
MR. URRICO-Second.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 19, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 19th day of September, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr.
Freer
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Harrison Freer, Chairman
33