2000-04-26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 26, 2000
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
ROBERT MC NALLY
CHARLES MC NULTY
NORMAN HIMES
PAUL HAYES
ROY URRICO
JAMES UNDERWOOD
MEMBERS ABSENT
CHARLES ABBATE
ALLAN BRYANT
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1999, DONALD AND MARGARET JONES REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF APPROVAL. VARIANCE WILL EXPIRE ON APRIL 28, 2000.
MARGARET JONES, PRESENT
MR. STONE-A Variance that we granted a year ago will expire on April 28, 2000. I ask that you
read in both the letter requesting the, and the motion granting the variance.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’ll start with the letter. It’s addressed to Lew Stone, Chairman, Zoning
Board of Appeals, from Margaret Jones “I am requesting an extension of the Area Variance No. 29-
1999, April 28, 1999. We will not be able to apply for a building permit before the expiration date of
April 28, 2000. Would you please grant us a one year extension of the Variance No. 29-1999. Thank
you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to hearing from the Zoning Board.” And
on the meeting date of April 28, 1999, for Variance No. 29-1999, a Motion to approve Variance No.
29-1999 “MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1999 DONALD &
MARGARET JONES, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles
McNulty: Rocky Shore Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling and
seeks setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 75 foot minimum
setback requirement of the WR-3A zone, Section 179-16, and the shoreline and wetland regulations,
Section 179-60. The benefit to the applicant would be to allow the applicant to construct the desired
structure in the preferred location, as depicted in the drawings by her father. The feasible alternatives. I
believe the feasible alternatives are limited, based on the topography of the land, specifically certain rock
ledging that makes construction on certain sites either impossible or extremely costly. Is the relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe the relief is moderate, based on the fact that the
neighboring camps are in fact closer to the lake than the applicant is proposing. Effects on the
neighborhood or community? I believe the effects on the neighborhood are moderate. The applicant
has put forth plans that appear to me to be very reasonable, to respect the neighborhood and, in fact,
develop this property in a way that is consistent with the other properties in the neighborhood. In
regard to the relief, I also agree with the Chairman's consideration that all these lots are somewhere
around an acre, and that to a large degree, the level of relief that is required has to do with the fact that
it's WR-3A, which makes for a 75 foot requirement versus a 50 foot requirement for a WR-1A zone. If
this was zoned 1A, which in a way it could be, the relief would only be 15 feet, and everybody would feel
differently if so noted. So on balance, I believe that the test falls in favor of the applicant, as so
proposed. Duly adopted this 28th day of April, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stec, Mr.
McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mrs. Lapham”
MR. STONE-Thank you. The reason I had it read in is I wanted it on the record that there was some
opposition to this variance at the time, although we did grant the variance. Mrs. Jones, do you want to
tell us what’s happened in the past year that you couldn’t get it done?
MRS. JONES-Well, we didn’t actually own the property at the time we asked for the variance, and we
wanted to get the variance before we bought the property in order to build where.
MR. STONE-State your name.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MRS. JONES-I’m sorry. I’m Margaret Jones. I’m the owner of the property as of today, but when we
applied for the variance, we didn’t own the property. So it took us a few months before we actually were
the owners of the property, and if you remember, the piece of property is quite steep, and as we’ve
gotten into starting construction and finding out what needs to be done, it’s requiring a lot of work just
to make it possible to build. So we want to do the project correctly, and so it’s taking us a little longer
than we thought to get all the details put together. It’s all rock. So we’re going to have to do some
blasting, and we’ll have to find a spot for the septic tank, which we have done, but it’s just, it is a difficult
spot to build on. So you can just go right in and put your house on it.
MR. STONE-You’re still proposing to put the house where the variance granted?
MRS. JONES-Yes. After, we’ve gotten in there, cut down a few trees, put part of the driveway in, and
we still feel it’s the best location for the house, yes. So we’re still hoping to put it in that spot. As it turns
out, the house will be 35 feet, one corner of the house will be very close to that, but the other corner will
be closer to 50 feet. It’s going to be on a slight angle. So it won’t be quite as much as, you know, the
whole house won’t be that close, and it is, as it says in the thing, still further from the shoreline than our
two neighbors on the other side.
MR. STONE-Any questions of the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-How much construction have you already started?
MRS. JONES-We’ve roughed in the driveway, and we’ve cut down the trees for the house, and we’ve
done some blasting of the rock.
MR. MC NALLY-When you say you’ve “roughed in” the driveway, what do you mean by that?
MRS. JONES-We’ve cut down the trees that.
MR. MC NALLY-You cut down trees so that the driveway could be later put in?
MRS. JONES-Yes, and we put, and you know, leveled it off and put just a little bit of stone in, too,
which I understand I didn’t need a building permit for.
MR. STONE-I was going to say, is that, what she’s done is okay?
MRS. JONES-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. STONE-As long as you don’t put any sticks up.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MRS. JONES-My understanding is I didn’t need a building permit until I actually started to build
something. I haven’t built anything yet.
MR. MC NALLY-When do you plan to start?
MRS. JONES-We’re hoping to start in June. I mean, I’m missing the deadline by a month or two, but
we had decided on the design of the house, and then we got into doing, once we cut down the trees and
we found out what we’ve got, we changed it a little bit, and all these things takes time and causes you to
re-do some of your planning.
MR. STONE-Any other questions? This doesn’t require a public hearing. I mean, it’s just a matter of,
among ourselves, I wanted the record set straight. Let’s just talk very quickly about it, because, Bob, I
know you and I both voted no on the variance. Do you have any other thoughts today, Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-Anywhere you put that house so close to the lake, you’re going to require blasting
along that ledge. There’s no way you could put a house there without blasting.
MRS. JONES-No.
MR. MC NALLY-And I didn’t see the problem with moving the house back to make it more compliant
with the lakeshore frontage requirements, but.
MRS. JONES-Well, we would have had to blast, take more rock out to do that, because it’s.
MR. MC NALLY-But if you want a house on the lake, on such an odd lot, which is so steep, that’s the
price you have to pay, I’m afraid.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MRS. JONES-You will have to do blasting, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-But, on the other hand, they have a variance. I got voted down last time. Now
they’re just here for an extension. So, I’ll be happy to extend it one more time, but it’s tempting not to
do it.
MR. STONE-The man who made the motion next, Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I think Bob’s right in this particular case. I think, you know, we weighed the pluses and
minuses at that time, as a full Board, and made a decision, and I would agree with Bob, also, that I would
be in favor of one more extension, but nothing more than that. So, I think I would stay with my earlier
consideration.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I concur. She’s entitled to another extension.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I feel the same way. I feel like I did before. I think where they propose the house is
going to cause less damage, in total, than if they were required to move it back, and having looked at it
before and approved it, I think they’re entitled to an extension.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Not really knowing the circumstances, I would agree they probably are
entitled to an extension.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norman?
MR. HIMES-I agree with everything that’s been said.
MR. STONE-Okay. I will reluctantly go along, too. I mean, obviously, this is, when you get a chance to
revisit something, you start to think about it a little bit. I’m still not happy where it is, but certainly,
Board, speaking as a whole, granted you a variance. So I would certainly go along with that. I need a
motion, gentlemen.
MOTION TO EXTEND AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-1999 DONALD & MARGARET
JONES FOR ONE CALENDAR YEAR, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert McNally:
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
MRS. JONES-Thank you very much, gentlemen.
MR. MC NALLY-Best of luck.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2000 TYPE II SFR-1A DANIEL & PAMELA VALENTE
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 50 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,092 SQ. FT. 3-CAR GARAGE ATTACHED TO SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR
GARAGES. TAX MAP NO. 65-2-5.4 LOT SIZE: 1.46 ACRES SECTION 179-20, 179-7
DANIEL VALENTE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-2000, Daniel & Pamela Valente, Meeting Date: April 26,
2000 “Project Location: 50 Country Club Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 1092 square foot attached garage and seeks relief from the maximum
allowable private garage size requirement. Relief Required: Applicant requests 192 square feet of
relief from the 900 square foot maximum requirement per Definitions; §179-7. Criteria for
considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition in the preferred
configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the garage to
meet the size requirement. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 192 square
feet of relief from the 900 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a
result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self
created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 97-296 issued 9/4/97
storage building BP 95-138 issued 3/27/95 single family dwelling Staff comments: Moderate
impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Currently there is a 192 square foot storage
building on the property. An additional 192 square feet of storage area may be interpreted as a
moderate request. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Any County impact?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t think so.
MR. STONE-I didn’t think so. Okay. Okay, sir, go ahead.
MR. VALENTE-My name’s Dan Valente of 50 Country Club Road. As stated in the application, the
main reasons why this garage is 192 square feet above and beyond the Town’s initial square footage
requirement is two main reasons. Because of my storage facility, I don’t have much storage due to
the fact that the house is constructed on a crawl space. I can utilize a little more space, and Number
Two, to keep the architectural design with the rest of the house. The house has similar steps in the
roof, on the other end. So we tried to design this garage to go along with that. We don’t want to put
up just a straight, ugly roof. We’re trying to maintain some type of uniformity in our architectural
design.
MR. STONE-I notice on your plan you call existing boat storage in the shed, and yet the boat is
outside.
MR. VALENTE-My motor boat is outside. My canoe is inside.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. VALENTE-I have a canoe. There is plenty of boat, other accessories in that storage shed, also
for that boat.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. VALENTE-Yes, but there is a canoe. Yes, that boat won’t ever fit in there.
MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Valente?
MR. MC NALLY-Do you use the garage for any commercial purposes?
MR. VALENTE-Absolutely not.
MR. MC NALLY-Storage of equipment in the construction business, that type of thing?
MR. VALENTE-No. I have other facilities for that equipment. There is a bulldozer and back hoe
on site right now, due to, I had the time to go over and put a retaining wall in, and do a little site
work. Those are there only temporarily, until I get the rest of the topsoil in and what have you, and
then they are removed. I don’t want any of my commercial equipment there.
MR. MC NALLY-I understand.
MR. VALENTE-I deal with that enough.
MR. STONE-But the one garage is oversized, in terms of its height, because the truck, your personal
truck.
MR. VALENTE-Right, which is just a standard Ford F250 three quarter ton duty truck. They’re
built so big now. Luckily, I didn’t order the oversized mirrors on the sides, or I wouldn’t get in my
garage at all. I miss by about two inches either side, and I had to take the handle off the overhead
door so I don’t scrape my roof. So unfortunately they’re not designing trucks to fit in standard doors
anymore. So that’s the only reason why that door is oversized.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? Hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody
wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to
this application? Opposed? Any correspondence?
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t believe so, no.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Are there any other questions of the applicant?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Did you plot it running your doors on the north side, away from the road, to
see how it would look?
MR. VALENTE-The way the site is, there’s no way I could ever swing in, because it runs uphill. I
would prefer to have the doors that way, but it’s just not feasible the way it is, and then I would end
up encroaching right to the edge of the, yes, there’s no way I could really do it. I would, like I said,
prefer not to have it facing the road, but unfortunately, I’m kind of dictated to that, the way the site
is.
MR. STONE-Are you going to pave the driveway, or is it going to stay gravel?
MR. VALENTE-Not initially, maybe down the road we may.
MR. STONE-And if you paved, would you pave all the way up to the storage building?
MR. VALENTE-That is kind of uncertain, too.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. VALENTE-I know, dollars and cents, I guess. It’s a long ways back there. I would like to, if
possible, to be quite honest.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let’s talk about it. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, we’ve certainly run into this circumstance a lot recently, particularly on the east
side. We have generous sized lots with certainly above average homes, big homes, and people that
have big homes also have a lot of accessories and other items, and they want to store them. So the
requirement is 900 square feet, and you’re asking for 1,092. For me it rotates around the visual
impact and how the neighbors feel about it, because I think that we’ve, the 900 square feet with
certain sized houses could be a tight parameter, in my mind. So I’m a little bit lenient in that way. In
this particular case, there is no neighborhood objection that I’ve heard, and your property, as I visited
it, was well maintained, and even improving as I was there. So I think that your intention here is to
maintain the architectural integrity, and continuation of the roof line, etc., and there’s a practical need
as well, which certainly impacts my decision making process, the fact that you have a crawl space
instead of a basement. I think on hand, and at the end of the day, that I think the balance falls in
favor of the applicant in this case, and I don’t think it’s a tremendous amount of relief, considering
the size of the house and the size of the lot. So, I’m okay with this application, as I read it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m okay with the application, considering there are no objections from the
neighbors. If there were, I might feel differently about it, but I think everything seems to be in order.
MR. STONE-All right. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, on the one hand, I think probably the proposed garage fits with the house,
and it strikes me that it’s not inconsistent with the immediate neighborhood. At the same time, I’ve
got this nagging feeling that we’re approaching the point where we’re rezoning because we’re getting
a lot of these requests in, and I think we’re walking a thin line between doing variances and doing
rezoning. I think we generally, it’s kind of said that we think maybe the zoning law should be
changed, and maybe there should be a little bit higher allowance, and I guess where I’m at is I’m
probably okay with this particular one, but I think this may be one of the last one’s I’m going to be
okay with. As we get more of these in, I think we’re reaching the point where we should instead
send the applicants back to the Town Board to suggest that the zoning be changed to allow a larger
garage, but I’ll go along with this one.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m in general agreement. I would rather see the doors not face the
road, because it makes it kind of look like a going on forever building, but I think it’s really the only
way to do it. So, I’m for it.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. STONE-Norman?
MR. HIMES-I’m in favor of approving it also. It’s, the whole structure, it’s quite a long ways back
from the road, and it looks nice. The landscaping seems to be on the north side there’s some small
white pines and shrubbery, sort of a visual barrier. I agree with all the comments made. I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I tried to buy an F150, and I couldn’t get it in my garage. So I had to buy a Ranger
instead. I envy a person who has an F250, and I can understand, on a lot of this size, that an
additional 192 square feet is insignificant. All your setbacks are well beyond what’s required, and
given the nature of this lot, it’s about an acre?
MR. VALENTE-Almost 1.5 acres.
MR. MC NALLY-More than an acre, I think the amount of relief is minimal, and the effect on the
neighborhood is insignificant. I’m in favor of it.
MR. STONE-I agree with my fellow Board members, but I would ask Staff, Craig, let’s, when we get
together on the Zoning Steering Committee, let’s, because I don’t think we’ve talked about larger
garages. I think maybe we should think about it for larger lots in certain areas, because obviously if
someone’s going to build on an acre, over an acre lot, they’re certainly going to have three cars,
probably the way things are, or other vehicles, and maybe we should at least visit it. I don’t think we
have, in our discussions so far because some of you should know we are getting close to a tentative
new Zoning Code to go along with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and I think that’s something
we should discuss. Having said that, let me call for a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2000 DANIEL AND PAMELA
VALENTE, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
50 County Club Road. The applicant proposes the construction of a 1,092 square foot attached
garage, and seeks relief from the maximum allowable private garage size requirement. Specifically,
the Valentes request 192 square feet of relief from the maximum 900 square foot requirement of the
Town Zoning Ordinance Definitions Section 179-7. The benefit to the applicant would be that they
would be allowed to construct a garage the size that they need for their location, and park their car
and truck in that garage. The feasible alternatives are really minimal. They could downsize the
garage, but given the fact that they have just a crawl space, and given the fact that the size of the
house, the property is enough to adequately, aesthetically accommodate a garage this size, downsizing
is not feasible. The relief is insignificant. 192 square feet of relief on top of the 900 square foot
requirement is no more than a 20% increase. The neighborhood is a community of large lots, and
the effects on the neighborhood of have 192 square foot large a garage would be nominal. For all
these reasons, I believe that this application should be approved.
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
MR. VALENTE-Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. MC NALLY-Enjoy your garage.
MR. STONE-Since you’re in one of the busier streets in Town, we’ll note your construction.
MR. VALENTE-I’m sure you will. Also, commenting back on your square footage requirement. As
a builder in the area, it’s becoming more and more common that we are dealing with this restriction.
The houses are larger, being an upscale developer myself, that it is getting kind of tight. Maybe you
would re-evaluate it.
MR. STONE-Yes, I think we have to re-visit it.
MR. MC NALLY-We don’t make the Code, but we can make recommendations.
MR. VALENTE-No, well I’m glad it was brought up, because I was going to suggest it.
MR. STONE-Yes. I’ve made a note. We’ve discussed a lot of things. Frankly, I don’t know if we’ve
discussed it or not, but it certainly should be on there.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. BROWN-It’s on the list.
MR. VALENTE-Three car garages are very common. Thank you.
MR. STONE-Yes. You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2000 TYPE II SFR-1A MORRIS & NANNETTE KOPELS
OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 1 WHITE PINE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF AN IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL. PARCEL IS A CORNER
LOT AND RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM REAR AYRD PLACEMENT
REQUIREMENTS FOR SWIMMING POOLS. TAX MAP NO. 90-8-65 LOT SIZE: 0.86
ACRES SECTION 179-20, 179-67
NANNETTE KOPELS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2000, Morris & Nannette Kopels, Meeting Date: April 26,
2000 “Project Location: 1 White Pine Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 20 foot by 40 foot in-ground pool and seeks relief from the accessory
structure requirements. Relief Required Applicant requests relief from the Accessory Structures
and Uses requirements, §179-67 in order to locate a pool in a yard other than required by code.
§179-67, B., (5) requires a pool on a corner lot to be in the yard opposite the architectural entrance of
the principal building. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of
Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired
pool in the favored location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation
of the pool to a compliant location. However, this may involve alteration of the on site septic
system. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: Approximately 40 feet of relief
from the requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
interpreted as self created. However, a portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the existing
septic system. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff
comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The existing screening
appears to be significant in the area between the proposed pool and White Pine. Consideration may
be given to completing the screening per 179-67 B., (5). SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Mrs. Kopels?
MRS. KOPELS-Good evening. I’m Nan Kopels, and I’m applying for a variance for my pool. What
am I supposed to say?
MR. STONE-Anything you want to say in addition to what you’ve already said in writing. Don’t say
anything if you don’t want. We’ll ask you questions.
MRS. KOPELS-Okay, ask questions.
MR. STONE-I have a question. You bought this house, it was a finished house.
MRS. KOPELS-Correct.
MR. STONE-The septic system was in.
MRS. KOPELS-Correct.
MR. STONE-You had no control over it.
MRS. KOPELS-Correct. We’re the third owners.
MR. STONE-Okay. The second question, the trees on White Pine Road, that are going to be
shielding the pool, are they yours?
MRS. KOPELS-Yes.
MR. STONE-They’re on your property, not in the right-of-way?
MRS. KOPELS-They’re mine.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions?
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. HIMES-The property is kind of rectangular. It seems the architectural front door, what is the
functional door?
MRS. KOPEL-It’s Willow Road. Most people go to, we have a back entrance where the driveway,
we have a circular drive, and most people do go into the Willow Road entrance.
MR. HIMES-I thought so.
MRS. KOPELS-But our main entrance faces White Pine, right.
MR. STONE-And your numbering is on White Pine.
MRS. KOPELS-Correct.
MR. STONE-Any other questions? All right. Hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody
wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this
application? Opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant?
MRS. KOPELS-I just had one question about the fence. I don’t know the rules and regulations
about a fence. Can I put a chain link fence past my house, the front of my house, through the
wooded area? Because I know I have to obscure, I think I’m supposed to obscure the view of the
pool from the street. So White Pine, I was thinking that I wanted to put a fence more into the
wooded area, but I wanted to put a chain link, so you couldn’t really see the fence.
MR. STONE-That’s fine.
MRS. KOPELS-I didn’t know. Because I thought Craig said a stockade fence, which I really wasn’t
planning, couldn’t go past.
MR. STONE-A stockade fence can’t, but an open fence can.
MRS. KOPELS-Okay.
MR. STONE-And the thing that I was going to ask you, according to Code, the pool shall be
screened from the view of the public right-of-way, and that’s why I asked about those woods in
front. They do a wonderful job now, and I certainly would like to see the variance conditioned on
that, which should not be a problem to you, I suspect.
MRS. KOPELS-Right. No, I didn’t want to cut those down.
MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, you have to look very hard to look through those trees, and that’s great.
That’s certainly, a fence in the middle of it, as long as the pool is protected per Code. I mean, you’re
protecting yourself, and anybody who comes near. So that’s, any other questions of the applicant?
MR. HAYES-My only question was, have you spoken to your neighbors about it at all? I mean, do
you have any correspondence with you?
MRS. KOPELS-All my neighbors say I should put in a pool. My next door neighbor said he has a
pool, said I could use part of his fence. They said if I need any support, I could bring them.
MR. STONE-Speaking of that, going to the north, behind you, you’re talking the neighbor to the
north or to?
MRS. KOPELS-Well, that was, directly where my pool, the side where I’m putting my pool on, that
side.
MR. STONE-But behind you there’s a swale.
MRS. KOPELS-Mr. Antilly, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay, but he’s on White Pine.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MRS. KOPELS-He’s on Willow. You’re talking about the White Pine man? Yes.
MR. STONE-No, I’m talking about the one behind your house.
MRS. KOPELS-Right.
MR. STONE-To the north. There’s a swale in there and he’s got a fence. I mean, I don’t know
where the boundary is. That’s because I can’t tell from this drawing. How far does your property
go?
MRS. KOPELS-Well, all I know is the neighbor on Willow Road, which is directly behind my house.
MR. STONE-That’s who I’m talking about, yes.
MRS. KOPELS-Right. There is an easement in there, and my property doesn’t, it’s like, he has a
fence there, and then there’s an easement. I’m not sure if that’s a real easement. I don’t know what
that means, but I don’t think, he built the fence, but I don’t think it’s in to the easement. An
easement is like naked. It doesn’t have any trees or anything back there. So we kind of know where
the easement is, and I think there’s a survey marker back there, with a.
MR. STONE-It’s a drainage easement, according to the material that you’ve provided.
MRS. KOPELS-Right, and I wasn’t going to go back that far with my fence anyway.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments before we talk to each other? All right, Roy, why don’t
you start.
MR. URRICO-They seem to be as concerned about preserving the aesthetic quality of the
surroundings as well as the natural surroundings, and I trust that the pool will reflect that. I’m in
favor.
MR. STONE-All right. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, it strikes me, as the applicant indicates, that the only practical place to put
the pool is where they’re proposing. As has been noted, there’s, I think, more than sufficient
screening there. It seems to me there’s sufficient room in screening to have the pool be unobtrusive.
So if we include a proviso that the trees remain there and the screening remains as effective as it is, I
would have no problem with this.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It appears that there’s strong relief in preserving the character of the
yard and the fact that they don’t want to take any trees down impresses me more than anything. The
pool really isn’t going to be seen from the corner when you make the turn there, as far as I can tell,
with the addition of the small piece of fence. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Norman?
MR. HIMES-I agree. I think the pool where it’s placed, it almost seems to be, logically, where it
should be. It’s unobtrusive and hardly visible from the road with the existing vegetation.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree with my other Board members. The only thing I would add is, though,
I’ve seen some trees come down on Sycamore and some lots get cleared out pretty thin, and I think I
would recommend that there be a motion, it’s contingent upon that there be landscaping, and that
the pool be screened by fencing, if ever a subsequent owner or these current owners decide that they
would like those trees down however unlikely that may be.
MRS. KOPELS-Well, there is one huge tree that they might have to trim.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s amazing how they always do things like this.
MRS. KOPEL-Well, it’s because it’s very close to the house, and with the winds we had, I mean, we
had some big limbs come down in the last wind. So I’m worried it’s going to fall on the house.
That’s the only tree.
MR. STONE-But that has no relationship to the pool, in a sense.
MRS. KOPELS-No. It’s really basically I keep looking at it. Actually, my neighbor did ask me if I
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
was going to take down one big tree in the back of it. He didn’t want me to take it down. I don’t
even know which big tree it is because we have so many, and I said, well, I wasn’t planning on taking
any down.
MR. MC NALLY-See, my other problem is, if it’s going to be in a side yard, you don’t want it visible.
So, just make it contingent.
MR. STONE-No, I agree. I gather you’re willing to make this contingent on the screening,
improving the screening as we go along.
MRS. KOPELS-Yes. I’m going to actually, we’ll put some nice bushes and stuff.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I generally agree with my other Board members, even though I have consistently voted
against pools in side yards. I think, personally think that pools in side yards can erode the quality of
neighborhoods, particularly developments, as this one is, but this seems like the rare circumstance
where there is a lot of screening, and you certainly seem like you intend on keeping it, and with some
significant contingencies to make sure that that intention stays in place, I don’t have any problem
with it in this case. So I’m okay just like everybody else is.
MR. STONE-Yes. Basically I concur with my fellow Board members. It seems to be that corner
lots are a difficulty. That’s why we singled them out in our Code. If you had to think of a pool in a
corner lot that was not behind the architectural front door, this is the perfect lot. I mean, you’ve got
wonderful screening over there. You certainly have indicated, and we’re going to make you hold to
your word when we write the motion, that you want it screened and you’re going to make it screened,
and I think it’s a, there’s really no other place on this corner lot. Fortunately, you’ve got the
wonderful screening, and you’ve got the room to the west. So, having said that, I will call for a
motion, particularly from one of the three people who talked about the conditions.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2000 MORRIS & NANNETTE
KOPELS, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
1 White Pine Road. The applicant’s proposing construction of a 20 by 40 foot in-ground pool, and is
seeking relief from the Accessory Structures and Use requirement Section 179-67, in order to locate a
pool in a yard, specifically the side yard, other than their one required by Code. Benefit to the
applicant would be the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired pool in the favored
location. Feasible alternatives include re-locating the pool to a compliant location. However, this
probably would involve alteration of the on-site septic system. The relief is probably moderate,
compared to the Ordinance, in that it requires about 40 feet of relief from the requirement. Effects
on the neighborhood will be minimal to moderate, as a result of this action, and the difficulty can be
interpreted as being self-created. However, we should note that a portion of the difficulty can be
attributed to the existing septic system that is utilizing the architectural rear yard. As a condition to
the approval of this variance, we would require that the existing trees that are screening the side yard
be left in place, and that should at some time in the future, some circumstance such as a storm
remove some of that screening, that the owner at that time would take steps to replace the screening,
either through additional plantings and/or a more substantial screening fence.
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2000, by the following vote:
th
MR. BROWN-I just have a question, Mr. Chairman, just for my clarification. The understanding
that the pool is going to be in the side yard, won’t be any closer to the road than the front of the
house?
MR. STONE-That’s what was stated in the application.
MR. BROWN-Okay. I just, just for a point of reference in the field. It’s not going to be any closer
than the house.
MR. STONE-Right.
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
MRS. KOPELS-Could I ask one more question? Do you mail out the building permit or something?
MR. STONE-You’ve got to go see Staff.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MRS. KOPELS-I come and see you?
MR. BROWN-Have you applied for it yet?
MRS. KOPELS-I though that’s what the $50 was for.
MR. HAYES-No, that was the privilege of coming here.
MRS. KOPELS-I have to pay more money then?
MR. BROWN-Come in tomorrow.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2000 TYPE II UR-10 ANDREW PALUMBO OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE 47 ZENAS DRIVE, OFF DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF AN 198 SQ. FT. CAROPORT AND SEEKS SIDE SETBACK
RELIEF. TAX MAP NO. 92-2-2.70 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION 179-17
ANDREW PALUMBO, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Area Variance No. 34-2000, Andrew Palumbo, Meeting Date: April 26, 2000 “Project
Location: 47 Zenas Drive, off Dixon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 198 square foot carport addition and seeks setback relief. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 6.8 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback requirement of the UR-
10 zone, §179-17. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of
Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize
the desired carport. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this
relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 6.8 feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement may
be interpreted as substantial, (68%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to
moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this
difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 96-062 issued 12/17/98 in-ground pool Staff
comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Enclosed with the
application is a letter of support from the closest affected property owner. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. BROWN-There’s no County.
MR. STONE-Yes, no County. Introduce yourselves, please.
MR. PALOMBO-Hi. My name’s Andy Palombo and this is my wife Becky. We live at 47 Zenas
Drive. I’m requesting a carport, as I stated, because I have to load my car every night during the
winter, because I have chemicals in my car that freeze, and I would use the garage, but I drive a
Buick LeSabre and the garage is pretty small. So it’s hard to open the doors and unload the car. Plus
I don’t think she’d be too happy to kick her out of her garage, since she lived there first. I tried a
portable carport, and it was a cheaper kind, and that last snow storm, it collapsed on top of my car,
put a big dent in the top of my car. It blew away before I cemented it down with little piers. So I did
try that, but I thought that was pretty unsightly, more than even a carport, because it’s, I don’t know,
more like a gypsy style living, but I tried to design the carport open on the side, so it didn’t make
everything claustrophobic, because it is so close to my neighbor’s house. I really don’t like the idea
of closing things in. I like things open, but it’s, I really would appreciate the variance for, you know,
I said my car, just trying to load it and load it. That’s about it.
MR. STONE-Is there a boat on the other side of the house right now?
MR. PALOMBO-Yes.
MR. STONE-Under a portable cover?
MR. PALOMBO-Yes, but that’s under pine trees. So the snow collects on the pine trees.
MR. STONE-But I mean you are using that side of the house for some kind of extra storage?
MR. PALOMBO-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-You had an additional temporary shelter on the opposite where the boat was,
where you parked a car, too?
MR. PALOMBO-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Was it a similar kind of aluminum pole and awning kind of thing?
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. PALOMBO-Yes. If you don’t knock them off every three or four inches of snow, they
collapse. It’s not those $5,000 portable carports made of steel.
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody
wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed to this
application? Any correspondence? You’re going to read that letter in.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. There’s one letter addressed, “To Whom It May Concern: I have discussed
plans for a proposed carport to be located at 47 Zenas Drive, Queensbury, Lot Number Two. I
realize it would be 3.2 feet from my property line. My property is located at 45 Zenas Drive, Lot
Number Three, and I have no objection to the plan.” Signed Brad Aubin”
MR. STONE-Okay. Nothing else?
MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else.
MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any questions? Any other comments you want to make? Any questions of the
applicant?
MR. HIMES-When I went by, the person that wrote the letter , was there a For Sale sign on his
property? It’s still there.
MR. PALOMBO-Yes. He did that after I asked him for the permission, for the approval.
MR. STONE-You didn’t drive him away?
MR. PALOMBO-We might have.
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant?
MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s back behind your garage? Your septic’s not behind your garage,
between the pool and the garage?
MR. PALOMBO-The pool is right behind the garage, and the septic’s off to the left. That’s why we
had to put the pool there, where it gets no sun.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The only suggestion I could think of was, you know, if you extended the
length of the present garage, you know, back, so you could put two cars in, one behind the other, it
would still keep you from having to intrude out on the setback on the side. I don’t know if that’s a
possibility, if you want to consider it. It’s probably going to eat up your space by your pool, but it’s
pretty tight.
MR. PALOMBO-I think that would break the rule of not having a structure at least 10 feet away
from the pool. So I guess people can’t jump off the structure into the pool. I don’t know.
MR. STONE-Any other questions or comments?
MR. MC NALLY-When you say chemicals, what kind of business are you in, sir?
MR. PALOMBO-Pest Control.
MR. MC NALLY-Pest Control.
MR. PALOMBO-Yes. So I have just a minimal amount of chemicals. They’re in crates, but every
night I have to load them and unload them. So it’s, getting up at five in the morning, because I travel
all over New York State and Vermont, and your car is two feet of snow, and you’ve got to load and
unload the car. It’s just frustrating.
MR. STONE-All right. Well, there being no other questions, we’ll talk about it. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can understand the need, but looking at the property, I have a problem with
allowing the building to sprawl out as much as it is. The boat and the temporary storage on one
side’s already encroaching on the setback on that side, and I’m bothered by encroaching in the other
direction. Personally, I’m inclined to discount the public comment letter, given that this gentleman is
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
selling his house, and I feel some responsibility to the next owner, who may not be as forgiving with
this kind of thing, but it just strikes me that it’s going to spread it out too much for that kind of a
neighborhood, and would leave the house inconsistent with the neighborhood. So I’m inclined to be
opposed.
MR. STONE-All right. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I sympathize with wanting to put the thing on there, but it’s so close to
the line and there’s really not much of a distance between the next house, if you construct it, just
from a, you know, with a boat on the other side, that gives you no access back through, and whether
it’s a fire danger or whatever, it seems a little bit of a concern to keep going wider and wider.
MR. STONE-Norman?
MR. HIMES-I agree with the comments other people on the Board have made. It is, this is a tough
one because I certainly feel for the problem you’re facing, the fact that the cars could be switched,
with the garage as small as it is, still creates kind of a problem, but it may be better than nothing, but
it is such a small lot, and it just goes so close to the other line. I don’t know what other alternatives
there might be, but I tend to be negative to the application because of the size of the variance.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I agree with my other Board members. I sympathize, I sympathize with the
Palombos, because I know how important it is to have an extra garage, if you will, but this is a very
small lot, and earlier tonight you heard someone had a three car garage, but they’ve got an acre and a
half. There wasn’t a problem. These are maybe 20 feet between houses, and you’re looking to take
up most of the side lot to the line. I can’t see it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I pretty much agree, and in the case of Area Variances, one of the parts of our test is is
the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? And basically, unfortunately, based on the lot
constraints, you’re asking for, really, 70% of relief from the Ordinance, and that’s high. It’s a difficult
hurdle to overcome in my mind, and for the reasons the other Board members have pointed out, I
think that it’s a little bit too much of a stretch, in this case, all things considered. So I would also be
opposed.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I have no comment.
MR. STONE-No comment. Well, I certainly agree with my fellow Board members. I mean, I
sympathize with you. Unfortunately, it is, a comment that I wrote down as I was looking at the
thing, it sort of flies in the face of our zoning. If we’re going to have zoning in the Town of
Queensbury, we can’t allow things to be this close to the line. I mean, that much relief on a very
small thing is just too much, plus the fact that, quite frankly in my mind, you have not helped your
own case by having a boat on the other side with the thing. It really makes it, it’s wall to wall man
made, and that’s not the intent of our zoning. So, having said that, I’ll call for a motion to deny.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2000 ANDREW PALOMBO, Introduced
by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
47 Zenas Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 198 square foot carport addition and
seeks setback relief. Specifically, the applicant is requesting 6.8 feet of relief from the 10 foot
minimum side setback requirement of the UR-10 zone, Section 179-17. The benefit to the applicant
would be that he would be permitted to construct the carport and unload the chemicals that he uses
in his occupation. Feasible alternatives are limited based on the existing constraints on the lot and
the location of the pool on their yard. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? I believe that it is. I
believe that 6.8 feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement is very substantial, and that the 10 foot is a
very minimal setback to begin with. The effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe they
would be negative and significant. From an aesthetic viewpoint, I think that the carport would create
an across the lot look, and it would also just not fit in geometrically with the rest of the houses and
the consistency of the neighborhood. So I would be against this application and move for its denial.
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-I’m sorry.
MR. PALOMBO-That’s all right. I understand. I used to live in Schenectady, and I hate
claustrophobia, but may I ask you this. As far as the laws go, may I put up a portable carport and
park there anyway in my car?
MR. STONE-Technically, if it’s anchored down, it’s the same thing, right?
MR. MC NALLY-It’s a structure, isn’t it?
MR. STONE-It’s a structure.
MR. BROWN-Yes. We don’t issue building permits, the Building Department doesn’t issue building
permits for these temporary garages and storage structures. We would require him to meet zoning
regulations, though, at least five feet from the property line. So, if you could do that.
MR. STONE-In my history on the Board, we did make one come down.
MR. PALOMBO-Okay. I understand. Like I said, I hate to see claustrophobia. That’s why I moved
away from the City. Thank you anyway.
MR. STONE-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2000 TYPE II LC-10A PATRICIA A. SORESINO OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. TAX
MAP NO. 123-1-15.32 LOT SIZE: 9.6 ACRES SECTION 179-13
RAYMOND & PATRICIA SORESINO, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2000, Patricia A. Soresino, Meeting Date: April 26, 2000
“Project Location: Fuller Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a single family dwelling and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant
requests 60 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum front setback requirement of the LC-10 zone,
§179-13. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1.
Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a home in the desired
location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the proposed
home to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 60 feet of
relief from the 100 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None
applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this
action. The proposed front setback appears to be consistent with many of the homes along Fuller
Road. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Introduce yourselves, and tell us anything more you want.
MR. SORESINO-I’m Ray Soresino. This is my wife, Pat.
MR. STONE-Anything else you want to add?
MR. SORESINO-We’re just looking for the home variance.
MR. STONE-I understand that. I mean, anything you might have thought about? The first question
I have, I know we have two separate applications in front of us, and we will deal with them
individually, except in both cases, you say “our” home.
MR. SORESINO-Yes. Well, one is going to be my wife’s mother’s house.
MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s yours in the sense, you’re going to own them both?
MRS. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just noticed that it was ours in both cases. That’s what I wondered. Okay.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. MC NALLY-When I went by the property, I went past the stream, and your property is on the
left.
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And there’s a flat area next to the stream, then it rises up. There’s a dirt road on
top of that rise. Glens Falls Reservoir Road is across the street. Where on that property are you
building this house, not on the rise?
MR. SORESINO-You know where that deep gully is?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes.
MR. SORESINO-Basically it’s going to be halfway on the hill and halfway in the gully. It’s going to
be filled in a little bit.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So you’re going to fill in some of that low area, and it’s going to be into the
hill?
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. STONE-Is that gully a drain?
MR. SORESINO-No.
MRS. SORESINO-No.
MR. SORESINO-No, there’s no running water to it.
MR. STONE-No running water. This is the more westerly lot of the two?
MR. SORESINO-Yes, it’s the one way up on the hill.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MRS. SORESINO-It’s really the only spot you can build, because if you go through that roadway, we
would prefer it to be up on the top of that hill.
MR. SORESINO-Near the back of the property, but it’s just too close.
MRS. SORESINO-It’s too narrow, the way it just drops. So this is basically the only spot.
MR. MC NALLY-As I look at your map, I see someone’s drawn a 100 foot setback from the line,
100 setback from the stream. Did you do that?
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-You’re asking for relief from the front setback. How come you can’t move the
house back a bit?
MR. SORESINO-Well, I could.
MR. MC NALLY-To make it a little bit more compliant, if you will, rather than 35 feet from the
road.
MR. STONE-It says 40.
MR. MC NALLY-I see 35.
MR. STONE-Well, you’ve got 35 and 40, and according to the Staff Notes, it’s 40. You’re asking 60
feet of relief.
MR. MC NALLY-Is this scaled? Can we scale this? What’s the scale?
MR. BROWN-Fifty scale. Two inches equals one hundred, one inch equals fifty.
MR. MC NALLY-So how far is the house?
MR. BROWN-I scale it 40 feet from the property line. The 35 foot dimension goes to the road. The
setbacks are measured from the property line, and I’m scaling 40 feet on the map.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. MC NALLY-How can it be 35 feet from the road but 40 feet from the property line?
MR. BROWN-That’s wrong.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So you want 60 feet of relief.
MR. HAYES-So the 40 foot to the property line is right. You’re satisfied with that?
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Because you limit it, the 40 feet.
MR. STONE-I mean, there is right-of-way well in excess of the roadway at that point.
MR. HAYES-Versus the property line.
MR. STONE-Versus the property line.
MR. MC NALLY-Can you move it back 20 more feet?
MR. SORESINO-Yes. I was just worried about the stream.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t know why you chose 40. If there’s a really important reason, I’m waiting
to hear it.
MR. SORESINO-I was worried about the septic system being near the stream way back.
MR. MC NALLY-Is there room do you think, or not?
MR. SORESINO-Yes, sure.
MR. STONE-I mean, you have enough distance for the septic system if you move the house back.
Are you willing to move the house back?
MRS. SORESINO-I’m just wondering, because the way the land is right now, we were just looking at
how, I’m just asking him, because the hill goes sort of like this, and we wanted to leave the earth
alone as much as possible. In fact, we had Valente come and look at it, and we wanted to not touch
the land because then you have, you know, it’s better to leave it.
MR. STONE-Well, how is this construction going to take place, in this gully? Are you going to?
MR. SORESINO-An above ground basement, partially.
MR. STONE-Are you going to set the house right in the gully, and have high concrete?
MR. SORESINO-No. We’re going to shave the hill down a little bit, and then put it in that way.
MR. STONE-Okay, but there will be more showing in the middle of the house than there will on the
sides?
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant at this point?
MR. HIMES-How far does that, trying to visualize the two properties you’re speaking of, how far
back does that knoll go before it?
MR. SORESINO-It goes all the way down, basically, almost to the stream. It’s like a ridge that runs.
MR. MC NALLY-The gully, you mean?
MR. SORESINO-Yes. The gully runs right down, and it follows the ridge.
MR. HIMES-Okay. So setting it back you’d still have pretty much the same elevation for your
property.
MR. SORESINO-We’d still be on the ridge.
MR. STONE-That stream is pretty well contained on this particular property line. I mean, it’s?
MR. SORESINO-Yes. We had the EPA and APA there, and they said that basically where the high
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
water mark is is where the, that’s where the water line is right there. It’s all rock.
MR. MC NALLY-On this map, I see a dog leg. You’re property goes down and back away from the
road, and then it hangs a right, but we don’t see how much it goes over that way. How large a
property is it?
MR. SORESINO-Ten acres, 10. something acres.
MR. MC NALLY-So you have a lot of land going that way.
MRS. SORESINO-That one’s 9.60.
MR. STONE-This is LC-10, right. It’s supposed to be 10, so they’re close to it.
MR. SORESINO-This is totally unbuildable down through here.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So this is where you’re going to be building it, right about there
somewhere.
MR. SORESINO-Actually, right about there. We were planning this one, but this is too close to the
property line.
MR. MC NALLY-And this is where you’re property goes back again?
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-This is the one we approved last year.
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-With the driveway through on the side as you make that corner. I remember it
now. Okay.
MR. STONE-Any other questions or comments you want to make about this before we open the
public hearing?
MR. MC NALLY-How far back can you push the house, before you have problems? I’d like to
grant the minimum relief necessary.
MRS. SORESINO-We would really rather put the house way back on the top of the ledge.
MR. SORESINO-But it won’t work, the house.
MRS. SORESINO-That’s like 375 feet back.
MR. MC NALLY-I know, but doesn’t it narrow?
MR. SORESINO-It narrows down.
MR. MC NALLY-That’s the problem.
MR. SORESINO-Yes, and they have a steep cliff that drops off.
MR. MC NALLY-But in the general location as shown on your plans, how far back can you push it
and live, and be happy with it?
MR. SORESINO-We could, 75 feet.
MRS. SORESINO-We wanted to put it kind of up, so we didn’t have to be in a hole. If you were
going to go back further, you would be in a hole.
MR. MC NALLY-My question is, how far back can you live with?
MR. SORESINO-Seventy-five feet.
MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. STONE-So you’re willing to ask for 25 feet of relief?
MR. SORESINO-Sure. Well, yes, as long as I make the setback from the stream here. Because the
ridge sort of bows over to the stream.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. MC NALLY-I see.
MR. STONE-I mean, as I look at this drawing, you’re talking about taking this house and moving it
this way.
MR. SORESINO-Yes, straight back.
MR. STONE-An additional 35 feet.
MR. SORESINO-Right, slightly to the left a little.
MR. STONE-To the left, uphill, up to the west.
MR. SORESINO-Toward the stream, toward the east.
MR. STONE-Toward the east.
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. So this way.
MR. MC NALLY-But maintaining the setback. I think he can do that.
MR. SORESINO-It’s close.
MR. STONE-You’ve got a few feet from your 100 foot line.
MR. MC NALLY-I’d be more inclined to grant you relief in that direction, if you needed it, but
apparently you don’t need it. So don’t worry about it.
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re amending your application, asking for 25 feet of relief for this thing?
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions before I open the public hearing? Let me open the public
hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the amended request, namely 25 feet of relief from
the front setback? Anybody in favor? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Are you opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DON KRUGER
MR. KRUGER-Basically, I’m the next door neighbor to, one of the nearest neighbor’s to it. I’m a
little bit confused as to what we’re talking about.
MR. BROWN-This is the one uphill.
MR. STONE-This is the uphill lot.
MR. KRUGER-Okay. I don’t care about that.
MR. STONE-I didn’t think you did. Okay. This is the uphill lot, and the applicant is asking for only
now 25 feet of relief. So the nearest point of the house will be 75 feet from the front property line.
Okay. Any letters in there, any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. Mr. Chairman, I should note, however, that the two files got
mixed here. So for the applicant’s comments, what I read into the record was their comments on the
other lot.
MR. STONE-They’re almost the same.
MRS. SORESINO-They are the same.
MR. SORESINO-They’re almost the same.
MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any comments? Any other questions? All right, Jim, let’s talk about it.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. UNDERWOOD-It fits a lot better, I think, moving it back. I was more concerned with, you
know, having it all tucked in too close to the road, since it may be re-opened and be a super highway
again some day. No, as long as it fits with the stream, you’re going to have to measure that property
anyway when you site it. It looks good.
MR. STONE-Okay. Norman?
MR. HIMES-Yes, I’m in favor of the thing with the revised setback requirement. It may extend your
driveway a little bit, but maybe in the long run you’ll enjoy being a little further away from the road.
So, that’s it for me.
MR. STONE-Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I was very impressed with the lot. I’ve never really been up Fuller Road before,
and I think you’d enjoy that stream there. Certainly the sound of it in the background is.
MR. SORESINO-I can’t work there. I keep falling asleep.
MR. MC NALLY-I envy you. I envy you at that. I think that 100 foot setback is required in this
area, but that given the size of the lot, and the nature of the land, and restrictions imposed by the
going along the side and then twirling around the back. I can live with a 25 foot variance.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree with my Board members. It certainly is a unique lot, and a 100 foot setback is a
generous setback to begin with, I think, and so it can be a little more lenient right from the
beginning, and I think in this particular case that, looking at the plans, we all thought it was close, we
asked for a compromise and got one, and I have no problem with it from that point forward. I think
that’s part of what we’re trying to do here. So I’m in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m much more comfortable with revision than I was with the original request, and I
have no questions at this point.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I generally agree. My feeling is that the 100 foot setback was put there for a
reason, that even though there are houses on the road closer, that having a goal of having houses set
back 100 feet I think is a good one for that area, but recognizing the problems with the lot, and 75
feet is a lot closer to 100 than 40 feet was. So I’m inclined to go along.
MR. STONE-I agree with my fellow Board members. The only thing that I would ask, I mean, this
is LC-10, and that’s why it’s 100 feet, and it’s going to stay LC-10, as far as I’m concerned, and are
you willing to say that you’re going to keep the lot intact, just have the one house on it?
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. STONE-I mean, I would like to see that, just that you will not come back and try to divide this
lot into something else. Okay. Having said that, we need a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2000 PATRICIA A. SORESINO,
Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
Fuller Road. The applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling and seeks setback relief.
Relief required, the applicant requests 25 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum front setback
requirement of the LC-10 zone per 179-13. The benefit to the applicant would be the applicant
would be granted to construct a home in the desired location, as agreed upon with the revised
setback distance. The feasible alternatives may include relocation of the proposed home to a
compliant location. They have reached an agreed compromise on having done that by moving it
back the additional footage. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 25 feet of relief from
the 100 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. Effects on the neighborhood or
community, minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this
action. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Minimal
impact may be anticipated as a result of this action. With the condition that the lot stays as a whole.
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-You’ve got one down.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2000 TYPE II LC-10A PATRICIA A. SORESINO OWNER:
SAME AS ABOVE FULLER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 123-1-16
LOT SIZE: 1.45 ACRES SECTION 179-13
RAYMOND & PATRICIA SORESINO, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-2000, Patricia A. Soresino, Meeting Date: April 26, 2000
“Project Location: Fuller Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a single family dwelling and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant
requests 50 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum front setback requirement and both 10 feet and
20 feet from the respective 100 foot sideline setback requirements of the LC-10 zone, §179-13.
Further, the applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum setback requirement
from the stream on the property, per §179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be
permitted to construct a home in the desired location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives may include downsizing the proposed home. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to
the ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on
the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
interpreted as self created. A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the lot configuration.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments:
Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed front
setback appears to be consistent with many of the homes along Fuller Road. The proposed
construction calls for diverting a drainage course from the center of the property to an area along the
property line. Referral to the Planning Board to review this relocation project would be
recommended. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Soresino, is there anything else you’d like to add to your
application? Any questions of the applicant on this one? Well, what do you propose to do with the
stream? I mean, obviously, you’re going to take a, which is apparently not the kind of volume that
the stream on your other property has, which is a real, this is an occasional flow.
MRS. SORESINO-It’s not considered a stream. The APA.
MR. SORESINO-It’s just a trickle they said. Whenever it rains, it comes down and it runs off.
MR. MC NALLY-Is that the runoff that’s shown in the upper corner of this map here?
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-Where does it currently run?
MR. SORESINO-Part of it runs down one side of the street. The other runs on our, it splits right at
the opposite side of the street coming down the hill. It splits and partially goes on ours and partially
goes down and around.
MR. STONE-Where do you think it’s going to go if you detour it?
MR. SORESINO-Can I show you on this?
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. SORESINO-Actually it’ll meet up to where it’s actually going. Here’s where it is now, and this
is where it comes down, the other half, right here. So basically what I wanted to do was just rock line
a culvert, rocks through a gully, right around here, here, and just basically meet up with it again, put a
little pipe underneath the driveway or something.
MR. STONE-This is the lot you’ve already got?
MR. SORESINO-Right here, yes.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. STONE-That lot there, right, yes. This is the one, and does this water ever get further down
Fuller Road?
MR. SORESINO-No, it stops right here, it crosses, and it comes under it.
MR. STONE-So it goes on to your property, two of your properties?
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. STONE-It doesn’t impact any other properties?
MR. SORESINO-No.
MR. STONE-This is all yours back here, and does it join up with the other stream that we were
talking about?
MR. SORESINO-No. It goes over to this fellow’s, you see the swale right here, where it empties
into.
MR. STONE-So the water which originates on the north side of Fuller Road, on this particular, we
won’t call it a stream because you say it’s not technically a stream, whatever we want to call it, never
goes anywhere but onto your, one of your two properties?
MR. SORESINO-Right, that’s correct.
MR. STONE-And you’ve never seen it go further down the road?
MR. SORESINO-No, it doesn’t. It stops right here, there’s the culvert.
MR. STONE-Does everybody see it, understand what he’s done so far? Now you say you’re going
to make a stream bed for this thing, and it’s going to turn at a 90 degree angle?
MR. SORESINO-Yes, just a gully lined with rock.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. SORESINO-And the water’s about that deep, it trickles.
MR. STONE-Okay. We may hear other than that, I think, from. Okay, any other questions of the
applicants about this? Of course we have a lot of other relief. That stream is only part of it.
MR. MC NALLY-What’s the reserve septic area?
MR. SORESINO-Craig, I believe, said that we need a reserve area.
MR. BROWN-That may be a requirement of the Adirondack Park Agency, as part of the, the
subdivision as part of this subdivision, or this is not part of that subdivision?
MR. SORESINO-Which one?
MR. BROWN-I’m not sure. That’s a building code requirement, the reserve area. I’m not familiar
with that.
MR. MC NALLY-No, but I mean, on this map it shows two separate fields, one immediately behind
the house, and one called a reserve septic area. Now the problem with placing this house on this lot
is because they need, apparently, room for two septic fields. Why?
MR. BROWN-I don’t know.
MR. MC NALLY-Is it essential or not?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know what the requirement is, but I think what it, I’ve seen it on some
other maps in real estate, and it is just showing that there is a place to put a new drainage field when
the first one fails, rather than have the first one fail and have nothing that you can do about it.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. STONE-Why is it necessary here compared to other places where there are septic fields?
MR. BROWN-Well, this property is in the Adirondack Park, and I know that requirement was put
on some of the other lots in that Barber subdivision.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. STONE-This is in the Park? Where does the line go?
MR. BROWN-It’s about 500 feet off West Mountain Road, parallel to it, and it goes probably almost
down to Clendon Brook Road, in that area some place. It may be further than that south.
MR. STONE-I never thought about looking, quite frankly.
MR. BROWN-It doesn’t go all the way. It’s west of West Mountain Road.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-And this lot, how was it that there was a lot of 1.45 acres there, you own the lots
on either side? Was it subdivided?
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MRS. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. SORESINO-A Cynthia Lawrence owned it and built a house in 1933 there and then it was
destroyed by the Town. They burned it down in ’88.
MR. MC NALLY-Is this the lot that was in existence in the 30’s, it’s never been changed by you or
anyone else?
MR. SORESINO-Not that I’m aware of, no.
MR. MC NALLY-And it backs, I see there’s 90 feet back to another property, that’s your property
that it backs onto?
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-So the setback relief is to your own, other lot.
MR. STONE-Well, this is a nonconforming lot then.
MR. HAYES-Pre-existing.
MR. STONE-Pre-existing nonconforming.
MR. MC NALLY-Again, if I look at this map, I see where you put the house, I see the Glens Falls
water line, with the right of way. How come you can’t move it a little bit over,. get it further away
from the stream, yet not on the right-of-way?
MR. SORESINO-I was just worried about the Glens Falls water line.
MR. MC NALLY-Right. I mean, you can’t go on the right-of-way.
MR. SORESINO-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-But it shows another 12 feet from the stream
MR. SORESINO-Yes, but I wanted to be safe.
MR. MC NALLY-A margin of error.
MR. MC NALLY-Back hoe error.
MR. MC NALLY-All right.
MR. STONE-So you’re requesting 50 feet from the road, from the property line, and can you go
back any further than that, like you did on this other one?
MR. SORESINO-I’m not sure how far you have to be from a property line with the septic.
MR. HAYES-Ten feet, I think.
MR. STONE-Ten. The problem that I’m having, and I think some of my fellow Board members, is
you’re asking for four different reliefs, which we are sometimes reluctant to grant when we get that
much relief necessary. Then the question boils down to, well, are you building the wrong house on
this particular property if you need, in fact, that much relief. Why don’t you think about it while
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
we’re talking. We’ll open the public hearing, because I know we have somebody who wants to
comment on it, and then we can get back to this particular thing after we hear what the public has to
say.
MR. SORESINO-Okay.
MR. STONE-So I’ll open the public hearing, unless there’s any other questions that the Board has at
the moment. Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this
application? In favor? Anybody opposed to this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DON KRUGER
MR. KRUGER-Hi. My name is Don Kruger. This is my wife Sandy, and I guess we’re the
downstairs neighbors to this.
MR. STONE-You’re beyond their entrance to the big lot, right?
MR. KRUGER-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-So you’re not next to this lot, you’re one lot removed, just for the record.
MR. KRUGER-Yes. There’s a 50 foot right-of-way there to their back property. My first comment
is, did you gentlemen know that the other neighbors, the Laphams, were not notified of this meeting?
When the Variance notice went out, they went out to the previous owners, Mr. Barber and his wife,
who has since sold it to the Laphams, and they weren’t aware of this.
MR. STONE-Craig, are you aware?
MR. BROWN-There should be a notification list in the file, and we would notify all the current
owners of record that we have. If the transaction hasn’t taken place and recorded, we wouldn’t know
about it.
MR. KRUGER-Yes.
MR. STONE-When did this take place, the transfer?
MR. KRUGER-It’s just recently. I don’t know.
MRS. KRUGER-I talked to one of the neighbors tonight, and she said, I don’t think the Laphams
have been even notified on it.
MR. KRUGER-Well, the concern there is because whatever water runs from this ends up down in
their trout pond. So if there’s a problem, if they don’t have a problem with it, but I think to be fair,
they should know about it.
MR. STONE-According to the applicant, it ends up there now. Would you agree or disagree with
that?
MR. KRUGER-Yes. I agree with that, but we are going to modify this. I mean, whatever
groundwater runs off there, you’ve got waterproofing around the house. You’ve got, you know,
whatever chemicals are inherent in construction. You’ve got whatever septic effluent runoff that
goes back there will eventually go down to their trout pond. I remember when I built my house, it
was a concern to the Barbers that lived there before, and we had to do certain changes in order to
satisfy their concerns. The man isn’t aware of it.
MR. STONE-Craig, we have adopted stormwater reg’s in the Park, in the Lake George Park. Do we
follow those in other places?
MR. BROWN-No, but if that’s a concern, if the stormwater is a concern, or this ditch is a concern,
you could refer this application to the Planning Board, and they could look at stormwater issues, or
they could look at the ditch issue, and just to address the Laphams non notification, if they’re not
within 500 feet, they wouldn’t get notified. I’m not sure where they are, but if they’re more than 500
feet, they wouldn’t get it anyway.
MR. KRUGER-No. They are, but they didn’t get it, the Barbers got it.
MR. STONE-Are the Barbers listed there?
MR. MC NULTY-There is a Helen Jean Barber listed.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-That’s the current owner of record at the time that report was done.
MR. MC NALLY-All these drainage changes have to go to planning anyway.
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. MC NALLY-I mean, I’d recommend that no question.
MR. BROWN-And at the same time they could address the stormwater, and there’s certainly things
they could do, and they’d be required to keep any new stormwater they generate, they’d have to keep
that on the property.
MR. STONE-Correct.
MR. BROWN-From the roof runoff, from the driveway, be it a catch basin or eaves drains or a
depression in the lawn to kind of collect it. They’d be required to keep it on the property.
MR. STONE-Well, okay. It strikes me that if the water falls where the house would be, some of it’s
going to keep moving if it’s a big enough storm. Does that have to stay on the property, too?
MR. BROWN-They’d only be responsible for the increase that they create.
MR. STONE-The increase, okay.
MR. BROWN-What falls there now and runs off now, there’s no control over that. They’d only be
responsible for the increase.
MR. STONE-We’ll let the Planning Board, they get paid the big bucks to worry about that. Okay.
Anything else?
MR. KRUGER-Okay. Where it shows the pipe going across the road, there’s a 15 inch metal pipe,
and he’s proposing to detour that down along the property. It goes across the property now, but
that’s going to be run, and that will run downhill, and then he’s going to turn it better than 90
degrees and run it back uphill? That confused me a little.
MR. SORESINO-No, it’s downhill. It’s a down sloping property.
MR. STONE-That’s something that would have to be obviously looked into. Obviously, water
doesn’t run uphill.
MRS. KRUGER-And it doesn’t trickle. In the winter time, especially, even through spring, that
thing flows just like a regular stream. It is not considered a stream, but it does flow very heavily like a
stream.
MR. STONE-Well, the question I asked earlier, do you have any knowledge that the water that
comes from the hill to the north gets anywhere but onto Mr. Soresino’s properties?
MRS. KRUGER-It stays right in the corner. It’s all wetlands down in that corner. It stays wet there.
In fact, I called the City Water Department to ask them if that water main might be broken because
even in the middle of the summer, there’s just a pool of water there, and I said, you know, it’s a
concern of mine, and they came and tried to do a little testing, and they said that, no, it’s just wet.
It’s just wet in there. It’s always been that way, and I’m afraid, he’s cutting down the vegetation there
in that corner now. He cut quite a bit of it out, and with all that vegetation and the trees gone,
cleared out of there, where’s that water? What’s going to hold that water back? And it’s all boulders
and rocks underneath there, and if the water comes down through, it’s going to flood our basement.
That’s my concern, unless he figures the way an engineered system, and has it piped?
MR. STONE-I was going to say, with proper remediation to be sure that this man made stream bed
is built to contain the water and to drain it.
MRS. KRUGER-But then it’s going to have to go across the City water main. I think that’s what
they call that, isn’t it?
MR. STONE-Yes, there’s a water line there.
MR. MC NALLY-Doesn’t it already go across there though?
MR. STONE-Just in a different location.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. KRUGER-No, excuse me. Where the water line is now is the high spot on that little 50 foot
right-of-way. So the water goes down toward the front corner from there, but I guess he’s proposing
to have all of it come back. What I’m trying to say to you is, this goes downhill. Where that water
line is is the high spot. So that also goes down to that front corner stake, but he’s proposing to turn
and run it all back this way. Well, that’s fine with me if he runs it all the way back, and none of it
ends up in my basement. I mean, I don’t want to deny the man a place to live in a home. I just don’t
want my basement wet because of it.
MR. STONE-And you have a perfect right for that. What you’re concerned about is that there’s a
hump in the land over which this water is not going to flow, and we’ll ask Mr. Soresino to comment
on that, but right now, the water that is free flowing crosses the Glens Falls water line at some point
in its trek to the southeast?
MR. KRUGER-That is correct. It goes from the cast iron, from that metal water pipe, it goes across
that property where the septic system is going to be proposed. So that’s going to have to be diverted,
otherwise we’re going to have a problem with the septic effluent, but I guess my big objection is I
don’t want the water. I have a dry basement now and I don’t want a wet one. Which we can all
relate to that.
MR. STONE-And you should not have a wet one if it’s the cause of his construction. No question
about that.
MR. KRUGER-Well, if that does happen, what remedy do I have?
MR. STONE-Well, we are going to, no matter what we do, we are going to refer to the Planning
Board to look at stormwater runoff and wherever the water goes. So they will have to come up with
Mr. Soresino and with the Town Engineer, I guess, at least has to be looked at and reviewed, in terms
of where it’s going to go. Because if he’s going to touch water flow, then it’s got to be checked out.
It cannot go onto your property.
MR. KRUGER-Yes. When I spoke to Rick Missita, he was very concerned about that water, but
they moved it back out of his jurisdiction. So I guess that kind of lets Rick off the hook on that.
MR. STONE-I’ll asked a question that I asked of Mr. Soresino. You are not aware of any water
from this body, this flowing body here that goes further down Fuller Road than Mr. Soresino’s
property?
MRS. KRUGER-No, it’s just it’s wetlands in here. So that runs down the road, but not from that
stream.
MR. STONE-The way it is now, it doesn’t go down the road.
MRS. KRUGER-Just from the wetlands in the corner. It just, it’s very wet in there and it runs down
the road, but not from that stream that runs off the mountain.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. KRUGER-In the summer time, from that water line, from the high spot, there is water that
continually runs down toward Fuller Road on that, and there’s water that runs down along side the
road.
MR. STONE-In the summer time.
MR. KRUGER-In the summer time.
MR. STONE-It sounds like it’s coming out of the water line, to me.
MRS. KRUGER-I know, and it looked sort of rusty, like it was brown. I said, you know, and that’s
why I asked the Water Department, and they said, no, it’s not. They checked into it.
MR. KRUGER-That was my reaction, and we called the Water Department because that’s like a
huge, that’s like a three foot cast iron pipe because I had to run my water line, my Queensbury Town
water line, under that, and it was incredible what we had to do to get around that pipe because you
didn’t want to even touch it with a back hoe. I mean, the thing would be just like, it would be like
you’d be on the front page of the Post Star.
MR. STONE-Well, I mean, I’ve had conversation here at the Town Board meetings talking about it,
but that pipe is not that new.
MR. KRUGER-Yes, but according to the Glens Falls Water Department, it’s just a wet area in there,
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
and I don’t know. I see a septic system going in there, and my question is on percolation and how is
it all going to work?
MR. STONE-Okay. That is something that will be looked at. I mean, if we were to grant the
variance, or some part of this thing, before any building is done, that will be checked by the Planning
Board and by the Building Department, no question about that.
MRS. KRUGER-I just have another question on the height of the building, the house that they’re
going to build. The house that they’re going to build, it’s going to be almost 2600 square feet, and
I’m wondering, is this a two story? How high is it going to be? Is it going to stick out? Most of
them are smaller ranch houses through there.
MR. STONE-That is not under our jurisdiction. As long as it meets 40 feet, under 40 feet, they can
do whatever they want, under current zoning. There’s no architectural review. There’s no. If I’m
misspeaking, Craig, let me know.
MR. BROWN-Thirty-five feet.
MR. STONE-Is it 35? I’m sorry, okay. Anything below 35 feet can be built. It doesn’t require any
kind of variance or any kind of review. I mean, you might even get that garish house across the
street, up on the hill there.
MR. KRUGER-That is a very expensive home. The man spent a fortune on that house there. They
love it. They don’t think it’s garish.
MR. STONE-Anyway.
MR. KRUGER-Our concern is for protection of the stream, and whatever water runoff is going to
be coming downhill to us.
MR. STONE-And that will certainly be referred to the Planning Board for their, they’ll have to
review that.
MR. KRUGER-And if we do end up with a wet basement out of this, or a problem with our septic
system because they’re going to alter this water, what relief do we have?
MR. STONE-You’d have to talk to legal counsel.
MR. BROWN-Yes, it would be a civil matter, if my understanding is correct. If you could prove that
it’s from their property, related to the activity that they’ve done, then there’s probably some course of
action, but I don’t know.
MR. MC NALLY-The thing is, the Planning Board is charged with the responsibility for preventing
these kinds of problems, and there’ll be a hearing, kind of like this here, only with a different Board,
and at that hearing, they’ll try to wrestle with this very issue, and you have to help them, with the
Soresino’s, come up with an acceptable solution, and theoretically they’ll come up with one that
works, but, I mean, I presume you would have to have some input in there, and maybe you’d want an
engineer to make sure that what they’ve proposed is going to work, and if it doesn’t, to point out why
not.
MR. STONE-And the only thing I would suggest, since, let’s assume we grant some variance here
tonight, that you take note of the fact that the Laphams, that they’d have to be notified.
MR. BROWN-Sure, we could do that.
MR. STONE-Well, I’d just make sure that, I mean, because if there’s going to be input at the
Planning Board, they ought to know that this may effect them.
MR. MC NALLY-Other than the drainage, is there anything else about this proposed construction
that you wanted to bring to our attention?
MR. KRUGER-Well, I’m sure all you gentlemen are concerned with the stream, too, as they are. I
know they don’t want to do anything with their own stream, and the problems with the septic
system. I see streams running through there, and I’m a contractor, and I’m saying to myself, well,
how would I put a septic system in there? And I don’t have a solution for that question. I’m a
contractor. He’s a truck driver, and he has the solution, but I don’t have the solution.
MRS. SORESINO-There was a septic system in there, and there was a house there.
MRS. KRUGER-Yes, but back in 1930 something.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. MC NALLY-See, when he proposes a building plan, the septic system is going to have to be
approved.
MRS. KRUGER-Yes, there’ll be perc tests.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s got to be an engineered system. That’s what it would come down to, and if it
doesn’t work, it doesn’t work.
MR. STONE-And one of the things I will say for the Town of Queensbury, is that we have as good
a Septic Ordinance as there is around. So it will be to Code, and that’s the bottom line. It’ll perc
right and it’ll get rid of the water as well as any system can do. So I think you have to rely on the
Building Department for that. Anything else?
MR. KRUGER-It’s an undersized lot, and I guess the one last bit of confusion I have is why can’t
this lot be combined with the back property and make one lot out of it? Then there wouldn’t be a
problem with the 10 acre ordinance. I mean, they have the land available. That’s the point that I
guess I just don’t understand.
MR. STONE-Well, as I would look at it, this is an existing. It’s a nonconforming, but it’s a pre-
existing lot. it does exist. They own it and they have the right to build on it. The only thing that
constraints under which they are is the fact that this area is LC-10, and it’s very hard to meet LC-10
requirements on an acre and a half.
MR. KRUGER-No, but I just meant with the fact that there was additional property there, if it could
be melded.
MR. STONE-That’s their choice, not our choice.
MR. KRUGER-Okay.
MR. STONE-It’s an economic thing, from a tax standpoint or anything else.
MR. KRUGER-Okay.
MR. HIMES-They’d still have a problem placing a structure because of the stream between.
MR. STONE-Well, if you put it together, then you’ve got to go back to subdivision again, because
they want to put two houses on it. The stream problem would exist, or the non-stream, stream,
whatever we call it. Anything else?
MRS. KRUGER-That’s it, thank you.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-You can come back up and respond, if you want, to what you heard.
MR. SORESINO-Just with the water flow, I will, like I said, line with rocks and I’ll have the people
come and check it out to see exactly what I would have to do to do that, but I believe that just by
making like a foot gully lined with concrete and stone would basically get the water.
MR. STONE-The only comment that I, one of the comments that I heard is that there seems to be
an uphill section where you want to send the water.
MR. SORESINO-That’s all basically downhill.
MR. STONE-Well, that, obviously, has to be looked into.
MR. SORESINO-Yes. There is a little wet patch, but it’s (lost words).
MR. STONE-Any thoughts about minimizing the amount of relief that you’re seeking? Because
you’re seeking, dimensional relief, not the stream.
MR. SORESINO-The size of the house?
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. STONE-Setbacks.
MR. SORESINO-Well, if we can make the septic work, you know, the septic, that’s my only
problem. If that works where I could move it back a little and to the east, that could work. If I’m
required to have that reserve area, or I’m not? Is that, are we supposed to have that written in?
MR. STONE-Craig, do you know? It’s the first time I’ve ever seen it on an application.
MR. SORESINO-If there isn’t a reserve, we could move it farther away from the stream.
MR. BROWN-It may be a requirement. I’m a relatively sure it’s a requirement in the Park Agency.
Any time they do a subdivision, you have to show at least a 50% back up area. It may be due to soil
conditions or, you know, future consideration, but on this pre-existing lot, not part of an approved
subdivision, I don’t know where it would apply, unless it’s some place in the New York State
Building Code says because you have this kind of soil or this slow perc rate, show us a back up area.
I don’t know the answer.
MRS. KRUGER-I didn’t have to have one on mine, and mine’s a smaller lot than theirs.
MR. STONE-You didn’t?
MR. MC NALLY-You did not?
MRS. KRUGER-Did not.
MR. BROWN-I think if it’s an approved subdivision, they require that.
MR. STONE-Yes, but this is a pre-existing, nonconforming lot.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. MC NULTY-On the other hand, it’s not a bad idea to have that there because sooner or later,
you are going to have to do something with that septic system, and if they don’t have it there, then
their only choice is to move closer to the stream.
MR. STONE-Well, there are two things you can do with a septic system which fails. You replace it.
I mean, all of us who are on septic systems, I certainly on a septic system, and I don’t have room for
a second one, a second leach field, and I’m in the Park. So, I mean, it seems to me that if it fails, you
dig it up, and you rebuild it.
MR. MC NALLY-Well, it’s not just re-building it, though, it’s, if you dig it up to re-build it, you’ve
got to remove all the soil and put new soil in, because the reason it fails is because the soil becomes
corked up, which is why they look for the reserve areas.
MR. STONE-Well, as I understand it, you’re seeking 50 feet, which you’re kind of willing to move
back if you can find the space. Would you be willing to table this and come back with an alternate
proposal? I hate to back log ourselves with tabling, but there’s so many areas here, and there’s a lot
of information lacking. If you could, I would appreciate it, myself, I can’t speak for the Board, that if
you would come back and try to minimize all of these numbers, using the best information you can
get.
MRS. SORESINO-To re-apply for another?
MR. STONE-No, no. We’ll just table it for up to two months, and you can take this and study it,
with the help of the Town or an engineer, and see what you can minimize this thing. At the same
time, I guess I would like to see a little more information about how the water is going to flow if you
divert this thing, in terms of what you’re going to have to do to make sure it stays on your property
and make sure it gets back to where it was before you diverted it. I think that’s the important thing.
As long as you get it back to where it’s going now, then you haven’t done anything.
MR. SORESINO-Right, and that’s what will happen. I’m basically just, it’s going this way.
MR. STONE-I hear you. I’d kind of like someone else to say that.
MR. BROWN-That’s depicted on the plan. It starts where the current stream is and ends up where
the current stream is, and you refer it to the Planning Board, they’re going to iron out the details. I
mean, you can certainly request that if you want to, but it’s going to be reviewed by somebody else.
MR. STONE-Well, if they’re going to have to come back.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. HAYES-It’s not going to cost you anything, because they’re going to have to do it anyway.
MR. STONE-You’re going to have to do it anyway. You’re going to have to answer the question for
them, and in the mean time, it will help us knowing something more about the septic systems, and
maybe you could minimize the dimensional relief, because I think a number of us have said, it’s a lot
of relief, and when you ask for that much relief, our ears prick up and we say, wonder whether they
should be building this house on this lot type of thing.
MR. SORESINO-If I eliminate the reserve area, then? Is that?
MR. STONE-Well, if you can. I mean, I don’t have an answer to that. None of us have an answer,
but I’m sure somebody in the Staff does. If not, they’ll get the information for you.
MR. SORESINO-Okay.
MR. STONE-Even if you have to drive up to Ray Brook and find out, but you certainly can find it.
MR. SORESINO-Who do I speak to about this? Craig?
MR. BROWN-Yes, we’ll talk to Dave, yes.
MR. STONE-Start with Craig. So you’re willing to table this. I move that we table Area Variance
No. 36-2000 Patricia A. Soresino, in order for the applicant to better determine a positioning of the
house, so as to minimize the amount of relief sought, and also to look into the need for a reserve
septic area, and some indication of how the detour of the water will be handled, so as to ensure that
the water that enters the property now will end up where it does currently, even though it’s been
diverted. Does that make sense? Any questions about the tabling motion? This will be tabled for up
to 62 days.
MR. BROWN-Just a comment, I guess. It looks like the only alternative to decreasing the setback
requirements is downsize the house. I mean, if you pull it from one side, you’re going to get more
required relief on the other side, since you need relief all the way around. So, just to be forewarned,
if you move it back from the street more, you need more relief from in the back. If you move it back
from the back line more, you need more relief in the front. So any of these numbers, the amounts of
relief change, they’ll have to go through a re-advertisement process. Everybody will have to be re-
notified because it’s a different application in a sense. The same application, but different amounts
of relief. So they’ll have to go through that process again.
MR. STONE-I’m sorry, what are you saying?
MR. BROWN-If the required amounts of relief change, say if in the back they want to, instead of
having a 10 foot relief, they want to have 20 feet of relief for an 80 foot setback, we’d have to re-
notify everybody again, because it’s a different request.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-So, to make it cut and dried, you could deny this application. They could come back
with a different application, substantially different, with different numbers, and that would, you
know, start them all over, or.
MR. STONE-But then they’d have to ask us whether or not we’d accept it.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. STONE-If we deny.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s got to be substantially different.
MR. BROWN-Right. It’s not going to confuse it, but it’s not going to be as easy as it could be if you
table it. That’s fine if you want to table it, if they’re willing to do that.
MR. HIMES-I don’t know if anyone would agree with me. I look at this thing, and I’m certainly no
expert at space management and so on, but I really don’t see how this can be moved anywhere. It
might free up a setback on one side and encroach more on another. You’ve got the stream here.
Even if they were combined lots, even if they were one lot, they couldn’t build, you know, without
touching, one part of it’s 80 feet. It just seems, I wonder if all of you would look, and then if we
table this, from our standpoint, I would really be pressed to see how this could be brought into
compliance by moving the proposed structure, given the size that it’s at. I mean, if we feel, being a
nonconforming lot to begin with, and if we feel that this, again, not in connection with the runoff
and all that stuff, which is Planning Board, but just from our responsibilities, that, myself, I feel that
it’s going to be pretty close to the same, when it comes back next time. Does anyone here feel any
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
different that, you think you could move this thing anywhere and not have the same four or three of
the same four setback problems?
MR. STONE-Can you vote for this? You can vote positively for this now?
MR. HIMES-I think I would.
MR. STONE-You think you could?
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, do you want to talk about it before we table it? We certainly can talk and
see where we’ve got. Let’s just do that. Let’s just. We started with you. You could go along with it?
MR. HIMES-Yes. I have been sitting here, and before the meeting today, figuring, my God, look at
all this area, you know, I read what they want, and I look at it. You start moving this around, and
you find out, no matter how you move it, even if you shrink the size of the thing down a little bit, it’s
still going to bump three out of four, maybe continue, and I don’t know that putting it off from the
Zoning Board standpoint is going to gain us anything. Now, it’s possible that there is a way to twist
the house and have it facing this way or that way and pick up a foot or two here or there, and I’m
just asking whether anyone might feel as I do here that.
MR. STONE-So you think the same size house, you’re willing to live with this size house, with the
amount requested, the amount of variance requested?
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Bob, what do you think?
MR. MC NALLY-To be honest, I think they can gain 10 feet here and 10 feet there, if you moved it
closer to the water line, but in large part his point is well taken. There aren’t too many places you
could fit this on this lot. If you cut out a square and move it on that lot, you’re going to come to
basically the same place that they have it right now. If we’re talking about drainage, that’s a separate
issue. That has to be referred to the Planning Board and let them take care of it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, there’s no doubt that, based on the LC-10 setbacks of 100 feet that,
geometrically, it’s, you know, you’ve got a little bit of a puzzle here that’s not going to change that
much. I would agree with Norm’s point. We’re all concerned about the stream and the runoff, as
Mr. Kruger is for sure, and should be, but if that’s really not going to be our concern, or they’re
going to have to go through that process at another level, then if the only reason to table it is to have
them spin it, I’m not sure that they can spin it. So I guess, I mean, we could talk it out tonight, as far
as the dimensional relief, possibly yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. There is the alternative, as Craig wrote in the notes, the house could be
downsized, but we haven’t talked about. Anyway, Roy?
MR. URRICO-I guess I have two concerns, the one being that if the Planning Board were to suggest
a change to the runoff, would it alter the house dimensions or the house specifications, but I can’t
see that any suggestion they would make would have any effect on where the house is placed now.
However, the reserve septic area, if that were not a requirement, then there could be a way to move,
where they currently have their septic tank depicted, to move the house somewhat, east. So it might
be more centered.
MR. STONE-I mean, obviously you could go not too much with the water line, but you could go
further, obviously.
MR. URRICO-Right. So I would reserve judgement until we knew about the reserve septic area,
whether that would impact it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, it strikes me that the basic question really is going to be whether we allow a
house on this lot or not, because I’ll agree. I think any way you push it, you’re just nudging
something different. You push it 10 feet more from the stream, and then you’re 80 feet from the
other side on the property line, instead of this, or if you want to not move it, but you want more
clearance from the stream, then he’s going to have to saw 20 feet off the house, and I think that’s
rather drastic. He needs a house that’s big enough to live in. I personally like the idea of seeing a
reserve area for a septic system. Because the choice of actually removing a whole yard of dirt and
bringing in a whole new yard to replace it is the only alternative, if you don’t have some other place
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
to go with your septic system, because the reason the septics fail is because all the little dirt particles
get plugged up with the stuff that comes out of the septic system, and you can’t just replace the
pipes. You’ve got to replace the stuff the pipes drain into. So, I come down basically, do we allow
them to put a house on this lot or not, and I’m inclined to allow them to put it on it, and I would
just as soon vote on it tonight, I think.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would think that ultimately the question is going to come down to the
acceptability of whether they can put a septic system in there, and that’s beyond our domain. So I
would vote that we approve it tonight, and send it on for review, you know, the same thing with the
alteration of the stream. It seems to me that it’s awful wet. Whether it’s even possible, dig to see
what’s there, and moving the house 10 feet one way or the other is not going to make that much
difference.
MR. STONE-Well, since the only concern that I had was the number of variances and the Board
doesn’t seem to be concerned about it, it isn’t something that I would obviously be overly concerned
about, so, given that, I guess we want a motion to approve the variance with the recommendation
that it goes to the Planning Board for thorough investigation of the stream diversion and for
clarification of the septic system situation. So, somebody.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2000 PATRICIA A. SORESINO,
Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
Fuller Road. Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling and seeks setback relief.
Relief required, applicant requests 50 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum front setback
requirement, and both 10 feet and 20 feet from the respective 100 foot side line setback requirement
of the LC-10 zone, 179-13. Further, the applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 100 foot
minimum setback requirement from the stream on the property per 179-60. Criteria for considering
an Area Variance, benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the home in
the desired location. Feasible alternatives may include downsizing the proposed home, but as shown
on the drawing, the footprint includes a garage, and it’s felt that downsizing it from what has been
proposed would not be applicable. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The
cumulative request for relief may be interpreted as substantial, when you view it against LC-10 zone.
However, this is a nonconforming lot. It’s much smaller than LC-10. It’s an acre and three quarters,
somewhat, an acre and a half, and the aspects of the Glens Falls Water Line on one side of the
dwelling, a natural stream on the other side of the dwelling, and the property lines as they’re
configured, are such that the house is placed in probably the best position on the lot that it can be,
and considering 50 feet from the road, and it’s comparable to many other houses going down
toward, at least in the direction of West Mountain Road, in the areas where relief is needed, it’s 80
feet as opposed to 100. However, it’s not that way all the way around. Overall, the relief is not that
bad. Effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood
may be anticipated as a result of this action. There are some relevant matters, outside of the control
of the Zoning Board, in connection with stormwater runoff and so on, and reserve septic area, which
need to be reviewed by the Planning Board to approve or decline or measure the impact on the
neighborhood and the community (as a condition of approval). From the zoning standpoint, we
don’t feel that it does impact, except minimally. Is the difficulty self-created? It may be interpreted
as self-created, but much of the difficulty may be attributed to the lot configuration and it’s size in
relation to the zone that it’s in. It’s a nonconforming lot. So I move that we approve the
application.
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2000, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-I’d ask two things, one that we say to construct the proposed home, not just construct
a home. It’s construct the proposed home, and secondly, that this thing, maybe you said it, that this
be referred to the Planning Board for site plan, in terms of water runoff and diversion of the.
MR. HIMES-I had that in there.
MR. STONE-Did you? I’m sorry.
MR. HIMES-That’s all right, fine.
MR. BROWN-Just be sure that it’s a condition of the approval that it be done, not just a statement,
that it’s a condition.
MR. STONE-It’s a condition of the approval, yes. Okay.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty,
Mr. Stone
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. SORESINO-Thank you.
MR. SORESINO-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2000 TYPE II CR-15 ROBERT JARVIS OWNER: SAME AS
ABOVE 22 RICHARDSON STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF
A 2-CAR, 576 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 134-6-6 LOT SIZE: 0.35 ACRES SECTION 179-24
ROBERT JARVIS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2000, Robert Jarvis, Meeting Date: April 26, 2000 “Project
Location: 22 Richardson Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition
of a one car garage and construction of a 576 square foot two car garage. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 15.5 feet of relief from both the 20 foot minimum side and rear setback
requirements of the CR-15 zone, §179-24. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according
to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to
construct the desired garage. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation
to the south. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 15.5 feet of relief from the
20 foot requirements may be interpreted as substantial. ( 75%) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or
community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5.
Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. A portion of the
difficulty may be attributed to the existing structures and lot configuration. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 96-222 issued 9/27/97 pool Staff comments:
Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The setback relief requested is
significant relative to the ordinance, however, no neighborhood opposition has been noted to date.
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. STONE-Mr. Jarvis.
MR. JARVIS-Robert Jarvis, 22 Richardson Street.
MR. STONE-You’ve said everything in your application.
MR. JARVIS-Yes.
MR. STONE-Currently you don’t meet the required setback with the current garage. Is that your
reference, Craig, to nobody has said anything?
MR. BROWN-There’s been no public comment or opposition to the proposal.
MR. STONE-I thought maybe you were referring to the fact that it’s too close.
MR. BROWN-Either, nobody’s commented on either.
MR. STONE-Nobody’s commented on that. Okay. Any questions of the applicant?
MR. HIMES-The line, is there like a little hedge that runs down the side of the driveway between you
and the property on the corner, is that the line?
MR. JARVIS-That’s the line, yes, right there, the hedge.
MR. HIMES-Yes. I noticed right out close to the road there’s a structure that must belong to your
neighbor on the corner that’s right up against that hedge. If you go down your driveway to your
garage, where although it might be thought to be impractical, you do have room to the left, there’s
some open space there in your back yard, but again, you’ve got your driveway, and then a little space,
and then another little structure. Does that belong to your neighbor, too, that’s exactly almost right
on top of that hedge, again, with some stuff stored around it and coming around the corner. Is that
yours or his, that stuff that kind of?
MR. JARVIS-Back of the shed there, that’s all his stuff. What I was going to do is eventually bring
that fence line all the way around, with the fence I have all the way around the property now. I’m
going to bring that across the back and then down to that, you’ll see on the driveway side there’s an
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
old fence, six foot stockade fence there now. I was going to replace that with new, go right out to
the corner and tie back into my other fence. Be right around the garage.
MR. STONE-You’re going to have fence on the northwest corner, you mean, of that, by where the
garage is?
MR. JARVIS-Yes, finish it off. See, when I built the fence, I stopped at the corner of the existing
garage, but what I was going to really do was come back all the way around the garage and start back
down toward the driveway just probably 20 foot.
MR. HIMES-How does the neighbor on the corner, or the one behind you, how do they feel about
it? The area that you’re speaking about doesn’t seem to be very usable, but, I mean, looking at it with
a structure on the other side. I mean, there’s certainly no view of your lawn. The neighbor in back
of you, have they made any comment?
MR. JARVIS-No. Fred and Jean, they’re the ones that live on the other side of the hedge. They’re
fine with it, and Benny Aronson owns the property behind me, and I think he’s just waiting, what he
did, he bought two pieces of property there, he owns the Double A Provisions, and he bought the
house next to the Double A, which they just tore down, and they moved those two people over to
this house that he also bought, and her husband just died. So they have the right to stay there for as
long as they’d like to stay.
MR. STONE-So he bought this thing to give them a place to live when he, because he obviously
sought variances from us on the other property on a couple of occasions.
MR. MC NULTY-We do have comment from Ben Aronson.
MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll get there. Any other questions of the applicant? If not, I’ll open the
public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anybody
opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. There’s one note back on the public notice. “You know our feelings on
setbacks in this commercial or soon to be commercial area. We have NO OBJECTIONS to this
project. Ben Aronson”
MR. STONE-Any other correspondence? If not, then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? Any questions at all? All right, having said that,
Bob, what do you think?
MR. MC NALLY-I think it’s reasonable to want a two car garage, in this day and age, and I don’t see
any feasible alternatives. You can’t really relocate it to the south, because to be honest with you, you
can’t get a car in and out, the house is too close. The relief is substantial, but given the fact that it’s a
pre-existing structure that already is closer than the setback would allow, and the fact that this is
basically wasted space, and the neighbors don’t seem to disapprove it, the effect on the
neighborhood is going to be like zip. So on balance, yes, it’s substantial, but I think there’d be no
effect on the community. I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-There’s really not much more to add. That’s right on the money as far as I’m
concerned, and the balancing test for relatively unique circumstances, I think it falls in favor of the
applicant. I’m okay with it.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I see no reasonable alternative. It seems okay to me.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I basically echo the same feeling. It strikes me that, while it’s close to the property
lines, it’s in keeping with the neighborhood, and there’s no viable alternative. So I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a good use of no man’s land back there. It would be a good thing to set
out there.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
MR. STONE-Norman?
MR. HIMES-I agree with what everyone has said, and in addition, the fact that there is a neighboring
structure, it’s proximity right on the line. This isn’t going to look out of place. So I agree. I
approve.
MR. STONE-I certainly agree with my fellow Board members. You don’t necessarily like to grant
this much relief, but when you look at the nature of the lot, and the fact that I think, as Jaime said,
you need a two car garage, and you really can’t turn the corner with the two cars very often without
clipping a lot of things back there, because accidents happen, I certainly can vote in favor of this
application. Having said that, we need a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2000 ROBERT JARVIS, Introduced
by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally:
22 Richardson Street. The applicant proposes demolition of a 1 car garage and construction of a 576
square foot 2 car garage. Specifically, the applicant requests 15.5 feet of relief from both the 20 foot
minimum side and rear setback requirements of the CR-15 zone, Section 179-24. Benefit to the
applicant would be that he’d be permitted to construct the garage as depicted. Feasible alternatives I
believe are limited based on the existing configuration of the lot and the buildings on that lot. Is the
relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that it is substantial. Certainly 15.5 feet of relief
on the 20 foot requirement is substantial, but on balance, I believe that there will be no negative
impacts on the neighborhood, and I also believe that this is a good use, as has been pointed out, is a
good use of that space on this lot for a demonstrated need, a need for a 2 car garage, and therefore I
think the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-There you go. Get a building permit, though, before you start it.
MR. JARVIS-Thank you.
MR. STONE-We’ve got some minutes to go over.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
March 22, 2000: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 22, 2000, Introduced by Robert
McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
MR. MC NALLY-And we can do October 27. It is still open, I think.
th
MR. STONE-It’s still open? Okay. Do I hear a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 27, 1999, Introduced by Lewis
Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2000, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty
NOES: NONE
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/00)
ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-Okay. I move we adjourn.
MR. MC NALLY-Second.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
35