2009.07.15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 15, 2009
INDEX
Area Variance No. 25-2009 Sean Quillinan 1.
Tax Map No. 289.09-1-30
Area Variance No. 29-2009 Chantal Baril; Paul Teasdale 2.
Tax Map No. 290.5-1-35
Area Variance No. 30-2009 Linda Dator 8.
Tax Map No. 240.5-1-30
Area Variance No. 33-2009 Alfred Green 13.
Tax Map No. 308.8-1-11.4
Area Variance No. 34-2009 Paul Kruger 22.
Tax Map No. 303.5-1-89
Area Variance No. 35-2009 THP Custom Builders 28.
Tax Map No. 309.7-2-40
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 15, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOYCE HUNT
JOAN JENKIN
BRIAN CLEMENTS
GEORGE DRELLOS
RONALD KUHL, ALTERNATE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the July 15, 2009 meeting of the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order. First off, let me do a quick review of our
procedures in general. For each case, I’ll call the application by name and number and
the secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes, as well as the
Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. The applicant then
will be invited to the table and be asked to provide any information they wish to add to
the application. The Board, then, will ask questions of the applicant. Following that, we’ll
open the public hearing. I’d caution that the public hearing is not a vote, but it’s a way to
gather information about concerns, real or perceived, and it’s a way to gather information
and insight in general about the issue at hand. It should function to help the Board
members make a wise, informed decision, but it does not make the decision for the
Board members. As always, we’ll have a five minute limit on each speaker. So that
basically tells us everything they want us to know in that five minutes. A speaker may
speak again if, after listening to other speakers, they believe they have new information
to present. Following that, we’ll read correspondence into the record, and then the
applicants will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment, and
Board members then will discuss the variance with the applicant. Following that, the
Board members will be polled to explain their positions on the application, and then we’ll
close the public hearing, unless there’s a reason to leave it open, and that would be only
if it looks like the application will be continued to another meeting. Finally we’ll have a
motion to approve, disapprove or table and then we’ll vote on it. So first off tonight we
have some Old Business.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II SEAN QUILLINAN OWNER(S):
SEAN W. QUILLINAN ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 4 SULLIVAN ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH
A 2-CAR GARAGE TOTALING 4,145 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM
FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD SETBACK, MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND MAXIMUM FAR
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2009-043 DEMO HOUSE WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.09-1-30 SECTION:
179-4-030 OLD CODE
SEAN QUILLINAN, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-We tabled this and we had a pretty lengthy two meetings on this
previously, and we had pretty much run you through the ringer on those, and the only
thing that we had to do, just procedurally, was we had to wait until this meeting because
you needed to get approval from the Town Board of Health for your septic system. In the
interim, that’s come in. So I think what I’ll do is just simply acknowledge the fact that the
Town Board, by unanimous decree, I’m not going to read it back into the record because
it’s really not necessary, but just to explain. The gist of this is that Sean and Deborah
Quillinan have applied to the local Board of Health for variances from Chapter 136 to
allow a leach field to be located 74.7 feet from their well in lieu of the required 100 foot
setback, and zero feet from the eastern property line, in lieu of the required 10 foot
setback on the property located at 4 Sullivan Road in the Town of Queensbury. The
Quillinans lost their home in a fire in the wintertime last year. It was kind of a tough
situation that they’ve been in here, and in essence, just for the public’s benefit and for the
Board’s benefit, they wanted to rebuild on the footprint of the old house that was there, in
essence, but increase the size of the garage, add a second story on and because of the
nature of the fact that it’s Waterfront Residential, I think the Board was pretty comfortable
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
the last time with where we were at with it. There was, at the first meeting, I think, quite a
bit of dissention because of the amount of relief, the side setback relief I don’t think
people had a problem with because that was pretty much what was there prior to the fire
and wasn’t going to change that at all. The big thing was that, because of the Waterfront
Residential zone, by adding the second story, because the house was built into a
hillside, it kicked it into being way over height from the 28 foot requirement that we have
in the Code book, and of course we try to make people comply, but I think the Board, at
the last meeting, had pretty much decided that because this house doesn’t face the lake,
the side facing the lake doesn’t really appear to be that over height. It’s only going to be
on the parcels that are looking from the east side of the playing fields there, and that,
pretty much everybody in the neighborhood, I don’t think there was anybody who voiced
any dissention or any kind of concern about the over height of that building. So I think
the Board, last time, pretty comfortably, was ready to approve what was here. So do you
guys want to go discuss it again? Does anybody have any concerns, anybody changed
their mind or anything since the last time? Otherwise, I think what we’ll do is just simply
do a resolution based upon where we’re at with that. Does anybody have anything they
want to add? Okay. Then I’ll make a resolution.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2009 SEAN QUILLINAN, Introduced
by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
4 Sullivan Road, The applicant is proposing construction of a single-family dwelling with
a 2-car attached garage totaling 4, 316 sq. ft. on 0.41 acre lot in the WR-1A zone near
Glen Lake. The applicant is requesting the following: 25.9 ft. of southwest front setback
relief and 12.8 ft. of west front setback relief from the 30 ft. front setback requirement for
the Waterfront Residential 1-Acre zone per Section 179-4-030. Additionally, the
applicant is requesting 2.7 ft. of east rear setback relief from the 20 ft. requirement per
Section 179-4-030 and further the applicant is requesting 635 sq. ft. of Floor Area Ratio
relief per Section 179-4-030. Finally, the applicant is requesting 6 ft. 11.25 inches of
building height relief from the 28 ft. maximum allowable height for a building per Section
179-4-030. The Board considered what was required here and all the setbacks
requirements, I think, are pretty much standard from what we had prior to the fire on the
house, so that wasn’t really going to change anything as far as the neighborhood goes.
As far as impacts to other properties, there was some concern about the height of the
building but the neighborhood in general felt that this was not going to be a problem and I
don’t think the Board members, at this point, have any concerns about the over-height of
that building either. Normally, we wouldn’t allow that in a Waterfront Residential zone,
but this one, sort of special circumstances and it’s not really on the Waterfront that you
are going to view from the lake, and lastly, would be the 635 sq. ft. of Floor Area Ratio
relief and that was reflective more so of the fact that they are adding the second bay in
the garage. The house isn’t really an oversized house that you would see on any other
sized lot in the Town of Queensbury and Waterfront we try to keep the houses so they fit
the lot and its slightly bigger but not enough to really trigger it, I mean we are looking at a
Floor Area Ratio of 24.16 percent from 22 percent. I don’t think anybody really was
concerned with that. So, I moved for it’s approval.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-See you later. Have a good summer.
MR. QUILLINAN-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II CHANTAL BARIL, PAUL
TEASDALE OWNER(S): CHANTAL BARIL, PAUL TEASDALE ZONING: WR-1A
LOCATION: 150 SUNNYSIDE ROAD NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 768 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WITH
WALKOUT BASEMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.:
BOH 24, 2007; BP 2007-559 PERC TEST WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 8,
2009 LOT SIZE: 0.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-35 SECTION: 179-4-030 OLD
CODE
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
CHANTAL BARIL & PAUL TEASDALE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2009, Chantal Baril, Meeting Date: July 15,
2009 “Project Location: 150 Sunnyside Road North Description of Proposed Project:
Note: Since receiving this application, the applicant has changed the plan at the advice
of her contractor. With this knowledge, the Zoning Board of Appeals had tabled this
application until this meeting.
Applicant proposes construction of a 768 sq. ft. two-story residential addition. Relief
requested from side setback requirements, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and
maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 15 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement and 77
square feet of Floor Area Ratio relief per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone of the old code.
Additional relief requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as most
structures are non-conforming in nature.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
move the proposed addition to the south to become more compliant. However, this
action would encroach on the proposed patio.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 15 feet or 75
percent relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement per 179-4-030 may be
considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 77 square
feet or 3.6 percent relief from the total allowable floor area of 2,108 square feet for a
total FAR of 22.3% may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Finally, a
request for relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure based on the side
setback relief and FAR relief requests may cumulatively be considered moderate
relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as a
result of this proposal.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Septic alteration 8/28/08
Single Family Dwelling built in 1940
Staff comments:
The rear of the property where the expansion is taking place has a pronounced slope.
The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to direct the applicant, as a condition of
approval, to install erosion and sedimentation controls to minimize any sediment
reaching the lake.
Clarification on roof runoff from the addition may need to be forthcoming. Are gutters
associated with this project? If not, the applicant may wish to install eave trenches to
infiltrate water from rain or snow melt.
SEQR Status:
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
Type II – No action necessary”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything you want to tell us about your project? It’s pretty
self-explanatory it seems.
MS. BARIL-It’s pretty much all there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Make sure you guys speak into the mic, too, so we can get
you on the record.
MS. BARIL-I think it’s pretty much there. I don’t know if you have some questions.
MRS. JENKIN-Would you explain the changes that you made from your original plan?
MS. BARIL-The original plan, the addition was as the same roof as the garage, but we
were digging too much into the ground and from the advice of the contractor, we put the
first floor at the same level as the first floor of the house right now. So we changed the
roof, and we are digging less into the ground.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. You turned it 90 degrees around?
MS. BARIL-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay, so that it that it comes out.
MS. BARIL-Yes.
MRS. HUNT-I have a question. It really has nothing to do with the variance, but your
proposed addition, the entrance to the main part of the house is through the breezeway,
like a hall or?
MS. BARIL-Yes. It’s coming from the breezeway.
MRS. HUNT-You’ve got a porch there, too. Is that going to go?
MS. BARIL-Yes. The porch is going to go, and we’re going to put the stairs to go in the
basement in the breezeway, and the access to the master suite, too.
MRS. HUNT-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. JENKIN-Are you going to do a lot of excavating in order to build this back section?
MS. BARIL-The lot is pretty, the steepness of the lot, it’s very steep. So, no less than the
first proposal that we did.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Not so much towards the lakeside, but as you go back towards,
you’ll have to get your footers in there.
MRS. JENKIN-But the addition is in the lakeside, isn’t it?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It is on the lakeside, but because of the steep slope, you won’t have
to take away on, as you go down the slope, that’s already missing, you know, in
essence.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. KUHL-How about addressing the issue of Staff’s comment about gutters. Are
gutters going to be associated, are you going to put gutters on there?
MR. TEASDALE-We put gutters on the house last year, and we’re planning on putting
gutters on the addition, also.
MR. KUHL-And how is that water captured, do you just let it run on the ground?
MR. TEASDALE-Yes, the water does run on the ground, and it seeps into the ground,
but we do realize if there is a fair amount of water, then that water can reach the lake.
So we’ll probably have to, we’ll probably have to make kind of an area to discharge the
water into the ground.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Some kind of a seepage pit or?
MR. TEASDALE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, as far as requirements for like, because it is Waterfront
Residential over here on Lake Sunnyside, are they going to have to do any more
vegetative plantings and stuff like that as a means of capturing some of the runoff, or no
requirements for that?
MR. BROWN-No requirements for that right now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, that would be my suggestion to you, as homeowners, I
mean, Sunnyside, we’ve had numerous projects very similar to this proposed over there
and everybody recognizes the very small nature of the lots. You’re too close to the
water, and in retrospect it would be nice, but because of the road there there’s not really
anywhere else to go, and, you know, it’s not out of the ordinary what you’re asking here
for.
MR. DRELLOS-Is there going to be a walk off, off the back?
MS. BARIL-Off these things?
MR. DRELLOS-Yes.
MS. BARIL-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-And then I’m just wondering with the excavation, what’s the soil like, is it
rocky soil? It’s dirt, sandy?
MR. TEASDALE-It’s very sandy, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-It is.
MR. TEASDALE-Yes. We’re not expecting any problems with, you know, unless there’s
a big rock or something. We’re not sure, but chances are that it’s strictly sand. That’s
the composition of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re all kettle hole ponds, you know, like Glen Lake, all those are
post-glacial. So they’re all, I mean, if you get into anything it’s usually further back from
the lakeshore. Okay. If there’s no more questions, then I think I’ll open up the public
hearing. Anybody here from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence at all?
MR. URRICO-There is one letter. It says, “Dear Sir: I have no objection to Chantal
Baril’s variance request. Thank you. Dave Madden, owner, 152 Sunnyside North”
MRS. JENKIN-Which neighbor is that? Where does that man live?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Three houses away.
MS. BARIL-We are at 150.
MRS. JENKIN-So your next door neighbors on that side where the building’s going to
take place, the Hendersons, have you talked to them, do they know about it?
MS. BARIL-Yes, we talked to them, and we gave them the survey map, the elevation
plans, and their request to have no windows on their side. So we did that.
MR. URRICO-I don’t know if you heard Craig. He said that 152 is immediately south of
that property.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, it’s right there. This is all one property here. Right.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. DRELLOS-How are you going to get a machine in there?
MR. TEASDALE-The machinery will be somewhat smaller. It’s going to come down
between the house and the south part of it, and it’s going to be going around, they’re
going to be putting planking over close to the house, and they’re going to be digging not
from the base, they’re going to be digging from right in back of the strip, in back of the
house. So they’re not going to be going all the way down.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Probably just a little track hoe or something.
MR. TEASDALE-It will be.
MRS. JENKIN-Then one more question about, the stairs down to the lower, new lower
level, they’re in the space between the house and the garage are they? That’s going to
be the staircase now?
MS. BARIL-That’s a breezeway.
MRS. JENKIN-The breezeway, right.
MS. BARIL-Yes, so we’re going to go into the breezeway, and that’s going to
communicate with the house, now. That’s going to be a four season. That’s not going to
be like a breezeway.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay, but the stairs go up into the breezeway and then you go into the
garage and then into the house from there?
MR. TEASDALE-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-So you’re going to enclose the breezeway?
MS. BARIL-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing and poll the Board
members then.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron, do you want to go first?
MR. KUHL-Sure. If you take on the suggestions of Staff of controlling the runoff, that’s
really very important at this point, for what you have and what you’re doing. The house
is already nonconforming. I wouldn’t be against it. I don’t think you’re overbuilding the
lot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. I don’t think the request is substantial, and I don’t think
it’s going to change the neighborhood character or be a detriment to nearby properties.
I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think this is a reasonable request, considering its location and how
it compares to the nearby properties. They’re all pretty much in the same situation there,
in terms of size of the lot, and that creates the problem. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. George?
MR. DRELLOS-Well, I know it’s a little tight in there, and it is a small addition, the lot’s
pretty small, too, but I guess, do you have any future plans for additions there? You’re
pretty much built out as it is. I mean, anything else you’re pretty much done, I guess, but
I’m thinking.
MR. TEASDALE-There’s going to be no more, we’re not foreseeing at all any new
additions to the base, to the footprint of the house.
MR. DRELLOS-As far as the drainage for the water, I mean, is this something that we
need to put in the minutes or the proposal?
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I kind of wrote it up, so I’ll read it in.
MR. DRELLOS-You did? Okay. I mean, can we be more specific as to what to put in?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. When I get to mine, I’ll read that in.
MR. DRELLOS-Okay. Well, if that’s in there then I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think, my opinion is it is a substantial request, because of the size
of the lot, but I do understand that it’s a small house now and your space is very limited
when you have a family, and it looks like the plans will be very, very nice. It’ll add to your
house a lot, and make it much nicer. I think the runoff is important, and I would agree
that we’ll see what Jim has to say if he’s write it up, but the thing is planting more shrubs
and more things, closer to the water, would be important, too, because your photo has
shown there isn’t a lot of vegetation there close down, as you go from the house to the
water, you don’t have a lot of vegetation, now.
MR. TEASDALE-We don’t have any shrubs. We don’t cut the grass from the water line
to about eight to ten feet. So we basically leave our whole backyard, we don’t cut it, but
there are no, there’s no shrubs per se. I would say 50% of our yard getting to the water
is, there’s no trees, no shrubs.
MRS. JENKIN-What kind of a walkway do you have down to the water?
MR. TEASDALE-It’s a wooden staircase.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So it goes right through.
MR. TEASDALE-There’s about seven stairs that walk down onto the dock.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Yes. I also would approve the variance. I just, it’s the runoff into
the lake that would be any problem that you might have, especially during construction.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I think I agree with the rest of the Board members. There’s not a lot
that you can do with this property, and under those circumstances. It looks like there’s
no opposition from the neighbors, and seeing that you’re going to be saying something
about the runoff and what to do for that, I would be in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Just to finish up here, you know, I think in retrospect if we
could go back, if we were just starting building homes over there on the lake, everybody
would design themselves something that was, that would fit the lot and be stacked higher
and, you know, not so overwhelming as far as spreading out across from one side to the
other, but I would agree with everybody else. It’s not anything that’s not necessary. I
mean, you’ve got two kids and tiny little bedrooms upstairs. I guess you could go up, you
know, tear the roof off, but then it makes your house kind of unlivable while you’re doing
that and with a rainy year like this, you’d be glad to not have to go there and do that. At
the same time, everybody on Lake Sunnyside recognizes that their impact on the lake is
huge over there because of where your septic systems are and things like that, and my
suggestion to you would be what’s been previously suggested by Board members. Do
some real plantings, you know, put some daylilies in, make some vegetated areas on the
way down, small little gardens and stuff like that where it’ll actually stop the flow of runoff,
sheet flow on the grass that’s there now, because it’s really not adequate, and if
everybody does that on the lake over there, eventually it has a positive impact on it going
forward. The only stipulation I would put in is this, that the applicant be directed to have
an inspection of the excavation work prior to the excavation, starting that all your silt
fencing goes up, and hay bales, or whatever they require you to have, just so, in case
you get a major rain event you don’t end up with a mess to clean up in your front yard all
the way down to the water, and I think that that’s not something that we don’t require. I
mean, it’s even more necessary in your situation with that steep bank leading down
there, and because we are, in essence, overbuilding on these small lots, I mean, what
you’re asking for isn’t a whole lot more, but it is more, and if everybody does more, it
does have a negative impact. So, make sure that you do some kind of, you know, I
mean, you’re going to live there for years. You’re going to improve your property and
add more vegetation, put a couple of trees down in front, some low growing stuff or
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
something in, you know, that’ll save you having a bad lake, as an end result. So does
somebody want to do this one?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2009 CHANTAL BARIL, Introduced
by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
The applicant is Chantal Baril and the location is 150 Sunnyside Road North. The
applicant proposes construction of a 768 sq. ft. two-story residential addition. Relief
requested from side setback requirements, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and
maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio requirements. Relief Required: The applicant
requests 15 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement and 77 square feet of
Floor Area Ratio relief per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone of the old code. Additionally,
relief requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Whether this benefit
could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant has said that
putting a second story on the older home would not be a good idea. It’s really a modest
addition. The home is not going to be a McMansion. There will be no undesirable
change in neighborhood character or nearby properties. The proposed request is
moderate relative to the Ordinance. The request will not have any adverse physical or
environmental effects and it could be said to be self-created only in the fact that the
applicant wants to expand the home. I proposed we pass Area Variance No. 29-2009.
Stipulation: When the applicant, prior to excavation that he have all the silt fencing up
and get an inspection from the town. Because of the overbuilding of the small lot that the
applicant will need to put in some kind of vegetative buffers at some point down in front
on the waterfront. Applicant needs to submit a plan to this effect. Addition of gutters on
the south side towards the lakeside and to put in some kind of barrel type devices with
rocks so that water flows into those and doesn’t flow down directly into the water.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-And again, the only stipulation would be that when the applicant,
prior to excavation, that you have all the silt fencing up and get an inspection from the
Town, to make sure that it’s up before, not something after the fact.
MR. BROWN-Yes, and any stipulation to add landscaping or no?
MR. UNDERWOOD-And the addition of a condition of, because of the over building of
the small lot, that you’re going to need to have some kind of vegetative buffers that
you’re going to put in at some point down in front there, on the waterfront.
MR. BROWN-So we’ll be looking for that plan when they submit for the building permit?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, come up with something reasonable. I mean, you can
look at the neighbors, you know, you can come in and talk to you about some obvious
little things you can do, but I mean, there’s ways of, you know, totally cutting off the flow
down to the water which is going to make a difference, and probably take some of it up
from your septic, even.
MRS. JENKIN-And what about runoff, gutters?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think gutters are going to be, if you’re putting an addition on,
gutters are required, are they not? No? Okay. Why don’t we do that, then. Why don’t
you, we have the addition of gutters on the south side there, towards the lakeside and
just to put in some kind of a, you know, barrel type devices with rocks so the water flows
into those and doesn’t flow down directly into the water, you know, so you get infiltrators
built.
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II LINDA DATOR AGENT(S):
JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S): LINDA DATOR ZONING: WR
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
LOCATION: 2583 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF
3.66 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.67 ACRES AND 1.99 ACRES. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM PUBLIC ROAD FRONTAGE REQIUREMENT
FOR PRINCIPLE BUILDINGS AND LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.:
SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2009 BP 7341 YR 1982 SCREENED-PORCH WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 10, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT
SIZE: 3.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-30 SECTION: 179-4-050; 179-3-040A
NEW CODE
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2009, Linda Dator, Meeting Date: July 15, 2009
“Project Location: 2583 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Note: This
application has received a recommendation from the Planning Board concerning this
area variance (see attached).
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 3.66 acre parcel into two parcels of 1.99 and 1.67
acres on Route 9L near Warner Bay. Lot 2 is proposing access to a public highway
through Lot 1.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from §179-4-050, Frontage on Public or Private Streets.
Specifically, the requirement that ‘frontage for one principle building shall be at least 50
feet, and such frontage shall provide actual physical access to and from the lot to be built
upon ‘. Further, the applicant is requesting relief from the minimum lot size requirement
of 2 acres per §179-3-040 of the new zoning ordinance enacted on May 12, 2009.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts on nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
adjust the property line to increase the size of Lot 1 to 2 acres, thus creating at least
one compliant parcel in regard to lot size. Further, access could be provided for on a
public road, however, sight line and safety issues would arise.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 50 feet or 100
percent relief from the 50 foot road frontage requirement per §179-4-050 may be
considered severe relative to the ordinance. Further, concerning Lot 1, the request
for 0.01 acres or 0.5 percent of relief from the lot size requirement per §179-3-040
may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Finally, concerning Lot 2, the
request for 0.33 acres or 12.5 percent of relief from the lot size requirement per
§179-3-040 may also be considered minor relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as
there are APA wetlands on adjoining parcels, the proposal is in the Lake George
Critical Environmental Area and development may be potentially detrimental to these
areas.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SUB 6-09 Sketch Plan Pending
SFD built in 1940
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
Staff comments:
This application was received on May 14, 2009 and must be reviewed under the new
zoning code adopted on May 12, 2009. As stated above, the applicant is proposing
accessing Lot 2 through Lot 1. This aspect of the proposal appears logical given the
potential safety concerns due to sight line issues associated with Route 9L in the vicinity.
SEQR Status:
Type II – No action necessary”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 10, 2009
Project Name: Dator, Linda Owner: Linda Dator ID Number: QBY-09-AV-30
County Project#: Jul09-21 Current Zoning: WR Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant is proposing subdivision of 3.66 acres into two lots of 1.67 acres
and 1.99 acres. Relief requested from the minimum public road frontage requirements
for principle buildings. Site Location: 2583 State Route 9L Tax Map Number(s): 240.5-
1-30 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant is proposing the subdivision of 3.66
acres into two lots of 1.67 acres and 1.99 acres. Relief is requested from the minimum
public road frontage requirement for principle buildings. The information submitted
indicates the 1.67 acre lot will be accessed through the existing driveway of lot 1.99
acres. The applicant has indicated the shared driveway because the new lot does not
appear to have adequate site distance for the new driveway. Staff recommends no
county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review
criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project.
County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed T. Lawson,
Warren County Planning Board 6/10/09.
MR. URRICO-Now, this application has received a recommendation from the Planning
Board concerning the Area Variance, and I’m going to read that in now. This was a
motion on June 17, 2009. “MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD
RECOMMENDS TO THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THAT THE
APPLICANT, LINDA DATOR, BE ALLOWED TO USE ONE DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS
THE TWO LOTS, AND THAT ONE LOT BE A MINIMUM OF TWO ACRES., Introduced
by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs,
Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Jarrett.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. For the record, Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. I’m here
tonight with Bill and Linda Dator. Linda is the owner of record on this parcel. They have
owned the residence on the parent lot for a number of years, and several years ago they
bought additional acreage to the south with the intent of building a house for their son.
At the time of the purchase, the land was combined with the original parent parcel. So
we have to go back and subdivide now to create a second lot for the additional house,
and in looking at that, we felt that the access was best off the existing driveway, and if
any of you have driven by there, you’ll know that that curve is not a good curve, and I
don’t think a second driveway is in anybody’s best interest. Are design materials, our
subdivision was put together before the Code changed. That is the reason for the lot
sizes, but we will stipulate right now that based on the recommendation from the
Planning Board that we are changing the parent lot to two acres, from 1.99. So there will
be one lot of two acres and the second lot will be smaller. I think it’s pretty self-
explanatory. I’ll open it up to questions if there are any right now.
MR. DRELLOS-Well, you say they bought the property before. What was the acreage
before?
MR. JARRETT-Of the original lot?
MR. DRELLOS-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-The original lot was, 2.33 rings a bell. Let me look it up.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-That was one acre, one acre Waterfront Residential down there,
too.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, it was one acre. When they bought the additional land, it was one
acre zoning, and they bought more than one acre at the time. We’ll get it. We’ve got it
on the old map.
MR. DRELLOS-So it was bigger than what it is right now then?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. We reduced the size of the parent lot and added it to the new
parcel. We just don’t have the acreage to.
MRS. JENKIN-When you change the lot line, is it going to then come closer to the house
that you plan?
BILL DATOR
MR. DATOR-No, as a matter of fact, the whole reason we got involved in this thing is
because when we bought, originally bought the house, the house that’s there now, the
back yard line was only 30 feet out of the back yard, and so we wanted to get ourselves
a larger back yard, and this is the way we did it. We bought, I don’t know if you noticed,
there used to be a big dump there, garbage dump and everything, and there’s a big bank
about 15, 18 foot high. So we could only buy the property at the foot of that, in other
words, the flat part. So we ended up with this amount, we got actually more land than
we wanted to, but the fact, you know, this would be the way it worked out.
MR. JARRETT-Bill and I are both wrong. Linda is correct. It was 1.38 acres originally,
the parent parcel, and we bought almost two, I guess, and then adjusted the line. We
had it backwards.
MRS. JENKIN-So you always had the same road frontage, but you bought behind?
MR. DATOR-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So the lot line adjustment, Craig, that’s got to occur, is that any big
deal or that’s not any big deal?
MR. BROWN-Well, it’s not a lot line adjustment. This is a subdivision. They purchased
a larger parcel, roughly a two acre parcel, from the McLaughlin property, if you
remember, further to the south, and added it to the parcel that the house is on right now.
So they ended up, the end result was a two and a half acre parcel, or, I’m sorry, a three
and a half acre parcel. Now they want to subdivide that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I just meant to go from the 1.99 that they propose to the two.
You’re going to make a new subdivision map in the end, ultimately.
MR. JARRETT-Correct.
MR. BROWN-You’re going to move that line a couple of inches.
MR. JARRETT-Sure. Van Dusen and Steves has that right now and they’re making that
change.
MR. DRELLOS-So that gets rid of one variance, then.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Now, I drove by and I couldn’t find it. So I don’t really know, I’m not aware
of, topographically, is there a lot of slope or anything to the property or is it flat?
MR. JARRETT-There’s a rock ledge along the front, especially on the new parcel, that
blocks the new parcel, to some degree. The building area is relatively flat, and then as
you get back toward the wetland it starts to drop off and there’s a relief there of maybe 10
or 15 feet in elevation, but it’s back toward the wetland, to the east on that.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else, questions? All right. I’ll open the public hearing.
Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-I do not see any correspondence.
MR. JARRETT-We could introduce.
MR. DATOR-Yes, we went and talked to some of the neighbors, and I’ll submit this. We
have a petition. “We the undersigned property owners within 500 ft. have reviewed the
plan and have no objection to your granting the requested variance.” Wendy DeSilva,
Richie DeSilva, John Matthews. John owns the Castaway Marina across the street,
which is most of the property near us and the property, he bought the McLaughin
property next to us. So we’re surrounded by John. He didn’t have a problem, and also
Karen Hausler and Jerry Hausler. If I could give you this for your records.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys want to discuss this?
MR. URRICO-I just need some clarification. You mentioned 3.88 acres, right? But the
proposal is to subdivide a 3.66. Did you say 3.88 earlier?
MR. JARRETT-I didn’t think I did. If I did, I made a mistake. It’s 3.66.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys want to discuss this? You guys pretty squared away
on it as far as it goes? Just to summarize, then, you started out with a pretty small lot,
you know, you bought more land. You added on to it in anticipation of eventually
subdividing so your kids could build a house on there, and it seems to me pretty
reasonable, what’s been requested here. We’ve done these family subdivisions before,
and I think everybody recognizes that the Planning Board’s judgment would be in line
with ours on this one. On busy roads like 9L, it’s not necessary to put extra driveways in,
you know, even though that’s a requirement by the Town Code, it doesn’t really make
sense on these busy arterial roads like that. As far as the size of the parcel, they’ve
agreed to make the one lot two acres, and the other one will be whatever the marginal
property is left after the subdivision. So I think that the only relief they’re looking for at
this point is going to be for that less than two acre lot there, and I think that’ll be, what,
1.66.
MR. BROWN-Yes, and then the road frontage issue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right, and that lot will also require the road frontage relief
because it doesn’t have its own driveway. Okay. So, does somebody want to do this
one? Brian, do you want to do it?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I’ll do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2009 LINDA DATOR, Introduced by
Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
2583 State Route 9L. Description of the proposed project: This is a note – this
application has received a recommendation from the Planning Board concerning this
Area Variance and I would read that in for the change that you’re making. The applicant
proposes to divide a 3.66 acre parcel in to two parcels of 2 acres and 1.66 acres on
Route 9L near Warner Bay. Lot two is proposing access to a public highway through lot
one. The relief requested is the applicant requests relief from Section 179-4-050
frontage on public or private streets specifically the requirements for one principal
building shall be at least 50 ft. and such frontage shall provide actual physical access to
and from the lots to be built upon. Further, the applicant is requiring relief from the
minimum lot size requirement of 2 acres per Section 179-3-040 of the New Zoning
Ordinance enacted on May 12, 2009 just for lot two. Criteria for considering the Area
variance in making the determination the Board shall consider whether an undesirable
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby
properties will be created for the granting of this Area Variance. Minor impacts on
nearby properties are anticipated. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be
achieved by some other method feasible for applicant to pursue other than an Area
Variance. The applicant has adjusted the property line to increase the size of lot one to
two acres and thus has created at least one compliant parcel. Further access will
provided on a public road, however, sight line issues would arise so therefore we are
going to be letting you put your driveway through, a double driveway through both lots.
Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial, the request for 50 ft. or 100 ft. of
relief from the 50 ft. road frontage requirements for Section 179-4-050 may be
considered severe relative to the Ordinance. Further, concerning lot two, the request for
0.34 acres for a little more than 12.5 percent relief from the lot size requirements per
Section 179-3-040 may also be considered minor relative to the Ordinance. Whether
this variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions to the neighborhood. Minor or moderate impacts on the physical and
environmental conditions may be anticipated as there are APA Wetlands adjoining the
parcel. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, difficulty may be considered self-
created. And, I would like to make a motion that we approved Area Variance No. 30-
2009.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. DATOR-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II ALFRED GREEN AGENT(S): VAN
DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S): ALFRED GREEN ZONING: MDR LOCATION:
498 SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 672 SQ.
FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE
GARAGES ON PARCEL. CROSS REF.: BP 2000-618 SFD; BP 2003-382 ABV.
POOL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO.
308.8-1-11.4 SECTION: 179-5-020D NEW CODE
LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2009, Alfred Green, Meeting Date: July 15, 2009
“Project Location: 498 Sherman Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 672 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief requested from number of
allowable garages on parcel.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from Section 179-5-020 D – only one garage is permitted per
dwelling.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. There appears to be
little recourse other than an area variance for the proposal.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional
garage or 100 percent relief may be considered severe relative to the ordinance.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2000-618: 1008 sq. ft. sfd, approved11/8/2000
BP 2003-382: Pool, approved 10/8/2003
SUB 7-01M Lot line adjustment Approved 5/20/03
Staff comments:
The Town of Queensbury’s GIS data denotes a different lot configuration. Has the lot line
adjustment associated with SUB 7-01M dated 5/20/03 been filed with Warren County
Real Property office? The ZBA may wish, as a condition of approval, have the applicant
submit documentation that substantiates filing of lot line adjustment with the county.
Please see attached map associated with SUB 7-01M and subsequent approving
resolution.
SEQR Status:
Type II – No action necessary
MR. UNDERWOOD-So we have Larry Clute representing you tonight.
MR. BROWN-We might as well get him to sign the authorization form.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. You’ll have to sign the authorization form at some point, but
Craig will bring it over to you. Okay. So this was a family subdivision that was back in
’01, is that when this property got subdivided?
MR. CLUTE-Roughly, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-In anticipation of doing one of these projects back there, but that’s
when the house was built back there, at that point, I assume, some time after that.
MR. CLUTE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and the change, looking at what you’re doing here, is that
you’re just going to add that extra garage way in the back?
MR. CLUTE-Detached garage, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And you’re approximately 500 feet off the road there.
MR. CLUTE-It’s set back quite a ways.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s way, way back.
MR. CLUTE-Yes, absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything you guys want to explain, as far as anything else,
need for the garage and all that?
MRS. JENKIN-Do you have a proposed use for the garage? What are you going to use
it for?
MR. CLUTE-We only have the one car garage at this point, and it’s on a raised ranch. A
good portion of that is taken up by stairs that gets up into it. So it’s really fairly limited as
far as day to day use. Al’s hobbies, I mean, is pretty involved. He’s got his boats, and
obviously he needs a place for his truck as well. So he’d like to have the additional
building selfishly to himself.
MRS. JENKIN-And then upstairs, there will be an upper level?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. CLUTE-There’d be storage space above it. Storage space only.
MRS. JENKIN-Storage space.
MR. DRELLOS-What’s the square footage for the one car garage?
MR. CLUTE-It says on here 16 24.
MR. DRELLOS-That’s for the one car.
MR. CLUTE-That’s attached to the home, yes, three something, under four.
MR. DRELLOS-I guess, Craig, aren’t you allowed 900 square feet for a garage, though?
MR. UNDERWOOD-In totality.
MR. DRELLOS-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Well, the current Code has been changed to allow 1100 square feet.
MR. DRELLOS-So it’s 11.
MR. BROWN-But that’s for a single garage. You don’t get to spread it out over 10
different garages. It’s just one garage.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, obviously the Code is trying to make sure that, like in normal
situations when you’re next door to somebody you don’t end up with, you know, covering
your yard with another massive garage or something like that, where you’re going to
impact the neighbors.
MR. DRELLOS-But in reality, with the two garages together, they’re still under the 1100
square feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. DRELLOS-I’m just making a point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I need to understand, again, why we’re building another garage.
MR. CLUTE-The small garage, the garage that they have is very fairly limited with space.
It’s a one car garage, and Al, with the numerous hobbies that he has, rather than
inconvenience Donna, who namely is the user of the one car garage, he ends up with his
own garage, to handle his hobbies as well as his own personal vehicle.
MR. URRICO-But we’re asking for 100% relief, having a second garage in a
neighborhood that could be affected by it.
MR. CLUTE-I understand, yes.
MR. URRICO-So the compelling reason for another garage is to have more space. We
have some, is there any possibility of expanding the current garage?
MR. CLUTE-It was considered, but to be honest with you, it would be kind of an eyesore.
The garage would override the building itself, the house, as far as the facing of the
house. So now it’s normal looking residence with an attached garage. If he were to add
what we’re describing as far as the square footage of this new garage to it, the garage
actually would be slightly overpowering. I think aesthetically and usability he’s better off
with a detached garage. With his hobbies, he’d prefer to get his activities away from the
house, to be honest with you.
MR. URRICO-Are there any commercial activities?
MR. CLEMENTS-Don’t you have like a carport next to the garage that you have your
boat under also? Is that right?
ALFRED GREEN
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. GREEN-Yes, I want to take that off, though.
MRS. JENKIN-You’re going to take it off?
MR. GREEN-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-Where the four pins were, that’s where the garage is going?
MR. CLUTE-Correct.
MR. DRELLOS-I mean, there’s almost to the poles lines.
MR. CLUTE-Yes, exactly. This lot is extremely deep. I mean, as far as the effect on the
neighborhood, the neighborhood doesn’t even know he’s back there.
MR. DRELLOS-Well, I couldn’t see any houses from there at all.
MR. CLUTE-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-Has the land all been deeded over, then, that’s all set?
MR. CLUTE-Yes. I finally got that corrected. I actually deeded over, I did Burnt Hills
subdivision, which happens to abut Al’s property, and the depth of three lots was rather,
you know, far, so it was easily able to cut off the back side and pass it off to Donna and
Al, and I just got that corrected, last week. So I can bring in, I heard the comments, I can
bring in a copy of that filed boundary line adjustment, so to speak.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there’s no more questions from Board members, I’ll open
up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak, come on forward,
please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARK MURPHY
MR. MURPHY-My name is Mark Murphy. I live at 38 Burnt Hills Drive. That’s kind of
kitty corner to where this gentleman wants to put his garage. I’m here also on behalf of a
neighbor of mine who’s teaching lacrosse right now. He gets out at eight. He’s going to
try and make it up, obviously, he probably won’t be here in time. My question is, 672
square foot garage, my house is approximately 1400 square foot, that’s about half the
size of my house. That’s big. It’s right up against the pole lines, whatever. I don’t really
care about that. That’s fine, but my question is, why this location? Is there a future for
expansion with this, and the noise level. He has hobbies. Is he going to be up, four, five,
six o’clock in the morning banging on metal, whatever? It’s a nice, quiet neighborhood.
Usually we have a bunch of kids, they’re always up probably about seven, eight o’clock
in the morning running up and down the streets and stuff. It’s great. Like I said, we’re on
the back side of Sherman Avenue, on the back of where he wants to propose his garage.
I’d like to know how large, like how high he’s going to go with this. Is it going to take out
some trees, what kind of roof he’s going to use, if it’s going to be metal, with the direction
of the sun, he’s on my north side. It’s going to reflect back into my property. These are
things that I would like to know, especially, like I said, I mean, 672 square feet, I would
love to have one that big, too, but.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to show us which one he’s on, Craig?
MR. MURPHY-Thirty-eight Burnt Hills Drive.
MRS. JENKIN-Where is your property?
MR. MURPHY-Thirty-eight Burnt Hills Drive.
MR. BROWN-So you’re going to be on the other side of the pole line some place.
MR. MURPHY-Yes.
MR. BROWN-In the back here. Right there, right where you’re, yes.
MR. DRELLOS-Now where is he?
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s across the other side of that pole line.
MR. DRELLOS-Okay.
MR. MURPHY-Like I also said, I’m here on behalf of my neighbor which is directly, if you
go straight down from there, that’s where he lives, and he had some questions, also,
which basically I had the same questions and I just want to see where this goes and
what’s going on here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So do you want to look and see what it looks like?
MR. MURPHY-Yes, I have one right here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the gambrel roof on it, like a barn roof, like a traditional barn
roof. I don’t know what you guys, what are you guys putting on there for shingles? Just
shingles?
MR. CLUTE-It’ll match the home.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you want to add?
MR. MURPHY-No, that’s all the questions I have. This is the first time I ever had to
come to one of these things.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MURPHY-Thanks.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to come back up and address the
concerns of the neighbor there, please.
MR. CLUTE-What do you have, I’m sorry.
MR. UNDERWOOD-His concerns were primarily like, it looks to me like the roof is not
going to be looking back towards you. You’ll be looking at the back of the garage?
MR. CLUTE-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think from the power line on that side. So the roof is going to be
shingled. It won’t be metal roof that reflects or anything like that? It wouldn’t have any
effect on him in that case.
MR. CLUTE-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-He was concerned about hobbies, etc., noise early in the morning,
stuff like that. I mean, I don’t know what your intent.
MR. CLUTE-It’s not going to be any different than what is happening now. I mean, the
garage doesn’t stop his hobbies. It’s just going to help him.
MRS. JENKIN-What are the hobbies?
MR. GREEN-I’ve got fast boats, motorcycles.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So you do work on the motorcycles. There is noise from the
motorcycles, engines and things?
MR. GREEN-Yes. There is now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But they’d probably be inside the garage if you’re working on them.
So maybe that would alleviate some of that. I don’t know. I mean, what’s your take on
it?
MR. GREEN-I work on my truck.
MR. KUHL-How many motorcycles?
MR. GREEN-One.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MRS. JENKIN-How about the trees? There was a question about will you be taking
down a lot of trees?
MR. CLUTE-There’s no trees necessary to be brought down. The clearing already
exists.
MRS. JENKIN-It looks pretty clear back there.
MR. CLUTE-The clearing already exists.
MRS. JENKIN-So you can see straight through, can you? Can you see the houses
behind you, through the Niagara Mohawk right of way? Can you see the house on the
other side?
MR. GREEN-Very little, right now with the leaves and everything, very little.
MRS. JENKIN-So there was a concern that they would be able to, the garage would,
they’d be able to see the garage.
MR. CLUTE-They’re probably going to see, just like he’s seeing, the backs of their
houses, they’re probably going to be able to see the back of his. It’s going to be a white
garage.
MRS. JENKIN-It’s white.
MR. CLUTE-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MRS. HUNT-Would you consider planting behind the garage, as a screen?
MR. CLUTE-There already is trees, to be honest with you. The area that the garage is
setting on, it’s fairly treed already. On either side of the pole lines is fairly undisturbed,
not only on Al’s side, but on the neighbor’s side. As you can see there’s trees following
the pole lines. So there is a buffer in place, but obviously still you’re going to see the
shadowing. You’re going to see a white building.
MR. KUHL-We’re not opening ourselves up to approving this and then you close in the
other garage and add rooms?
MR. GREEN-No (lost words).
MR. URRICO-What about Staff’s concerns about the lot line, whether it’s been filed
correctly?
MR. CLUTE-I’m going to bring that in. It has been filed. That was my mistake. It should
have been done right in 2003 and it wasn’t discovered until Al came in and submitted for
this. We just assumed that it was all done, the lot line, and so I corrected it myself last
week, and so I’ll bring in the documentation to Craig’s office.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there’s no more questions, then I guess I’ll close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And poll the Board members, and I guess I’ll start with you, Roy.
MR. URRICO-Well, I’m afraid to go that I can’t go along with this. I’m reluctant to take a
brand new Code which they spent a lot of time going over, considering changes to, and
in fact expanded the allowable footage by 200 square feet, only to turn around, less than
a month later, and say we’re going to allow a second garage. The requirements, I think
when we look at the criteria, one of the ways to mitigate something like this is not to have
a second garage, and that’s a very real requirement, and I realize it’s a small garage that
you have there, but you may have opportunities to expand it somewhat. I don’t get the
feeling that you’ve really considered that because you want the second garage. I don’t
think the intention of the Code is to take 1100 feet and divide it among several buildings.
So I would be against it.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think the size of the garage is considerable. I’d like to see it a little
bit smaller only because, because of the size of the house. You were saying that, I
agree that it would not, to add another two car garage to the existing one car garage
would not be aesthetically appealing, as you said, but also a garage that size, when you
have the size of the house, it’s not proportionally correct with the house, either.
MR. CLUTE-This isn’t a large garage. This actually happens to be a stock garage. Most
garages, average garages are 24 by 24. This is a 24 by 28. This is not a custom
designed garage in any way. It’s a standard Curtis package. So in other words I guess
common size, if that makes sense. I’ve got a massive garage. I, personally, have a 28
by 40 garage. So I have a large garage. This is fairly typical. I do a lot of these.
Twenty-four by twenty-four is usually your standard. This happens to be a 24 by 28.
MRS. JENKIN-Right, but I’m saying, proportionally to the house, it will be a large building
in comparison to the house.
MR. CLUTE-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-And it’s going to be higher, too, especially because you do have the full
height for the garage as well because you have the extra room above there.
MR. CLUTE-They actually should be about the same height. The house is a raised
ranch. So you’re a story and a half, whereas this is actually a story and a half garage
because you end up with a half for your storage up above, and the way this garage sets,
it’s going to be on the lower side of the garage, so it’s actually going to drop down. So
it’ll actually set aesthetically pretty well. Al put some time into the location of this.
They’ve obviously got to live with it, so, I mean, he put some time into it, so it’ll actually
set pretty well.
MRS. JENKIN-And the other, because of the concern of the neighbor, why did you
decide that the garage had to be white, because that will stand out more than if you did
the color of the garage to be more in keeping with the trees around it, maybe a brown
gray or something like that, so it wouldn’t show up as much.
MR. CLUTE-Just matching his existing house. You’re going to do the matching shingles,
matching siding, which, there’s no doubt that the neighbors are actually looking right at
his house, too. It’s only 20 feet away. So they’re looking right at the side of the white
house as well, without the garage being there.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, you have a fence.
MR. CLUTE-Yes, the fence is around the back yard.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. CLUTE-But the house still has some substance to it.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, I would like to see a smaller building there, but I would be willing to
approve the motion with the smaller garage. The 24 by 24 I think would make a
difference.
MR. CLUTE-Just so you, the 28 with the truck, a truck in itself is minimal 20 foot, and
then if you want to work on anything and have your truck on in there, hence the depth,
that’s where your depth is coming from. I mean, my own truck is 20, and I think Al’s is a
little longer than mine, but your average pick up truck is 20 foot long, and if you want
work space beyond your truck, hence the depth.
MRS. JENKIN-Where do you park your truck now?
MR. GREEN-Outside.
MRS. JENKIN-And you work on it outside?
MR. GREEN-If I have to.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, and that’s another positive, because then you’d be working on it
inside.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. CLUTE-It’s quieter. Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I think the size of the lot supports what he wants to do. I mean, if you
want to take that garage and move it against the house, you’d be in bounds, the square
footage of both of those. I’m not going to tell you that to make it any smaller you’re
making is the way you’re making it, and because of the way your lot is situated in back,
and even against the pole line, I would not, I would be in favor of it. I would not be
against it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think even though it’s severe relative to the Ordinance, that it’s not
an oversized garage. Twenty-four by twenty-eight is not anywhere near 1100 square
feet, and I think the fact, the way the land is situated with the NiMo, Niagara Mohawk
property line there, I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I think I’m going to have to agree with Roy on this one. Although it is
set back and you have an acre of land, I think that probably you could add on to the
house for another stall for a garage. I notice you have a shed on here, on your property,
too, and just because the square footage is available now, you know, to put it in more
than one garage, I think there are some other ways that it could be done. So, as of right
now, I would be opposed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-George?
MR. DRELLOS-Yes. I’m going to agree with Roy and Brian. I think you can put an
addition on your house. I really do. I think 100% relief is quite substantial, and with the
neighbors in the back seeing this, you could maybe move it forward quite a bit, but if you
were going to do that, I’d say add it to the house. So I would be opposed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. For myself, I don’t really have a problem with it. I think
you’re set 500 feet off the road there. People that are going to be affected in the back
there, you’ve got the extra buffer with the power line there, too. The only suggestion I
would make would be, I don’t know if the Board members would be willing to change
their minds if you move that thing further away from the power line, move it in like 30 feet
closer or 50 feet more, closer to the house. I mean, it’s not going to put you right next to
the house, but it gives you more of a back yard back there. I don’t know if that’s
something you want to consider doing, or if that’s going to be enough to make them
change their minds. The total square footage of both garages combined, you know, is
within what’s there and I think that, you know, when we’re looking at creating extra
garages, it’s when they do have an impact on a near neighbor that’s right next door,
nobody next door has complained. There’s really nobody next door that’s going to be
affected by this project, and I think the concerns of the neighbor on the other side of the
power line are, you know, I guess if you’re working on vehicles 24/7, but I don’t think
you’re doing that. I would assume you’re going to do it occasionally, but having a garage
to work on a vehicle certainly is going to limit the amount of noise and sound from doing
it out in the open as you’re doing it now. So, what did we come out with for a vote, four
to three?
MR. BROWN-I’ve got three and a half to three and a half.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Three and a half to three and a half. What do you guys, do you
guys want to come up with anything different or do you want to?
MR. CLUTE-I mean, he prefers this location, but if pulling it forward is a benefit in this
decision, if we could come to say, you can see the fence line. You have the copy of the
survey.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Where the corner is there?
MR. CLUTE-Yes. If you could bring it to that, which I can’t really tell how much that is,
maybe 20 feet.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Twenty feet forward.
MR. CLUTE-Then that would give you a 50 foot rear yard setback. So now we’re that
much further off the pole line.
MRS. JENKIN-That probably would only be 15 foot forward.
MR. CLUTE-That’s what he was just, he just said that, he goes he thinks it’s 15 feet. So
we’ve pulled to that corner. That would put you at 47 foot to the rear property line.
MRS. JENKIN-Could you adjust the fence? Could you bring the fence in a little bit?
Bring it even farther forward?
MR. GREEN-Well, I wanted to arch it around to the corner, when I was done with the
garage.
MR. CLUTE-He’s pulling up the lean-to and then he’s going to adjust the fencing and
come off the corner of the garage. Would you like more of a rear yard buffer, is that what
you’re saying?
MRS. JENKIN-Right. Well, I think that’s what we’re asking for.
MR. CLUTE-So if he came 15, is at 47, what would you like to see? More than the 47
or?
MRS. JENKIN-Well, I think, people were saying 20 or 25 feet forward. That would give
you.
MR. CLUTE-So would 52 be good, then, 20 feet more forward?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Twenty feet forward?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody else, what do you guys think?
MRS. JENKIN-And then you’re going to attach the fence to the edge of the garage.
MR. CLUTE-To the building.
MR. DRELLOS-I’d feel more comfortable. That was my first intention is to move it
forward.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, it makes sense to move it more forward. I don’t think
that’s anything difficult for you guys, either.
MR. CLUTE-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, it’s less to drive in, less driveway to plow. So, that’s good.
Brian, any change on you with that?
MR. CLEMENTS-No, I’m kind of against the, I’m with Roy, I think.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. So, Joan, are you going to stay or are you going to
change?
MRS. JENKIN-I would approve it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So what have we got now? Okay, and I will go along with it
as proposed, if you move it 20 feet further out towards the house. So I guess I need
somebody to make a motion.
MRS. JENKIN-I could do that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2009, ALFRED GREEN, Introduced
by Joan Jenkin, who moved for its adoption, Seconded by Joyce Hunt:
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
498 Sherman Avenue. Description of the proposed project: The applicant proposes
construction of a 672 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief requested from number of
allowable garages on the parcel. The relief required: The applicant requests relief from
Section 179-5-020 D – only one garage is permitted per dwelling. Criteria for considering
an Area Variance in making a determination the Board shall consider whether an
undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment
to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this Area Variance. There will be
minor changes as the garage will so far away from Sherman Avenue but there is a
change from the properties that are bordering Niagara Mohawk right of way, so because
of that, the applicant has proposed to move the garage 20 ft. farther away from the edge
of the lot line which would then make the distance form the Niagara Mohawk right of way
would be 52 feet and that would have less of an impact to the neighbors behind.
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible
for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance, there is no recourse if he wants
a second garage, adding considerably to the house itself would not be aesthetically
pleasing and would not be proportionately correct. So, the second garage does make
sense. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial, be it for a request for an
additional garage or 100 percent relief is considered severe relative to the Ordinance as
you are not supposed to have two garages. Whether the proposed variance will have an
adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
district; there will be minor impacts and there will be less impact because they are
moving it father away from the area where the neighbors are able to see the garage.
The other that is not an adverse effect, the total square footage does not exceed the
1,100 sq. ft. allowed for one garage, so that is another plus. Whether the alleged
difficulty is self-created, the difficulty is considered self-created. So I move to approved
Area Variance No. 33-2009. Stipulations: to removed the carport on the side of the
garage.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. BROWN-Was there another stipulation to remove the carport that’s on the side of
the existing garage now?
MRS. JENKIN-Exactly, yes. The stipulation was also to remove the carport on the side
of the garage.
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II PAUL KRUGER OWNER(S): PAUL
KRUGER ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 56 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 3,352 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP
2006-856 SFD; BP 2008-051 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 8, 2009
LOT SIZE: 0.89 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-89 SECTION: 179-3-040 NEW
CODE
PAUL KRUGER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2009, Paul Kruger, Meeting Date: July 15, 2009
“Project Location: 56 Meadowbrook Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to construct a 2,156 sq. ft. single family residence with a 440 square foot
attached garage.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 8.9 feet of relief from the 25 foot setback requirement for the north
side property line.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
reduce the width of the house in order to be compliant or more compliant.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 8.9 feet or 36%
relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement per 179-3-040(3) in the Moderate
Density Residential district appears to be moderate relative to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. This request may not be self created
as lot limitations may be a contributing factor in the request for this variance.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2006-856: 2201 sq. ft. sfd w/1734 sq. ft. garage, withdrawn by applicant
BP 2008-051: 1680 sq. ft. sfd w/ 576 sq. ft. garage, withdrawn by applicant
Staff comments:
The applicant has positioned the house in order to avoid multiple side setback variances.
The house, at it’s widest is 32 feet. The width of the lot at the location of the proposed
house is approximately 74 feet, which leaves 21 feet on each side by which to center the
house on the property. With the resulting 25 foot setback requirement, it appears the
applicant has located the house in a logical location in order to avoid an additional
variance request.
SEQR Status:
Type II – No action necessary”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 8, 2009 Project
Name: Kruger, Paul Owner: Paul Kruger ID Number: QBY-09-AV-34 County
Project#: Jul09-17 Current Zoning: MDR Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 3,352 sq. ft. single family residence.
Relief requested from side setback requirements. Site Location: 56 Meadowbrook Road
Tax Map Number(s): 303.5-1-89 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes
the construction of a 3,352 sq. ft. single family residence including the first floor and
basement area. Relief requested from side setback where 25 ft. is required and 16.1 ft.
is proposed. The information submitted indicates the lot complied with previous zoning
requirements but the construction of a single family home triggers an area variance
under the current code requirements. The plans show the location of the home and
elevation drawings. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information
submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law
Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Warren County Planning Board 6/10/09.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Kruger.
MR. KRUGER-Good evening, everyone.
MR. UNDERWOOD-These lots were pre-existing. You just purchased the lot, in
essence, here?
MR. KRUGER-Correct.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, it looks like, from the aerial photo, that you’re at
almost the exact same width as that one that has a house on it next door between you
and the nursery there, right?
MR. KRUGER-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So the only one that’s got two houses on it is the one that’s to the
south of you, there. Craig, when did that subdivision occur, a long time ago?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I would guess.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It pre-dates anything I remember.
MR. KRUGER-Under the old zoning requirements, there was a 15 foot side setback and
25 foot side setback, 40 total. So this would actually have complied with the old zoning
law. We were currently under contract and the zoning was changed. So that’s why
we’re here.
MR. KUHL-The physical location of the house, you know, 225, you picked it in the middle
of the lot. Is that what you did? You’ve got 200 in the back, 200 in the front.
MR. KRUGER-We wanted to set it back a little bit for privacy. Well, the lot’s 525 feet
deep, nine-tenths of an acre.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You wonder who thought up that subdivision, making them that
way. They’re like bowling alleys.
MR. KRUGER-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys?
MRS. JENKIN-Well, because you were aware of the new zoning code and the
requirements of the zoning code, had you considered, perhaps, building a compliant
home?
MR. KRUGER-A compliant home would be about 25 feet wide, and that’s basically a
double wide, which isn’t as nice as a custom home type that we want.
MRS. JENKIN-What if you put a second story on it?
MR. KRUGER-The woman is older. So a second story wouldn’t be feasible. The
footprint of the house is only 676 square feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a pretty modest house.
MRS. JENKIN-The problem is, is the Board is supposed to grant the least relief possible,
and with the new zoning code we now have the opportunity to, especially with new
construction, of people being able to plan and design things that are compliant. If it was
an existing nonconforming house already and you were adding to it, that’s a different
matter because it was there before, but this, there’s nothing here. So, you’re starting
from scratch, and it seems like a good opportunity to actually go by the Code and honor
the Code now that we’ve changed it.
MR. KRUGER-I understand that, and being in the construction trades, I can’t remember
the last time I’ve seen a 25 foot wide home.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, the lot is narrow. The lot is very narrow.
MR. CLEMENTS-You have a 25.5 setback from the, I guess it would be the southeastern
boundary line. What’s the one on the, I’m sorry, the southwestern boundary. The
northeastern boundary, what’s the setback from that other line. Is it 16.1?
MR. KRUGER-No, the proposed side setbacks are 20 feet and 21 feet.
MR. BROWN-Sixteen point one on one side and twenty-five point five on the other side.
MR. KUHL-There was another plan that had 21 and something?
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. KRUGER-The original was centered, a 32 foot house centered on a 71 foot wide,
yes.
MR. KUHL-So you needed setbacks, you needed variances on both sides. This turns
out the way to where you just need it on one side, and it makes sense because that’s on
the side of a lot where there’s no house. The first print I saw, my question to you would
have been, why don’t you just do 25 foot on one side and only need one variance, and
that’s what this print’s showing, and it’s favorable to the side where there’s no house,
which is good.
MRS. JENKIN-But there could be a house in the future.
MR. KUHL-Can there? That’s one lot, isn’t it?
MR. KRUGER-No, there already is a structure on that lot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s got the little one out by the road.
MR. DRELLOS-It’s already got one on it.
MRS. JENKIN-I see. Right, so there’s nothing way back here.
MR. KRUGER-Which is, and that house is set the long way, so the width is the width of
the narrow lot. They have even less setbacks.
MRS. JENKIN-And that’s the problem along there, a lot of the homes are old.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, the other thing is, if you’re looking at the aerial photograph, is
to look at the ones up on Ridge there, and see how close those are together up there, in
comparison. It’s a pretty big lot.
MRS. JENKIN-But when they were built, they were built before.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. I mean, that’s more like built in the sense of like city density
up on that.
MRS. JENKIN-I think that’s what the Town is trying to change now.
MR. DRELLOS-This looks like it’s the last lot, now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It is.
MR. DRELLOS-There’s nothing else there, that I can see.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you can see the nursery.
MR. KRUGER-Yes, the homes abutting it on the other side, on Ridge Road, are all built
out.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-So I can’t see what’s in the back. Is there a house in the back of it?
MR. CLEMENTS-Up on the other side of Ridge Road there is.
MR. KRUGER-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-There is. Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Probably like six, seven hundred feet at least. All right. Why don’t
we open up the public hearing and see if anybody from the public here wishes to speak
on the matter. Why don’t you come forward, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN GUERRIE
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. GUERRIE-I’m John Guerrie. I’m the property owner across from Mr. Kruger’s. My
concern is just to see how far the setback is from Meadowbrook Road. Is it proposed
220 feet?
MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s currently proposed at 225 feet back.
MR. GUERRIE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So pretty far.
MR. GUERRIE-And then the 25 and a half feet?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Two twenty-five, yes. I don’t think you’d be able to see it because
he’s sweeping back at that other angle there, too.
MR. GUERRIE-All right. Now, can, in the future, he add another house to that property?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No.
MR. GUERRIE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Not by the Code at the present time, no.
MR. GUERRIE-Most of the neighbors were concerned about being too close to
Meadowbrook Road, the house was too close, but farther back it’s more of a, just the
neighborhood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Give you more privacy.
MR. GUERRIE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Any correspondence, Roy?
MR. URRICO-No correspondence.
MR. BROWN-I guess we probably want to clarify the whole setback issue. There is a
sketch in here some place that says 21 on one side and 22 on the other, but the survey
that was submitted shows 25 and 16. So, whichever it is it doesn’t matter, just so we
know for the end result.
MR. DRELLOS-You need two variances on it.
MR. KRUGER-Yes, it was changed. The survey is correct.
MR. BROWN-It’s just the one side you need it from.
MR. KRUGER-Yes. We just need a variance for one side.
MRS. JENKIN-You changed it to 25.
MR. KRUGER-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So all we’re asking for is 8.9 feet from the 25 on the side
towards the.
MR. BROWN-North side.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the north side.
MR. KRUGER-And again, this is as per the prospective home buyer’s request.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And poll you guys. I’ll start with you, George. Do you want to go
first?
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. DRELLOS-Yes. Being the lot size and the narrowness of it, it’s the most logical spot
for the house. I think they put it in the right spot, and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I have to agree with George. As a matter of fact, I’m going to date
myself here. I’m one of the people that helped build the house that’s to the north of that.
It was quite a while ago. So these lots have been here for a long time. I looked at where
you have that house set, and as you look at it from this aerial map, you’ve kind of got it
set in between two houses. You’ve got it set back from the road. You’ve got it pushed
over towards the other lot that has their backyard and more, you know, trees and
coverage there. So I really think you’ve done a good job of positioning it so that it
doesn’t make it look like everything is in close there. So I’d be in favor of this, also.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. I think it’s a moderate request, and you did move the
house so that you only need one variance. Had you put your plans in sooner, you
wouldn’t need any variance. So I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think when balancing this against, the benefit to the applicant
against the community’s detriment, I think this is a very reasonable request. I don’t see a
change in the character of the neighborhood, especially since they’re setting it back so
far. The benefit sought is certainly hindered by the width of the lot. So I think they really
have chosen the right size for it, and I think anything smaller would be detrimental to the
person using it, I think, and then I don’t see any adverse environmental effects, and I
think even Staff Notes indicates that this was not self-created. It was something that the
lot created itself. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree. I agree with everything said. I think your positioning of the
house is at the right point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-I think that I am still sticking to my original opinion that I think the house
could be designed that it was a little narrower. It may not be completely compliant, but it
could have been adjusted to the new Code. I think we have to follow the new Code as
much as we can, and so I would be against it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll support the application as you’ve proposed it here. I think all the
relief that’s required and it’s not that much in grand totality, it’s pre-determined by the
size of the lot. You’ve got a lot of green space down in that area, it’s pretty wet back in
there, too, so it doesn’t look like anything’s ever going to get built in the back 40 of all
those places there. It’s pretty much going to be green forever, and so I’d support what
you’re doing there. I think the house is modest. It’s a reasonable width for a house. I
don’t think anything smaller would be usable. It’s more like a bowling alley trailer park
type house. So does somebody want to do this one?
MR. DRELLOS-I’ll do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2009, PAUL KRUGER, Introduced
by George Drellos, who moved for its adoption, Seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
56 Meadowbrook Road. Applicant proposes to construct a 2,156 sq. ft. single family
residence with a 440 square foot attached garage. Applicant requests 8.9 feet of relief
from the 25 foot setback requirement for the north side property line. Criteria for
considering an Area Variance. In making a determination, the Board shall consider:
Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.
Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated. The house is setback 225 ft. back.,
so I don’t see that there is a problem there. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant
can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an
area variance. We cannot see that, the house would be too narrow to put on this lot and
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
wouldn’t make sense. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request
for 8.9 feet or 36% relief is moderate but considering again, the size of the lot it makes
sense again that this variance is needed. Whether the proposed variance will have an
adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
may be anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. We believe that this
is not self created as the limitations of this lot are very narrow and it is a factor in
requesting this area variance.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood,
NOES: Mrs. Jenkin
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. KRUGER-Thanks.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II THP CUSTOM BUILDERS
OWNER(S): ROBERT BROWN ZONING: NR LOCATION: 40 HOLDEN AVENUE
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING
GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD AND REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2009-059; BP 96-352 SFD; AV 79-1996
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.7-2-
40 SECTION: 179-3-040A NEW CODE
TRACEY PAUL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2009, THP Custom Builders, Meeting Date: July
15, 2009 “Project Location: 40 Holden Avenue Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. freestanding garage. Relief requested
from front yard and rear yard setback requirements
.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 17.61 feet of relief from the required 20 foot front setback requirement
and 3.32 feet of relief from the required 15 foot rear setback requirement for the
Neighborhood Residential zone per §179-3-040
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor to moderate impacts to nearby properties are anticipated as
the lot directly to the north will be most affected by the encroachment into the
setbacks and the resulting vehicular sightline issue. However, this issue may be
mitigated as Holden Avenue is a dead-end street with little anticipated traffic.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
move the garage to the south 3.32 feet in order to avoid a rear setback request
and/or attach the garage to the existing home in order to become more compliant in
regards to the front setback relief request.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 17.6 feet or 88
percent relief from the 20 foot front setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be
considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 3.32 feet or 22 percent
relief from the 15 foot rear setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered
minor to moderate relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated as a
result of this proposal.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The limitations of the lot due to the
location of the leachfield on the western portion of the property may be contributing
factors in the applicants need for these area variances.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2009-059: 576 sq. ft. garage, pending variance outcome
BP 96-352: SFD, approved 9/19/96
Staff comments:
The location of the proposed garage appears adequate given the limitations of the lot
and the location of the existing asphalt drive. Has the applicant considered an attached
garage in order to avoid a rear variance request?
According to the Building and Codes Department, the required 6 foot separation between
the proposed detached garage and home has not been met. With this in mind, the
applicant may wish to inquire as to the fire code requirements of this configuration. This
issue can be dealt with during the permitting process.
Are gutters associated with this project? Where is the stormwater directed during rain
events? Please clarify.
SEQR Status:
Type II – No action necessary”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So tell us about your project. Anything more you want to
add?
MS. PAUL-Really, it’s really kind of plain and simple. Because the house is on the
corner and where the septic and leach fields are, in the driveway, there’s really no other
place to put a proposed garage in. It’s a split level home, you know, single family, with
no existing garage there at all whatsoever.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I assume you don’t want to attach it because you’ve got bedrooms
on that end or?
ROBERT BROWN
MR. BROWN-The electrical’s over there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Where the service comes in.
MS. PAUL-Yes. There’s an electrical box right there, and, you know, the homeowner’s
already incurred having to move a gas line. National Grid moved a gas line. We’ve been
working on this project for about a year, you know, incurred costs of a survey, but mostly,
you know, because those are existing wires right there on the side of the house.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, so their only requirement would be, I think they’ve got to
double sheet rock, or it’s got to be five eighth’s sheet rock.
MS. PAUL-It’s fire rock.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, fire rock.
MR. BROWN-Whatever the building code requirements are. Did we identify everybody
for the record?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Do you guys want to just identify yourselves for the record.
MS. PAUL-My name is Tracey Paul, owner and sole member of THP Custom Builders.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. R. BROWN-I’m Robert Brown.
MR. BROWN-Just so we know who’s here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Anybody have any questions?
MR. DRELLOS-Will the garage be moved even with the house, or are we just, you’ve got
it back just for looks?
MS. PAUL-There’s an existing driveway right there. You’d have to be able to swing into
the.
MR. DRELLOS-Well, I know, but some things might have to be moved.
MR. R. BROWN-Well, I do have to remove part of it, but I’ve got water line on the other
side. I don’t want to cover that up, the shut off.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So it looks like all your service originally came in from the Holden
Ave. side?
MR. R. BROWN-Yes, and actually it’s facing Nathan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, that’s the front of the house.
MRS. JENKIN-Now the roof line is going to be any kind of snow or any kind of rainwater
or anything will be directed down into the spaces between the house and the garage.
Right?
MR. R. BROWN-There’d be gutters. I’ve got gutters on the house, and I’ll be putting
them on that because the electrical’s right there.
MRS. JENKIN-With the rains, I was just saying that with the rains we’ve had this
summer, we have gutters, too, and the rain comes down and comes down the roof and it
just goes right over the gutter, and what about snow, how are you going to deal with the
snow?
MS. PAUL-I’ve got to see how the roofline is. Just snow removal, you know, there might
be a path, you know, right there, just like, you know.
MRS. JENKIN-It’s four feet. That’s not.
MR. DRELLOS-Craig, does the Town say anything when it’s this close to the road?
MR. BROWN-No, I mean, if it’s outside the Highway Department shouldn’t have any
issue with it. If they have an issue with anything, it’s probably going to be the fence
that’s out there, but I’m guessing they don’t if it’s been there for a while, they don’t have
any problem with the snow banks or anything like that, yes. So, no.
MR. KUHL-And what’s the reason you don’t want to move it forward three feet, three and
a half feet?
MS. PAUL-Well, he’s got a water shutoff.
MR. R. BROWN-And I’ve got a water shutoff right on the other side of the driveway. I
don’t want to cover that up.
MR. UNDERWOOD-He’d have to dig up his water line and re-root that. His water comes
in from Holden Avenue this way. So if he comes forward he’s going to get into the water
line.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-If you were to attach the garage to the house, what would be entailed in
moving the electrical?
MR. R. BROWN-Probably around $3,000.
MS. PAUL-Yes. Cost.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MR. R. BROWN-You’ve got to move it all, probably to the other side, because they’ve
got to be able to read it.
MR. CLEMENTS-Does the electrical and the water come in the same place off of Holden
Avenue to the southeast corner?
MR. UNDERWOOD-To the corner there, yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-Is that where it comes in?
MR. R. BROWN-Right over here.
MR. CLEMENTS-That’s why you’ve got it set back away from Nathan Street, right?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. KUHL-I don’t know, when I looked at it, I said why aren’t you putting it on the blank
wall of the house, and that’s just what it is.
MR. R. BROWN-It’s your electrical.
MRS. JENKIN-Where is the electrical located, right in the middle of the house, or where
would it be?
MR. R. BROWN-Right there. On the front.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So if you move it out too far, plus his water line also comes in this
way. So if you move it out, you’d have to move the pipe.
MR. KUHL-It just seems like you’re establishing four foot of useless space between the
garage and the house.
MRS. JENKIN-So have you considered moving the garage, having the garage attached,
but you would have to turn the garage so that the roof line came down, and then you
would have to have your entrance on Holden, rather than the garage doors on Nathan
Street.
MR. R. BROWN-I’d still have to move the electrical.
MRS. JENKIN-No, if you moved it back just so it was just past, just around the eave of
the house. Is that possible to do?
MR. R. BROWN-It’s still freestanding, right?
MR. KUHL-No, she means attach it to the house.
MRS. JENKIN-Attaching it.
MR. KUHL-Starting after the electrical, where your electrical comes down, start the
garage back from there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you’d have to re-do the electrical on to the garage, and then
run the conduit across and into the house.
MR. KUHL-No, if it stayed right where it is, just move it this way.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I’m thinking the same thing, just move it back right against the
house from where it is. Is that what you’re saying, Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But then your roofline, you’d have to change the roofline so it would
dump right in front of your garage door, you know. I did that, foolishly, at my house.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. I’m also looking at him coming in from Holden Avenue.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MRS. JENKIN-Right. If you came in from Holden Avenue. You’d have to because the
way the roofline is for the house. You’d have to change the roofline on the garage as
well and turn it around.
MR. KUHL-But your contention is to attach it to the house it’s going to cost you more
money?
MR. R. BROWN-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-It’s just, that could be such a problem area in there, that four feet. I
assume that there’s a fairly good boulevard on Holden Avenue so that the two feet is to
your lot line, but then is there another three feet or something to the asphalt part of the
road or not?
MR. BROWN-It looks like about 20 feet.
MR. DRELLOS-Twenty feet more to the asphalt.
MRS. JENKIN-Twenty feet.
MR. DRELLOS-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So that wouldn’t be a problem.
MS. PAUL-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-Having it two feet from your.
MR. DRELLOS-It’s like 25 feet in from center, is that what they are?
MR. BROWN-It looks actually much wider in this area.
MR. DRELLOS-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Or at least the road may be offset in the right of way.
MR. DRELLOS-The fence is actually in the Town property line.
MR. BROWN-Yes. From the edge of the pavement to the property line scales about 20
feet. So if you were to the site and you saw the fence along Holden, from the fence back
to the garage, the proposed location of the garage is about 15 feet, with the fence about
seven or eight feet off of pavement, at least from the survey.
MRS. JENKIN-Where would you put the fence?
MR. DRELLOS-It’s already there.
MR. BROWN-Well, there’s a fence already there. This is showing a fence there along
Holden.
MRS. JENKIN-This is a fence here.
MR. DRELLOS-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-It’s not even part of your property, but it’s a fence.
MR. R. BROWN-Yes, well, it’s coming down anyway. It’s part of the fence.
MRS. JENKIN-It is, it’s coming down.
MR. BROWN-Is that where the driveway would be coming in?
MR. R. BROWN-If I had to.
MR. BROWN-No, I’m sorry, it’s facing Nathan. I’m sorry.
MS. PAUL-Right.
MR. DRELLOS-Because he’s probably going to use the driveway that’s already there.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
MS. PAUL-Correct.
MRS. JENKIN-Even if you turned the garage and kept it freestanding, if you turned it and
had the roof the other way, then you wouldn’t have the runoff going right beside the
house.
MR. R. BROWN-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Because that could be, really it could be a wet area, in a summer like this,
it would be awful in there.
MR. R. BROWN-What if I was to build like in between the garage and the.
MRS. JENKIN-Fill it in.
MR. KUHL-Yes, but then you’re going to collect the snow up higher up on your vinyl. I
mean, you’re setting yourself up to get some rot, aren’t you? If you’ve got snow laying
on it all winter long, isn’t that going to find its way into the house?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. I guess I’ll open the public hearing. Seeing nobody
here. Do we have any correspondence, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No, no correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess people are concerned about configuration, but I
guess it’s up to the property owner if he wants it that way, then that’s his choice.
MR. DRELLOS-Well, yes, I mean, he’s going to have to deal with it, water, and snow.
MR. KUHL-Are you going to pitch the roof front to back, or is it going to be? Is it going to
be the same roofline as the house?
MR. R. BROWN-No. The opposite.
MR. KUHL-The opposite.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I guess I’ll close the public hearing and poll the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Lets start with you, Joan.
MRS. JENKIN-I’d rather not start, thank you. I’m not sure here.
MR. CLEMENTS-Do you want me to go?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Go ahead, Brian.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Well, I kind of look at this project, I wouldn’t necessarily do it
this way, but I think as you said, Jim, it’s really up to the homeowner, you know, to
decide that. I would actually turn the garage around the other way, come in from Holden
Avenue, put it back up against the house. So that the roofline kind of matched your
house, but I really think that that’s up to the homeowner. I think, because it doesn’t have
a garage on the property, I think that you should have one there. So, I would, and it
doesn’t, as long as it doesn’t bother other people in the neighborhood, it doesn’t seem to,
and it looks like it goes along with the rest of the houses in the neighborhood, I would be
in favor of it, even though I wouldn’t construct it that way.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with Brian. It sounds to me that they gave a lot of
thought to this, even though it may not be, under a perfect world, maybe we’d put this in
a different location if everything was going to be moved, but obviously we can’t move
everything, and it seems a fairly modest garage, and the fact that it’s set so far off the
road, even though that’s not their property, it still creates a little bit of buffer from the
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
road, and I just want to remind the applicant that there is a fire code issue possibly that
has to be addressed.
MS. PAUL-Yes.
MR. URRICO-So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think it’s a modest garage, and I think a lot of thought has been put
into where you’re going to place it, and how you’re going to do it. So I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I think you’re setting yourself up for a grief with the four foot between the
garage and the house, and if you’re going to not do a front to back roof, I think you’re in a
world of hurt, and I wouldn’t be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-George?
MR. DRELLOS-Even if we put the garage up against the house, you’re still going to need
the variances, no matter what. I see the need for a garage. That’s definite. I don’t like
the configuration of it, I think it could have been thought out, turned, or something, but
you’re the one that’s going to have to live with it and deal with the snow or the ice or rain.
So, I would be in favor, but I’m just, you know, understanding that that could happen in
the future.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. We have to weigh the criteria. I think the benefit can be achieved
by other means. I think you can turn the garage, as I said, and attach it to the house.
The variance wouldn’t be as large then. I think that I would be against the variance as it
stands now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. For myself, I’ll go along with your request, but if I was doing it
I certainly would attach it to the house and just make it a lot easier, and not set yourself
up for dealing with the snow on there. In a bad snow year you’re going to probably be
real sorry that you left that hole there to fill up every time it storms out there. My only
suggestion would be this. We’ll approve it. You would still need the relief, even if you
moved it further out, and I don’t think that would change. The back relief would be a little
less than what you need, if you moved it closer towards Nathan Street at the same time,
but maybe you want to just like sit down with your builder one last time and think about,
you know, I mean, you’ve built a lot of places. You know when you see a disaster in the
making, and offer some suggestions and maybe think about what you want to do here,
but I guess we can go ahead and approve it, and use your best judgment.
MS. PAUL-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think you still could turn it. That’s not going to affect the
Holden Avenue side, if they change it, put the doors over on that side, if they accessed it
from that side. So whatever you decide to do, I guess we can go ahead and approve it.
Does somebody want to do this one?
MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll do it.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2009, THP CUSTOM BUILDERS,
, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption,
ROBERT BROWN
seconded by George Drellos:
40 Holden Avenue. Description of proposed project: Applicant proposes construction of
a 576 sq. ft. freestanding garage. Relief is requested from front yard and rear yard
setback requirements. The Relief required is that the applicant requests 17.61 feet of
relief from the required 20 foot front setback requirement and 3.32 feet of relief from the
required 15 foot rear setback requirement for the Neighborhood Residential zone per
§179-3-040. In determining the variance criteria for considering it, to make the
determination, the Board should consider. Whether an undesirable change will be
produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be
created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to moderate impacts to nearby
properties are anticipated and it doesn’t look like it will change the character of the
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
neighborhood. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant
could use several other configurations, however, they would still need a variance no
matter which configuration they chose. Whether the requested area variance is
substantial. The request for 17.6 feet or 88 percent relief from the 20 foot front setback
requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The
request for 3.32 feet or 22 percent relief from the 15 foot rear setback requirement per
§179-3-040 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Whether
the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts are anticipated.
Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The limitations of the lot due to the
location of the leachfield on the western portion of the property may be contributing
factors in the applicants need for these area variances.
th
Duly adopted this 15 day of July, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set.
MS. PAUL-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Just before we close out you guys, who’s not going to be here next
week?
MR. DRELLOS-I sent my e-mail in.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and I don’t know if our other substitute is going to be here or
not.
MR. KUHL-I can’t be here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So we’re going to be, that’s just so I can let Craig know because
some applicants might want a full Board, you know, if we’re going to be one short. I give
people the option when they come in and tell them if they want to wait for a full Board,
they can table until the next meeting. Craig, we’re going to be like way short-handed
next week. We can hack off, we’re done for now, but just to let you know, we’re only
going to have, how many?
MR. DRELLOS-You’ve got four, maybe five.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Maybe five, if we have our other sub.
MR. BROWN-You only need four.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So all right, and we’ll just have the applicants the option of whether
they want to wait for a full Board.
MR. BROWN-Well, yes, if it looks like that they may be denied, they certainly have the
option to say we want to see a full Board. If you want to vote on things in approval.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I didn’t know if you needed to notify those people ahead of
time so they could not have to waste their evening coming in, if they weren’t going to
show.
MR. BROWN-They may get an approval. So I think they’ll probably want to come and
roll the dice.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right, and how about for the month of August coming up, what’s it
looking like for you guys? I’m going to be here.
MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll be here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’re done.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/15/09)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
36