2010.04.21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 21, 2010
INDEX
Area Variance No. 20-2009 Mary Sicard 1.
RE: Lead Agency Status Tax Map No. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17
289.10-1-4
Area Variance No. 14-2010 Christian & Eustacia Sander 7.
RE: Lead Agency Status Tax Map No. 29.-2-29 and 30
Area Variance No. 16-2010 Sam Wahnon 17.
Tax Map No. 308.6-1-53
Area Variance No. 17-2010 Thomas VanNess 25.
Tax Map No. 309.13-1-62
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 04/21/2010)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 21, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOAN JENKIN
RICHARD GARRAND
JOYCE HUNT
BRIAN CLEMENTS
MEMBERS ABSENT
RONALD KUHL
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the April 21, 2010 meeting of the
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go
through our procedures, once again, for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we
handle each application I’ll call the application by name and number. The secretary will
read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and Warren County Planning
Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any
information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the
applicant, and then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing’s intended to help
us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand, and it functions to help
the Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for the Board
members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers, and we will allow speakers to
speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three
minutes, and only if after listening to other speakers, a speaker believes that they have
new information to present, and, Board members, I’d suggest that because we have the
five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking.
Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask
the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the
record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public
comment. Board members then will discuss the variance request with the applicant.
Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the
application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open depending on the
situation, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or disapprove will follow.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II MARY SICARD AGENT(S):
JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S): MARY SICARD ZONING: RR-3A & WR
LOCATION: NACY AND JAY ROADS, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES
SUBDIVISION OF EXISTING COTTAGE COLONY INTO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENT
PARCELS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, ROAD FRONTAGE,
ROAD ACCESS, SHORELINE FRONTAGE, SIDE SETBACKS AND MORE THAN 1
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PER LOT REQUIREMENTS. ZBA TO CONSIDER THE
PLANNING BOARD’S REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY STATUS. CROSS REF.:
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 40.97
TOTAL ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17 / 289.10-1-4 ; SECTION: 179-3-
040; 179-4-050, 179-5-020D
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s listed as a SEQRA Type II, but it is a SEQRA Type I. So I think
what we’ll do is I believe we’ve sort of all spent a significant amount of time kind of going
through and over what’s been proposed. I don’t know if you want to add anything to
that?
MR. JARRETT-No. I think you’ve all seen the project. You’ll certainly get another
chance at it. So you can consider the request.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what I’d like to do before we do any kind of resolution
granting that status to the Planning Board, I would like to hear a little bit from the Board
members about any concerns you have about the project in totality. I think everybody’s
had enough time to go through it, and hopefully you spent some time looking at all the
different proposals and how they fit in. I would just start with one comment, and that is
that normally when we have a subdivision that’s proposed, a subdivision’s usually
worked out to the benefit that the applicant gets X number of lots, but it also works out to
the point that usually we don’t see an awful lot of variances being requested on individual
lots. Maybe it’s one or two lots at the end of a weird shaped parcel or something where
you can’t fit the pieces of the puzzle together properly or something like that, but in this
instance here, we have quite a few variances that are requested almost on every single
lot. We do have some lots in the interior that we don’t have, and I know the far side of
the road, over on the west side, I personally don’t have any problem with any of the lots
that are proposed over there. I think that more reflects what we normally see, but I think
some of this is due to the fact that we have a whole bunch of parcels, and I believe they
haven’t been consolidated so far? Those are all a whole bunch of different separate tax
parcels?
MR. JARRETT-No. Actually Mary’s parcel, which is the primary parcel, contains most of
these structures on one parcel, and as we divide it up, we’ve been trying to make the lots
as compliant as possible, but as you see from the configuration, it’s very, very difficult.
It’s impossible to do it without variances.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I know last Fall, I think the last time that this was in before
us, I can’t remember when it was.
MR. JARRETT-It was quite a while ago, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Before Christmas I believe it was, and I think most of the neighbors
came out and voiced their concerns and any problems they had, but in general, I don’t
think the neighborhood had any real problems with what was proposed.
MR. JARRETT-I don’t remember concerns, and actually I understand there are a number
of comments received by the Town that are favorable, right?
MR. OBORNE-I think that, yes, there are, and I do, if my memory serves correct, there
was a concern with road access, I believe, by Jay Road, by one of the property owners
to the south of the project, but I don’t think there was, again, anything major.
MR. JARRETT-Okay. I don’t recall that, but if I could inject one thing, and that is the
variances are virtually exclusive, if not exclusive to the existing development, the cottage
colony that we’re trying to divide up and divest to the kids. Whereas the virgin lots, if I
can call them that, on the west side of the road and south of Jay Road, there are no
variances associated with those.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Okay. Why don’t I just go through you guys, one at a time,
and start. Joan, do you want to go first?
MRS. JENKIN-Well, looking at them, you’re getting a rid of a lot of, I’m talking about the
ones on the lake, the properties on the lake myself, and so you’re actually taking out a lot
of the cabins, several of the cabins.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-And putting in 2500 square foot homes on.
MR. JARRETT-Not a magic number. That’s just, that’s potentially the demand we might
see there. We’re showing that a 2500 square foot home could work. People could
certainly build smaller. Larger may or may not work, but smaller would certainly work.
So we’re not proposing those. Those are just showing developable capability.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Did you get any kind of commentary from Planning Board last night
about any concerns they had going forward?
MR. JARRETT-Actually the attorney attended that. I’ll have to defer to Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. That was a simple administrative task, seeking Lead Agency status.
That’s it.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Yes.
MR. OBORNE-They didn’t discuss it at all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right.
MRS. JENKIN-So the only concern I have is the .35 acre one, the Number Four, and I
wasn’t clear about that, how you were dividing that one up, and I just wanted some
clarification on that, Four and Five.
MR. JARRETT-Five is, well, both lots are existing. Five is owned by one of the children,
Mary’s children, and all we’re doing is extending and enlarging that lot to make it more
compliant. It’s a very small lot right now, and we’re making that slightly larger, including
the shorefront. Number Four is part of, Mary’s lot right now is part of the cottage colony,
and that is proposed as a new lot, but Mary would retain that ownership. Does that help?
MRS. JENKIN-Well, yes, it just seems it’s small. I understand Number Four, that is a
house that’s going to remain there. You’re not taking that down?
MR. JARRETT-That’s correct.
MRS. JENKIN-So it just seems that you’ve made an effort for One, Two, and Three to be
good one acre lots. They have frontage. They have 100 to 157 feet along each one, but
then Four is very small. I just.
MR. JARRETT-Our goal was to just make sure that each parcel had one principal
structure on it. If we left it as part of Mary’s lot, then there would be two principal
structures on a lot, and non compliant. So it’s a tradeoff. Do we leave it on a combined,
you know, a lot with two principal structures which is non-compliant, or create one new
lot which is small.
MRS. JENKIN-And still non-compliant.
MR. JARRETT-Still non-compliant in a different manner. This way there’s flexibility in
the future, with future generations, to sell that if possible, whereas you can’t really, you
know, market.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, that’s my problem, and then you end up with a very, very small lot.
MR. JARRETT-Which they’re residences right now.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. So that was my concern.
MR. JARRETT-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-As I look at it from where it is right now, what we’re really doing is
taking six cabins that are there and making it into four lots, essentially.
MR. JARRETT-That sounds correct, yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-And I see that as a plus. So the other thing is, you know, adding some
property on the front to have waterfront on those properties. So, you know, all in all, I
look at all of that as a plus. I don’t, I had a question about, on the Staff comments,
Number Six, it says Lots Four and Twelve have no proposed driveways, but as I looked
at this now, I can see that they’re in there. They’re shown on your map now.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. Four and Twelve would use the existing driveway essentially.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. That’s all I had.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. OBORNE-I think that, just to clarify, Four and Twelve are not on a public road. So,
that’s the issue with those.
MR. GARRAND-Are you asking about the Lead Agency status or?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you want to comment on. Have at it, yes.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. Well, one thing I’d like the Planning Board to address is the
massive amount of work that’s going to need to be done on these lots in order to
facilitate the type of development they want here. On the variance aspect of this, I think
Lot Four, in and of itself, all the variances they’re requesting here, is a little outrageous.
It should be consolidated with another lot. What we’re going to end up here with is a
whole bunch of substandard sized lots and a whole bunch of variances down the road,
for just about every one of these lakefront lots. Nobody’s going to want to build a camp
similar to what’s on there now for any of these lots. I just don’t see that happening.
Second, going over to Lot 10, the accessory structure should probably be removed. I
mean, looking at this post-development, there’s going to be a high density in this area.
You’re talking about at any given time you’re going to have at least 20 cars in this area,
throughout all these lots. You’re going to have increased traffic with the development.
Not an approved Town road in there. Additional primary dwelling on Lot 10 also. A lot of
this seems unnecessary. I mean, we’re tasked with granting the least amount of relief
possible, not trying to get as much as we can out of each and every individual lot. We’re
not here to facilitate that. That’s it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I do have a question about the Staff comment about re-ordering the
lots to remove six parcels not associated with this subdivision, because they’re pre-
existing, nonconforming. What do you feel about that?
MR. JARRETT-We will if directed. We had included them to show both Boards the
compound. Some of the lots are already existing, and they’re part of this compound. We
don’t need to do work on them, but we included them for discussion purposes.
Apparently that is a point of confusion and that’s my mistake. I thought it would be better
to include them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-When those lots were subdivided off, that was back in the 80’s.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, quite a while ago, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Was that a subdivision that went through review, or was it just sort
of done?
MR. JARRETT-Actually, I can’t answer that. I don’t know what review it got. I know it
was done many, many years ago, 20 years ago plus.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It doesn’t seem like the Town has any record of.
MR. OBORNE-There is some record of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But it’s sort of real vague.
MR. OBORNE-It is pretty vague, yes. I can’t really add much more, to be honest with
you.
MR. JARRETT-Those are not outside parties. They’re family members, but we included
them for clarity, but maybe we’ve confused the Boards by doing that.
MR. OBORNE-And not knowing what the Zoning Code was stating back then, I really
can’t speak to it professionally.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else, Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-No, I don’t have anything else.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I just have kind of a general comment, and it’s very unusual for a
project of this nature to request so many variances going into the project, and it’s
something that I would just caution you, because our task is to grant minimum relief, as
Mr. Garrand said. So, you don’t want the project to be held up at a point later on
because we’re deeming too much variance for too little lots being asked for, and I’m just
saying that it may not be the case when it finally gets to us, but right now, from what I’m
seeing, there needs to be some more give rather than take.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that it? Okay. When I went back and looked through here, I was
trying to get a sense of, you know, how much was reasonable, how much was over the
top, and I would have to agree with the comments that some of the Board members have
made about those lots down in the front there, and I think the logical solution here would
be to get rid of that Lot Four and just consolidate that into Lots One, Two, and Three, and
I think by doing that, you would probably, you would lose a lot down on the foreshore
there, you know, but I think what we’re trying to do is we’re looking at this in the sense of
what exists as proposed to what should be there via the Code, and I think if we had three
lots down there instead of four lots, One, Two, Three, Four, only One, Two, Three, and
reconfigure those side lines, it probably would get rid of the bulk of all the variance
requests, and what would be left of the variance requests would be minimal. Probably
we would be able to grant that without any major problems with the Board having
concerns about it. One of the other things I did was to go back through the Subdivision
Regulations, and in doing that, if you go to Appendix B in the regional subdivisions, if this
were being reviewed by the APA, if you were in the Park, one of, under Section 183-51,
Appendix B, for Class B Regional subdivisions, and that’s moderate intensity use areas,
that I would probably put this in that category here because it has a pretty long record of
use as moderate use. It says any subdivisions or subsequent subdivision of such land,
either by the original owner or subsequent owners shall be subject to review as a Class
B Regional Project where the total number of lots, parcels or sites resulting from such
subdivisions and any prior subdivision or subdivisions exceeds 14, you know, and I think
in this instance here the Town’s been pretty loose as far as the original subdivision of
those lots down there, and even though we’re being asked by Town to ignore the fact
that that’s occurred previously, nonetheless, in totality, the project, if you put in
everything that’s being requested here, it’s excessive, and I think that my
recommendation to the Planning Board would be that the Planning Board look at
consolidating Lots One, Two, Three and Four into three lots, which would eliminate the
bulk of those things, and I think that’s what my recommendation to them is going to be
when they look at this going down the road here. So, if you guys are comfortable with
that, I think we’ll make a resolution to pass this on to the Planning Board to grant them
Lead Agency status, as far as the SEQRA review here, but keep in mind that we’re not
going to back off from our review of the project, and that is that I think that I think that it’s
important for us to remember that, in the SEQRA review process, we have two separate
Boards, and that both Board’s input is important into the end result that we get, and that
we look forward to having you complete your project, but do it in a manner that’s
inoffensive and that accomplishes what you’re trying to do, which is break up the
property and sell it off, and at the same time, keep in mind what the Code is. If we were
operating under the present Code, we’re now looking at two acre Waterfront Residential
lots, and you’re under the old Code. You got in under the deadline, the guidelines. So
we’re only going to look at it based upon the old Code, but I think that we can be
reasonable, but don’t come in and ask for all these requests, and I think it’s going to
need to be tweaked a little bit, to make some of these things go away here, and it’s still
going to give you plenty of opportunity to build plenty of homes, and I think it’s probably
going to be easier for you to sell the properties if you spread these things out a little bit
greater over the area instead of just trying to cram it all in there like it is right now. So,
does somebody want to do this one, or do you want me to do it?
MR. URRICO-Jim, there’s some public comments here. Do you want to save those, or
do you want to do them now?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No.
MR. URRICO-At a later date it may not be appropriate to do that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Why don’t you read them in.
MR. URRICO-Okay. The first comment was received from Sherri Crow, and it is, “It is
my understanding that the above proposed subdivision would include the removal of
several lakeside cottages that are concentrated along the shoreline of Glen Lake and
two single family residences would take their place. The remainder of the proposed
single family lots would not be lakeside. The trade-off between several lakeside circa
1950 septic systems and two new systems meeting current code criteria would seem to
be in the best environmental interests of the lake. The remaining lots are at such a
distance from the shoreline and watershed as to pose minimal environmental problems,
given the soil make-up. As such, I am not opposed to this proposal.” Actually, it’s signed
Richard Crowe, 19 Jay Road West. The next one is, “Living close to Glen Lake and the
Sicard Family, we heard of their proposed land project. Therefore we researched the
project in detail, and feel it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood and community.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
Therefore, we would like to see the Town move forward on this proposal and allow the
Sicard Family to proceed forward with their project. Thank you for your time and
consideration in this manner. Sincerely, Jim DiCiccio Jackie Brown Moon Hill Rd.” This
is just a repeat of the same one I read earlier. “I am writing this letter to share with you
our support for the Sicards’ subdivisions that will be coming before your Board for
consideration. As neighbors of the Sicards for eleven years we must say that we are
very much in favor of their planned subdivision. This can only have a positive impact on
all of the surrounding properties. The Sicards have been wonderful neighbors and
respected members of the community of Glen Lake and Queensbury for many years.
They would never submit a project that didn’t have the best interest of Queensbury, Glen
Lake and its’ neighbors as its final outcome. We could like to go on record as being in
favor of and supporting this project on both sides of Glen Lake Road. As homeowners
who live in the area that will have a direct impact of these actions, we are in favor of the
plans and feel they will not only improve the use of the lake front properties by
decreasing the density of the current use but also improve the north side of Glen Lake
Road by allowing private homes that will increase the tax base for all of Queensbury.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our thoughts on this most important project.
Respectfully, Mary Beth Casey John B. Corcoran, Jr.” This is from Mark Durant. “I live
on 538 Glen Lake Road and support the subdivision of the Sicard Property.” This is from
Carolyn Kellogg “Dear Craig I have been asked to contact you about the subdivision
Mrs. Sicard is requesting as a property owner in the area to be subdivided. Me and my
Wife have no objection to this subdivision. Wayne D. Kellogg and Carolyn R. Kellogg 14
Jay Road West Lake George, 12845 Home located on Glen Lake Regards Wayne D.
Kellogg” This is from Karen Sommer 2066 Ridge Road “As a long-term neighbor of
Mary Sicard and family, I am expressing my approval for their subdivision plans in the
Glen Lake area. I am hoping that their project will be met with approval in the near
future. Sincerely, Karen L. Sommer” “We have received notice of a public hearing to
take place on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 in regards to an application submitted by Mary
Sicard (Tax ID# 289.6-1-1,2,3,5,17/289.10-1-4). Unfortunately we will not be able to
attend the public hearing, however we did wish to go on record regarding this
application. As residents within the proposed subdivision, we take no exception to any
items listed in the project description and do not oppose any of the listed reliefs that the
applicant is seeking. Additionally, we would also support the Planning Board’s request
for Lead Agency status for the SEQRA review (although we realize that this is generally
not a decision made by public hearing comments, but rather a formality of the process).
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Regards, Thomas and Virginia
Etu 42 Nacy Road Lake George, NY 12845” This is from Jeff Godnick. “As an
immediate property owner right next door to the Sicard property on Nacy and Jay Roads
on Glen Lake, I would like to go on record that I have no objection to the proposed
subdivision submitted by Mary Sicard #20-2009. Jeff Godnick” “My name is Rob Slack.
I own 50 Nacy Rd., 46 Dineen Rd. and 48 Dineen Rd. The property in question is visible
from my properties. I strongly support the Sicard’s efforts to re-zone and sub-divide this
property. I think it will add to local property values, increase the property and school tax
base and improve the esthetic view from the lake. Thank you for your consideration.”
Rob Slack” “I have no objections”, and this is from, all it says is Rourke on 19 Jay Rd.
That’s it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Did you actually open the public hearing
before he read the letters?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I did not, and do you guys want to open the public hearing on this?
I don’t know if it’s necessary for SEQRA.
MR. OBORNE-It is scheduled for a public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think what I’ll do, then, I’ll open up the public hearing.
Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess there’s nobody. All right. Then I guess what I’ll do is make
a motion.
MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CONSENTS TO THE
DESIGNATION OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD
AGENCY FOR THE ABOVE PROJECT, AND THAT, AGAIN, IS AREA VARIANCE NO.
20-2009 MARY SICARD, PROJECT IS NACY AND JAY ROADS ON GLEN LAKE,
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard
Garrand:
With the following thoughts of our Board included. We realize that this project will be
consolidating the old cabins down there. It’s been proposed that some of those lots be
configured into four lots down there, and the general concern of our Board is that
because of the great number of variances being asked for on each one of these four lots
as proposed, that our Board feels that the consolidation of those four lots into three lots
would be an option that would probably eliminate most, if not all of the variances
necessary. Even though some would be left, they would be minimal variances, that our
Board would be more amendable to the project, since it’s in the preliminary stages right
now, that that be the direction that the Planning Board would head with this. As far as
the rest of the project. The interior lots, we recognize that those lots are all conforming,
as well as the ones on the other side of Glen Lake Road. I don’t think anybody on the
Board voiced any concerns about those at all. So, we will grant review to the Planning
Board based upon that.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mr. Clements
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. UNDERWOOD-See you guys next week I guess. Right?
MR. JARRETT-Well, soon anyway.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-I’ll bring this back to the family.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2010 SEQRA TYPE: I CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER
AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S): EUSTACIA SANDER ZONING:
RR-3A LOCATION: 572 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 10-LOT
SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE AND ACCESS
REQUIREMENTS. ZBA TO CONSIDER THE PLANNING BOARD’S REQUEST FOR
LEAD AGENCY STATUS. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2009 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 10, 2010 LOT SIZE: 55.65 TOTAL ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 278.-2-29 AND 30 SECTION: 179-4-050
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-2010, Christian & Eustacia Sander, Meeting
Date: April 21, 2010 “Project Location: 572 State Route 149 Description of Proposed
Project: Note: The Planning Board is seeking Lead Agency Status for this project and
The Zoning Board of Appeals may consider/consent to this request at this time.
Applicant proposes to Subdivide 55.65 +/- acres into 10 residential lots ranging in size
from 3.07 acres to 23.5 acres off of State Route 149 outside of the Adirondack State
Park.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 50 foot public street road frontage relief for Lots 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10
as per §179-4-050A. These parcels do not front on a public road and do not have the 50
foot required frontage.
Further, the applicant requests road access relief for lot 2 as per §179-4-050B. The
parcel has road frontage but access is not proposed.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
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 the character of the neighborhood
may be anticipated due to two new ingress/egress points proposed for State Route
149, a regional arterial road.
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 number of lots proposed in order to reduce the number of variances
requested.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 50 feet or 100%
relief for lots 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 from the required frontage on a public street for one
principal building be at least 50 feet as per §179-4-050A may be considered severe
relative to the ordinance. Further, the request to eliminate an access on a public
road for lot 2 or 100% relief from the provision that actual physical access from a
public road must be built as per §179-4-050B may be considered severe 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 to moderate
impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be
anticipated as the land is proposed for development. However, the proposal has
erosion and sediment control plans as well as stormwater controls proposed.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. With proposed access to be a private
road, the difficulty appears to be self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SUB 3-2009 Pending
Staff comments:
The applicant has made the decision to build a Private road to access the parcels within
the subdivision and it is this action that necessitates the need for multiple variances.
This is not to say that if the road was to be built to Town of Queensbury specifications
and accepted by the town that different area variances would not be needed.
Application Protocol:
1.Sketch Plan – Accomplished 5/28/09
2.Preliminary submittal – Planning Board to seek Lead Agency Status –
Accomplished 3/25/10
3.ZBA to consider and potentially acknowledge P.B. request for Lead Agency –
Pending 4/21/2010
4.Planning Board to acknowledge Lead Agency Status, conduct SEQR review and
if a negative declaration is forthcoming send a recommendation to the ZBA –
Pending 4/27/2010
5.ZBA to consider relief requests – Pending 4/28/2010
6.Planning Board to conduct Preliminary and Final review of subdivision – Pending
5/18/2010
Note: All dates are approximate and dependant upon Town review, approvals and
required submittals by applicant.
Note: For lots 2 and 5, §179-4-010A(1)(4) would be utilized for the private road aspect of
this subdivision.
SEQR Status:
Type I – Coordinated review.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-It is a Type I SEQR.
MR. OBORNE-Well, not for you, for the overall project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-For the overall project. I think I asked the question to you previous
to the meeting. We don’t have anything from DOT yet?
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. OBORNE-You’d have to ask the applicant.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Tom, have you had any contact with DOT?
MR. HUTCHINS-We have met with DOT on a couple of occasions in the field, and DOT
was part of our uncertainty over the last year or so.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because of that realignment.
MR. HUTCHINS-At this time last year, we didn’t really have a good vision for what DOT
was going to end up with there, and, well, now there’s a good vision for what it’s going to
end up with, and our project still works. We have met with DOT, and in fact DOT has
agreed to work with the Sander’s on helping them with some of these access points
when we get to a point that there’s an approval.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you think that they would be more amenable to a single in and
out, as opposed to having the Hickory and the Stonewall access? You’ve got, I don’t
know.
MR. HUTCHINS-I can’t speak for them, but both of these points are good access points.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re on that, the only sort of straight stretch.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. Each has good sight distance, and our opinion we kind of like the
fact that there were two points. It’s not going to increase traffic having two points versus
one. They’re far enough apart that they’re really not going to impact each other.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you Lake George school district up there?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. That’s what I thought. Did you get any kind of comment from
them as to, are the buses going to go in here to pick up kids or are they going to stop on
149?
MR. HUTCHINS-I did not get any comment from them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think that would be a key point to consider because, you
know, if you’re going to have buses stopping on 149, you know, being the road from hell
in Town, you know, that’s an important consideration. I would almost make it adamant
that the buses would have to go in there, at least do their short loop in the front.
MR. HUTCHINS-My initial reaction would be they might not, they might treat it as a
driveway, because it really.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. It’s a private road.
MR. HUTCHINS-Whether we had four lots sharing a driveway or we have this
configuration, it really means the same thing administratively, in that we have to form an
association that has to have documents to maintain whether you call it a shared
driveway or a private road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I’ve never followed a bus on 149, and I don’t know how
many stops they make to pick up kids along there now, if they do any on that stretch.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the Sanders have two kids in school. So she’ll be able to address
that next week. I told her.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean, I think, you know, just trying to troubleshoot it ahead of
time, you know, and, you know, that’s the kind of thing where if you only had one road
coming out of there, you know, in a sense like Ledgeview or down at the bottom of
French Mountain there. It might be better with a single access point, just because that’s
one less place for a car to back out or come out, you know, at the wrong time, during
heavy traffic times of the year. One of my concerns was that, you know, like in the
summertime I’ve seen it backed up all the way to Bay Road from the Northway on ramp
going south, and, you know, it’s, I don’t know what the situation’s going to be. It’s going
to be greatly improved with the straightening out of the road there, but people come
barreling through there when it’s open highway.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. HUTCHINS-They do.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a scary stretch of driving.
MR. OBORNE-If I may, I mean, for what it’s worth from a planning perspective, I’ve
looked at that, too, and I do share your concerns. I will say that there’s only nine lots on
these two roads, and the amount of traffic on them is so minimal that it really didn’t throw
a flag up for me at this point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I’m just thinking down the road, you know, in the sense of if
there’s going to be families there with kids and they’ve got bikes and they want to go
anywhere else in Town they’ve got to come out on that stupid road, you know, and that’s
a scary thought as a parent of a kid. I was looking at it like if we were going to do
something really wild and change it, you know, like Walkup Road further down off the
property would have to cross Sander’s property to get there, too, and I thought maybe,
you know, if that was a possibility, but that’s kind of a, you know, it would look kind of
strange to have it done that way, too, and because you’re sort of landlocked with
everybody else all around you, it doesn’t look like there’s any possibility to go down to
Glen Lake Road or, you know, out over by Jim Martin’s house there, out the other way.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, it looks like it would be definitely possible to have one access
because the house that is accessed from the second one could easily have their road
come in from the main road there.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I think I show a path there. There could be a loop across the path.
MRS. JENKIN-I mean, it could come in from the.
MR. HUTCHINS-It could just do one of these, on either one. You could pick one, or
eliminate this. It could be done with one. I mean, we started with four.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think, as a Board, I’m less concerned about the, maintaining that
40 foot access onto a road, you know, that goes away as far as I’m concerned. I want to
do what’s the most safety conscious thing up here to do, you know, and I think that’s
something that you should be focused on, too.
MR. HUTCHINS-And we are, and, again, I think there are some benefits to having two.
If, for some reason there’s a problem with one entrance, you still have several residents
back there.
MR. CLEMENTS-I tend to agree with that, too.
MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. I think for safety you really need two entrances. I know for
years I lived in a development with one entrance. We had a tree go down, and so you
couldn’t get emergency equipment in.
MR. HUTCHINS-Right, and the loop concept really worked out well. However, it
necessitated a change in lot layout from our first lot. It didn’t work with our original lot
layout that was done to be compliant.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys want to make any commentary, ask any questions?
MR. CLEMENTS-I want to agree with having two. I think that it would be better to have
two actually, and you think about that. If there’s a bus stopped there and there’s traffic
backed up, the people that are in there could go to one of the other exits, maybe, and
that would keep traffic flowing. I think there’s a lot of benefits to having two rather than
one. I do understand about the safety on that road, though, because you’re right. It’s the
road from hell, but as long as it’s going to be straight along there where you can see, it
would be my preference to have two.
MR. GARRAND-Could you get us something from the DOT? Did they make any
recommendations or anything, in so far as this goes?
MR. HUTCHINS-We walked it. I walked it with the, I didn’t walk it with the permit guy. I
walked it with the guy that’s doing the construction, because they had bought some land
from the Sander’s in order to make the project work. So we had walked it, and we
walked to both of these proposed points, and the indication was, yes, these work. I don’t
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
have anything in writing. It hasn’t been submitted, the permits. It’s a little early in the
process for that.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, I’d kind of like to hear their input on this. Like he was saying, it’s
kind of a nightmarish road, and I can, at some point, see a school bus there, if they
happen to pull in there, you know, they’re going to be going up grade, going from zero
miles an hour, in and out of traffic that’s going 55, 60 miles an hour. So it’s potentially an
accident waiting to happen.
MRS. JENKIN-But there’s other roads coming out onto 149, too, which are also, it’s a
dangerous, it’s definitely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got that one at the top of the hill going down to Glen Lake
Road on the way to Ledgeview, as you come up, right at the peak.
MRS. JENKIN-That’s terrible.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s probably the worst one of all.
MR. CLEMENTS-That’s brutal, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any sense, so, in other words, these are going to be two
way, you can go east or west on 149 when you come out that road, you know.
MR. HUTCHINS-We haven’t really thought it out that far yet. Perhaps there might be
some kind of take this one if, I’d have to think about that. The intent is two way.
MR. URRICO-Jim, I think two entrances is really better from a safety standpoint also. I
live in a development that has one access, and we’ve always wanted the second one
some way, and I just think that too much can happen in one entrance, but I would want to
make sure you get a good sight vision from those two entrances.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, the sight distances are good at both points.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there, the rest of the Sander’s property, you’re holding on to that
for now. Down the road, though, somebody may acquire that property in the future. If
there was to be an extension of the subdivision, like say 20 years from now or
something, who knows, would we ever want to, in a sense, try and keep something that
possibly we could tie in everything to go over to Walkup Road out, you know, interpreting
that future 149 might get crazy busy in the future, I don’t know.
MR. OBORNE-You certainly could put a potential interconnection and paper road on
there. It would just be lines on a piece of paper.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I’m just thinking in the long term.
MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t think Sander’s owns back to Walkup, do they?
MR. OBORNE-No, they don’t.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, not quite, but I’m just saying, you know, in the long term, I don’t
know if we got closer over that way, if 149 turns into a real beltway, I mean, more people
are going to be added in the future. All right. I guess we’ll open up the public hearing.
Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do you guys want to offer your
commentary? We’d appreciate it.
MR. OBORNE-It was left open before. So you’re good to go.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes. No, I think we understand what you’re trying to
accomplish, but, you know, I think you guys have to be concerned with the safety issue,
too, and I think that that’s, you know, we want to make sure, I mean, you guys know what
kids are like.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
FRANCIS MARTINDALE
MR. MARTINDALE-We live there. I can show you a dead animal in the road today at 55
miles an hour. This is our concern. There’s 55 acres. The Code says.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you guys identify yourselves?
MR. MARTINDALE-I’m sorry. We’re Francis and Carolyn Martindale.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. MARTINDALE-We live at 478 State Route 149. Fifty-five acres, why not build to
Code? I’m concerned about emergency equipment getting in there with a narrower road.
As a homeowners association, people are going to be parking on both sides of the street.
You may need to get in there with an ambulance or a fire truck, and you’ve got it blocked
off, because the road is not built to Code. Number Two, 149 is the, and I’m quite sure of
this, is the second most heavily traveled Federal New York State commercial road in the
State. It gets double trailers, and I don’t care what the site view is, you get a double
trailer coming through there at 55, the least bit slippery, there’s a grade they’ve got to
make. They’re going to have trouble stopping that thing. The school bus should be able
to pull in and off, totally off of 149. I see it every morning at seven o’clock. The bus
comes down the big hill, stops at the brick house, well, it doesn’t now, those people
moved. It stops at Pat and Wink Mellon’s, Rose Mellon’s. It holds up traffic, trucks all
the way back up the hill. Some of them on slippery roads, slippery days in the
wintertime, are having a difficult time stopping. I have seen, you wouldn’t believe it, but
that road is flat right in front of my house, but last year we had trucks that couldn’t make
that, and that’s my concern is the safety of it. The road’s nonconforming going into that
subdivision. There’s plenty of acreage to do it. School bus, school kids.
MRS. JENKIN-What are you saying, sir? Are you saying to widen these access, the
roads into the subdivision?
MR. MARTINDALE-I’m saying that the road into the subdivision should be conforming to
Town of Queensbury standards, should have one entrance, and if you have them
conform to one entrance, or conforming to the Town’s Code, the road, one entrance will
be more than sufficient. You’ve only got nine houses in there. You haven’t got 25
houses in there. You’ve got the potential of 20 kids, at least, very easily. That’s a lot of
kids to get on the bus in the morning, and hold up traffic on a commercial road. That
road should be, that whole area should be commercial, period, but unfortunately it’s not.
CAROLYN MARTINDALE
MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. My concern, also, is with nine houses, how would the Town
address, or how would this development address water supply system? That’s my
concern, because we have apartments there. We’re a pre-existing, nonconforming use,
and I think that should be addressed, and just who is developing the property? Is it going
to be a homeowners association? Should they come before the Board, or is it Chris and
Eustacia Sanders? Also, with our property, I don’t think a 30 foot barrier is appropriate,
because we do have farm equipment there, and as I said before at the last meeting, I
don’t, it’s a temptation for young children, boys especially because they love tractors. I
mean, Mellon’s right next door, they’re little eight year old boys, they’re up there
constantly wanting to ride our tractor, drive our tractor, and if they were to have a 30 foot
barrier, I think they should have a stockade fence or something additional to protect
against children coming across other people’s property. My husband addressed, which I
had down here, the second most heavily traveled road, and we see all the time
motorcycles passing, cars passing, trucks passing, and it is a dangerous situation, and I
was going to, see, I had the fire company concern, and I think it’s a detriment for all
these houses to the existing traffic that’s already pre-existing on this road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you for your comments.
MRS. MARTINDALE-You’re welcome.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy, do we have any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-I do not see any correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All we were supposed to do this evening was to send this on
to the Planning Board, but I think that our comments, and I would make this comment,
also. All the commentary that we made in the previous one, that we addressed, I would
like that typed up so that every one of them has a copy in front of them to read. I don’t
want it just on the Internet so you can download it or something like that. I think in both
instances here, because we’re doing subdivisions, it’s important that the commentary
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
and that the points that the Board members have made, appropriately go to the Planning
Board, because that gives them seven more voices, or in the case this evening, six more
voices, and I think it’s important that they get our train of thought here as to where we’re
going with this and where we’re headed with this. As far as passing this on to the
Planning Board, I mean, they are the ultimate authority here, and I don’t think that I have
any problem with doing this, but I think that the Planning Board, and I think you, too,
need to make sure that DOT, and I’m really, you know, intensely concerned about the
number of inlets/outlets on here. I think that, you know, if the Planning Board were to tell
you that you could only have one road, the suggestion’s been made by neighbors up
there, one of the things I was thinking of when the commentary was going on was, that if
you look at it, because you sort of have that sort of loop in there, that could be built to
Town standards, and then the other roads going off there could be built smaller, just so
you had at least one loop so the bus could pull off of 149. That would be my suggestion
to the Planning Board, and I think that, I don’t think that’s any great, huge onus on the
applicants for the project. I mean, that’s a short stretch of road there. If it were done so
the bus could pull off there, I think that it would make things a lot smoother and safer.
MR. HUTCHINS-I think it can be done to a level that the bus could be, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but, I mean, that’s going to be my recommendation. I don’t
know how you guys feel about it.
MR. CLEMENTS-I’d agree with that. You’d still have two.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’d still have two, but that, just that initial loop on the exterior.
MRS. JENKIN-I was just thinking, I agree that that loop, but you could also do a double
road, if you’re going to do only one entrance, you could have a divided road, so that you
had two ways to.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I don’t think you need a boulevard effect because you’ve only
got nine places in there, you know, and we’ve done plenty of other smaller subdivisions
in Town where we have narrower roads, but I think everybody recognizes, and I think the
Planning Board recognizes, the danger of Route 149, and that’s the key. As far as my
comments on, when you come back to us for the actual variances, whatever you come
back for, I don’t have a problem with it. I think it’s, you know, the concern, I think, is
when you’re going to have a whole bunch of driveways going on to 149 from nine
separate lots would be idiotic. The less the better. The Planning Board is going to be
the ultimate authority as to what way, shape or form, but I think we do the commentary
from DOT because if DOT comes in and tells you they only want one access point, then
that’s what it’s probably going to be.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, but they’re not likely to say it that way, but I’ll go ahead and I’ll
forward it down to the DOT.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but I think it’ll allow you to accomplish what you’re trying to do
here, as far as put a subdivision in, but do it in a manner that’s going to protect
everybody, you know.
MR. HUTCHINS-That’s fine.
MR. OBORNE-Are they listed on your Long Form, DOT? Just curious, because you’ll be
cutting into their.
MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t know, to answer your question.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think so, because it’s an arterial highway.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we would need a right of way work permit to make the road cuts,
and they’re aware of the project. We’ve been talking to them about the project for a
considerable time.
MR. OBORNE-I’m reasonably certain you did list it. I mean, I just don’t have it in front of
me.
MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t have it in front of me, either. It’s probably in here. Do you want
me to look it up?
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. GARRAND-Also, to allay the concerns of the Martindales, you might also want to
get in touch with Bay Ridge, and get their input.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, emergency vehicles, yes, and I’ll review it with, does the Fire
Marshal automatically get it, in something like this?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely. The Fire Marshal has no authority on subdivisions,
though. So, it would be whoever the fire chief is of the district you certainly would want
to contact.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right.
MRS. JENKIN-Can I just ask one more thing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure.
MRS. JENKIN-I realize that we’re doing access routes, but has there been any
discussion about how to divide the property from the Martindale’s property with a fence
or maybe move the houses a little closer or have you talked about increasing that 30
foot? Only because they’ve been twice to talk to us and I think that it.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. Well, 30 feet is the side setback, and that’s on there just as the
minimum setback line.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. HUTCHINS-To answer your question, there has not, but there will be. Okay. I’ll
have that discussion, and we’ll be prepared to address that when they’re with me at next
week’s meeting.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MRS. JENKIN-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else?
MR. CLEMENTS-Just a question, the Martindale, the buildings that are shown on there,
they’re right on the line there, aren’t they?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. MARTINDALE-They’re five foot off of the line.
MR. CLEMENTS-Five foot off of the line.
MR. HUTCHINS-4.9 and 1.5.
MR. MARTINDALE-One corner is five foot off the line. That was way back from 1961.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, you can’t do anything about that now, but we could, you could take it
into consideration, that it is close and perhaps help them out with that a bit.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, yes, I mean, we’re certainly keeping our distance to some extent.
I mean, I can probably pull that one wastewater system a little further back, but we’ll look
at that and discuss it.
MRS. JENKIN-Thank you.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I just wanted to ask one more question to Martindales. How
about an access point through part of your property there?
MR. MARTINDALE-That thought went through my mind.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean, sincerely, though, I think if you’re really concerned
about it, you know, I mean, you know, thinking about the future, you know, and it’s not
always just about the present, but the future is pretty important, and, you know, if that
were something that was easy to do.
MR. MARTINDALE-You would still come back onto 149.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. MARTINDALE-If, I don’t want to speak for the neighbors.
MR. OBORNE-I’m thinking if you could get this on the record, you need to speak into the
microphone in order to be on the record.
MR. MARTINDALE-You’d be coming back onto 149 and where have you solved any
problems? You could come down and come on to Martindale Road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. MARTINDALE-You’d have no problem, but it would require convincing someone to
give up, and I’ll be honest with you, if I owned that land, no way, and I’ll tell you why. If
you were to go back, in back of Pat’s house, that’s now owned by Pat and Rose, if you
were to go up on that little knoll, and you sit there and you look out towards my barn, and
up towards that hill, that’s one of the prettiest sites you could ask for, and I wanted it, but
I was in the wrong side of the family, but, you know, that would be the other solution, an
that’s gone through my mind, to go down and come out on Walkup Road, I don’t think the
landowners. The other thing is to go down, if they could, I don’t know how much they
own towards the church. Is that other?
MR. OBORNE-Robertson’s right here.
MR. MARTINDALE-What’s the upper parcel?
MR. OBORNE-This one over here?
MR. MARTINDALE-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-That’s owned by the Sander’s also.
MR. MARTINDALE-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And it’s, let me just back out a little bit.
MR. MARTINDALE-The other thing is if they could get a road down through by the
church.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. MARTINDALE-Which would totally put the traffic off. I’m not against the
subdivision. Don’t misunderstand me. I am very, very concerned about the accident
potential on that road, and when they get that road done, 55 is not going to be the speed
limit, even though that’s what it is, and you’re going to see trucks, I just see it every day.
It scares me to see the stuff that goes on on that road, and the only other alternative is to
convince the Town to put the speed limit or the State, put the speed limit at 40 or 45.
MR. GARRAND-That’s not going to happen.
MR. MARTINDALE-No, it’s not going to happen because it’s a Federal road, and you can
go through there every day, right about, I can’t give you the exact time, UPS goes
through with a double trailer. At night, Yellow goes through many nights with a double
trailer. It’s, you get five, six tractor trailers at a time come down through. They’re not
staying in, they’re pushing, because they want to make that hill. If you ever drove a truck
you know there’s a hill ahead of you, when you’re coming down, you try to get the
momentum so you don’t have to do a lot of shifting, and from the top of that hill down.
The highway, they’re replacing it. They’ve done away with my driveway on the opposite
side of the road. They’ve given me a little eight foot driveway. We’re going around and
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
around on that, and it’s going to come out very close to where they want to put their road
in, and I’m scared about that, because I’ve got to take my farm equipment over there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, thank you for your commentary.
MOTION THAT PROJECT APPLICANTS CHRISTIAN AND EUSTACIA SANDER, THAT
THE ZONING BOARD WILL GRANT LEAD AGENCY STATUS TO THE PLANNING
BOARD FOR REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT, Introduced by James Underwood who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
And I would like both this one and the one previously discussed to be typed up and sent
to each of the members of the Planning Board so they get the full commentary to add to
the mix as to what the final end result is here, and I would make also the comment that I
would like some commentary from DOT as to whether they want two access points or
one, and our suggestion, as a means of getting the buses off of Route 149, would be to
make it a Town built road on the single loop that would be stone wall lane and old hickory
lane and across over there. So at least the buses could pull off and pick up kids in the
morning and at the end of the day, and avoid having to back up traffic with the potential
for in the teens to twenties, number of kids possibly eventually in that subdivision with
nine houses in there.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
MR. HUTCHINS-I’m sorry, you’re talking built to a Town standard. You’re not talking a
Town adopted road?
MR. GARRAND-Not a Town road, built to the Town standards.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but, I mean, the buses aren’t going to want to pull in on that.
MR. HUTCHINS-Built to a standard that the buses want. Yes, that’s fine.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, just so they can make their turn radiuses on the corners.
MR. GARRAND-With a grade they can make, too.
MR. OBORNE-And that would certainly be something you’d want to put in at your
resolution next week.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-Because this one is dealing specifically with an administrative item at this
point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Right. Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-But that would be a recommendation?
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s a recommendation, yes.
MR. MARTINDALE-You haven’t closed the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, it’s still open.
MR. OBORNE-They’re going to leave it open.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, you’ll be up again.
MR. MARTINDALE-That road where the bus has got to pull off has got to be maintained
by the Town.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know, yes.
MR. MARTINDALE-If not, who’s going to be responsible if that bus pulls in there and
can’t get out?
MR. GARRAND-It’s a homeowners association. It’s not a Town road. We don’t maintain
it. The plows aren’t supposed to go down it.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. MARTINDALE-Then I think it should be for the safety of the kids that’s on that bus.
MR. GARRAND-Then they’ve got to be bothered and they’ve got to build it, put money
up front.
MR. MARTINDALE-You’re trying to get the bus off the road. It’s just as dangerous on a
nonconforming road, that’s not protected or not maintained by the Town or the State, in
that case that’s a State road.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, the Town will not maintain that road. The homeowners association
will, and what we can do to strengthen that would be to make sure the language in the
HOA agreement is presented to the Planning Board and approved by the Planning
Board. That’s how you’d do that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The Planning Board’s going to set the parameters for what the road
is ultimately. I mean, we’re making the recommendation that’s the way to go.
MR. GARRAND-It leaves the Town out of a liability also since it’s an HOA road, too.
MR. OBORNE-And certainly you should come and speak at the Planning Board, which
I’m sure you will, and convey your concerns.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do I have a second on that?
MRS. HUNT-Second.
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure thing.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II OWNER(S): SAM WAHNON
ZONING: MDR LOCATION: OFF BURCH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
PLACEMENT OF A 1,344 SQ. FT. MODULAR HOME WITH FULL CELLAR ON
VACANT PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE
AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: A.V. 98-1999 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: APRIL 14, 2010 LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-53
SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-4-050
SAM WAHNON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2010, Sam Wahnon, Meeting Date: April 21,
2010 “Project Location: Off Burch Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes placement of a 1,344 sq. ft. modular home with full cellar on vacant parcel.
Relief requested from the minimum road frontage and access requirements.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 50 feet of relief from the required road frontage for one principal
building as per §179-4-050 and relief from the requirement that every principle building
shall be built upon a lot with frontage on a public street as per §179-4-050.
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
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result
of the granting of this area variance.
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. With the parcel
having no road frontage on a public street, options appear limited other than an area
variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 50 feet or 100%
relief from the 50 foot road frontage requirement for the MDR zone per §179-4-050
may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Further, relief must be granted
by this board from the requirement that every principle building shall be built upon a
lot with frontage on a public street as per §179-4-050.
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 difficultly could be categorized
as being self created as the lot was purchased without road frontage.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
A.V. 98-1999 Road Frontage relief Approved 11/17/99
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to access the parcel by way of a 15 foot wide permanent
easement from Warren Lane over the lands of Mary Diehl. The applicant has stated that
access to the parcel from the west off of April Lane would not be granted by the owner of
that private road and access from the lands of Samuel and Viola Wahnon to the east is
not ideal.
The Zoning Board may wish to ascertain the location of the septic system on the lands of
Mary Diehl to ensure the proposed gravel drive does not impact said system. Further,
any water lines and wells may need to be located to also ensure that the access drive
will not impact these systems.
SEQR Status:
Type II – No further review required.”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 14, 2010
Project Name: Wahnon, Sam Owner: Sam Wahnon ID Number: QBY-10-AV-16
County Project#: Apr10-30 Current Zoning: MDR Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes placement of a 1,344 sq. ft. modular home with full
cellar on vacant parcel. Relief requested from the minimum road frontage requirement.
Site Location: off Burch Road Tax Map Number(s): 308.6-1-53 Staff Notes: This is a
hardship imposed by the Ordinance requiring property on private road to have frontage
on a town or County roadway. The issues appear to local in nature and do not have a
significant impact on County resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No
County Impact” Signed by Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning Board 4/15/10.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. WAHNON-Good evening.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Good evening.
MR. WAHNON-I didn’t hear much of that because I can only hear out of one ear. So I
haven’t heard much of what went on today. What do I do next?
MR. UNDERWOOD-If you could just tell us who you are for the record.
MR. WAHNON-Yes, my name’s Sam Wahnon, and I’m the owner of this piece of
property. A couple of things I’d like to mention to the Board. One is if you look at your
map provided, it’s true that I purchased this land knowing that there was no road
frontage. That is why when I purchased it, the day I purchased this parcel, Mary Diehl
was also purchasing her parcel, and it was agreed to that I would have a 15 foot right of
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
way deeded to me before I would buy that parcel, so I would be touching a Town road. I
had no knowledge at the time that I needed 50 feet, but I’m sure even if I did need it, I
wouldn’t have gotten it, because 15 feet is all you really need for a driveway. Secondly,
I’d like to point out to the Board that April Lane is also an easement or a right of way, and
there are nine homes back there without any Town frontage. So it’s not anything that I
created. It’s been created a long time ago. There’s presently nine homes that belong to
the Converse family situated back there, on various sites, and none of those sites touch
a Town road, and this was the last site available to be built on in that general area, and
the lady that owned it inherited it from her parents who passed away, and Penny Bradley
just decided that she wanted to just sell out and go away. I bought it because I own the
mobile home park next to it, of which I turned into an upscale manufactured home
community. The tax base has increased by over a million and a half dollars into the
Town in that Park alone. I’ve also purchased three other, I’m sorry, two other parcels on
Warren Lane with decrepit, abandoned trailers and turned them into $120 and $130,000
tax based packages for the Town. So what I’m doing is what’s really needed in that
area. So, that being said, there’s only one other thing. As I said before, I didn’t know
that I needed a 50 foot frontage on a Town road, and I found out when I applied for a
building permit, because I had a buyer for the property, and that’s when I was informed
by the Staff that, you know, I had to go through this process, and I have since lost that
customer, which, you know, is of no consequence, but what I want to bring to the Board’s
attention is that I’m no longer going to be putting that size home there in that capacity
because I no longer have that buyer. So now I’m really just seeking permission to have
a building lot, I guess.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think everybody would probably, first question out of everybody’s
mouth would be what’s the relationship with the people that own April Lane?
MR. WAHNON-Very bad. They’re the former owners of the Park, siblings, okay, not
parents. Parents sold me the Park. Siblings, I mean, I don’t know what the problem is,
but I can tell you they don’t like me. Okay. I can tell you that.
MRS. JENKIN-Do you have a legal, a deeded right of way?
MR. WAHNON-It’s a deeded right of way, yes, it’s in my deed. It’s in Mrs. Diehl’s deed.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, the 15 feet.
MR. WAHNON-Fifteen feet, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay, but you’ll be using April Lane. Correct?
MR. WAHNON-No, no. This is adjacent to April Lane. There’s April Lane and then
there’s my driveway. I would have liked to. I’ve asked Tyler Converse if that was
possible, and he didn’t even answer me. He just turned around and walked away.
MRS. JENKIN-So are you going to pave that?
MR. WAHNON-I’m graveling it, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. WAHNON-I have to gravel it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s the dashed lines to the side of April Lane.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Let me ask a question of Staff. April Lane, was that part of the
original Park in there then?
MR. WAHNON-I have no knowledge.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Has anybody researched that?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because it would be interesting to see if that was originally part of
the original mobile home park there, because possibly everything was supposed to be
tied in there. These remainder lots, like you said.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. WAHNON-Well, in all the documents that I have for my Park, there’s no mention of
that. The Park is subdivided well afterwards. I mean, I think it was in.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is April Lane relatively new, or has it been there forever? It’s been
there forever.
MR. WAHNON-No, it’s just a driveway, it’s a dirt driveway, the same as what I’m going to
be putting in.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. WAHNON-Okay. I’m just putting one in right next to it, and again, when Mary Diehl
gave us the right of way, she picked the spot. So when I approached her to find out
where her septic system was, she also would not communicate with me. So, you know,
Staff has said I need to find that out, but I can’t violate her privacy. If she’s not going to
communicate with me, I mean, I’m sure that if her septic system is under my right of way,
she will have to move it.
MR. GARRAND-She’ll find out.
MR. WAHNON-That’s right. I mean, she’ll just have to move it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, this is a deeded thing? You’ve got a deed and everything?
MR. WAHNON-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-Now you are not building this house for yourself, then?
MR. WAHNON-No, ma’am, and at this present moment I’m not putting a house there.
Right now I’m just seeking the permission to put a house there.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Just to make sure it’s a deeded right of way. Mary Diehl still owns the
land.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, yes. It says in the deed right here.
MR. OBORNE-It is a deeded legal right of way, absolutely, and my concern is if there is
a septic under there, which, quite frankly, I don’t believe it’s located there, to have her dig
that up probably would be a non-starter. I don’t think that would happen. She wouldn’t
have to move her septic if it was pre-existing, prior to your road being put in. Again, I
don’t make those determinations.
MR. WAHNON-Well, that’s something for the courts to decide, not us.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any interest on the part of the Town to figure out what the
deal with April Lane is? I mean, April Lane goes back to those nine houses you said
back there?
MR. WAHNON-Yes, sir.
MR. OBORNE-And correct me if I’m wrong, Sam. He would prefer to have the access
come off of April Lane than to do what he has to do here. I mean, I would assume for
infrastructure purposes, it’s cheaper.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It would be logical to do it that way. I mean, I don’t understand.
MR. WAHNON-Well, Tyler, I had the property surveyed, and you have a copy of that
survey in your possession, and there is nothing, April Lane has nothing to do with what’s
going on in the manufactured home community.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just assuming because of the nature of that narrow corridor, it
must have been intended to be a road at one point in time. It’s wide enough to be a
Town road, right?
MR. WAHNON-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Not really.
MR. GARRAND-Wouldn’t it just be easier, in the long run, to have like a shared driveway
with a lot you own to the east? I mean, in the wintertime, you know, the people are going
to have to plow.
MR. WAHNON-I don’t understand? You mean my mobile home park?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. WAHNON-Well, no, because I may not own that forever, and I don’t think the future
owners would want to share driveways with perimeter tenants. I mean, the one has
really nothing to do with the other. I have a deeded right of way to that property. That’s
why I purchased it, and that’s what I want to use. I want to use that deeded right of way.
I asked Tyler Converse if he wanted to allow me to use that road, which it would be much
easier, as Keith said, but he’s not responsive. So I need to go on with business and just
pursue what I know to be right. I don’t want this lot to interfere with my mobile home
community. It’s separate of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Who’s Ward are you in down there? Are you in Tim’s? Who’s
Ward is this down there?
MR. WAHNON-Yes, Tim Brewer.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, I don’t know if it’s something that somebody could
negotiate on your behalf, you know, and try and work it out, you know, to get that access.
MR. WAHNON-Well, I don’t understand why. I mean, his easement is no different than
my easement. It’s no wider, no bigger. It doesn’t have blacktop. It’s just dirt. I mean,
there’s no difference.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. I’m just thinking for the redundancy of putting a driveway in
right next to another one, you know, it just seems illogical.
MR. WAHNON-Well, then it’ll be the proper size road. If anything it’ll be the right size.
You’ll have two 15 footers together.
MRS. JENKIN-So then whoever buys and builds a home there, they will be responsible
to plow that road, too.
MR. WAHNON-And maintain it.
MRS. JENKIN-Your side of the road.
MR. WAHNON-Yes, the center part.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any kind of commentary as far as the width of that
road? Is that going to be wide enough for EMT and all to get in there, Keith, at 15 feet?
That’s pretty narrow.
MR. OBORNE-Twenty feet is usually what the Fire Marshal prefers. This is a private
drive in a residence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I suppose if there were a fire, they could go down April Lane any
time they wanted to.
MR. WAHNON-Well, my mobile home park has an easement over April Lane for
emergency vehicles.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So that’s taken care of.
MR. OBORNE-That right there.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. WAHNON-Actually, you’re in my Park side. This is the Park side. That’s across.
See the one going this way? That’s where the emergency vehicle access is, and
Converse is required to maintain that. Do you have a picture of Warren, from Warren
Lane?
MR. OBORNE-I have a picture of that.
MR. WAHNON-Yes, right there. Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That’s where the road is going.
MR. WAHNON-I just want to show you. This is my right of way right here. See it, and
this is the.
MR. CLEMENTS-April Lane.
MR. WAHNON-Converse right of way, right next to it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. I think what we’ll do at this point is open up the
public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any commentary?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Everybody understands the situation here. I mean, logically
if you had some great peacekeeper down on that end of Town, they could probably go
down there and raise a ruckus about somebody not granting access onto April Lane. I
think we recognize that if EMT’s or the firemen want to go down there, they can roll down
there anytime they want, 24/7, and nobody can say a thing about it. It looks like the only
way to get access to this property is by, going to be over by this proposed 15 foot right of
way which is narrow, but nonetheless it’s a right of way.
MR. WAHNON-Can you go back to that other Park picture you had? See the shed there,
on the left? That’s the parcel. That’s the back side of the parcel. It actually touches my
mobile home park, okay. So an emergency vehicle could get there from two different
directions, okay, not just one.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s not likely that this is going to generate a whole lot of traffic.
Though it is a redundant driveway, in my opinion, it would be nice if you could work
things out, but I don’t know if that’s a possibility or if we should table this and consider
that.
MR. OBORNE-That was the first question I asked the applicant.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-And they’re non-communicative, according to the applicant. I haven’t
asked Converse or anything along those lines, but that was the first thing that came out
of my mouth, why can’t you do this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know if Tim Brewer would have any power or authority to go
down there and talk to those people and talk some sense into them about it either.
MRS. JENKIN-From the signs that they’ve put up there, I don’t think that they’re too
willing to do that.
MR. WAHNON-They’re really not, they’re not going to acquiesce in any way.
MR. GARRAND-Because you can see what’s going to happen when they plow in the
wintertime. When they plow April Lane, they’re going to plow this road right in.
MR. WAHNON-Well, they can’t do that, and what they’re really upset about is the new
survey takes eight foot of his road, and his property. So he’s not very happy about that,
and quite honestly it’s, what I’ve decided to do is to just let things lie for a while and
pursue my endeavor, and who knows what’s going to happen six months from now or six
years from now, but right now they’re not rational. They’re not communicating. They
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
won’t even tell me where the septic system is. So with having to deal with that, I just
want to get on with my business.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess what we’ll do is we’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And we’ll go down through the ranks here and deliberate a little bit.
Roy, do you want to start?
MR. URRICO-Well, this is highly unusual. I think we’ve never seen one like this before,
but the reality is what you see on the map and what you see in person or on the screen is
highly different. I think the reality is we’re talking about a dirt road, and I think it’s not, it’s
something that is needed to gain access to the piece of property, and I think the
applicant has made, I believe, his efforts to secure what we think is a better result, but
given the circumstances I think he’s chosen the best possible route, and, like I said, on
paper it looks odd to see two parallel roads, but the reality is we’re talking about two dirt
roads. I don’t think it’s a big deal. I would be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree. I’m sure the applicant would prefer to go to April
Lane. It would be a lot cheaper, and I have no problem with it. I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-Well, I’m looking at the balancing tests here, and, first and foremost,
whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Before your
presentation, I was probably way, you know, leaning one way more than the other on
this, but we’ve got to go based on the evidence presented in the public hearing, and the
evidence presented in the public hearing says that an effort was made to gain an
easement through April Lane, which is a feasible alternative. With that in mind, it doesn’t
provide an undesirable change. I think the request is moderate. I don’t see any adverse
physical or environmental impacts. So I think you’re good for three out of the five.
MR. WAHNON-Great.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think all the other comments from the Board members I would
agree with. It is a problem. It’s too bad, but it is a feasible alternative to making use of
this property that you have. So I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I agree with the rest of the Board. I’d be in favor of this also. I guess I
have a question, though. If, at some point, because I mean somebody may come to their
senses here one of these days and say, you know, if we shared the plowing down April
Lane or something like that, you know, it would help them financially. Down the road
here, would it be possible, even if we gave this a variance, for them to use April Lane to
get in there?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I was going to make the same comment, because I thought,
you know, who knows when. You’re probably not going to put the driveway in tomorrow.
It’s only going to be done if the property’s going to be developed I would assume.
MR. WAHNON-No, I’m preparing, sir. I’ll be honest with you. I’m preparing. That’s why
I’m here. It’s only going to sell if it’s prepared.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. WAHNON-Not if it’s haphazard.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No one’s going to be interested if it’s still hanging over their heads
that they can’t get access.
MR. WAHNON-We’re only talking about gravel, you know, so if things were to repair
themselves, I mean, we would just look at Mary and say, Mary, we don’t need this
anymore. Bring some topsoil in, you know, let’s take your lawn back.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think, whatever way it works out ultimately, you know, we will
wait and see in the future, but I think that, at this point in time, we could go ahead and
grant the relief that’s been asked for here, and with that in mind, that in the future, if,
indeed, access does become available on April Lane, that that would become the
primary access to the property, if, indeed, that were available at any point in the future.
MR. OBORNE-He would have to come back and get relief for that specifically.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Right.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. CLEMENTS-He would need a variance even if he came in through April Lane.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Absolutely.
MR. CLEMENTS-It doesn’t make any difference.
MR. OBORNE-From the back, even from the lands that he owns.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think the Board would be more than amenable to granting that.
MR. WAHNON-I mean, I wish I could do April Lane, because then I wouldn’t have to put
a driveway in, cut down trees.
MR. CLEMENTS-So I’d be in favor also.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does somebody want to take this one, then?
MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2010 SAM WAHNON, Introduced by
Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
Off Burch Road, north of Warren Lane. The applicant proposes placement of a 1344
square foot modular home with full cellar on a vacant parcel. Relief is requested from
the minimum road frontage and access requirements. The applicant requests 50 feet of
relief from the required road frontage for one principle building as per Section 179-4-050
and relief from the requirement that every principle building shall be built upon a lot with
frontage on a public street as per Section 179-4-050. The Board shall consider whether
an undesirable change in the neighborhood will be created due to this variance. No, I
don’t believe any undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or to nearby
properties will be created by granting this variance. Whether this benefit can be
achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, the applicant has tried other means
feasible. He’s asked the adjoining property owners for an easement on April Lane,
which would still require a variance, but in a different way. So he has made other efforts.
Whether the requested variance is substantial. From a percentage perspective it may be
deemed substantial relative to the Ordinance. Whether the proposed variance will have
adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Very little
impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. At worst, you’re probably
taking out one, maybe two trees. This difficulty may be deemed as self-created, since
the lot was knowingly purchased without road frontage. So I move that we approve Area
Variance No. 16-2010.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
MRS. HUNT-I’d like clarification. You’re really just granting the 50 foot relief that’s the
required road frontage. Nothing about where or what easement he’s going to use.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s already a deeded easement. It’s already on record.
MRS. HUNT-Yes, so I mean, we’re not saying he has to go to April Lane or not?
MR. GARRAND-No, just granting the variance, 50 feet frontage.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. Okay. Second.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. WAHNON-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Hopefully you can work it out someday.
MR. WAHNON-You never know. My grandchildren will work on it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If you want your surveys back. Then if you’ve got to come back to
do the other one you can, you don’t have to re-print them.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II THOMAS VAN NESS OWNER(S):
THOMAS VAN NESS ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 5 OHIO AVENUE APPLICANT
PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING 14 FT. BY 60 FT. MOBILE HOME AND
REPLACE WITH A NEW 27.4 FT. BY 54 FT. MODULAR HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.:
BP 96-664 MOBILE HOME WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: APRIL 14, 2010 LOT
SIZE: 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-1-62 SECTION: 179-3-040
THOMAS VAN NESS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-2010, Thomas VanNess, Meeting Date: April 21,
2010 “Project Location: 5 Ohio Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes removal of existing 14 ft. by 60 ft. mobile home and replace with a new 27.4 ft.
by 54 ft. modular home with full basement on a 0.14 acre parcel. Relief requested from
front, rear and side yard setback requirements.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 6 feet of front setback, 20 feet 4 inches of rear setback, 17 feet of
north side setback and 4 inches of south side setback relief per §179-03-040.
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 the neighborhood may be
anticipated due to the small nature of the lot relative to the size of the proposed
home. However, the proposal is in character with the nature of the development
within this particular area of the town.
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. Short of reducing
the size of the proposed structure to meet code requirements, options appear limited
other than an area variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 6 feet or 20%
relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the MDR zone per §179-4-030
may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the
request for 20 feet 4 inches or 68% relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement
for the MDR zone per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to
the ordinance. Further, the request for 17 feet or 68% relief from the 25 foot north
side setback requirement for the MDR zone per §179-4-040 may be considered
moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 4 inches or 1%
relief from the 23 foot south side setback requirement for the MDR zone per §179-3-
040 may be considered minor to inconsequential relative to the ordinance.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
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 could be categorized as
self created. However, the Moderate Density Residential setback requirement would
allow for a 9 foot wide by 60 foot in length home to be constructed thus not meeting
the 800 square foot minimum size for a single family home.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 96-664 Mobile home Approved 1996
BOH Septic Variance Pending 5/3/2010
Staff comments:
The applicant is seeking a waiver from location requirements for the septic system from
the Town Board of Health scheduled for April 19, 2010. The ZBA may wish to make
approval from the Town Board of Health for this waiver a condition of approval if
approval is forthcoming for this project.
The applicant has procured positive reactions from all adjoining property owners
concerning this area variance.
SEQR Status:
Type II – No further review required.”
“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 14, 2010
Project Name: VanNess, Thomas Owner: Thomas VanNess ID Number: QBY-10-
AV-17 County Project#: Apr10-29 Current Zoning: MDR Community: Queensbury
Project Description: Applicant proposes removal of existing 14 ft. by 60 ft. mobile home
and replace with a new 27.4 ft. by 54 ft. modular home. Relief requested from front, side
and rear yard setback requirement. Site Location: 5 Ohio Avenue Tax Map Number(s):
309.13-1-62 Staff Notes: Copy of the applicants drawing is provided. The lot is pre-
existing non conforming. The issues appear to local in nature and do not have a
significant impact on County resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No
County Impact” Signed by Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning Board 4/15/10.
MR. URRICO-Has the Board of Health ruled on this?
MR. OBORNE-I think Mr. VanNess will speak to that.
MR. VAN NESS-What happened is we had all our paperwork turned in. The Town
Clerk’s Office called me Friday morning, I was supposed to be there Monday night for my
variance for the septic. Darleen Dougher called me personally Friday morning. Her
Office forgot to advertise it in the paper. So they had to pull my variance for my septic,
due to it not being advertised for the public hearing, and they have re-scheduled me for
rd
May 3, the next Town Board meeting, for my septic variance. It wasn’t anything to do
on our part. We had everything set. We were all excited. We thought we were going to
be in good shape, ready to go, come in here tonight and say we have our septic
variance. We’re doing what we have to, and by mistake, I mean, I don’t hold it against
anybody. Everybody makes mistakes. They forgot to advertise it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, down here, I mean, we’ve had, I can’t ever remember them
not granting a Board of Health in this neighborhood down here in re-doing these places.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct. The applicant has also spoken to the Council members
and appears to have gotten a favorable return on that, and I could corroborate everything
that he’s saying.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, everybody’s on Town water. It’s not an issue with wells or
anything like that in these tight neighborhoods down here as it exists. You guys want to
ask any questions? It’s pretty clear what they’re asking to do here. I think we’ve seen an
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
awful lot of these down at this end of Town where we’re making the quantum leap from
single wides to modular homes and I don’t think there’s ever been any negative
commentary that I can recall, I mean, other than one or two neighbors that had a tit for tat
battle going for years anyway.
MR. VAN NESS-Well, as you can see, all my neighbors have signed a paper saying that
they have no problem with what we are trying to do on our property. They all welcome it,
as a matter of fact, thinking it’s going to be a benefit to them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think when the Town Board went in and re-did the Code with
the mixed residential, that this was the intent of that, that we’re hoping probably
eventually all the mobile homes eventually disappear off the face of the earth and get
replaced, but, you know, people want more space, and, you know, you can only live in
one for so long before you really want to get out and get something bigger. So that’s
reasonable to conclude. Do you guys have any questions you want to ask, any
commentary you want to make?
MR. GARRAND-The Town welcomes your re-assessment.
MR. VAN NESS-I’m sure they do. I don’t welcome it, but that’s part of doing business. I
mean, you know it’s something we want to do is upgrade and we’ve come to the point
where we can afford to upgrade, and we’ll let them re-assess. That’s fine.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, it’s definitely an improvement to the neighborhood, too. So that’s a
big consideration. It’s good to see it happening.
MR. CLEMENTS-You had north, south, east and west all covered here by your
neighbors, too. Right?
MR. VAN NESS-Yes, every one of them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as all the letters that got written in, in the public record, I don’t
see any need to redundantly read them all in, because I don’t think there was anybody
that was against it.
MR. VAN NESS-No.
MR. OBORNE-And I will say it was actually part of the application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, which it probably should be, but I think that we’re sort of used
to these, and we just can’t rubberstamp them through, either. I mean, you’ve got to have
everybody put their two cents in, and you get what you get.
MR. VAN NESS-That’s understandable.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Then I guess I’ll close the public hearing, not having read those
letters in, but recognizing that everybody was for the public.
MS. GAGLIARDI-I don’t think you actually opened it first. Did you open it before you
closed it?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I opened it and now I’m closing it, yes. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Does anybody want to add anymore commentary? I don’t think I
really need to poll you guys, other than.
MR. URRICO-No. I would just add the condition that it receives public health approval.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the only thing is we’ll just add the caveat, if for some
reason Board of Health flips out and doesn’t grant this one, we’ll be surprised, too, but,
nonetheless, it could occur.
MR. OBORNE-He’d have to come back, probably.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Then I guess we’ll go ahead and grant this in hopes that the
Board of Health follows through appropriately on the first meeting of May there.
MR. VAN NESS-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Does somebody want to take this one?
MRS. JENKIN-I can do that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2010 THOMAS VANNESS,
Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
5 Ohio Avenue. The applicant proposes removal of an existing 14 by 60 foot mobile
home and replace with a new 27.4 foot by 54 foot modular home with full basement on a
.14 acre parcel. Relief requested from front, rear, and side yard setback requirements.
The relief required is that the applicant requests six feet of front setback, twenty feet four
inches of rear setback, seventeen feet north side setback, and four inches of south side
setback relief per 179-3-040. In making the determination, the Board must consider
these five balancing factors. The first one is whether an undesirable change will be
produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be
created by the granting of this Area Variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood, and
actually will improve the neighborhood. The proposal is definitely in character with the
nature of the development in this particular area of the town. 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 really is no realistic solution to this because having
a nine foot wide house is not realistic at all. So there’s no other feasible method.
Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for 6 feet from the 30
foot front setback is perhaps minor to moderate. The request for 20 feet 4 inches from
the 30 foot rear setback is moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. The request for
17 feet from the 25 foot north side setback requirement is considered moderate to
severe, and finally, the request for 4 inches or 1% relief from the 23 foot south side
setback is very minor. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or
impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district.
Actually, it will be a positive effect to the neighborhood with the improvement and a very,
very nice modular home that you’re putting in instead of the trailer. Whether the alleged
difficulty was self-created. It could be created because you want to improve your
property and have a nice home to live in, but that’s a positive, not a negative. So, I vote,
with the condition that the Board of Health does grant a waiver from the location
requirements for the septic system, I vote to move to approve Area Variance No. 17-
2010.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s it.
MR. VAN NESS-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Do you want these back?
MR. VAN NESS-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure thing. Okay. I guess we’re all done for the night, then,
guys.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
28