2010.05.19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 19, 2010
INDEX
Area Variance No. 9-2010 Steven L. and Christine M. Johnson 1.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23 (Cont’d Pg. 19)
Area Variance No. 14-2010 Christian & Eustacia Sander 2.
Tax Map No. 278.-2-29 and 30
Area Variance No. 4-2010 Irene Marshall 7.
Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28
Area Variance No. 12-2010 Sally Strasser 12.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-7
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 05/19/2010)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 19, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOAN JENKIN
RICHARD GARRAND
JOYCE HUNT
RONALD KUHL
BRIAN CLEMENTS
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the May 19, 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. 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 the 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. 9-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON
OWNER(S): STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION: 96
HALL ROAD – GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING +/- 1,198
SQ. FT. SUMMER HOME AND REBUILD TO A +/- 2,110 SQ. FT. YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE
WITH A 576 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE,
SIDELINE, REAR LINE SETBACKS , PERMEABILITY AND ROAD FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-275 SEPTIC ALT.; SP 14-10 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.29 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-23 SECTION: 179-4-
030; 179-4-050; 179-13-010
MR. UNDERWOOD-For anybody that’s here this evening, we did have one change, and we
received the following, addressed to Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, RE: Area Variance 9-
2010, Site Plan 14-2010 for Steve and Christine Johnson residence on Glen Lake. On behalf of
my clients, Christine and Steven Johnson, I would like to formally request the application be
tabled from the Zoning Board of Appeals to the June 16, 2010 meeting, and table the Planning
Board application to the meeting of June 23. So we will hear this on the first meeting in June,
then.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M.
JOHNSON, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce
Hunt:
Tabled to the June 23, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, and any changes would have to
nd
be in by the 22 of May.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, if you could add to that to have revised application materials in by
nd
the 22 of May.
nd
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So any changes would have to be in by the 22 of May. Is that
going to be out of synch with the Planning Board coming after us? Or not in that respect, I
guess. Okay.
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II 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. 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
MR. UNDERWOOD-We have previously read this in. I’m not going to have him read all the Staff
Notes in again because I think it would be redundant and I think everybody has been there and
is pretty familiar with what was going on, and in essence they were requesting relief from the
road frontage and access requirements, and we had some concerns because of the busy nature
of Route 149, and we had asked that DOT get back and it appears that the Planning Board last
night did resolve the differences. I guess there was some endangered species that had to be
checked for on the property, and that was, they signed off on that also. So at this point in time,
unless you have anything you want to add, maybe you can fill us in as to what the suggestion
was last night, keeping it the way you had proposed it I guess.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. My name is Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. With me is
applicant/owner, Christian Sander. Yes, we did meet with the Planning Board last night, and did
receive their recommendations in support of this variance. We did not get into specifics of the
access at 149 and the project. In general terms, both with this Board and with that Board, we
have discussed a couple of options as far as configuration. We prefer the two points of access.
I have met with the fire department actually today. They strongly prefer the two points of
access. So that’s what we’re going to continue to propose as we hopefully can get our variance
relief and take this project back to Preliminary subdivision review. In the correspondence with
DOT, I don’t know if you folks received a copy of it. I did submit it for the Planning Board, you
will note that although they supported the accesses as proposed, they did indicate that we still
have to meet DOT standards, and that includes setback issues and in meeting those setback
issues, as the road construction is completed, there is a chance that we may adjust the location
of one or both of those driveways slightly in order to stretch our sight distances a little bit, but
from the applicant’s perspective, we want to stay with the two points of access. Other items we
discussed, we did have information on the endangered species. That was something the
Planning Board was waiting for, and that was about it, and I will give an overview of the project if
you’d like. We are asking for relief from road frontage for six of the nine new parcels, and what
we’re trying to create is a rural project where we’ve got rather large three acre lots, and have
them have a rural feel and a neighborhood feel at the same time, and in order to do that with this
concept, we do need, we do seek the variance that we’ve applied for.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So the bulk of the variances, under my impression of it is, is because it’s a
private road in there, that’s why you need for all those parcels because they don’t front on a
public road.
MR. HUTCHINS-The variance is for lack of road frontage on a public highway, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Are you guys pretty clear as to what’s going on here? Any
questions you have?
MR. CLEMENTS-l just had one. You didn’t say anything about the road loop, and we had talked
about it being to Queensbury Town standards, just the loop.
MR. HUTCHINS-We had talked about it, we had talked about various degrees of surface, and
we had talked about asphalt cover on a portion of it, and we had talked about asphalt cover over
the loop, and at this point, we’re continuing to show it as a gravel surface road, but that was
another point that the fire department had is that they would strongly prefer it be asphalt. That
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
came up at the Planning Board. So it’s very likely that a fair portion of this will end up being an
asphalt surface road. As far as to full blown standards of the Town standards, we’re not
proposing to go with that, because then you get into a whole lot of pipe drainage infrastructure
and things that would, significantly more infrastructure than the private road that we’re
proposing.
MRS. JENKIN-If you put asphalt on it, would then the school buses be able to drive, or does it
have to be Town standards in order for the school buses to access that?
MR. HUTCHINS-That is a decision that’s completely up to the school district and their
transportation group decides that when they look at the population. There are a number of
Town roads that school buses do not go into, and when they set their route, they determine that.
I’m not exactly sure if the school bus, can they? Yes, certainly they can. It would be of
adequate size and capacity, certainly. Can they or will they legally? I’m not sure.
MRS. JENKIN-Because that was one of the big concerns is stopping on 149 for this, and it
might.
MR. HUTCHINS-And we’ve also had some discussion about some sort of a pull off or a bus stop
at 149 in that area, such that if a bus were to need to get off 149, they could do that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any sense as to which direction the buses pick the kids up and
drop them off? I don’t know whether they’re coming from the east or west?
CHRISTIAN SANDER
MR. SANDER-Yes. Currently they come from the east to the west. I’m sorry, no, they stop so
that they’re on the right side of the road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, that would be fine, as long as they were doing it anti clockwise, that
would work.
MR. KUHL-Well, my guess, with the speed limit the way it is, they wouldn’t let the children cross
the center line.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, yes, but I mean, if they were, then that would be scary.
MR. SANDER-My children are picked up from there, and that’s what they, they don’t have to
cross the line.
MR. KUHL-Christian, are you going to be living in this development?
MR. SANDER-Yes.
MR. KUHL-Who’s going to, if your contention here is to have a private road, who’s going to be
responsible for the snow removal, if, in fact, the buses want to go in?
MR. HUTCHINS-A formal covenants and restrictions of a Homeowners Association will be
formed, and that will be the responsibility, that’ll be the primary responsibility of that entity, is
upkeep and maintenance of the roadways.
MR. KUHL-Don’t we also have to be concerned with the length of time to grow this project?
Suppose only two lots are sold, you know, and you have two that require buses. You don’t have
a full blown homeowners at that point. The developer should be responsible for it. Right or
wrong?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, yes, once the lots are formed, somebody’s going to own them, whether
it’s, and if they’re not sold, it’s going to continue to be the applicant. So initially you could have
an entity with numerous shares in the Homeowners Association.
MR. KUHL-Or you could have the opposite. You could have very few.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, the Association, each lot would be a member of the Association.
MR. KUHL-I don’t know if I’m getting nit picking here, but within this subdivision, are you going
to have a time requirement to when people buy these lots that they have to build, or could I buy,
could a person buy a lot and let it sit there for 10 years, undeveloped?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
MR. HUTCHINS-At this point, we don’t have any plans upon restricting a potential buyer of a lot,
and there are a couple of different ways that the whole thing could be transferred, but we have
no plans of directing a buyer that they have to build within a certain time.
MR. KUHL-Is that something we should be concerned with, or do we just let that go?
MR. OBORNE-I think that Mr. Sander, not being a developer, he’s not planning on building the
houses. Is that correct?
MR. SANDER-That’s correct.
MR. OBORNE-He’s just planning on subdividing the property, and as such, he would be in
charge of allowing somebody to buy a lot for speculation. The Town certainly doesn’t have an
issue with that.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And I will say, just as an addendum to that, it is a requirement of the Subdivision
Regs that when you’re dealing with a private road, that language of the covenants needs to be
presented to the Planning Board. So, that will be definitely a Site Plan issue.
MRS. HUNT-I think even if you don’t, you haven’t built, if you own the property, you have to be
part of the Association and pay.
MR. KUHL-Pay your fair share. Yes.
MRS. HUNT-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-You do. It depends on what the language is of the covenants and the HOA
agreement.
MR. KUHL-Well, I mean, isn’t it our intention to try to have the school buses go in there, so that
for the safety of the children, as a school bus stop.
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I can’t say it’s not the intent. It’s not something that we’ve really looked into, to
be honest with you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we could include it, you know, if we’re going to proceed with this, if
we get to a vote tonight on it, we could include language to the Planning Board that we would
think it would be more responsible to go in that direction, you know, ultimately, but I mean, we
can’t compel anybody to do it. There’s plenty of subdivisions around Town that are private that
the kids walk down to the end of the road and wait for the bus.
MRS. JENKIN-But the problem is, this is unique, because it’s 149. We talked about this before.
This has been discussed and discussed about the danger in the middle of winter, and having
bus stops stop right at the side of the road when a truck can be barreling down there and then
skidding because he’s trying to stop is very dangerous, and, again, I’m not sure whether it’s in
our jurisdiction here to grant a variance when, but I would think we would want to make sure that
the access roads are safe for the people that live there, and I think that that’s a huge
consideration for Route 149.
MR. SANDER-I’d absolutely want safety as the Number One priority. The purpose of the
construction that the State’s doing right now I think is to make that a safer road. It’s increasing
the sight distance dramatically in this area. It’s pretty good. It’s very good sight distance,
compared to what it’s dealing with right now.
MRS. JENKIN-But there’s people coming in and going out, cars coming and going out, trying to
break in to that fast traffic, and has there been any, you mentioned a pull off area. The way the
lots are built now, there’s no area that you could use for a pull off area, is there? They’re all lots.
They’re private lots.
MR. HUTCHINS-No, and I mentioned that we have had discussions with regard to a pull off area
that would be along 149.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
MRS. JENKIN-Because it would even, just for regular traffic coming in and out, the
homeowners, to have an area that they could pull out on and then gradually move in would be
very useful.
MR. HUTCHINS-That sort of issue is the issue that DOT will look at. I doubt DOT would ask us
to create a turning lane in order to have access in and out of there.
MRS. JENKIN-No.
MR. HUTCHINS-And keep in mind that the reason we’re here with this concept is our compliant
concept involved four new cuts on there that would be plain old ordinary driveways. So we think
we have, we’ve taken a positive step safety wise.
MR. URRICO-Can I ask a question? Right now there are school buses on 149. They do make
stops along the way. That’s not the, this is not going to be the first time that school buses are
stopping on 149. It must make about seven or eight stops between Bay Road and Route 9 from
the times that I’ve been up there when the school bus has been there. Am I right?
MR. SANDER-Yes, there’s several. I don’t know the number.
MR. URRICO-So this is not new, and they don’t pull off any place, as far as I can tell right now.
MR. SANDER-That’s correct.
MR. URRICO-So this is not a new problem that you’re creating. This is a problem that exists.
Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think what I’ll do at this point in time is open up the public hearing.
Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any new correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No new correspondence that I can tell.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think everybody’s pretty clear. I’ll just summarize from my point of
view. I think that, rather than having individual curb cuts onto 149 from individual homes located
along that stretch, two seems to be, two access points seems to be more logical, and as to
where the actual points will be, I think the Planning Board and DOT will determine the logical
best places to put those for sight distance viewing from the cars that are proceeding east and
west on there. It sounds to me like the bus issue is, you know, as Roy pointed out, is an already
occurring event. It’s not like this is the first kid who’s ever going to get picked up on 149, and
because the bus does drop and pick up kids on that side of the road, going, heading east, I think
that’s less of an issue. If it were in the opposite direction, I’d be a little bit more concerned
because, you know, nonetheless, I think that we have in the area even more busy roads, like
over in Whitehall and over that way, you know, where it’s even worse conditions and with the
straightening out of the road, I think it’s going to make it a better situation. It’s not perfect by any
means here. So I think what I’ll do is I’ll just go down through and poll you guys on the Board as
to your feelings on it and then we’ll vote. Do you want to go first, Rich?
MR. GARRAND-Certainly. I do have some concerns. Having individual curb cuts is not
preferred to this, but also by the same token, I’d rather see one entrance combined with an exit
there, instead of multiple curb cuts for this. Part of our purview is health, safety and general
welfare of the community, and I can say it’s pretty much a safe bet that it will be a dangerous
intersection to have cars coming and going from a dead stop into traffic that’s doing 55 miles an
hour, given the stopping distances it takes in that area. I don’t care what kind of line of sight you
have, if you’ve got somebody who’s got to go up a grade to get out onto 149, or just simply
breaking in to traffic, it’s going to present quite a hazard. With that in mind, if I look at the
balancing test, it does seem to pass the balancing test on a lot of the counts, on three out of the
five. So based on that alone, I think I’d have to be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I really have no problem with it, the double cut. I think there’s going to be
enough access when they straighten out the road. What my biggest concern would be is if, in
fact, this developer is going to asphalt it, it’s going to make it to Town standards, and if the
buses are going to go in that it is that way. If not, I mean, if that’s going to be, then somebody’s
got to remove the snow. If it never gets to be a Town standard and you talk the bus people to go
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
into it, then you’ve got to clear the snow. As long as it remains a private road, it gets to be the
bus supervisor’s read. He can make the choice of going in or not, and as Roy said, there are
other buses that stop on 149. It is 55 miles an hour, but, you know, it’s got to be safe, otherwise
they wouldn’t be stopping on 149. I don’t know whether or not, if they were to make a pull over,
it if would be any safer, because then you’ve got the situation if the bus stops between the line
and the pull over, a car can go by on the right, and that’s, and I happen to drive across to South
Glens Falls, and I know that for a fact. So that pull over thing, you know, in dead safety of the
children it would be right, but it could be wrong, too. So I’m not against it. I’m for it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I guess, when you’re looking at the bare facts here, and you could put in
four cuts and you’ve reduced it to two, I think two is better than one, because there can be an
entrance and an exit area, and I think that that’s probably a positive. I feel also strongly that a
recommendation should go to the Planning Board that that curb, that loop should be covered in
asphalt, and usually any kind of development, as it does develop the roads are asphalt because
the people want them in the Association. So I think that’ll happen probably in the future anyway,
but if you could start with that, I think that would be preferable, and I would be in favor of the two
curb cuts.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I have to agree with the rest of the Board. I think that 149 is a dangerous road.
I think that you’ve done your due diligence here, and I think that you’ve got a plan, and I believe
this is your second one, isn’t it?
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s several modifications into the second concept, yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, and I think that it really is the best plan that you can come up with. So I
would be in favor of the project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think the applicant has made every effort to comply with the suggestions
we’ve made and as far as the school bus problem, that’s up to the school district. I mean,
nobody has any control over that but the district, and I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. Acknowledging the dangers on 149, I think we all know what they are, and if
we had our druthers, we wouldn’t have any stops along that road, and it would be straight, and
we would never have a problem there, but I think these folks have done their best in making
plans to make it as safe as possible, and with that said, I think I would be in favor of the project
for the variance that we’re looking at.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I will go along with it, too, and I think the Planning Board’s going to
have the leeway to modify or dial in exactly what they, how it works out, you know, and that’ll be
in consultation with DOT and the school district and the fire department. It seems to me like it’s
looking more like you’re probably going to end up with some kind of an in out think. That’s what
the firemen want. So you don’t end up in a situation where you’ve got to back out or, you know,
especially on a narrower street, situations like that. I would agree with you. I think what you’ve
done here is reasonable, and the safety issue is just something that due diligence is required on.
I would assume as it infills and as it builds out there, there would probably have to be somebody
down there with the kids in the morning tending the herd so they don’t get into trouble with
traffic, but that’s usually the case with most parents anyway. So, does somebody want to take
this one?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll take it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MS. GAGLIARDI-You need to close the public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2010 CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
572 State Route 149. The applicant proposes to subdivide 55.65 plus or minus acres into 10
residential lots ranging in size from 3.07 acres to 23.5 acres off State Route 149 outside of the
Adirondack State Park. The applicant requests 50 feet public street road relief frontage for Lots
Three, Four, Six, Seven, Nine, and Ten, as per Section 179-4-050A. These parcels do not front
on a public road and do not have a 50 foot required frontage. Further, the applicant requests
road access relief for Lot Two as per Section 179-4-050B. This parcel has road frontage but
access is not proposed. The criteria for granting this variance. In making the determination, we
should consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting this Area Variance.
Minor impacts to the character of the neighborhood may be anticipated. Whether the benefit
could be sought by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the Area
Variance? The applicant has diligently listened to all of our suggestions and requests to comply
with what we thought were safety issues. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial?
The request to eliminate an access on a public road for Two, 100% relief from the provision that
actual physical access from a public road must be built as per Section 179-4-050B may be
considered severe relative to the Ordinance. Further, the request for 50 feet or 100% relief for
Lots Three, Four, Six, Seven, Nine, and Ten from the required frontage on a public street for one
principle building be at least 50 feet as per Section 179-4-050A may be considered severe
relative to the Ordinance. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact
on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to moderate
impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
Whether the difficulty was self-created. With proposed access to the private road, the difficulty
appears to be self-created, but the developer wishes to create a neighborhood type setting
rather than separate homes accessing the road. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 14-
2010.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II IRENE MARSHALL AGENT(S): STEVE
ALHEIM OWNER(S): IRENE MARSHALL ZONING: WR LOCATION: 101 FITZGERALD
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING DECKS
AND STAIRWAYS AND THE ADDITION OF A 112 SQ. FT. DECK ADJACENT TO
SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE AND SIDELINE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: SP 3-2010 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: JANUARY 13, 2010 LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-28
SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-6-050
IRENE MARSHALL, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We previously did hear this, and we were waiting for some possible
changes, and the Board the last time I think the recommendation with the Board was there was
a problem with the property line adjustment that had been proposed by the next door neighbor. I
would remind the Board members, and I did consult with Keith on this also on the phone today.
The relief that’s being requested here, specifically what you’re looking at up there on the screen
right now is the staircase, and I think that pretty much we were all, pretty much everyone had
agreed that what was proposed on there, as an improvement over what was currently existing,
was pretty important to these people. The deck on the front seemed to have a little bit more of a
tough sell to the Board at the time, and I think it is incumbent on our Board, too, to always keep
in mind what we’re here for, and that is when people come in requesting things, even though this
property line adjustment is something that might be necessary for the long term, it’s been a
property line adjustment that’s been, you know, existing for many, many years, if not decades,
and I think at some point in time it’s important for us to always consider the safety of the
applicants and things like that, and the staircase, I’m sure you’ve all been down to look at it,
seems to me to be pretty inadequate, not up to what I would consider to be a good safety
standard. So I’m going to ask that we give a little more thought as the evening progresses
here. We’re going to let her speak again, open up the public hearing, see if there’s any more
commentary going in here, but I think it’s important for us to think about, you know, if you lived
there would you want to just put yourself in a holding pattern indefinitely. Because I don’t know
if those things are something that can be worked out quickly or if it might take months or a year
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
or something like that, too. So let’s just keep open minds about it in any case. So, Mrs.
Marshall.
MRS. MARSHALL-Good evening. I’m Irene Marshall, owner of the camp in question. At the last
meeting in March, Ms. Mozal’s attorney, Mr. O’Connor, had concerns about the property line
between our two residences. We are currently in negotiation for a land swap solution, and
there’s no reason to believe that we will not come to some agreement. I came to that meeting in
March, fully expecting to, having reduced the size of the proposed deck as requested by this
Board for the second time, at great expense, and fully expected that my compliance would result
in us moving forward in the approval process. Needless to say, I was very disappointed that this
issue is holding us up. When we brought the property line issue up at a meeting last year about
the proposed subdivision of the Mozal property, it wasn’t a problem then, and the subdivision
was granted. When Ms. Mozal brought it up at the January meeting this year, this Board clearly
stated that it was not the Board’s issue, that we had to resolve it between ourselves, and yet it
suddenly became the Board’s issue at the March meeting. Isn’t it also true that no matter where
the property line is, either currently or after the agreement, that we are still going to have to have
a variance. So it seems to me to be a moot point. I was just up to the lake, for the first time this
season last weekend, and as I stood on my dock and gazed eastward, I couldn’t help but notice
an area that has been cleared, and a huge home building project that seems to have suddenly
appeared and has changed the view and character of that part of the shoreline. All I am asking
for is an eight by twelve foot deck that you won’t even be able to see from the lake because of
the natural vegetation that is along the shoreline in front of my camp, that I have no intention of
removing. The drawings and testimony provided thus far for this project should be more than
adequate for consideration of the variance. I respectfully request that we move forward on the
variance, based on the current submitted layout. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do Board members have anything you want to ask? I mean, I think
everybody’s pretty much aware of the situation. The staircase I think is pretty self-explanatory
with the landings. That seems to be the logical way to build things. You don’t want to have just
one single set of stairs going from here to there, because if somebody does fall, it’s a long way
to the bottom, and at least with the landings on the way down, I think it does, you know, provide
more safety in that respect, especially in the off seasons when it’s slippery and it’s snowy out
there. The deck, that’s up to you guys, and I know some of you were dead set against the deck.
Some of us thought that having moved it and shrunk it down to a minimalist size deck, that that
was more reasonable. So, I mean, it’s really up to you guys what you want to do. Any
comments you want to make?
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I’d say that I think I agree with Mrs. Marshall that I think that the stairs
need to be done. I think that you have shrunk the size of the deck. You’ve done what has been
asked. So I would certainly be in favor of this at this point now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else want to ask any questions or anymore comments?
MR. KUHL-I see you have on this drawing the approximate septic location. Is that because you
don’t know where it is? My concern is any footings you put on for the stairs could go right
through your septic. I mean, what kind of septic is it?
MRS. MARSHALL-I don’t know.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MRS. MARSHALL-It’s been there a long time.
MR. KUHL-You don’t know if it’s a tank or it’s a leach field? You don’t have a grinder pump?
You don’t push it up the hill?
MRS. MARSHALL-I think it’s a tank.
MR. KUHL-It’s a tank. It’s a single tank.
MRS. MARSHALL-I think so, yes.
MR. KUHL-Wouldn’t that be prudent to know exactly where that is so that when they start to put
their footings in for the stairs that it doesn’t go through the tank?
MRS. MARSHALL-You can, we have, in the past, have unearthed the top of it, and you can just
shovel the dirt off of it. So you know where it is.
MR. KUHL-Okay. So I can go over there with a shovel and look for it?
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
MRS. MARSHALL-You could.
MR. KUHL-Okay, but all kidding aside, you really don’t know, whoever’s going to do this work,
are they going to know where it is?
MRS. MARSHALL-Yes.
MR. KUHL-By what method?
MRS. MARSHALL-We’ll unearth it.
MR. OBORNE-I will say, having visited the site, that the actual pipe goes underneath the stairs
and to the, I guess east. I’ve seen that pipe go underneath the stairs area there.
MR. KUHL-Which comes out of the house to some.
MR. OBORNE-Area in the woods.
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-There’s no marker or anything? I mean, when they put this extension.
MR. OBORNE-There’s exposed pipe. It’s not buried.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s seasonal use, right?
MR. OBORNE-Seasonal use. Right.
MRS. JENKIN-So you’ve never had the tank emptied or anything?
MRS. MARSHALL-No. We did have it looked at quite a few years ago, and there was not a
problem with it. We’ve had the water tested several times over the years.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you guys want to ask? Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing.
Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any new correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No new correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll poll down through the ranks here and see what you
guys think about it. Does somebody want to read off, what was it we decided the last time on
the deck? Was it going to be eight by twelve? That’s what we said the last time, right?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, eight by twelve, no, eight by fourteen, right? I have written down the new
length and the new width. The new width is eight feet and the new length is fourteen feet.
MRS. MARSHALL-I believe that’s correct when they revised it, because of the windows on the
front of the camp, that it had to be within those.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. As far as, why don’t I start with you, Roy.
MR. URRICO-Yes. At this point I am satisfied with the applicant’s request, and I think they’ve
made enough changes to satisfy any questions on my part. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think, though there seems to be a lot of relief required, you certainly have
gone and tried to meet our questions, and I do think safety is a big issue here. It really has to be
taken care of. So I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. As I said before, I’d also be in favor. I did have a question, though, with
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
the relief that’s required. On the Staff Notes that we have now, is that the relief that’s required
according to what Joan said the new deck size was?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think it’s also relief from the present property line, which cuts off
that corner to the west of the house there. So I’m guessing that, in the future, if the lot line
adjustment is accomplished, then it will give them more relief on that side from.
MR. OBORNE-And it will be pre-existing, nonconforming at that point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, we’re not going to worry about it. Once it’s done, it’s done,
but I think everybody’s pretty clear as to the size of the deck, that’s predicated by the window
location.
MR. CLEMENTS-I’d be in favor, then.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I’ve felt from the very beginning that those stairs need to go. Absolutely,
they’re very dangerous, and I think, my questions were answered at the last meeting, the
platform and where it goes down to ground, close to the water. The stairs are going down
underneath where the deck will be. Correct?
MRS. MARSHALL-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-Down and then it comes out. So that’s not a problem.
MRS. MARSHALL-And there’s already a cement landing there, and they’re going to be going
down onto that landing, so we don’t have to pour any cement.
MRS. JENKIN-And that would be a good safety feature as well. So, I appreciate the fact that
you’ve made the deck smaller because that was a requirement before, and I don’t think that it
will really have an impact on the lake. So I would be in favor of your variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I can definitely see the necessity for replacing the stairs. They don’t look too
healthy, and they appear to be covered with moss, and I would not want to have to go up and
down those with anything in my hands. On the flip side of that, I think most of these variances
being asked for affect the neighbor, I believe her name is Mozal, quite significantly. She’s the
most affected resident in this area, the most encroached up, and I also have issues with
violating some of what was in the deed, as far as 15 feet to the adjacent property owner, and
other things noted in the deed. I do support the stairs, but I still think the deck on the front may
be a little unnecessary.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-I’m concerned with the permeability of the deck and where you’re going to run off.
Are they going to do a stormwater trough in front of that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think because the deck is, I mean, the deck is, you know, it’s not like a
contiguous impermeable surface. It does have slots in it that the water will drain down through.
It’s not going to be a covered, and we can put that into the resolution that it won’t be covered at
any future date. There are trees in front along the shoreline there, too. There’s vegetation to
shield it, so it’s not directly in view of the lake.
MR. KUHL-But we’re taking away eight foot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. KUHL-My greatest concern with this whole thing is the septic, and that your contractor
doesn’t go through it. If you’re going to be using this property more, you should look at that. You
also read that you’re going to work on a resolution of your property line. I hope you do that. If
stormwater runoff is not our concern, I mean, I know there’s trees there, but we’re also offering
more to the lake at a shorter distance, that we don’t require, you know, a trough there to collect
the water, and screen it through before it gets to the lake.
MR. OBORNE-It’s going through Site Plan Review also.
MR. KUHL-Okay. So then I’ll be quiet and say okay.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’ll go along with the request also. I think that the stairs and
landings are absolutely necessary. The deck, I think because we shrunk it down to a minimalist
size deck, I don’t think there’s very many people on Glen Lake that would not wish to have a
deck on the front of their house, and I believe that this deck here, because of the way it’s going
to be constructed, it’s going to be a minimal disturbance, as far as setting the footings down
there for the posts and things like that. I know it was proposed to do it with metal posts that can
be driven in or something. Frost isn’t going to be a real concern with the water table
immediately adjacent there also, and I would request that whoever does the resolution, that we
make it incumbent upon the applicant that there be no more trimming of the trees or for a better
view or anything like that. I think that this deck is shielded. If it were starkly exposed like a lot of
them are along the lake there with no vegetation in front, we probably would request more
vegetation to be planted, but because you’ve said you don’t want to have that, you know, no
vegetation in front, that you’d prefer it the way that it is, let’s keep it that way, too. So does
somebody want to take this one. Brian, do you want to do it?
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thanks.
MS. GAGLIARDI-And you need to close the public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2010 IRENE MARSHALL, Introduced by
Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
101 Fitzgerald Road. The applicant proposes to remove a total of approximately 176 square
feet of access decking and stairs and install instead a total of approximately 265 square feet of
access decking, stairs, and stair landings. Further, the applicant proposes approximately 116
square feet of new decking attached to the dwelling adjacent to the shoreline. The relief
required is the applicant seeks relief from the minimum shoreline setback as per Section 179-4-
030 as follows: Number One, 43 feet of shoreline relief requested from the 50 foot requirement
for proposed deck adjacent to the shoreline. Number Two, 10 feet of west side relief requested
from the 20 foot requirement for proposed deck adjacent to the shoreline. Number Three, 38
feet of shoreline relief requested from the 50 foot requirement for dwelling access deck.
Number Four, 8 feet of east side line relief requested from the 20 foot requirement for northern
portion of dwelling access deck stair landing, and Number Five, 13 feet of west side line relief
requested from the 20 foot required for southern portion of the proposed replacement stairs. In
considering the Area Variance, in making the determination, the Board shall consider, Number
One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting this Area Variance. Minor impacts to
the neighborhood may be created by granting this Area Variance. Whether the benefit sought
by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than
the Area Variance? Alternatives to the multiple area variances appear to be limited due to the
constraints of the lot. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial? The request for 43
feet or 86% relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback for the proposed deck adjacent to the
shoreline may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. However, most people on Glen
Lake are looking for decks, or have decks on the front of their dwellings. Additionally, the
request for 10 feet or 50% relief from the 20 foot sideline setback requirement for the proposed
deck adjacent to the shoreline may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further,
the request for 38 feet or 76% relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement for the
dwelling access deck may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 8
feet or 40% relief for the east sideline setback for the northern portion of dwelling access deck
stair landing may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 13
feet or 65% relief for west sideline setback relief for the southern portion of proposed
replacement stairs may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Whether
the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the physical and environmental
conditions may be anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? The
nonconforming nature of the parcel and the location of the existing home appear to contribute to
the need for multiple area variances. In addition, we would like to request that the vegetation in
front of the deck and adjacent to the shoreline be left as it is and not be trimmed or pruned or
taken out, and the deck stay uncovered to increase the permeability. So it doesn’t decrease the
permeability.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mr. Garrand
AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II SALLY STRASSER AGENT(S): SALLY
STRASSER OWNER(S): STEVE AND LILLIAN DOBERT ZONING: WR LOCATION: 64
BARBER ROAD – GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING
5,407 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 36 SQ.
FT. ENTRY PORCH ADDITIONAND TREE REMOVAL WITHIN 35 FT. OF THE SHORELINE.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS, SHORELINE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER RELIEF
REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS
REF.: BP 2010-006 RES. ALT./ADD.; SPR 19-10; BP 2007-370 DOCK WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-7 SECTION: 179-3-040
MELISSA LESCAULT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. HUNT-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a statement. I’m acquainted with the owners, Steve
and Lilly Dobert, and with the agent, Sally Strasser, but we have not discussed the project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Not a problem.
MR. URRICO-We were just handed something, Jim. Should I read that in, rather than what was
supplied to us in the packet?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Which one is it? This one here?
MS. LESCAULT-That’s my written narrative that I’m going to go over with you in a few minutes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean, she can go over it, but I would suggest that we read it in,
because we haven’t read anything in yet on this one.
MR. URRICO-These are the Staff Notes for Area Variance No. 12-2010.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-2010, Sally Strasser, Meeting Date: May 19, 2010
“Project Location: 64 Barber Road – Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes renovation of an existing single family dwelling to include the construction of a 36 +/-
sq. ft. entry porch addition.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from Floor Area Ratio requirements and shoreline setback
requirements as per §179-3-040. Further, relief requested for the expansion of a non-
conforming structure as per §179-13-010.
Relief is as follows:
1.Floor Area Ratio – 12 square feet or 0.1% additional FAR relief as per §179-3-040. The
existing FAR is 39.8% based on a 5,407 square foot home situated on a 13,582 square
foot parcel. Allowable FAR for this parcel is 2,988 square feet.
2.Shoreline setback – 11 linear feet of shoreline setback relief for the new entry as per
§179-3-040.
3.Relief request for the expansion of a non-conforming structure as per §179-13-010.
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
change to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of the granting of this area
variance.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
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. Due to the limitations of the lot, there
appears to be limited options by which to avoid an area variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 12 square feet or 0.1%
additional relief from the existing Floor Area Ratio of 39.8% may be considered minor
relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 11 feet or 22% relief from the 50 foot
shoreline setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered minor to moderate
relative to the code. Finally, the request for relief for the expansion of a non-conforming
structure per §179-13-010 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2010-006: Residential alteration Issued except for deck/porch portion of project
SP 19-2010: Expansion of N/C Structure in a CEA Pending
BP 2007-370: Dock
Staff comments:
Please see Planning Board recommendation handout.
Per § 179-2-010 Floor Area Ratio is calculated as follows – All square footage, as measured
from the exterior of exterior walls of all structures on the property, including all floors of the
structures, garages, basements and attics with more than five feet of ceiling height and covered
porches. Building square footage does not include open decks, docks and that portion of
covered docks extending over water.
SEQR Status:
Type II – No further review required.”
MR. URRICO-The Planning Board, because the Town of Queensbury requires, per 179-9-070,
requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board approval.
The Planning Board did recommend, according to the resolution that was that was passed, they
opted for Option Number One, which is that the Planning Board, based on its limited review has
not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project
proposal, and that was approved on May 18, 2010, and by a seven zero margin.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Tell us about your project. I live on Glen Lake and I paddle by all
the time looking at the big changes over there, and I think everybody recognizes that when Doc
Barber built it probably that was back in the day when you could do whatever you wanted to
freelance it any way you wanted, and that’s why you have such a large structure, unfortunately
located at the bottom of the hill there so you get all the runoff and everything else becomes an
issue at that point in time. I don’t think any one of us probably isn’t concerned about the septic
issue, you know, with such a large home and thinking, well, if you had like 20 people living there
it might be a disaster in the works, but I think the improvements that have been done look pretty
good so far. For our purview, just to keep the Board members informed here, you should be
looking at the entryway that’s being proposed on the back of the house, not on the lakeside, and
that’s what we’re concerned with here this evening. I mean, we can’t really go back in the past
and undo what’s been done previously. I know last night there was some discussion with the
Planning Board about the addition of substantial vegetation on site, and the remove, I guess
some trees have been removed. I know since I’ve lived on Glen Lake there were more trees on
that point that existed in the past, and they’ve sort of died and gone the way, over the years, but
I think it’s long overdue for some substantial plantings, and, you know, when I moved on the
lake, my house was the same way. It was treeless, you know, and I just, the first thing I did
when I got there was I started planting, and now you can’t see my house. It’s a lot nicer, gives
you more privacy at the same time, but that’s just something to keep in mind as we discuss here
this evening anyway, but go ahead.
MS. LESCAULT-Good evening. My name is Melissa Lescault, and I’m the attorney on behalf of
Steven and Lillian Dobert. Steven Dobert is here present as well, and so is Sally Strasser who
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
is our contractor on this project. As you mentioned, the house that is located there is a lawfully
nonconforming house. The applicant has sought a building permit for all the renovations that
they’ve done thus far, which include a new roof, windows, trim, siding, and some structural
interior work as well, but, yes, tonight is solely about moving an entryway that pre-existed your
Ordinance. It was nonconforming, and the applicant would like to actually move it further away
from the shoreline, 11 feet further away. So they’re actually making a better situation to the
current entryway. The existing entryway is 28 feet, and the proposal will be 29 feet. So that’s
where the 11 foot difference is. What I would like to do is actually, I handed out my written
submission to you, and I’m just going to go through that, but I’m just going to further discuss with
you the balancing test, and some of the arguments that we make in favor of this application.
Number One, will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood.
Well, I’ve analyzed the neighborhood, so to speak, next to the Dobert’s home, and the three
homes removed to the north, you’ve got 23 feet as a shoreline setback, approximately. The
following one is 52 feet, 32 feet for the third one far removed, and then when you go from the
south portion of their property, you have 18 feet for a shoreline setback, 31 feet and then 24. So
an average of basically what exists in that neighborhood is approximately 30 feet for the
shoreline setback. The lowest, or shortest one is 18, and then the longest setback is 52 feet.
Basically one out of the six is in compliance. There’s five of them, which is about 83%, are not
in compliance and are actually less of a setback than what we are proposing. Our proposal,
again, is 39 feet, which is a better situation what even the neighborhood, is prevalent in the
neighborhood currently. Also attached in the written submission are letters from three of the
neighbors, whereby they’ve all waived any objections to this, and actually have spoken in favor
of this project. The second aspect with the balancing test is whether there’s an alternative.
Well, I guess an argument could be made that, well, could they move the entryway even further
back, so that it would meet the 50 foot, but in order to do that, you would have to basically put
the entryway in what I would call a functional room, you know, a bathroom or the kitchen or a
bedroom or office. They tried to keep the layout of the house or design as consistent as
possible, which would require that they have the entryway either in a foyer or a living room,
which is what they choose to do. So again, it’s further set back, but I think that’s the best
alternative that they have with respect to this project. Certainly, they couldn’t, it would be
impossible to remove the entire house and make this entire structure in compliance with your
Code. The third aspect of your balancing test is whether this variance is substantial. They are
increasing the square footage of the entryway by 12 square feet. It is less than one percent of a
variance request, and the setback is 22%. In my opinion, both of those variances are
deminimis in respect to whether it’s a substantial variance request. The fourth aspect is whether
the variance will have adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition in the
neighborhood. Certainly the re-location of an entryway is not going to increase any municipal
services. There’s not going to be any increased traffic or parking that we would need to be
concerned with, and the change in the aesthetic character is actually to the benefit of the
neighborhood, and you will see that one of the letters that was submitted, the neighbors actually
were in favor because they said it would increase the property value for their house. So
obviously there would be no adverse effect to the neighborhood, and then the last aspect of the
balancing test is whether it’s self-created, and as I mentioned, or was read into the record, you
know, this consideration obviously is relevant to the decision of the Board, but shall not
necessarily preclude the granting of the Area Variance. The applicant purchased this home. It
is a lawful nonconforming structure. It is a situation where they want to make the renovations to
improve the house, and they are not making a setback worse. They’re making it better by
moving this entryway. So do you have any questions?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, the Planning Board didn’t have any issues with this?
MR. OBORNE-Not as far as where the entrance is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, but with the rest of the property, they were looking at doing some
substantial changes in regards to vegetation?
MR. OBORNE-That is correct, and the applicant has submitted a landscaping plan. They are on
notice as of last night that they’re looking for a little bit more robust of a planting, especially with
larger trees, I believe.
MS. LESCAULT-Right, and we actually have made an effort to contact our landscaper who has
reached out, to the best of my knowledge, has reached out to the members of the Planning
Board to see exactly what it is that they would like, before we go tomorrow night for Site Plan,
should we get approval tonight.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you certainly want him to contact me. Because it’s almost impossible to
contact the Planning Board.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
MS. LESCAULT-All right. Right. Okay. Well, I don’t know, Keith, if he did, but we’ll find out. I
don’t know if he tried to.
MR. OBORNE-If he does, have him give me a call.
MS. LESCAULT-Okay. Perfect.
MR. GARRAND-Does the structural changes inside affect the numbers of bedrooms or
bathrooms at all?
MS. LESCAULT-No.
MR. GARRAND-In your application is says that shoreline setback existing 29 feet, proposed, 36
feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thirty-nine.
MS. LESCAULT-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-I’m just looking at the application.
MS. LESCAULT-I don’t know if you, an earlier application was submitted, and it was not
surveyed, and then when I got involved we re-did the application, submitted a second one, and
that’s why we submitted and tabled the meeting so that we could make sure we had everything
surveyed properly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys at this time? Okay. I’ll open up the
public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do you want to come
up?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DON KRUGER
MR. KRUGER-Hi. My name is Don Kruger and I live on Glen Lake. One of the only, I love the
welcome to the neighborhood and all that. My only concern, I don’t know how, who, where we
address it at, is the septic system there. We deal with this on an annual basis on Glen Lake.
We have a weed problem. Some people think that there are no failed septic systems on the
lake. I put septic systems in for a living, and I have to tell you I believe that there are failed
systems. When I dig up somebody’s septic system, including the one the cottage that I bought,
and there’s three rusty oil barrels there, I have to tell you that that is somehow going into our
lake, and it’s putting a nutrient into our lake. Not just this project, but anybody, and I just think
that we should avail ourselves, anytime that someone comes in, like the people that just had
their deck, should look at their septic system, make sure, even if you have to send a Town
Engineer up there, check it, make sure that it’s right, and if it isn’t, we should improve it at that
point. We should avail ourselves of that, because we’re hurting ourselves, as a group on the
lake, with failed septic systems. Nothing against these folks. I’m just stating it as a general
issue. Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think at some point there was a proposal that the Town look into
combining all those houses down at the bottom of the hill there and pumping up the hill, when
Doc Barber had the farm up on top of the hill, but I know in the days when the farm was there,
the geese were up there, the pigs, the cows, whatever, and I think the impact on the lake was
much more severe than it is now with just a household there, but at the same time, those
comments are something the Planning Board should be looking at, and I think, you know, it is
incumbent, if you’re going to be a lake resident, you know, irregardless of the situation if you can
ever make the situation better, that’s something we should all be looking towards doing, as Don
suggested, and I don’t know, for the long term, for the short term, you know, what would work
best for that down at the base of the hill there. I mean, obviously there’s a limited capacity. You
also have all the culvert, all the road runoff coming down in that, where that culvert comes out
into the lake there. That’s a major milfoil area, you know, because of all the extra nutrients
coming in, but, you know, it’s something that, you know, everybody has to do their part, and if
we’re going to have a long term solution, you know, that’s something that you as a homeowner
has to decide to do it on your own. The Planning Board I think, I don’t think can compel people
to replace their systems, but, you know, if the time and effort is there, you know, if the system is
inadequate, I mean, you can get it tested to find out it’s working. I mean, you know, it’s pretty
easy to tell, just by smelling with your nose sometimes, but we’ll consider that, and I think that
the Planning Board, when they review this, they’re probably going to get into that issue here
also.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
MR. KRUGER-As an Association, as you know, we’re spending $140,000 every time we turn
around, for treating weeds on the lake. We’re not allowed to do dye tests on people’s septic
systems. That’s a violation of their, whatever, personally I should think everybody would
welcome that, before we welcome, we’re talking about a tax district to pay for this. I would
rather have a dye test than a tax district, but that’s just my personal opinion. Any way, if there’s
any way that we could dovetail these things together, on any of these things around the lake, I
think it would be just a good idea.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the
matter? Okay. We do have the three letters that were submitted with the application tonight,
and I think those are the three nearest neighbors, Kostek, Deeb, and Schadwills.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re all in that immediate neighborhood.
MR. URRICO-The first letter reads, “To Whom It May Concern: I, Edward Schadwill, who
resides at 60 Barber Road, have no objection to the Dobert’s renovating their home. It
tremendously improves the appearance of the home along with improving the neighborhood.
They have been very good neighbors and I support every aspect of the plan. Thank you,
Edward Schadwill” The only question I have on this letter, and I just noticed that the address
that it was mailed to is 30 Britta Lynn Drive in Queensbury. So that must be a summer
residence I guess?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think so.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Then the second letter. “To Whom It May Concern: As owner and
resident of 61 Barber Rd, Queensbury, NY, I have absolutely no reservations regarding the
remodeling of Lili and Steve Dobert’s home, including their proposed entryway porch area.
They have been wonderful neighbors over the years, and I fully support their right to improve
their domicile and property value. Sincerely, Stan Kostek, Jr.” And the last letter is “I, John A.
Deeb, of 62 Barber Rd., Queensbury, NY have no objections to the variance requested by
Steven Dobert, of 64 Barber Rd, Queensbury, NY 12804. John A. Deeb”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And poll the Board, and I guess I’ll start with you, Joyce.
MRS. HUNT-Well, I see the only issue we’re talking about is the construction of this 36 square
foot porch entry, and I think that’s about the minimum size you could have for safety, getting in
and out of the house, and the fact that it will be further from the lake than the old entry, I have no
problem.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I completely agree. I think it’s behind the home. It’s not intrusive into the
lake. It’s not intruding. You have made the setback less than it was before, and it just doesn’t
make sense to put that, the entryway, any other place. I think it will add to the home, and I
definitely in favor of this variance. I don’t think that the entry is large at all. It might even be
better to make it a little bit larger, but I appreciate the fact you kept it small. So I’m in favor of
this. I do have a question, though, and this is just for my own knowledge. Is it Glen Lake only
that you are not allowed to do a dye test at Glen Lake? Because you can do it on Lake George.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I don’t know as if that’s true. Because I did all the initial septic testing
back around ’92 on the lake, and at the time I did water samples in front of every house. They
were analyzed at ACC, and if they came back hot, I re-tested them within 24 hours to confirm,
and I would have to go back and look on the old sheets to tell you whether, but I know there
were always concerns down in the area there, because at the time we had the culvert pipe and
the farm up on the hill. So it was substantial, the problem we were dealing with. It’s not really
germane to us now. As far as dye testing, they did do dye testing about 10 years ago on the
lake, and at the time, it was sort of inconclusive, because I don’t think that the study was done
properly at the time, but dye testing is something that you could have done yourself. You can
call up the Department of Environmental Conservation. They’ll come down and flush the dye
down your toilet and just run the water, flush it about 100 times and see what happens, and
fluorescence dye is easy to detect with a dolcimeter that you put the sample in the actual water
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
sample in from the lake. So I mean, if, for your own knowledge, if you wanted to do it, you could
go ahead. We can’t make you do it.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, you’re not compelled to do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s strictly up to you.
MRS. JENKIN-And the other thing is you said that you can’t force a person to change their
septic system.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, you can’t, unless it’s a failing system, and then you can require it at that
point in time. So, you know, but for most people in Town the difficulty lies with the fact that
people are unclear as to how septic systems function, and I don’t want to go off on a real
tangent here, but, just for your own knowledge, you should pump it out on a regular basis, a
three year rotation. Last year Glen Lake Protective Association arranged with Dave Wick in the
Soil and Water Conservation in Warren County, and they got a special deal that you could pump
out for $75. So it’s well worth it. I mean, $75, you can’t even go out to dinner on that. So, I
mean, it’s worth doing it for the good of the lake. If you have a system that you suspect is not
proper or improperly sited or old or ancient, as in the case of this one, this one’s got to be up
there in age I would think, 20 years at least, I would suggest, you know, that you pump it out
every single year, if you have a lot of use and things like that, but, again, if there’s only going to
be a couple of people living in a house, your impact is much less than having an army there and
a big party every weekend.
MRS. JENKIN-So is it the Association that would set those standards, then?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, there are no standards and it’s strictly up to the individual. In fact, one
of the biggest disappointments was, even with the deal, the vast majority of people on Glen
Lake didn’t take people up on the offer.
MR. KUHL-That grant is still open, by the way. It’s still open.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, I mean, all you’ve got to do is check with Ron, because Ron’s.
MRS. JENKIN-I can’t believe that.
MR. KUHL-Seventy-two people pumped, but the reason why the people up on Lake George do
it, in the APA it’s mandatory. I had a property in the APA, and they sent you a letter.
MR. UNDERWOOD-In the Park.
MR. KUHL-In the Park, right. We’re outside the Park, and the APA said you will have to. If not,
they will shut you down, and we used to do it every year, the APA would come around.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But, just for your own information, in Town, we don’t have any requirements
on septic. A lot of people never touch their septic system until it completely fills up and plugs the
pipes, and then they have to put a whole new system in, and that creates lots of work for Don
and people.
MRS. JENKIN-So this is, actually, it’s a Town requirement, or it would be up to the Town to
require.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Unless there’s an actual failure, the Town’s not going to touch it.
MRS. JENKIN-No, I know they don’t, now, but since it’s APA that has required people on Lake
George to do this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, if you’re in the Park.
MRS. JENKIN-In the Park, then who would be the one to start the requirement at Glen Lake?
Would it be the Town?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You would have to have a Town resolution.
MRS. JENKIN-It would be a Town resolution.
MR. OBORNE-I think that there’s something, and I’m not speaking to this professionally, but I
know that my septic had failed, where I live, and I know that there’s a DEC requirement that you
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
need to, within 48 hours, have some remediation of it. After that, I’m not sure, and I can’t speak
professionally. I know DEC is involved in it.
MRS. JENKIN-Anyway, I am in favor of the Area Variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-Looking at the balancing test, I’m thinking they’re a solid three out of five. So
I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-I enjoyed your comparison of all the nonconforming houses in that area, but all this
for an entrance, you know, good for you. I’m in favor, I mean, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I’d be in favor, too. I mean, we’re looking at the exact same footprint
here. All of these floor area ratios and all of those things were already there before. It’s a very
small project, I mean the entryway. So I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Definitely moving in the right direction here. So I definitely would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll go along with it, too. We recognize it’s a very large home, way
overbuilt for the site, but, you know, nonetheless, it is what it is. There’s no changing that. The
addition of this structure on the back isn’t going to materially affect the runoff on the property
there, but I think we would concur with the Planning Board’s recommendation that the plantings
be done and be substantial and trees. Along the shoreline, look at the places that have put
trees up. You can come down and look at my house, if you want, and see what I’ve done, but it
pays, in the long term, for the future of the lake, and if you’re going to be a long term resident of
the lake, there’s benefits that are going to accrue by doing that, and I think as people change
over and the lake changes back to what it should be, into a more natural shoreline as opposed
to a suburban shoreline, you’re going to see changes in the lake for the good, not for the worse,
hopefully. So does somebody want to take this one?
MRS. JENKIN-I could do this.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2010 SALLY STRASSER, Introduced by
Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
64 Barber Road – Glen Lake. The applicant proposes renovation of an existing single family
dwelling to include the construction of a 36 sq. ft. entry porch addition. The relief required, the
applicant requests relief from Floor Area Ratio requirements and shoreline setback
requirements as per Section 179-3-040. Further, relief requested for the expansion of a
nonconforming structure as per 179-13-010. Relief is as follows: The Floor Area Ratio, the
request is for 12 sq. ft. or 0.1 percent additional Floor Area Ratio relief as per 179-3-040. The
existing Floor Area Ratio is 39.8 percent based on a 5,407 square foot home situated on a
13,582 square foot parcel. Allowable Floor Area Ratio for this parcel is 2,988 square feet.
Shoreline setback, because this is an existing structure and you’re not changing the footprint,
then we’re really talking minimal increase in the Floor Area Ratio by adding the porch addition.
The relief, the shoreline setback is 11 linear feet of shoreline setback relief for the new entry as
per 179-3-040. The relief request for the expansion of a nonconforming structure as per 179-13-
010. In making a determination, there are five criteria to consider, that the Board must consider.
Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this Area Variance. This will be
a minor change to the neighborhood, and it would be almost non-existent as a result of the
granting of the Area Variance. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by
some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the Area Variance? Because of the
limitations of the lot, the existing home is nonconforming. There appears to be limited options.
There was an entry before, and the entry is only being moved back a little bit so it’s actually a
benefit to the property itself. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial? The request
for 12 sq. ft. or 0.1 percent additional relief from the existing Floor Area Ratio is considered
minor. Further, the request for 11 feet or 22% relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback is also
minor, relative to the Code. Finally, the request for relief for the expansion of a nonconforming
structure per 179-13-010 may be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. Whether the
proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact to the physical or environmental
conditions of the neighborhood or district. There would be a minor impact by the addition of this
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
entry porch. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created? It may be self-created, but with the
improvements to the home, the entry is actually a positive. We would recommend, the Zoning
Board would recommend, with the granting of this Area Variance, that the Planning Board do
continue with their recommendation that the plantings around be substantial, and you try to
protect the property and the lake frontage, too, with considerable landscaping and plantings. So
I move to approve Area Variance No. 12-2010.
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Jenkin,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MS. LESCAULT-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s no longer Three Acre, right? We’re just WR, right?
MR. OBORNE-It would be minimum is two acre, but it is a WR, you are correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. GARRAND-Didn’t we table this?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but just for the purposes of the public, some of the public may be here
to comment on the project. We did receive a letter late this afternoon, and they did want us to
table them. So we will not be hearing this, but at the same time, we will open the public hearing
in case there’s anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter this evening. This has
th
been tabled to the first meeting, the 16 of June. So is there anybody from the public that wants
to make any commentary tonight?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
DON KRUGER
MR. KRUGER-I’m Don Kruger. I live on Glen Lake, and I’m the next door neighbor. I would like
them to be able to enjoy their property and the nice new home and all that, but they’re going
from a summer camp, with no foundation under it, to a two story house that’s going to be year
round. That’s a totally different house. That should come under different criteria than an aged
cottage. I guess my basic problem with it is that it’s going to block my view of the lake. My
house is 60 feet back from the lake. The new house I built next to my existing cottage, I had to
go 50 feet, and I don’t think that that’s unreasonable. They can do that. They don’t want to dig
into the bank, but they have a great deal of space behind the house that they actually could, with
some creative excavation, without a huge amount of money, do that, but again, I would like to
say that I would like them to enjoy their house, but I think if they stayed back, like I am, that I
would be fine with it. I have a real problem with it being 24 feet from the lake, with the new
house.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Just for your own information, at the previous meeting we did get into
a discussion of exactly that, and my determination was that a lot of that land that the house is
built on had been scarfed out of the bank and in-filled into the lake, and if you dug down six
inches down below the front of that house, you’d probably hit lake water, and so our suggestion
was to move it back and they, unfortunately, had upgraded their septic and put it in right behind
the house, and I said, well, you know, it’s the same thing, it’s an issue with us because we
should be looking toward improving the situation, not that you’re caught between a rock and a
hard place there, but all the other houses, more recent construction, have been built at 50 foot
setbacks, and I think it’s important that you look at the adjacent properties and how far they’re
set back and you guys on that stretch there seem to be set back further than what they’re
proposing here. So, you know, we sent them back to the drawing board, and we have not seen
what they came back with as a comeback on that, but we did notice the same thing.
MR. KRUGER-Okay. The septic system. Let’s talk about that for a minute. They put a new
septic system in there, and there’s a holding tank, and it’s, I watched the guy do it. It was a
plastic holding tank, I assume like 1,000 gallons. I’m just assuming that. I don’t know that, but it
had a pump in the plastic tank, a big yellow tank, and it pumps up to a leach field that’s a
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
distance away. Well, that’s good construction. As far as digging that bank back, if you went in
there with a big excavator, and a couple of dump trucks, in a day’s time, you’d have that dug
back. You can pump that tank out, dig that tank up, and move it back the 20 feet or so, without
spending a huge amount of money. I talked to them, and they were very reluctant to spend a lot
of money, but if you’re going to build a 2,000 square foot house, you’re going to have to spend
something to do it. It is, I guess my point is that it’s possible to move that new tank that they put
in the ground back. It’s not a big monstrous thing to relocate it. You’re not talking about
destroying it, throwing it away. It’s just simply a matter of relocating it, with a big excavator that’s
not a big deal, my opinion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you.
MR. KUHL-Could I speak at the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you certainly may.
MR. KUHL-Okay. I have a cousin down in the Carolinas, and they’re on a canal, and they want
to take this house, they have a second piece of property and they’re going to move the house,
and while we were down there, they called in the code enforcement person from the town, as if
to say, where can we put this new footprint of this house, and you know what that code
enforcement guy did? We walked outside and he said, well, there’s that house and there’s this
house. So the line shouldn’t be any further, and effectively, that’s what we just heard. I mean, if
the line, why not do that? I mean, to me that seems the right thing, to satisfy the neighbor, not in
his view, and I happen to know somebody that’s got a big excavator, could move that tank, but, I
mean, what’s that, $3,000 to move that tank? I don’t think it should be an issue as to where the
house should be forward, but I just wanted to bring up that code enforcement guy in North
Carolina. I mean, he didn’t have a ruler or anything. He said, okay, there’s a house, there’s a
house. Here’s the line, but anyway.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We don’t often get into it because we don’t discuss this amongst ourselves
because we’re looking at each project individually, but that’s always been a concern on the
Waterfront Residential, because, you know, if we have that 50 foot standard, and we’re trying to
achieve it, when a new house is done, and new construction, it should be built compliantly, and
then as all the other houses eventually are replaced, you’re moving the line back to what you
expected you wanted to be, even if it’s wishful thinking in some places on the lake at the present
time, but, you know, we can only hope for the best. So anyway, I will leave the public hearing
th
open, and we’ll resume with this on the 16. Is there anybody else from the public anything else
they want to speak about tonight? Mr. Salvador?
rdth
MRS. HUNT-It’s the 23 and the 30 . You checked it?
thrd
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think he checked it. It’s 16 and the 23, the meeting dates?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MRS. HUNT-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Mr. Salvador?
MR. SALVADOR-By the way, we used to have a 75 foot setback on Lake George.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We did on Glen Lake, too.
MR. SALVADOR-We changed it to 50.
MR. OBORNE-It’s still 75, but you’re right.
MR. SALVADOR-The three acre zoning?
MR. OBORNE-It’s all two acre zoning now, but up towards Lake George, it’s 75 foot.
MR. SALVADOR-Anyway, I’ve asked to address the Board this evening on a subject that, I filed
an application for an appeal from the Zoning Administrator’s, the form says decision, but in
reality I’m calling it his interpretation, and I filed this application with the Chairman of the Zoning
Board. The application got intercepted by the Community Development Department and it really
hasn’t gone anywhere, but I’m here tonight to ask you, Mr. Underwood, to schedule my hearing.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-This was in regards to?
MR. SALVADOR-It’s an application for an appeal from the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation
of the stormwater management Chapter 147, in relation to the Seaboyer project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, where were we at with the Town on that?
MR. OBORNE-It has been approved.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So we had approved it.
MR. OBORNE-What you had approved was the infiltration devices within 100 feet of the
shoreline.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And Planning Board okayed those also, in a final form?
MR. OBORNE-Well, they okayed the project after much discussion. I guess that’s where I’ll
leave it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So is that project currently in the works to finalize it, as far as the vegetative
plantings and all those things that we suggested? Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-Look, I have 60 days within which to file an appeal. Now I told the Planning
Board I intended to file this Notice of Appeal, and they went ahead anyway, okay. This Appeal,
according to Town Law, stays that decision. It’s supposed to stay it, no action, pending the
hearing of the Appeal. Nobody pays any attention to it. Now, I got a letter from the Town
Attorney stating all this confusion about not understanding what I was appealing and all. It’s
really quite simple. I don’t want to get into the merits of the Appeal here tonight. I just want to
schedule for a hearing. I’m entitled to that.
MRS. JENKIN-How much time do you have left?
MR. SALVADOR-On what, the 60 days?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-I think my 60 days runs from the time that I knew of the Zoning Administrator’s
false interpretation, I should say, and that was when I got a copy of the minutes of your hearing
and read that this issue was not even addressed. It was some time in March, I believe, your
March hearing, but I filed my notice. I’m timely with my notice.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question of Keith? I recall we got a copy of an agenda and it
was on there, and it was a tentative item, and then it was removed?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it was.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there an explanation for its removal? They determined there was no
standing or something?
MR. OBORNE-The Counsel determined that there was no standing, because I guess, and to be
honest with you, I’m not up to speed on what the issue was, why it was removed, to be honest
with you.
MR. GARRAND-But if the Zoning Administrator, isn’t that grounds for an appeal?
MR. OBORNE-No, I don’t think it was a determination. Well, it might have been a
determination. I think Mr. Salvador is concerned that this wasn’t forwarded to the Lake George
Park Commission for review.
MR. SALVADOR-We should not get into the merits of my appeal tonight, okay.
MR. OBORNE-I’m answering the question. That’s my understanding, and that’s as much as I
know.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So, as far as we’re concerned, Craig just removed it because that
was his determination it didn’t meet an appeal?
MR. OBORNE-Well, after consultation with Counsel.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-May I please? I’m looking up the reference.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-From Town Law, it talks about hearings, about the appeals board shall be
appellate only and shall be limited to hearing, deciding appeals from and reviewing any order,
requirement, decision, interpretation or determination made by the administrative official
charged with enforcing any ordinance. Such appeal may be taken by any person aggrieved or
by any officer, department, board or bureau of the Town. I don’t want somebody else to decide
whether or not I’m aggrieved. It doesn’t come into question. Before this Board, anyone has
standing who’s aggrieved. I am subject to the same rules and regulations that that applicant
was subject to. I rely on the same water quality for the operation of my business and the
operation of my dwelling, and I have standing, but simply because any, such appeal may be
taken by any person aggrieved. That’s Town Law.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let’s just discuss it amongst ourselves for a minute here. What is
your guy’s take on this? Brian, I’ll start with you? I mean, do you think he has a legitimate
appeal? Anybody can appeal, I mean, in essence, any decision of the Town at any point?
MR. CLEMENTS-Any aggrieved person can.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I agree.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan, what do you think?
MRS. JENKIN-I actually agree. I guess I don’t understand about the, because they did talk to
Counsel, but is that, I don’t understand why.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the point he’s trying to make is he wanted to bring up a point that
possible we had missed in our determinations and in our approvals and things like that, and he
feels that he has the right to do that, but in essence, you can correct me if I’m wrong, after
discussing the matter, after proposing this with Craig and discussing it with Town Counsel, at
that point it was determined that there was no merit to what he was proposing to do?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t know if there’s no merit, and again, I can’t speak to this because I’m not
up, I’m not privy to all the information, and, you know, if given a little bit of heads up, I might
have been able to speak professionally to it?
MR. CLEMENTS-Well, Mr. Chairman, we haven’t seen it either.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I’m just saying, if someone wrote a letter to the Zoning
Administrator, I mean, we’re also charged, I think, as the Zoning Board of Appeals, our powers
are the same as the Zoning Administrator’s. We can hear any appeal. We don’t have to have
the Zoning Administrator give his assent to that.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, he shouldn’t be giving his consent.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but, I mean, and I think what Mr. Salvador is saying is that because
he was denied by the Zoning Administrator the right to proceed and present this to our Board,
whatever the item was at the time, that somehow he should have that right to present to the
Board.
MR. OBORNE-I don’t think the Zoning Administrator did that. I think it was in consultation with
Counsel.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That was Town Counsel’s.
MR. SALVADOR-I have Town Counsel’s letter here. The issue of standing is not mentioned in
this letter.
MR. OBORNE-I haven’t seen it.
MR. SALVADOR-It’s here.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
MR. SALVADOR-In light of the above, you have failed to identify any matter that is subject to
appeal by the Zoning Board of Appeals in the Town of Queensbury. Therefore no action can be
taken on your Appeal. These are issues to be argued, the merits are to be argued on the
Appeal. Let the Town Counsel and Mr. Craig come to the hearing and let them be heard, but I
want to be heard also.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron, what do you think? I mean, do you want to deny him based upon
Town Counsel’s interpretation, or do you think he has the right to appeal?
MR. KUHL-Anybody has the right to come up. Absolutely, they do.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. How about you, Rich?
MR. GARRAND-If the Zoning Administrator made any type of determination regarding this, it
gives him standing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Well, I think he has standing, and I also am curious, it made it to the agenda, at
some point, a preliminary agenda. So he made application, right, and it was recognized, and
then it was withdrawn by somebody.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it was a working agenda. It was not a final agenda.
MR. URRICO-But how did it get to that point? Something had to be filed.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. He definitely filed it.
MR. URRICO-Isn’t that supposed to come to us first, I mean, to determine if it’s going to be on
the agenda?
MR. OBORNE-I believe it goes to Counsel, but again, that’s not in my purview.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I was aware of it because I saw the proposed agenda and then when
I received the final agenda two days later it wasn’t on there. My only question would be this. In
other words, under normal procedures, when somebody files an application for any Zoning
Board item, does it always go to the Town Attorney, or just certain people go?
MR. OBORNE-No. The first thing that is looked at is for completeness. I don’t look at the
NOA’s for completeness. I look at applications that are going to go before your Board for
completeness, and that’s the extent of what my duty is on that part. As far as the Notice of
Appeals, or any issues that any citizen may have, that certainly goes through Craig, and Town
Counsel if he feels that way.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce, what’s your opinion?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think it’s curious that it was on the tentative agenda and then removed.
MR. OBORNE-Well, everything that is brought in is put on that agenda, and then I send one to
Jim for his comment, and that’s really the extent of that, and then if an application is deemed
incomplete, it’s removed from the agenda, that working agenda.
MR. URRICO-But that would be the only reason that something would be taken off the
temporary agenda?
MR. OBORNE-Is if it was incomplete, or I guess in this case they didn’t feel there was any real
standing. I don’t know. I don’t have enough information.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I mean, I’m just curious that he’s appealing, he’s making an appeal against
the very essence of what the appeal, what he’s protesting, what he wants to talk about, and that
seems odd to me, but I would definitely give him the opportunity to make his appeal.
MRS. HUNT-I agree.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would concur with everybody else. I would think that there would be
standing and that you should be able to present to us at the next meeting.
MR. SALVADOR-And as I say, let anyone come forward and be heard.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I mean, we’re an open body. We’re not closing people out, and any
issue that wants to be brought before us can be brought before us as long as there’s, you know,
I mean, we’ll make the determination as to whether we want to deal with it at that point in time,
but I think it would be wrong for us not to listen to the public when the public has a concern,
anybody in the public.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, and now pivoting from, now you’ve decided to do that. You’re going
to want to put that in resolution form.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. KUHL-Well, yes, but isn’t the driver to everything we listen to a variance number?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It is once it’s on the agenda for a specific meeting, but at the same time,
you know, I can go back and quote, I mean, I was.
MR. SALVADOR-They assign numbers to these appeals.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. KUHL-I mean, as long as that control number is there, because to me it sounds like you’re
saying anybody can come in and sit down and appeal something. Well, what’s the driver for the
appeal? It’s the variance number, right? That number gets on an agenda.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s an NOA.
MR. SALVADOR-The driver is filing a Notice of Appeal.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, Keith, to me, as Roy said, it’s a little curious, because when I’m given,
you know, the proposed agendas for the following month, a lot of times stuff gets removed
because it was incomplete because they didn’t submit on time or something like that, but the
mere fact that this was on there and then it just disappears, okay. Let me just read this to you,
okay, because I think this is important. All right. Authority of Zoning Boards of Appeals.
Appeals from requirements, determinations, decisions, interpretations, and orders of a Zoning
Administrator. The Zoning Board of Appeals is vested with the authority to interpret the
provisions of this Chapter on an appeal from a written decision, determination, order,
requirement or interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator. As such, the Zoning Board of
Appeals may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the written decision, the
determination, the order, the requirement, or the interpretation appealed from, and shall make
such written decision, determination, order, requirement or interpretation as in its opinion ought
to have been made in the matter by the Zoning Administrator. In so doing, the Zoning Board of
Appeals shall have all the powers of the Zoning Administrator from who’s written decision,
determination, order, requirement or interpretation the appeal is taken. So we can hear anything
we want to hear.
MRS. JENKIN-Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s not subject to Craig’s or.
MR. OBORNE-I disagree. The only way an applicant can get before you is, well, not an NOA,
but an applicant before you, is through a determination by the Zoning Administrator.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I mean in this instance here, if the determination was made in
review with the Town Attorney that there was no standing here, certainly a citizen can appeal to
our Board. We have the power to listen to what his appeal is, if we wish to hear it. We don’t
need to consult with anybody else. We can make that determination, too. I mean, that’s what
the statute says.
MR. OBORNE-I can’t speak to that, not being a lawyer, to be honest with you.
MR. SALVADOR-You can address the issue of standing at the hearing.
MR. CLEMENTS-Can I ask you a question, Mr. Salvador?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-Who was the letter sent to? Your appeal, who was your appeal sent to?
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
MR. SALVADOR-I addressed it to Mr. Underwood.
MR. CLEMENTS-Mr. Underwood.
MR. URRICO-See at the very least, I think we should stop the clock, so that he doesn’t get
timed out.
MR. SALVADOR-I delivered it to the Town Clerk to his attention.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and one of the problems I get into is that, you know, in the old days,
you know, my predecessor on the Board, Chuck, and the other Chuck who was there for a very
short period of time, always had a mailbox where stuff got put in, and now I don’t ever get
anything sent to me or forwarded to me, you know, unless it’s been opened, and that includes
letters and things like that, and, you know, this is an instance where, you know, how do I know
what it is if I haven’t even seen it.
MR. CLEMENTS-That’s right. That’s why I brought it up, and I think that’s a problem.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If the letter’s addressed to me and I haven’t seen the letter, then I think
something’s wrong.
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. Absolutely.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, you should have a mailbox.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I should, but I don’t. So, that’s the way it is.
MR. URRICO-Well, Jim, I just wanted to say that I think we should, at the very least, stop the
clock, so that his appeal is acknowledged that it was received in time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. I think we can do this diplomatically, and I think what we could do is
make a resolution saying that having acknowledged the fact that someone in the public wished
to inform us of something that was pertinent to one of our decisions that we had previously
made, that that person had a right to do that, and that even though the determination of the
Zoning Administrator, in review with the Town Attorney, was such that they made a
determination that we weren’t going to hear it for us, nonetheless I think that we should be privy
to that process. As the Chairman, if a letter is addressed to me and I haven’t seen the letter, I
mean, how do I know what was in the letter? I mean, you know, I’m in the dark as much as you
guys are. I haven’t seen it either. So, I mean, I think it would be incumbent upon us, no matter
what the subject was, that it was important that we be informed also.
MR. CLEMENTS-Absolutely.
MR. OBORNE-Now, John, was it the NOA that was sent to Jim, that you sent to the Clerk, or
was it a letter?
MR. SALVADOR-I delivered this notice to the Town Clerk’s Office. There’s my stamp. The
Town Clerk’s stamped my copy, and it’s addressed to Mr. James Underwood, Chairman,
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. I’ll have to look at what the NOA procedures are. I’m not up on that.
MR. SALVADOR-May I belabor this point. You were reading at length from the Town Code, and
Town Code has the word written in there, written determination. Town Law doesn’t require it to
be written. The Zoning Administrator makes determinations, interpretations, every day of his
life. They’re not all written. They could be implied, whatever they are, but when we revised that
Code this last time, okay, somebody dumped the word written in there. It’s not a requirement
that it be written, in Town Law, but those are the things we do to, you know, I think stymie the
process, but in any case, the thing that really concerns me with this is we’re talking about the
water quality of Lake George here, and we shouldn’t dismiss it as just another little, it’s an
important issue, and that’s why I, and if we want to vary this way, if we want to vary from the
Code the way it is, and the Park Commission has to be a party to it, and the Park Commission
has to subscribe to it before it’s valid, let them do it. Let them do it. Somebody’s got to take
responsibility for what’s going on up on that lake with water quality. Somebody’s got to take
responsibility.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys have any suggestions as to how we should proceed
with this?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
MRS. JENKIN-Well, one thing I’d like to make clear. Your appeal is based on one of our, a
variance that we approved?
MR. SALVADOR-No, that the Zoning Administrator wrongly interpreted the Code.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. It’s the Zoning Administrator you are appealing to one of his decisions?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, then we should hear it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we should hear it, in this instance here, and I think what I would like
is I would like a copy of that letter that was mailed to me to be mailed to all the members of the
Board, so they can read it, because I haven’t seen it either up to this point.
MR. OBORNE-And, again, I highly suggest you put all this into a resolution.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’m going to make a resolution that we start the clock as of
today. In other words, Mr. Salvador made an Appeal to the Zoning Administrator. At the time
he made the Appeal to the Zoning Administrator, the Appeal, the letter was written to the head of
the Zoning Board. For some reason, I did not receive that letter so I was not privy to that
information. The only knowledge I had of it was when I saw that it was an item agenda that was
on the proposed calendar. Two days later when I got the final calendar, it was not on there, and
at the time I think I even asked you, I said what happened to the one that was there, and
somehow or another it had been tossed or something because of the determination in
consultation with the Town Attorney. Mr. Salvador feels that he should be heard in this matter,
and based upon the discussions amongst the Board members this evening here, unanimously
we feel that somehow his appeal should be heard before our Board and we would like to see it
placed on a calendar at the earliest convenience.
MOTION THAT THE CLOCK STARTS AS OF TODAY. IN OTHER WORDS, MR. SALVADOR
MADE AN APPEAL TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. AT THE TIME HE MADE THE
APPEAL TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, THE APPEAL, THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN
TO THE HEAD OF THE ZONING BOARD. FOR SOME REASON THE HEAD OF THE
ZONING BOARD DID NOT RECEIVE THAT LETTER SO HE WAS NOT PRIVY TO THAT
INFORMATION. MR. SALVADOR FEELS THAT HE SHOULD BE HEARD IN THIS MATTER,
AND BASED UPON THE DISCUSSIONS AMONGST THE BOARD MEMBERS THIS EVENING
HERE, UNANIMOUSLY WE FEEL THAT SOMEHOW HIS APPEAL SHOULD BE HEARD
BEFORE OUR BOARD AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT PLACED ON A CALENDAR AT
THE EARLIEST CONVENIENCE, THE FIRST MEETING OF NEXT MONTH, JUNE 16TH.,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2010, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know if anything has to be included with it. I don’t know what the
circumstances are.
MR. URRICO-I would also add, according to Mr. Salvador, what date was on that letter?
th
MR. SALVADOR-On my Appeal? April the 20.
MR. KUHL-Don’t we need a subject matter?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, we know it’s something to do with Seaboyer, and everybody’s familiar
with the project.
MR. URRICO-It really shouldn’t matter. If it’s a request from the public.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean, it doesn’t matter what the appeal is, but he should be heard at
the earliest convenience when the item can be placed on a future agenda.
MR. OBORNE-And when you get that NOA, you’ll see what the appeal is.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-So what meeting would that be for?
MR. OBORNE-That’s to be determined.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we’ll have to wait and see.
MR. SALVADOR-Soonest. It should be heard soonest.
MR. OBORNE-And that’s a very good question. You may want to land on something, Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m perfectly willing to hear it the first meeting of next month. I mean, I
haven’t seen what the agendas are, first, for next month.
th
MRS. JENKIN-Well, I’m just, I’m only thinking the 60 day limit, and if the letter was on April 20,
we may be stopping the clock tonight, but does that mean?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, we’re stopping the clock. As far as I’m concerned, his appeal was
superseded, so it starts today.
MR. OBORNE-I believe it’s the date that the Appeal is stamped in.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. So as far as I’m concerned, the stamp is today. So today is the day.
This is the first knowledge I have of it.
MR. OBORNE-So you might want to amend and add that date, the next Zoning Board meeting,
something along those lines.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So at the convenience of the scheduling, we would appreciate
th
having this done at the earliest meeting ,and that would be June 16, then. Right? I don’t think
we’d hear you next week. I mean, we haven’t even seen the information. We need a little bit of
time to figure out what it is all about. Thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-I thank you.
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess that’s it for the evening. Anybody else have any items they
want to bring up?
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
27