2010.08.18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 18, 2010
INDEX
Area Variance No. 9-2010 Steven & Christine Johnson 1.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23
Area Variance No. 20-2009 Mary Sicard 2.
Tax Map No. 289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17/
289.10-1-4
Area Variance No. 32-2010 Meredith Kerr 18.
Tax Map No. 309.6-1-69.1
Area Variance No. 34-2010 Paul Poirier 24.
Tax Map No. 309.14-1-46
Area Variance No. 35-2001 Paul Derby & Lorraine Stein 27.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-9
Area Variance No. 36-2010 Marc D. Fuchs 30.
Tax Map No. 239.14-1-2
Area Variance No. 37-2010 Patricia (McCauley) Penrose 36.
Tax Map No. 301.12-1-41
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 08/18/10)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 18, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOYCE HUNT
RICHARD GARRAND
JOAN JENKIN
RONALD KUHL
BRIAN CLEMENTS
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to call the August 18, 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 is
intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issues 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. First up this evening, we have an Administrative Item.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON FOR FURTHER TABLING.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the Lapper letter. All right. It’s addressed to myself and the Zoning
Board of Appeals. “Dear Chairman Underwood: Please be advised that we have been retained
by Steven and Christine Johnson relative to the above mentioned Area Variance application,
that’s Area Variance 9-2010. It is our understanding that this matter was last heard on June 23,
2010 and tabled so that the Johnsons could consider the Board’s comments with the submission
that had been made. Due to the fact that we have just recently be requested to represent the
applicant, we would request that this matter be further tabled so that we may review with them
the possible alternatives. We would appreciate your consideration in further tabling this matter
and anticipate being able to submit by September 15, 2010 for an October meeting. So, I’ll
make a motion to table the Johnsons to one of the October meetings.
th
MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that you make that the 27.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So that would be for the second meeting in October.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 STEVEN & CHRISTINE JOHNSON,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
96 Hall Road – Glen Lake. Tabled to the second meeting in October. ( Wed., October 27, 2010)
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
NOES: NONE
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 SEQRA TYPE: I MARY SICARD AGENT(S): JARRETT
ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S): MARY SICARD ZONING: RR-3A & WR LOCATION:
NACY AND JAY ROADS, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE 6 PARCELS
TOTALING 42.38 ACRES INTO 16 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.35 ACRES TO 11
ACRES IN THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE ZONE ADJACENT TO GLEN
LAKE AND THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL THREE ACRE ZONE TO THE EAST OF GLEN LAKE
ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, ROAD FRONTAGE, ROAD
ACCESS, SHORELINE FRONTAGE, SIDE SETBACKS AND MORE THAN 1 ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE PER LOT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2008
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 42.38 TOTAL ACRES TAX MAP NO.
289.6-1-1, 2, 3, 5, 17 / 289.10-1-4 ; SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-4-050, 179-5-020D
DAN MANNIX & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-Now we were presented with some preliminary plots on this project, and I
think that was quite some time ago. At the same time, that was back in April, and at that time, I
know you guys had to proceed to the Planning Board, and I know there was probably going to
be some changes that occurred since then, and I think everybody still has the original maps that
you provided us.
MR. JARRETT-From March?
MR. UNDERWOOD-From March.
MR. JARRETT-They’re not changed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re not changed. Okay. So I don’t know if you guys remembered to
bring yours tonight or not. So why don’t you pull those out, because he’s probably going to go
though and explain what is and what will be here, what’s proposed. As far as reading into the
record, for tonight, you’ve got Staff Notes, and I don’t know, Keith, have Staff Notes changed
that dramatically from what they were before?
MR. OBORNE-No, there was an update to one of Mary’s property, the mother property. It was
brought to my attention that there were not two primary structures on that potential lot, and that
has since been withdrawn, has been taken off from my notes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and the other things were things that needed to be clarified, and I
think that’s what’s included on the Staff Notes. So maybe what I’ll have you do, Roy, is read in
those changes. I guess you can read Staff Notes in.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as the actual numbers and things like that, I know we get into that
relief requested for each lot, and we’re probably going to have to go through each one
individually. So we can hold off on doing that, because it’s going to take a little microscope
action tonight, looking at each one of those lots as we go through those. So why don’t you read
in Staff comments, and we’ll stop at where the relief is, and we’ll let you guys present.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2009, Mary Sicard, Meeting Date: August 18, 2010
“Project Location: Nacy and Jay Roads, Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to subdivide 6 parcels totaling 42.38 acres into 16 lots ranging in size from 0.35 acres
to 11 acres in the Waterfront Residential one acre zone adjacent to Glen Lake and the Rural
Residential three acre zone to the east of Glen Lake Road.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from lot size, lot width, shoreline frontage and side setback
requirements per §179-4-030. Further, the applicant requests relief from §179-5-020D for more
than one accessory structure requirement per lot. Additionally, the applicant requests relief from
road frontage requirements per 179-4-090. Finally, the applicant requests relief from the density
requirements of §A183-22 of the Subdivision regulations and the Zoning Ordinance.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
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.
Moderate impacts to the neighborhood can be anticipated as the proposal calls for the
development of shoreline parcels and a reconfiguration to existing private roadways.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could reduce the need
for multiple variances by decreasing the total number of lake front lots and increasing the
size of the lake front lots in order to avoid the lot size, lot width, shoreline frontage, and road
frontage area variance requests. Shoreline lots 2, 3 and 4 carry the bulk of the variance
requests for this project as a result of proposed configurations and could feasibly be
reconfigured to meet code. Further, lot 10 has multiple variances associated with this
proposal as a result of existing conditions.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The scope of the requests and their
impacts are best quantified and qualified in the list below. The cumulative requests may be
considered severe to acute relative to the ordinances.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate short-term impacts on
the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as any
shoreline development is potentially detrimental. However, the long term impact may
mitigate these concerns as stormwater and wastewater upgrades are planned where little to
none previously existed.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
A.V. 68-92 Density, lot size, road frontage, side, rear and shoreline setbacks Approved 9/16/92
Sub 14-1992 Sketch Approved 10/27/92 No further approvals
Note: Parcel history found for tax map 289.6-1-17 only. No history associated with other parcels
involved in this proposal.
Staff comments:
Due to the complexity of the project and the cumulative variance requests, there appears to be a
need for further clarification on the following points: (new comments in bold)
1.All proposed docks must have plans submitted demonstrating compliance with §179-
5-050 in order to ascertain any relief required. All docks now compliant.
2.Lot 10 south shore subdivision line adjacent to lot 6 must be clarified. Clarified.
3.The southern parcel (tax map # 289.10-1-4) has a total size of 3.191 acres yet the
proposed three parcels to be subdivided out total 3.0 acres. Please clarify. Clarified.
4.The amount of setback relief for all structures on all lots must be quantified by the
applicant. Note: This includes temporary and proposed structures. See page 6 of 6.
Note: Lot 10 has multiple structures requiring setback relief.
5.The Zoning Board may wish to direct the applicant to pursue a deeded lake access
for lot 13 through lot 1 in order to avoid an area variance for shoreline frontage for lot
13. Please see §179-6-060C. Incorporated into plan. Complete.
6.Lots 4 and 12 have no proposed driveway when roads are upgraded. Please clarify.
Complete.
7.The applicant may wish to re-order the lots to remove the 6 parcels not associated
with this subdivision. These lots are considered pre-existing non-conforming lots that
are not part of the overall subdivision plan as they have previously been subdivided.
Note: Previous density issues appear to have been resolved with the reconfiguration of the
shoreline lots; 10 lots on 11.41 acres.
Note: The above comments are relative to the previous submittal and page numbers do not
correlate with most recent submittal. All relief requested has not changed since May of 2009.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
Concerning SEQR, the Zoning Board may consider a coordinated review with the Planning
Board as this proposal is a Type One Realty subdivision. The Zoning Board would act as an
involved agency with the Planning Board acting as lead agency for this proposal.
The Zoning Board of Appeals shall seek a recommendation from the Planning Board concerning
this area variance per Town Law §277-6 when it deems the application complete. Complete
(see attached resolution).
Type I Realty Subdivision-Coordinated Review required.
SEQR Status:
Relief requested for each lot is based on the Old Code and is as follows:
Lot 1
1.The request for 24 feet or 16% relief from the 150 foot requirement for average lot width
per §179-4-030 for the WR zone may be considered minor to moderate relative to the
ordinance.
Lot 2
1.The request for 43 feet or 29% relief from the 150 foot requirement average lot width per
§179-4-030 for the WR zone may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
2.The request for 50 feet or 33% relief from the 150 foot shoreline frontage requirement
per §179-4-030 for the WR zone may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
3.The request for 8 feet or 40% relief from the 20 foot north side-line setback requirement
for accessory structures per §179-4-030 for the WR zone may be considered moderate
relative to the ordinance.
4.The request for 5 feet or 25% relief from the 20 foot north side-line setback requirement
for principle structures per §179-4-030 for the WR zone may be considered moderate
relative to the ordinance.
Lot 3
1.The request for 50 feet Average Lot Width relief from the 150 foot requirement per §179-
4-030 for the WR zone.
2.The request for 41 feet of shoreline frontage relief from the 150 foot requirement per
§179-4-030 for the WR zone.
3.The request for an additional garage (carport) above the one allowed per dwelling unit
per §179-5-020 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
Lot 4
1.The request for 0.65 acres or 65% density relief from the 1.0 acre requirement per §179-
4-030 for the WR zone may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance.
2.The request for 80 feet or 53% relief from the 150 foot average lot width requirement per
§179-4-030 for the WR zone may be considered moderate to severe relative to the
ordinance.
3.The request for 40 feet or 100% relief from the 40 foot frontage on a town road
requirement per §179-4-090 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance.
4.The request for 50 feet or 100% access relief from the access to town road through town
frontage requirements per §179-4-090 may be considered severe relative to the
ordinance.
5.The request for 62 feet or 41% relief from the 150 foot shoreline frontage requirement
per §179-4-030 for the WR zone may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
6.The request for 40 feet or 100% relief from the 40 foot access of a town road
requirement per §179-4-090 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance.
7.The request for 2 feet or 10% relief from the 20 foot north side-line setback requirement
for principle structures may be considered minor relative to the ordinance.
Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9
1.These lots are considered pre-existing non-conforming lots that are not part of the overall
subdivision plan as they have previously been subdivided. Staff recommends the
removal of any language, charts and descriptions associated with these lots from this
submission for clarification purposes and a subsequent renumbering of lots. Further,
sequence of lot numbers should follow directional queues; Sequence should begin to the
East or West of Glen Lake Road and follow a logical order.
Lot 10
1.Relief for two additional accessory structures above the one allowed per dwelling unit per
§179-5-020 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
2.The request for 52 feet or 35% relief from the 150 foot shoreline frontage requirement
per §179-4-030 for the WR zone may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
3.The request for 7 feet or 28% relief from the 25 foot north side-line setback requirement
Lot Lot Size Lot Setback Shoreline Road Accessory
Number 1acre Width Relief Frontage Frontage Structure
150 ft. (total) 150 ft. 40 ft. (Dwelling)
1 24 ft.
2 43 ft. Yes (2) 50 ft.
3 50 ft. 41 ft. 1
4 0.65 ac. 80 ft. Yes (1) 62 ft. 40 ft.
10 Yes (3) 52 ft. 40 ft. 2
12 27 ft.
20 31 ft. 40 ft.
for dwellings per §179-4-030 for the WR zone may be considered moderate relative to
the ordinance.
4.The request for 10 feet or 40% relief from the 25 foot west side-line setback requirement
for accessory structures (in this case a shed) per §179-4-030 for the WR zone may be
considered moderate relative to the ordinance
5.The request for 4 feet or 16% relief from the 25 foot south side-line setback requirement
for accessory structures (in this case a pool house) per §179-4-030 for the WR zone may
be considered minor relative to the ordinance.
Lot 11
1.This lot is considered a pre-existing non-conforming lot that is not part of the overall
subdivision plan as it has previously been subdivided. Staff recommends the removal of
any language, charts and descriptions associated with this lot from this submission for
clarification purposes and a subsequent renumbering of lots. Further, sequence of lot
numbers should follow directional queues; Sequence should begin to the East or West of
Glen Lake Road and follow a logical order.
Lot 12
1.The request for 27 feet or 18% relief from the 150 foot average lot width requirement per
§179-4-030 for the WR zone may be considered minor to moderate relative to the
ordinance.
Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19
1.These proposed lots are conforming and do not require any variances as submitted.
Lot 20
1.The request for 31 feet or 21% relief from the 150 foot average lot width requirement per
§179-4-030 for the WR zone may be considered minor to moderate relative to the
ordinance.
2.The request for 40 feet or 100% relief from the 40 foot access a town road requirement
per §179-4-090 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance.
Lots 21 and 22
1.These proposed lots are conforming and do not require any variances as submitted.
This table represents the quantified and qualified requests for relief in Criteria Question #3
Note:
?
Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 are pre-existing lots and are not part of this subdivision proposal.
?
Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are conforming lots as proposed.
Application Protocol Note: The below scenario contingent upon timely submittals and
approvals.
1.ZBA requests recommendation from Planning Board - Complete 5/20/09
2.Sketch Plan – Complete 11/17/09
3.Preliminary submittal – Planning Board to seek Lead Agency Status – Complete 4/20/10
4.ZBA to consider and potentially acknowledge P.B. request for Lead Agency – Complete
4/21/10
5.Planning Board to acknowledge Lead Agency Status, conduct SEQR review and if a
negative declaration is forthcoming send a recommendation to the ZBA – Complete 7/20/10
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
6.ZBA to consider relief requests – Pending 8/18/2010
7.Planning Board to conduct Preliminary review of subdivision – Pending ZBA review
8.Planning Board to conduct Final review of subdivision – Pending”
MR. URRICO-We’ve since received a resolution from the Planning Board and they determined
that the proposed project and Planning Board, they’re action is subject to review under the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, and it’s been resolved that no Federal agency appears to be
involved. No following agencies are involved. The proposed action considered by the Board is
Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. An
Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. Having considered and
thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the
criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is
set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the
State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will
have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby
authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law. It voted upon and voted in 7-0.
MR. OBORNE-I’d like to clarify something on that. This is a Type I Realty subdivision and not
an Unlisted action by the DEC.
MR. URRICO-So was the resolution wrong, then?
MR. OBORNE-Resolution states here Unlisted. It should be a Type I at this point.
MR. URRICO-But what they voted on was an Unlisted.
MR. OBORNE-They did.
MR. URRICO-Does it have to be re-voted?
MR. OBORNE-I have to see if that is the exact resolution. There may be another one. I’m not
sure.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-If I may comment, Mr. Chairman. I know the Planning Board acknowledged it as
a Type I during their oral discussions. I don’t know how the resolutions read, but I know they
acknowledged it as a Type I at the time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It may have been typed up wrong and they just read it off the sheet that
they got handed or something like that. Okay. Keith, before we start, I had just one thing that I
wanted to clear up, because it wasn’t clear to me that, you know, back in 1992, there was an
Area Variance that supposedly was approved on 9/16/92 for splitting up of some of those lots,
and I assume that’s the lot out there by the road, the main shed out by the road there, as well as
the four lots that went to each one of the kids, I think, down by the lake? Because in the follow
up to that, the property was subdivided, and I had a very difficult time trying to figure out what
went on when it happened and things like that. I went to the County and I ended up going to the
Assessor’s Office and running all around trying to find the old records of what was going on, and
all I can ascertain, the subdivision that was 14-1992, a Sketch was presented to the Planning
Board and they looked at it, but then it never got followed up, and so the subdivision occurred
like in ’93, in the wintertime, it got filed up to the County and approved in ’94, but they never had
any official subdivisions. So I don’t know what happened. Like somewhere along the way either
the records are missing out of the file, or it never really got properly subdivided the first time it
got subdivided. So I don’t want to throw a wrench in the works or anything, but at the same
time, I think it’s important that you guys clear it up at the same time, too, because, you know, it
does kind of boggle me, you know, like normally when we do subdivisions, and I think that the
last time we had our discussion, when you presented to us the preliminary plans here, I think
everybody was a little bit concerned about the density of housing down there that currently
exists and how that was going to be affected by the plan. So maybe you can address that as
you go through the plan here now, just to clarify those points for us.
MR. JARRETT-Are you turning it over to us at this point?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. MANNIX-My name is Dan Mannix and I represent the Sicard, Mary Sicard and her family
regarding this plan, and I wanted to just read a brief introduction as to what we put together here
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
and the plan that’s been put in front of you. As many of you may know, Mary Sicard and her
husband Charlie have spent nearly six decades on the shores of Glen Lake, residing there and
raising their family there and making their living there, and this plan you have in front of you is
the result of some family planning that she wanted to do, and it’s been worked on for many
years with all kinds of people, lawyers and surveyors and engineers and neighbors, a lot of input
from a lot of different people, and they put together a responsible plan, what we believe is a
responsible plan for their property. The plan’s been worked and re-worked and revised and
boiled down, and as we’ve said in many family meetings, it’s been boiled down so much now
that what you have before you is the maple syrup. Boiling it down any more just doesn’t make
any economic sense, and certainly not economically feasible for the family. The currently
proposed subdivision significantly reduces the existing intensity of use along the lakeshore of
Glen Lake. The lakeshore along the Sicard property is currently occupied by a cottage colony,
and upon approval of the subdivision, four of those units would be removed. A review of the
uses along the Glen Lake shoreline shows that this area is one of the least dense on the lake,
and the density will be further reduced by this project, and we’ve attached a number of aerial
photographs and shoreline photographs that illustrate this point very, very clearly. The lots
along the waterfront created as part of this subdivision each contain existing residences, but
they may, at some future time, be upgraded with the construction of new residences. The Town
can reserve the right to review the construction through the Site Plan Review process and thus
further protect Glen Lake. The subdivision proposed along Glen Lake, i.e. the Lakeshore Acres
section, contains seven lots, that’s the lakeside, of which four are to be transferred to Mary
Sicard’s children. The remaining three lots to be created within the Lakeshore Acres section
may be sold outside the family, and the proceeds from those sales are critical to the family. The
cost to create the subdivision, pay the taxes, and to provide a measure of security for Mary
Sicard together dictate that the elimination of a lakeshore lot would be economically infeasible.
On the flipside, Lot Number Four will generate additional tax revenue for the Town and County,
and could potentially contribute toward the protection of Glen Lake through those tax dollars. An
important fact to consider is that many letters of support have been written by the neighbors of
the project, and little to no opposition has been voiced. There’s been some discussion
concerning the number of variances requested, particularly in front of this Board. We would
submit that simply looking at the number of variances that are requested does not do justice to
the plan, but rather, if you look at entire scope of the project, you’ll see that the plan reduces
density, improves the infrastructure, provides Board oversight of future development, and
improves the aesthetics of the Glen Lake community.
MR. JARRETT-What we’d like to do now is go through some photographs of the Glen Lake
Shoreline, both the project area and the remaining shoreline outside the project area.
MR. OBORNE-Give me one second, please.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Which one do you want, now?
MR. JARRETT-The photographs, lake photographs. That’s the Sicard frontage. You can do
that first, if you wish.
MR. OBORNE-That’s your call.
MR. JARRETT-Why don’t we go to the other photographs first. These are photographs taken by
the family this year around the perimeter of Glen Lake. As your Chairman is noting, these
pictures that you see on the screen are essentially the same as what we’ve provided in the June
th
16 letter to the Board. Now these photos are the Sicard frontage. You’ll note that there’s
woodland along essentially the entire frontage, and it’s a stark contrast to the remaining frontage
on Glen Lake. The proposal in front of you maintains that woodland. There’s no cutting within
75 feet of the shoreline allowed without Board approval, and there has been discussion at the
Planning Board level of maintaining Site Plan Review for each of the properties along the
shoreline. What you see in front of you right now are aerial shots of the lake. On the left the
Sicard frontage is noted. You’ll see that in comparison with the remaining shoreline parcels.
That’s the Sicard area right there. The Planning Board found these photos to be highly
illustrative and very important in their deliberations.
MR. MANNIX-Staff had done some analysis of the variance requests, providing a table, and
you’ll get into the breakdown of it per lot, but of the 21 requested variances, two are temporaries,
until the subdivision is approved, and this building’s structures that are being taken down and
those variances will go away. Six of them are for deficient average lot width, and of the six that
we request, the average lot width is 107.5 feet, and I think, as Tom was saying, those
photographs show, and a very illustrative of the fact, that that’s far greater than what the
average lot width of almost all the existing properties around the shoreline of Glen Lake. Four
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
more variances are requested for deficient shoreline frontage, and the average shoreline
frontage of the lots that we have proposed and planned is 98.75 fee, which again is significantly
larger than what you see around the lake currently.
MR. JARRETT-I just want to jump in with one point, and then we’ll let Mary and Lindy have the
floor, but essentially all of the variances, except for two, and I can argue down to one, all of the
variances are related to existing development that we think we’re making better. We’re reducing
the density and improving the shoreline conditions along Glen Lake. The variances are needed
because there’s just no practical way to make those lots fully compliant, but we are making them
better than they are now. It’s not like we’re asking for variances on new lots, new development.
All the new development, except for Lot 20, and we can get into Lot 20 in a minute, but all the
new development is compliant. I’d just like to emphasize that point. With us is Mary Sicard.
She’d like to introduce herself, and then.
MARY SICARD
MRS. SICARD-I’m Mary Sicard, and I have written a letter to the Board, which I have asked my
daughter Lindy if she would read for me, and if we have your permission, I’d like to have her
read it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
LINDY SICARD
MS. SICARD-Good evening. For the record, my name is Lindy Sicard, and I reside at Glen
Lake, and I’m reading a letter from my mom, Mary Sicard. Dear Board Members: My name is
Mary C. Sicard, and I am one of the applicant’s before the Town of Queensbury requesting
permission for subdivision of my property at Glen Lake. In the late 1940’s, and continuously
since that time, the property known as Lakeshore Acres, which is adjacent to Glen Lake, has
been owned and developed by myself and my late husband Charles O. Sicard. Together my
husband Charlie and I acquired a series of parcels of land and well before the creation of any
zoning requirements in the Town of Queensbury, we created a cabin colony known as
Lakeshore Acres, consisting of independent two bedroom dwellings along the lakeshore. Part of
the development of Lakeshore Acres included amenities associated with the rental cottages that
provided our tenants with lake access, docking, a picnic area, a large indoor recreation building,
a large community swimming pool and rowboat rentals. As each of our children who were born
and raised at the property attained adulthood, my husband and I were fortunate enough to
provide a separate dwelling home to each of our five children to occupy and own independently.
In the 1980’s, and pursuant to the requirements of zoning at that time, my husband and I
transferred five individual cottages, one to each of our five children. Some of our children, in
accordance with the requirements of Town Code and Building Code, converted their cottage into
a larger, year round dwelling. Today, although one of our children who resides out of the area
occupy Lakeshore Acres as their primary dwelling. Our son Charles son resides out of State,
however, he continues to own his single family residence, which he rents to a long term
tenant/occupant. Lakeshore Acres was originally designed 59 years ago to rent half of the
cottages on a strictly year round basis. The other half were rented on a summer basis to
vacationers, followed by rental to school teachers in the Fall to for the school year. The
development of Queensbury and the Lake George area after the 1960’s resulted in a business
change for our family. Rather than providing some cottages for vacationers, as Glen Lake
became more populated with year round dwellings, use of the property as a partial seasonal
vacation business became less attractive. Accordingly, my husband and I discontinued weekly
rentals and for at least the last three or four decades, we have rented cottages for year round
occupancy to long term tenants. Each of the tenants enjoys the amenities of lakefront living,
and even since the passing of my husband, I have maintained the property with the amenities
for tenants which primarily include lake access, a boat launch, property maintenance and road
maintenance. I am now well past the age of most people’s ideal retirement age, and I continue
on with the assistance of my adult children as a landlord, with chief responsibility for the
maintenance and upkeep of multiple cottages to multiple tenants. I provide potable water from
private wells, ground maintenance, building maintenance, and because Lakeshore Acres
includes a private road, my obligations as a landlord include snowplowing, paving, pothole
repair, etc. My plan to subdivide the property has been a longstanding ambition, simply for the
intention to make provisions for my grandchildren and my children to continue to live at
Lakeshore Acres. I’m advised by my accountant and my attorneys that both for reasons of tax
planning and estate planning, as well as conformity with the current requirements of individual
property ownership which is mandated for bank financing, the remaining original cottages that I
own should be described on separate parcels of individual ownership. It would be my intention
to create a subdivision for the purpose of ending my obligations as a full time landlord and
fulfilling my dream to provide my three grandchildren separate deeded ownership to an
individual parcel with an individual residence. The only way that I may accomplish this is
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
through a combination of individual deeds. I full well realize that the plan for subdivision
requires a complete review and thorough understanding by the Town of Queensbury. Through
the course of these very long proceedings, it has become apparent that many choices are
available for the subdivision of the property, and the best choice would be one that is least
offensive to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and properly sensitive to the
requirements of the environment, Town Code, and applicable rules and regulations. Over the
course of more than two years, I have been asked to amend my plan, my reduce my plan, do
away with several of the cottages, change proposed boundary lines, all in the effort to create the
best possible plan worthy of approval. It has been suggested in prior hearings that as an
applicant I may be seeking a great deal of zoning relief, and I have not given up enough to be
worthy of an approval. I wish to emphasize that I differ with such a remark, and that I have been
guided by my attorneys and my licensed professional engineer in designing the best possible
plan that will encompass the existing cottages and allow the creation of separate ownerships.
Within the plan, I have conceded to remove existing structures, including very valuable existing
lakefront dwellings, at considerable cost to me, and that their development potential becomes
non-existent once they are removed from the property. For each existing dwelling that I’m
expected to remove from the property, the actual costs or loss of investment is astronomical.
One only need look at the Town of Queensbury’s assessment records and it is easily
ascertainable that there is no lakefront dwelling on the shore of Glen Lake, even in the poorest
location and even at the least desirable location, that has a fair market value less than
$300,000. So when I’m asked to abandon an existing dwelling and remove it in order to gain
support for my subdivision proposal, each dwelling at a minimum results in a $300,000 loss.
Within reason, I have accepted Board proposals to remove a dwelling, at considerable expense,
and each time the Board asked for another, and then another. The question becomes, is this
really reasonable and fair to mandate that I lose hundreds of thousands of dollars to merely
draw a lawful subdivision lot line between existing residences to achieve the result sought? I
truly believe that the plan proposed has given substantial consideration to all feasible
alternatives, and within reasons, those structures that are shown in the plan as proposed for
removal should be considered more than enough to constitute an approvable plan. Much
concern has been expressed and considerable speculation has been noted as to how many of
the remaining dwellings might be improved in the future. My plan for subdivision clearly
provides that any future improvement, expansion or change in the pre-existing, nonconforming
structure would require a Site Plan Review and, where appropriate, application for a variance. It
seems most reasonable that we not speculate on where a future owner of an existing dwelling
might consider expansion or replacement. I would suggest that those issues are more
realistically left to a future applicant with real facts and actual figures. For the present, I plan no
expansion or addition to any pre-existing nonconforming dwelling. I would like to comment on
the point that a large part of the subdivision application includes the creation of conforming
residential lots on the opposite side of Glen Lake Road for the construction of single family
dwellings. The parcel in question was originally owned by my husband and me and many years
ago, for tax planning purposes, we transferred ownerships to our adult children. Again, this is
part of an overall plan to develop property in the most conforming manner to the existing Code
and it is worthy of approval as presented. I ask that the Board, in consideration of this
application, set their minds at ease that I am not insensitive to the requirements of the current
Zoning Code in the Town of Queensbury. I have lived most of my entire lifetime at Lakeshore
Acres. Perhaps it is fair to say for myself and on behalf of my family, we have the greatest
interests in protecting the future development of Lakeshore Acres, above and beyond any
administrative concerns of the Town of Queensbury. I would very much appreciate it if each and
every member of the Board would take a very fresh and honest look at this project. This is not a
subdivision that will be offensive to the development of the area of Glen Lake. As you are
aware, many neighbors have written in support of the project. It will remain consistent, if not
better, than what presently surrounds the lake. Taken in the light of which I ask that being a fair
and impartial hearing on the merits of the application, I would ask that you approve the relief that
I seek as presented by my attorney and my engineer. I thank you for my time and consideration.
Mary C. Sicard.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anything else that you want to add at this time or I’ll open up
the public hearing for questions from the Board members.
MR. JARRETT-I think we could turn it over to the Board at this stage.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys on the Board have any questions at this time?
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Is it your intention to give lots to your three grandchildren.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MRS. SICARD-My intention right now is, providing that I live that long.
MR. KUHL-Well, what lots go to the grandchildren?
MRS. SICARD-We have two on the lakeside and one across the road.
MR. KUHL-Okay, and do you happen to know which lots they are?
MRS. SICARD-I don’t remember.
MR. JARRETT-This is confusing, because she has a different numbering system. The family
uses a different numbering system than what we did for the Board.’
MR. KUHL-Well, you can come back with that. Just think about that.
MR. MANNIX-Three, four and twelve.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So that’s the two nearest ones, and the one that’s closer to the current
dwellings, the one that’s just across the driveway leading down to the lake, that one’s already
owned by family members?
MR. JARRETT-Number 10?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Number 10 is Mary’s residence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Number Five, though, Number Five?
MR. JARRETT-Number Five is not part of the subdivision. That’s already in the.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s staying out of the mix?
MR. MANNIX-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-It’s already a child’s lot.
MR. CLEMENTS-I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, go ahead.
MR. CLEMENTS-I just have one. Are there any neighbors that are not in favor of this plan?
MRS. SICARD-No.
MR. KUHL-You’ll find that out when you have the public hearing.
MR. JARRETT-We’re not aware of any, but I think we better wait for the public to weigh in.
MR. CLEMENTS-Well, up to this point.
MR. JARRETT-Up to this point we’ve heard no opposition.
MR. MANNIX-All positive.
MR. CLEMENTS-Thanks.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other Board members?
MR. JARRETT-In keeping with that last question, did this Board get copies of the minutes of the
Planning Board meeting, and copies of the letters?
MR. OBORNE-They certainly got the copies of the letters.
MR. JARRETT-Okay, and I believe you fill find that they were all positive.
MRS. JENKIN-When you were before us before, we were talking about Lot Number Four, and it
being one of the very small lots, and we had asked that you consider reconfiguring the lots to
make that one more conforming. Have you considered that at all?
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MR. JARRETT-Long and hard. Several family meetings, and a lot of heart to heart discussions,
and we felt that, I’m speaking for the family. The family felt that they had cut the development
down considerably already by removing four structures, including two of the structures right
along the lakeshore. So instead of six along the lakeshore, there would be four. So they felt it
was not feasible to cut an additional lot out, or an additional structure out, but it was a struggle, it
was a long discussion.
MRS. JENKIN-Because that definitely was a sticking point with the Board previously. The other
lots, most of them are approximately one acre now.
th
MR. JARRETT-That’s the genesis of your June 16 correspondence, because we knew you had
that concern.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. JARRETT-We wanted to get that in front of you and open up this discussion tonight.
MR. KUHL-I don’t see anything in the documentation on your sequence of events, given that you
get this approval. You’re talking about taking docks out. You’re talking about removing houses.
How will that all evolve?
MR. JARRETT-Upon subdivision approval, we have stated that we will remove the structures
that are slated for removal. They’re shown on Drawing C-2, the removals plan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the ones in purple, right? The purple ones go?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. The dark color I think it’s purple on your plan, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And then we really don’t have it, but you’ve got all those trailers further to
the southwest there. Those are all coming out except for one of them I guess?
MR. JARRETT-Are you referring to the east side of Glen Lake Road or the west side?
MR. UNDERWOOD-When you keep going down Jay Road East, there’s two more.
MR. JARRETT-Yes. One is actually, is occupied, and one is going to be removed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because it shows three on there. It says trailer with an addition, trailer, and
then another trailer. So there’s actually three that are on the plot.
MR. JARRETT-Which drawing are you looking at?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m looking at C-1.
MR. JARRETT-If you look at C-2, that might be clearer.
MR. KUHL-I mean, I understand what C-2 tells me, but what I’m asking is, is there going to be a
timeframe associated with this, or is this just left out to?
MR. JARRETT-It’s not going to be long-term. There are existing leases on some of those
structures, and we would plan to let those leases run out and then remove those structures, but
we’re required to remove them upon subdivision approval, and we haven’t talked to a specific
timeframe.
MR. KUHL-Is that the way it goes, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-That’s what they’re proposing.
MR. KUHL-So it’ll be stipulated, if they get approval, this happens, then that happens? It’ll be a
regular sequence of events?
MR. OBORNE-At the time that the resolution is approved, and that is a condition of approval,
then, yes. Absolutely.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So if you go to C-4, all right, if you guys want to look at that one for a
minute, you’re going to keep the trailer closest to (lost words) homes up there?
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MR. JARRETT-That’s correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there some reason you’re going to keep that trailer?
MR. JARRETT-It’s occupied, as we understand it, and eventually it’ll be replaced with a house,
we believe, but it’s occupied.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because, you know, one of the considerations is, is if we’re going to have
these smaller lots that require relief initially, if somebody’s going to build a house there, they’re
going to need an awful lot of relief, probably, on some of those smaller lots. The tinier ones are
the ones I’m more concerned with because.
MR. JARRETT-Now, Lot 20 is compliant in size. The one with that trailer you’re talking about.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So the one trailer’s going to go and then.
MR. JARRETT-The remaining trailer would be on a compliant lot, and then eventually we would
expect that it would be replaced with a home.
MR. KUHL-Right now George Street is a private right of way, right?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. KUHL-Is that going to?
MR. JARRETT-It’s proposed to stay that way.
MR. KUHL-It’s proposed to stay as a private right of way?
MR. JARRETT-Private road, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So the current well that feeds all those properties that are sort of out of the
mix, those are the ones right on George Street where it meets the stone drive there, and you’ve
got excess there to build new wells if need be?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. Actually the existing wells, supply all those structures right now, and we
would be removing, the new lots would be going on their own wells. So it would be taking
pressure off the existing wells.
MRS. JENKIN-So Louise Lane is going to be eliminated?
MR. JARRETT-Not entirely, no. If you look at Plan, look at, I’d actually prefer you go to C-10.
Louise Lane is a little hard to make out, but if you look at George Street, follow George Street
toward the waterfront and then turn up on the page, meaning to the east, you’ll see Louise Lane
would still be maintaining access to Lots Five, Four and Twelve. Whereas new Lots One, Two,
and Three would have their own driveways.
MR. KUHL-But where does Louise exit onto a Town road?
MR. JARRETT-At George Street, I mean, George Street and then Glen Lake Road.
MR. KUHL-Yes, but George Street you said you’re going to maintain as a private right of way.
MR. JARRETT-Right. That access would not change. Those structures are not changing, the
access would not change.
MR. KUHL-No, no. My point is, Town road.
MR. JARRETT-Glen Lake Road.
MR. KUHL-Right, but if George Street is a private right of way, how does Louise Lane, is it, I
mean, where does it meet up with a Town road?
MR. JARRETT-It does not. It meets up with George Street, and that current access is.
MR. KUHL-So what you’re saying is Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten have no road
frontage, no Town road frontage?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MR. JARRETT-That’s correct, and we’re not proposing to change that. There’s no proposed
changes there. It’s all private road now and we’d maintain it as private road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anymore questions at this time from any Board members?
MR. JARRETT-I would like to, while we’re on the subject of access to Town roads, if you look at
drawing C-11, Lot Twenty, one of the variances we asked for is access which is not through the
Town road frontage. Now we could do that, we could access it directly onto Glen Lake Road.
We feel it’s not in keeping with good access management.
MRS. JENKIN-Absolutely.
MR. JARRETT-So we’re asking for that variances. We know we’re shooting ourselves in the
foot by asking for another variance, but it’s good planning to do it, you know, access off Jay
Road. So please don’t penalize us for that.
MRS. JENKIN-That’s a good thing. You don’t want any more access onto Glen Lake than you
have.
MR. JARRETT-No. We’re trying to minimize that direct access, and we just know we needed to
explain that to you, and likewise you’ll notice Lot 21 we propose it off Jay Road and not off Glen
Lake Road.
MR. KUHL-But it’s still, they’re access to Town roads, though. Jay Road is a Town road.
MR. JARRETT-I’m sorry. Actually in that location it is, yes.
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-That was disputed at one time and then was confirmed as a Town road.
MR. KUHL- I guess I wasn’t on the Board at that time.
MRS. JENKIN-Jay Road is a Town road, then.
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-In that section it is, yes. It’s a very confusing subdivision, but we think we are
making a good situation much better.
MR. CLEMENTS-Keith, could you zoom out on that a little bit, could you zoom out on that one a
little bit?
MR. OBORNE-Zoom out?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. Actually I guess I was looking at this picture right here. Do you have that
one?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. That one right there. As you look on each side of the property there,
yes, that’s good, is that Glen Lake Road coming up there? And then on the other side of the
property, you see Glen Lake Road coming out of there? That’s Glen Lake Road coming out of
there?
MR. JARRETT-That’s Glen Lake Road right there.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-That is Jay Road.
MR. CLEMENTS-It’s hidden by trees.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, that’s Louise Lane right there.
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, okay. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys need any more clarification at this point, or I’m going to
open the public hearing up I guess. All right. I’m going to open the public hearing.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. UNDERWOOD-And we did receive quite a few letters the last meeting, and I think those
were read in at that time, and I know the general sentiment of the neighborhood is that there’s
nobody who’s really aghast at the project, but, Roy, do you want to go through them quickly and
just. Is there anybody that wants to speak that hasn’t spoken before or has anything new to
add? If you want to raise your hand, please. All right. I assume we’ve got quite a few new
ones.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And why don’t we do this. Why don’t you kind of peruse them and read a
couple of them in, and then, just in case we have any that are against the project, because I
haven’t seen the letters. We haven’t been privy to those.
MR. URRICO-Okay. The first one is from Richard and Susan Rourke, 19 Jay Road. They
consider this project a positive, good for the neighborhood, and then there’s Rob Slack at 48
Dineen Road and 46 Dineen Road, 50 Nacy Road, and they’re writing in strong support of the
plan. William Fosbrook is a positive. He’s at 17 Fernwood Road. Wayne Kellogg is in favor of.
It, 14 Jay Road. Pete Rozell, 47 Reardon Road, is in favor of it as well. No problem. Elaine and
Walter Rivette, I mean, these are all positive. Birch Road, they’re in favor of the project. They
know them to be caring and protective people of Glen Lake and the project they are proposing to
do will be for the better of the lake and surrounding neighbors. We are in total support of the
new development and know it will enhance what is already a beautiful lake. Ryan Lashway, in
favor of it. Yes. I would say that I have, I don’t see any that are against the project. So far.
Some of them sent letters in twice they were so much in favor of it. Why don’t you keep going
and I’ll look through here. There’s quite a few letters here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Pending that, I guess what I’ll do at this time, then, is I think I’ll
start with the Board members, unless you have anything else you guys want to add at this point.
I mean, I think everybody’s pretty clear as to what’s being proposed. It hasn’t really changed
since the last time. They were in. I think we understand the situation. I guess I’ll start with you,
Ron. Do you want to go first?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I think this is a very aggressive project, and I think if you set down specifically
what you’re going to do at what timeframes, what timetables, that’s what I would want to see. I
don’t understand why you’re not making George Street and the other one a Town road to give
you access to Four and Five, Six, Seven, Eight and Nine. I mean, if you want to keep it a private
road, that’s all going to be family members is that right?
MR. JARRETT-Yes, that’s essentially all family members off the private roads, yes.
MR. KUHL-Yes. My own concern is that I’d like to see a sequence of what’s going to be done
when, and you list it out. Based on that, I can live with this project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. It’s quite a complicated project, and certainly the Sicards have gone to,
followed through on our suggestions over the time they’ve been working with us, and the
Planning Board has passed on it, and I think I would be in favor, based on some provisions that
we might put in about when things were done or how they were done. I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m still looking through letters.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I think, as everyone has said, this is a large and a very complex project
that’s been worked on for several years. I am very strongly in favor of approving this plan as it
is, and I’m doing that for the following reasons. One is it’s an improvement to the density. Two
is the Planning Board has made a positive recommendation on this project. They feel that it’s
reasonable. The ownership of the property has been long, they said the ownership of the
property has been longstanding and the owners have demonstrated stewardship in protecting
Glen Lake. I think you’ve seen that from the pictures here. The engineers, as well as the family
members, I think, have done their due diligence in meeting with Staff and several meetings with
both Planning and Zoning Boards. I think the Planning Board has found that this plan will have
no significant environmental effects. They gave it a Negative Declaration. I see it as a desirable
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
change. I think that other methods could be sought by this plan, but it’s been worked on for
quite a while, and so I think it’s a reasonable alternative. I think it would have a positive impact
on the neighborhood, and as far as we can see, the neighbors are all in favor of the project. So I
would also be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I absolutely agree with all the photos that you’ve taken around the lake. I
think that the majority of Glen Lake is overbuilt, and it’s really a shame for the lake because
houses are all crowded together, and there’s very little space between homes and the lot widths
are very, very small, and I understand that you’re under the old Zoning Code of one acre, which
is fine, and you’ve tried to comply with that with the three lakefront properties, but my concern is
still with Lot Number Four. It is way undersized. It doesn’t have the frontage, the lake frontage.
It doesn’t have the size of the lot. We, as I said before, we did ask you to consider reconfiguring
so that you would make Lot Number Four, to comply with the one acre. I see this as an
opportunity. You are subdividing, and you have, most of it is really well done. It should be a
good use of the land in most of the places, but the thing is it’s an opportunity, now, to make Glen
Lake even better. It’s to decrease the density along the lake, and to make the lots large enough
that they would actually accommodate the type of house that people are building now. You
have put in this that the lot you, and we can’t say what’s going to happen in the future, but
you’ve said that the average size of the home would be 2500 square feet, of the new ones in the
new three lots that’s on Page C-10.
MR. JARRETT-I don’t recall the number, but.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, you did say, you said that the, it’s a 2500 square foot.
MR. JARRETT-That’s what’s shown, that’s right, and that happens to be the current national
average, by the way.
MRS. JENKIN-Is shown. That, for most of the homes that are now new built, they’re not, 2500
square feet is a small home, compared to what a lot of people, if they have to pay the price for
the lot which will be a pricy amount for a one acre lot with a 100 feet or more of lake frontage,
then people want to put a house that is actually going to, that’s just the way things are
happening now. People are going bigger and better. So, I still would be against this because of
the lakefront properties. I feel that they should be consolidated or reconfigured, so that you do
have at least one acre for each of these properties.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I have to agree with Joan here on this. The applicant’s stated that they’ve been
asked time and time and time again for lot reductions. To the best of my knowledge this Board,
upon reviewing this application, has only asked them for one lot reduction. Feasible alternatives
do include removal of say, said Lot Four. So that’s where I stand.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I have a question. Is this an all or nothing? I mean, do we have to approve every
variance in one shot, or can we approve some of them and not all of them?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to do all or nothing, in a subdivision.
MR. URRICO-Because Lot Four is a hang up for me as well, and I was wondering if, and it has
been read in that this Board has asked for a lot of requests, but we’ve only seen this case twice,
as far as I know, and the first time was to pass it along to the Planning Board. We made some
recommendations, but it does not, I don’t see where we’ve actually held this application up at all,
and so basically to ask us not to do our job is kind of, is sort of demeans the purpose of this
Board, I think, and I think there’s some work still to be done. I don’t want to be rushed to go
through it.
MR. JARRETT-Mr. Chairman, could I add a point there?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly.
MR. JARRETT-We were not accusing this Board of pushing us, well, let me leave it that way.
We weren’t accusing the Board. We’ve had many meetings with Staff and with Planning Board
as well.
MR. URRICO-That’s not what was read in.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MR. JARRETT-Well, the letter was actually addressed to both Boards.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-And so we were not trying to implicate this Board solely, but we’ve been at this
project for a number of years, and some of the loss that the family is mentioning in their letters
actually came through Dan and I. We urged them to reduce density along the lake to make this
a salable project, and the family is reacting to that as well, that we already trimmed two houses,
at our request internally, even before you saw it. So, you know, we’re not trying to blame you or
point fingers at you, per se, but the family has given up two houses already, two lakefront
houses.
MR. URRICO-But not at the request of this Board.
MR. JARRETT-Not specifically at the request of this Board, no. You’re asking for six down to
three. We were already at six down to four.
MR. URRICO-Okay. I still have a problem with Lot Four.
MR. JARRETT-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think if we look at the project in totality, I don’t think at any point in
time the Board has had a problem with the ones on the west side of Glen Lake Road over there,
because those are all conforming, and, you know, as I go through the plan and I look at the
other lots, as they’re proposed, you know, it’s sort of a maintenance of the status quo. I mean,
there’s a very slight give back as far as what’s been proposed in the project with not having the
six houses out there on the lake, but at the same time, I’m thinking about the future, and, you
know, when we go through the subdivision review process, I don’t think there’s been any time in
the past that we’ve reviewed subdivisions, and that’s in league with the Planning Board, you
know, usually there’s an odd lot that requires a lot of relief because it’s the last one left in the mix
because of the layout of the property and things like that, but in this instance here, you know, it’s
more than meets the eye, you know, and if you look at the relief, and I go down the list I see
16%, 29%, 33%, 40%, 300%, you know, they’re all over the map, 65%, 100% relief, 49%,
depending upon what they are. They’re all over the place, and the first flag that flew up for me
when I was first looking at the project was, you know, I said to myself, well, I don’t ever recall at
any time in the past that we’ve had a subdivision review that we’ve had so many variances
requested, and I understand that you’re trying to get a return on what you’ve kept all these
years. The family’s held the property for many, many years, but at the same time, you know, I
went down there and I looked, biked through there a couple of times looking around, I’m just
saying, well, you’re going to keep all these old buildings down there. You’re going to keep one
of the trailers. You’re going to keep the density as it exists in the family area, per se, and I’m
thinking to myself, in the long term, you know, you compare that to the west side of the road
where there’s no relief required, in essence, I mean, it’s done in a conforming manner, but for
the property that you’re proposing to develop or to sell off to somebody else to purchase it, I
think you’re encumbering them with a lot of problems, because, you’re not, as Joan mentioned,
you’re not going to be able to build a conventional home that people want to build on waterfront
without having to come in for more variances in the future, and I think that that’s something that
could be troubleshot a ahead of time, and I think really the only way to do that was what our
suggestion was on the previous meeting, and that was to eliminate one more lot down in there
on the waterfront and increase the width of those lots. Now, that’s not to say that what you
propose is totally unreasonable. I think, you know, when you use your argument that, compared
to the rest of the lake lots, as proposed, are reasonable. That’s your take on it, but I think at the
same time, if we look at the lot widths on that, I don’t think they are. I think the setbacks from
the water, I think that’s a good thing. That’s a plus for you as far as that goes, but at the same
time, I don’t think that it would be proper for us to allow the density that you’ve proposed on the
waterfront down there to occur, and I think you still need to go back and consider some of the
other relief in there, as far as the old buildings, what the longevity of those are, what the use of
those buildings are, are you going to keep them forever? Sit down as a family and think about
what you might do to improve the mix, and I don’t think there’s any hardship here because
you’re keeping most of the lots for yourself, the ones that are the most valuable. There’s a few
down there on the waterfront that are going to be left over. You’re still going to get a major
return on those, and as far as the interior lot development, I don’t know at what point in time
that’s going to occur, you know, or whether it will any time sooner, either. I mean, I think just be
open minded about it, but I’m still hung up with Lot Four with the other people, you know, I think
it’s something that should be considered, and Ron voiced some good points, too. In other
words, you know, some things are going to come down immediately if we approve this, in some
way, shape or form, and I don’t think it’s an untenable action. I think, you know, you can go back
and think about what you might do to change things, and I think that the rest of the Board
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
members may change their minds at that time, but at this point in time, I think I would rather see
you take a little bit more time, put a little more thought into it, and reconsider what you might do
on the waterfront down there. So I don’t know what you want us to do. Do you want us to vote
or do you want us to table you for more?
MR. JARRETT-Could you give us 14 seconds?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Do you want to talk it over, do you want some time?
MR. JARRETT-We don’t need much time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to recess for five minutes? Do you guys want to
go outside so you can talk out in the hall? That’s fine, too. Why don’t we do that. We’ll just give
you guys a break.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you. You’re going to move on to the next applicant?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we’ll hold off for five minutes. We’ll just take a break ourselves. Don’t
worry about it. Take five minutes and go out there.
MR. JARRETT-Mr. Chairman, we have no consensus, but I think the majority says let’s table it
for the moment and see what we can do, put our heads together and see if we can come back
with an alternative that makes some sense.
MR. UNDERWOOD-How much time do you want?
MR. JARRETT-I think we will know fairly soon what we can propose or not. If we propose major
changes, we’ll ask for more time, but I think we’d like to be on the next available meeting.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. JARRETT-We could propose something by that time.
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-And he’s got to have it in by the 15 of next month?
MR. OBORNE-Right now it’ll depend on.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Or do you want to just let him send it in, as long as it’s not some major
change, then it’s probably going to take longer?
MR. OBORNE-Well, I think it’s going to depend on what the changes are. I think the Board has
two options. The Board could give them an artificial date, some time prior to a September
th
meeting, or let them go through proper protocol, which would be September 15 for an October
meeting.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t you do this. Why don’t you take a couple of days to figure out
what your alternatives are, and then get together with him and, Keith, I’ll let you get a hold of me.
In the interim, we’ll put you on for September, and if need be, then we’ll, you know, if things
aren’t going to work out, then we’ll just move it to the first meeting in October.
MR. JARRETT-That’s fair.
MRS. JENKIN-Why don’t we make it the second meeting in September, and then that gives
them a little bit more leeway.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, would that work better?
MR. OBORNE-Whatever the will of the Board is. I do suggest that you do give them a firm date
nd
for submittal of any revised plans for the 22 of September.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we would probably need the plans at least a week ahead of time
so we could look at them. At least by the time, we would need them before Staff Notes, right?
Because you’ve got to have time to look at them, too.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don’t, from what I’m hearing from the Board, I don’t see any real major
changes, with the exception, and I’m not putting words in anybody’s mouth here, is you’re
certainly going to want to see some type of phasing plan. I think that’s obvious, and something
to do with Lot Four.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, and that would reconfigure those lots, but that’s just (lost words) so
that’s not that big of a deal. All right. Why don’t we do this, then. Let’s give you until
th
September, what’s the end of the first week in September, the 8?
rd
MR. OBORNE-That would be the 3.
rdth
MR. UNDERWOOD-The 3. Okay. Why don’t we give them until Monday the 6 it would be,
right?
MR. JARRETT-That’s Labor Day.
MR. KUHL-Yes, that’s Labor Day weekend.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s Labor Day weekend. So I guess, let’s make it the day after Labor
Day.
MR. OBORNE-I won’t be here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-But that’s fine. I have staff.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we’ll have it the day after Labor Day for submittals. Unless you
think it’s going to take you longer, and we’ll put you on for the second meeting in September.
MR. JARRETT-I think by that time we’ll know what we’re willing to do or not do, and then if the
Board needs more time to deliberate, you’ll tell us you need more time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we’ll tentatively table you until the second meeting in September.
MR. OBORNE-Well, let’s make it not tentative. Let’s make it a fact through a resolution, if you
could.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2009 MARY SICARD, Introduced by James
Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
Nacy and Jay Roads, Glen Lake. Tabled to the second meeting in September, with a revision
th
date of September 7.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2010, by the following vote:
MRS. SICARD-I’d just like to ask one question if I may. If you were in our position, how would
you feel about this? Anybody got an opinion?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think we could proper our judgment one way or the other. I think the
Board’s pretty much had their say and so we’ll see you in September.
MR. JARRETT-We’ll leave that as an open-ended question.
MRS. SICARD-I was just curious. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2010 MEREDITH KERR AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN AND STEVES
OWNER(S): MEREDITH KERR ZONING: NR LOCATION: 212 SHERMAN AVENUE
APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION; LOT A TO BE 0.26
ACRES; LOT B TO BE 0.23 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE NR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2010
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
SKETCH PLAN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 11, 2010 LOT SIZE: 0.49 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 309.6-1-69.1 SECTION: 179-3-040
DAN MANNA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-2010, Meredith Kerr, Meeting Date: August 18, 2010
“Project Location: 212 Sherman Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
a two lot subdivision of a 0.49 acre parcel into two lots of 0.26 and 0.23 acres on the corner of
Sherman Avenue and Harris Street.
Relief Required:
Lot size relief required for both proposed lots. Specifically, proposed Lot A requires 0.24 acres
or 10,454 square feet of lot size relief and proposed Lot B requires 0.27 acres or 11,761 square
feet of lot size relief as per §179-3-040.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The limitation of the lot and the nature
of the request preclude any feasible alternative other that an area variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requests for 0.24 acres or 48
percent relief for Lot A and 0.27 acres or 52 percent relief for Lot B as per §179-3-040 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 and
environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SUB 7-2010 2 lot subdivision Pending 8/24/2010
SUB 15-1999 3 lot subdivision Approved 8/24/1999
Staff comments:
This application will require relief for both proposed lots from the Zoning Board of Appeals for lot
size as the requirement for the Neighborhood Residential District is 0.5 acres per parcel if not
connected to both public water and sewer. Please note that the parcel is served by public water
only.
Type II – No action required
SEQR Status:
Application Protocol:
6/15/10: Sketch Plan - Complete
8/17/10: Open PH, SEQR Review, Recommendation to ZBA – Complete, see handout
8/18/10: ZBA review
8/25/10: PB review-Preliminary & Final Stage”
MR. URRICO-The Planning Board voted on a resolution, “According to the resolution prepared
by Staff. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.” And that was voted on August
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
th
17, and the vote was unanimous. And then there was also, we have a note here, a
th
memorandum, dated August 18, that the Warren County Planning Board has issued a Planning
Board action to deny the Kerr Area Variance application, and as a result, the Zoning Board of
Appeals will require a supermajority, or five votes in the affirmative, in order to supersede the
County action.
MR. MANNA-Good evening. My name is Dan Manna. I work for Van Dusen and Steves Land
Surveyors, and I am representing Meredith Kerr in her Area Variance application for a two lot
subdivision and relief from the half acre lot size.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, we previously had a three lot subdivision of which this lot was one of
the offspring.
MR. OBORNE-I think that was the mother lot, to be honest with you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. So as far as previous subdivisions go, I mean, there’s no guidelines
as to future subdivisions, I mean, depending on, the previous Code down here was less than
half an acre lots or more?
MR. OBORNE-I think t hat you can see what some of the previous subdivisions were back in the
20’s.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As long as you can fit it on there, you can have it.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly. I think they were thinking of building railroad flats or something along
the lines back then, but you are correct. There was one lot that was subdivided into three lots,
and now the larger of the three remaining lots are being asked to be subdivided one more time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think, you know, in the situation down here we’ve had quite a few
actual replacements done on smaller lots than these ones that have been proposed here, too,
that I think have come in and gotten variances from the Board previously.
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. Anything you want to add, as far as, do you want to explain to
us why they’re proposing it this time to split it up?
MR. MANNA-I do believe that Mrs. Kerr is going to sell the duplex on Lot A, and build a single
family residential, for herself. That’s her plan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Board members, any questions?
MRS. JENKIN-My question is, do you know why the Warren County Planning did issue a deny?
MR. MANNA-I do not know why they denied it.
MRS. JENKIN-I think that’s quite important that we know that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Maybe, you know, sometimes, it’s probably going to be something to do
with the County road, but Sherman Ave. is an arterial.
MR. OBORNE-I believe it’s in the file, and I think the gist of it was is that it doesn’t meet the
zoning requirements, and as such, it should be denied, something along those lines. Is that it
there, Roy?
MR. URRICO-All right. The County Planning Board recommends deny due to the lot being
substandard, magnitude of variance requested, and project goes against Town, local Town
zoning and Comprehensive Plan.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s supposed to be .5, that’s the Code.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re just, we’re under that.
MR. OBORNE-Just a little background on recommendations to the County Planning Board from
the Town Planning Board. They’re really to look at, not to tell the County Planning Board how to
operate, but typically they should be looking at it, how does that affect their infrastructure and
structures, you know, how does that particularly affect any County resources, and in this case,
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
they really didn’t designate what that would do. Typically, it would be like Corinth Road, with
certain subdivisions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Three curb cuts.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-So that’s my two cents.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right.
MRS. JENKIN-I have another question, too. It says that there’s only Town water on the
property. Where is the septic system now?
MR. MANNA-The septic system for the existing duplex is shown on the plan, approximate septic
system to the rear.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith and I kind of discussed that, too, and in this end of town here it’s like
about (lost words) feet of sand. The perc rate’s about zippo fast. So there’s not really any
problems as far as overloading the leach field like you would out in some parts of Town where
it’s clay, wet soils.
MR. MANNA-Right. The soils are conducive.
MRS. JENKIN-So, would you repeat that, what you said?
MR. UNDERWOOD-The primary concern with the septic is that if you’re in an area of Town, like
say you’re over like where, you know, across the road here over at Surrey Fields, you know, it’s
very heavy, clay soils over there. You have almost a perched water table there. So if you add
septic tanks, there’s no place for the septic to go. It just bubbles up out of the ground like (lost
word) that’s oil.
MRS. JENKIN-Right. Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s not very nice, but in the south end of Town, you’re basically on about
probably I’m guessing 120, 180 feet of sand, minimally, before you hit hard pan. That’s why
everybody is still on septic in Queensbury on the south side.
MR. OBORNE-Well, they’ll have to amend those soils, though, to slow the perc rate down, for
sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes.
MR. KUHL-Now what you stated about selling the duplex and adding, building a house for
herself, that’s a fact, or that’s an assumption on your part?
MR. MANNA-That’s an assumption. She’s not here. I can’t answer it for her directly.
MR. KUHL-You can’t answer it?
MR. MANNA-No.
MR. KUHL-So you said something that you were assuming.
MR. MANNA-I am assuming that that’s the case.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But she’s currently living in the duplex?
MR. MANNA-She’s currently living in the duplex, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions from Board members?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I have one. That three lot subdivision that was approved, that was in
1999, the same person owned that property then, is that correct?
MR. MANNA-Yes, that was, I do believe, her and her husband owned it at that time.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MR. CLEMENTS-Do you know why they didn’t subdivide that at that time?
MR. MANNA-I do not.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from Board members? Okay. I’m going to open up
the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence, Roy?
MR. URRICO-No correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Everybody pretty clear as to what’s being proposed here? So
everybody understands what the amount of relief is? That we’re supposed to be at about half an
acre sized lots down here, like via the present Code. So they’re looking at 48% relief on one,
52% relief on the other one. I would think the most important thing we could do would be to look
at the surrounding neighborhood and see how those lots, as proposed, fit in, as far as size goes
down there, and you can make your assumptions as to whether they’re going to be liable based
upon that. So I guess I’ll just poll the Board, and I’ll start with you, Rich.
MR. GARRAND-I’m kind of mixed on this. I think it’s a lot of relief for a small lot. You’re going to
end up with three families, in less than a half an acre. Something like this, you know, variances
are, once again, more than likely going to breed variances on this one.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So are you sitting on the fence right now?
MR. GARRAND-I’m kind of on the fence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll go to you, Joan.
MRS. JENKIN-I am not on the fence, because I feel that it’s a tremendous amount of relief.
You’re asking to divide a half acre lot into quarter acres. The house right now is not, and this
may not have anything to do with it, but it’s not in good condition. It’s very overgrown. To just
break it in half and sell that, and then build another one will require that you really totally clear
that second lot that you’re proposing. While the two lots behind it are already completely
cleared, and it’s really, it does not, it’s not a desirable change in the neighborhood to do that. It
just, I don’t think that, it really is, I think the benefit can be achieved by other means, and I think
it will have adverse physical and environmental effects in that area. I think it’s just too small a
lot. So I would be against this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think the County hit the nail on the head on this one, the County Planning
Board. I think we’re starting off with a substandard lot, albeit very substandard, and now we’re
creating, being asked to create, two even more substandard lots out of that, and it’s really, that’s
a tremendous variance that we’re being asked to do, and I think that’s too much. I would be
against it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree. As Roy said, it’s not even conforming as it is, and to make it
more nonconforming I don’t think is a point. So I would be against it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I’m kind of on the fence on this one, too. As you look at the map up there, it
would really be similar to the rest of the neighborhood, but my question, the question that I
asked in 1999, why didn’t they do a subdivision then, when they were subdividing the rest of the
property? So I guess I would be against it also.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. To me it’s a nonconforming lot starting out, and you’re asking for an awful lot of
relief. So I don’t think we should, I would be against it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I guess I’ll go along with everybody else. I think the primary reason,
Roy sort of agreed with the assessment of the County Board, you know, and, you know, if we’re
down to a tiny lot that’s already existing, I think we’re usually amenable to granting relief, but to
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
create more of these lots that are substandard and they would be less than half the size that’s
recommended for the zone down there. The current duplex that exists there, you know, whether
that remains or gets re-built, it would certainly probably be nice to have a big back yard, if you
had a duplex with kids or something, and like Joan said, if you take away all that green space in
the back, and shoehorn it in there, it’s just another overbuilt area of Town. So it doesn’t look
like it’s going to fly. So I don’t know what you want to do, if you just want to withdraw it, or to
have it denied?
MR. MANNA-Could we ask it to be tabled so we could consult with our client and see what she
wants to do?
MR. OBORNE-It seems pretty clear to me. That’s up to the Board, though.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What do you guys want to do?
MR. CLEMENTS-I think it’s their option if they want it tabled. I mean, I don’t think that it’s going
to make a difference, but.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think it would be difficult to convince the Board that there was some
hard, major hardship in keeping this as it is down there for zone, and it’s one thing, you know,
we’ve had plenty of opportunities where we have lot that are already there in nonconforming
size, but to make more nonconforming lots, probably isn’t on the palate of the Board members.
MR. MANNA-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know what you want to do.
MR. OBORNE-It’s your call. If you want to table and they acquiesce.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and if they don’t want to come back, if they realize we’re not going to
change, then I guess you can just send a letter in requesting to withdraw the application.
MR. OBORNE-Send a letter in to withdraw.
MR. MANNA-Sure, that sounds good. That sounds fair.
MR. URRICO-With the understanding that there needs to be a supermajority.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and with a supermajority, that would mean it would have to pass
overwhelmingly with the majority, and it doesn’t look like that’s even remotely possible here.
MR. MANNA-No, no.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So I will move that we table this application, and should we wait to
hear back from you before we set a date?
MR. MANNA-Yes. She’s out of town this week. So we’ll have to wait until next week, and then
we’ll notify.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So the earliest we would hear this would be next month.
MR. OBORNE-Let’s move it to October.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we’ll put you on the first meeting in October.
MR. MANNA-Sure. All right.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2010 MEREDITH KERR, Introduced by James
Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
212 Sherman Avenue. Tabled to the first meeting in October.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II PAUL POIRIER AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN
AND STEVES OWNER(S): PAUL POIRIER ZONING: WR LOCATION: RIVERSIDE DRIVE
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5-LOT SUBDIVISION RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2.0 TO 8.13
ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE AND ACCESS
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SB 1-2010, SB 6-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING:
AUGUST 11, 2010 LOT SIZE: 18.50 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-46 SECTION: 179-3-
040; 179-4-050
DAN MANNA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-Now, because Planning Board requested more, I think we’re just going to
have to wait to hear back.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think your language, obviously open the public hearing, but your language
should be the tabling, and again, not to put words in your mouth, but would be pending a
recommendation from the Planning Board.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I will read this in. Last night the Planning Board did meet, and they
th
made the following resolution. This is tabled to the October 19 Planning Board meeting with a
th
submission deadline of September 15 for new materials, so that the applicant can address
Staff Notes. The applicant can address engineering comments, and that the applicant can
provide the Planning Board with documentation on the threatened or endangered species on
this site. Also so that the applicant can provide documentation on deeded access requirements
for the Island View Road access, and that was unanimously approved by the Planning Board on
th
the 17 day of August, 2010. Is there anybody here from the public wishing to speak on the
matter? Why don’t we do this. We’re going to open up the public hearing. I assume you went
to the Planning Board meeting?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t you guys come up, then.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOANNA MC GUIRE
MRS. MC GUIRE-The only comment we have is about the roads.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It appears that the road, why don’t you come up and get on the
record, so that we have your names on there.
MRS. MC GUIRE-I’m Joanna McGuire, and I live at 16 Island View Drive.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Our Board has not done any real thorough review on this, other
than we’ve just seen the plot plan as to what is proposed, and because it’s a subdivision, the
Planning Board has got to make a recommendation to us before we act normally anyway, but
we’re always willing to listen to your comments and you can say anything you want and we will
let you come back and make more when we reconvene at some point in the future.
MRS. MC GUIRE-But I’m not strongly opposed to the subdivision. We like living up there and
we assume five other people would, too, but the only thing that I’m concerned about is the road,
which we lovingly call a road, and it’s just a dirt track. It goes through private property, and I
understand that she doesn’t want to give access to it, to the rest of Island View Drive. So it may
be a moot suggestion anyway, but I don’t know if you understand that this is not a Town or a
County road. There are no services up there. There’s no sewer. There’s no water. There’s no
mail. You get a box down on East Branch. The school bus does not go up there.
MR. GARRAND-There’s no way for a bus to turn around or anything up there.
MRS. MC GUIRE-There’s no reason. It’s more like a private driveway than a, it’s a family thing
with us in the middle. It’s Cooks on both side of us, and if you want to get down to East Branch,
there’s more of them down there. There’s no trash pick up. If you want to roll your thingamajig
down to East Branch, I think there is somebody that would pick it up. No plowing or road
maintenance. Whoever gets up first goes out and runs their snow blower. No street lights. No
Town water or sewer, and we have serious questions about the shape of the ravine, the culvert
over the ravine, whether or not it could take the equipment that would be necessary to build
houses. Last night they indicated that these were going to be some houses. I guess it’s going
to be a very nice development. We don’t know if those are the people that want to put up with
that. We were up on Corinth Road when they built Bedford Close, and those were some houses
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
up there, but one of our neighbors said, they come up here from the city to get away from it all,
and the first thing they want is street lights, and there aren’t any on Island View Drive, if that’s
what they’re looking for.
MRS. JENKIN-So where do you get your water from?
MRS. MC GUIRE-A well.
MRS. JENKIN-You have a well.
MRS. MC GUIRE-And a septic tank, and it’s Waterfront Residential, except nobody up there has
waterfront, and Niagara Mohawk, National Grid owns 50 feet. So we use it, but it’s not ours, and
it wouldn’t be theirs. We think we found the place where House Number One is scheduled to be
built, and that is right across from Cooks, and it would look like it was in their front yard, and it
backs up against another ravine. There’s ravines all over the place there, that would be a
problem. We have a problem with deliveries. We ordered a large piece of lawn equipment, and
we had to meet the truck at the parking lot of McDonald’s because they wouldn’t come up our
road, and we’ve spoken to somebody who drives a cement truck who says that he would not
cross that ravine with a full load of cement, and we heard today about the woman who always
said a prayer before she crossed it.
WINSLOW MC GUIRE
MR. MC GUIRE-I have one question here.
MR. OBORNE-If you could state your name for the record.
MR. MC GUIRE-Winslow McGuire. I live in the same place she does. Lots One, Two, and
Three are supposedly accessed by that Island View Drive. How does anyone expect to get onto
Island View Drive from East Branch?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Maybe they’re going to levitate. I don’t know.
MR. MC GUIRE-Well, I think they would have to, because I know how Michael Wynn feels about
it, and what happens is when you left turn, coming down the hill when you turn left, to get to
Island View Drive, you’re going in through Michael Wynn’s driveway, and then you hit Island
View Drive.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It sounds like there’s probably going to be some outstanding issues that
need to get addressed at Site Plan Review with the Planning Board for sure, with your
comments.
MRS. MC GUIRE-It said somewhere in here that a couple of the lots were going to be accessed
from Riverside Drive.
MR. MC GUIRE-Yes, Four and Five.
MRS. MC GUIRE-That isn’t what was said last night.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it was. Three lots will be accessed from Island View, two lots from
Riverside.
MRS. MC GUIRE-Well, I sent you a picture of.
MR. OBORNE-You did, I have it right here.
MRS. MC GUIRE-Yes, well, show them what Island View Drive it.
MR. OBORNE-I’m on it, ma’am, give me a second.
MRS. JENKIN-There it is.
MRS. MC GUIRE-There’s Island View Drive.
MRS. JENKIN-That’s the road you use?
MRS. MC GUIRE-Yes. We’re retired, so we don’t have to go anywhere.
MRS. JENKIN-Good thing. You better get your skis out.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MRS. MC GUIRE-Yes, they ski down there in the, right now it’s just a dirt track with dandelions
and flowers growing in the middle of it, and our house is to the right, and we’re on the water, and
there’s a deep ravine and a brook over here, and as I understand it, House Number One is
going to be built at the top of the hill on the left there.
MR. OBORNE-This is past the culvert. There’s pictures taken on the other side of the ravine.
MR. MC GUIRE-This is going in, and beyond the culvert, probably 4, 500 feet.
MR. OBORNE-Coming up to the Cook’s house which is on the right.
MR. MC GUIRE-This is, it’s very, out as far as you can see, you turn right at Cook’s.
MRS. MC GUIRE-Yes. That’s it. We just don’t know who else wants to live up there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Interesting topography down there where the fish hatchery used to be and,
you know, down in the ravine. That was a fish hatchery back in the old days.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. The owner of the, the daughter or the granddaughter, I don’t know, is it the
granddaughter or the daughter of the guy who owned the fish hatchery, she lived on Riverside.
She spoke last night and talked about that, which was pretty interesting, going back in time,
what they used to do.
MRS. JENKIN-It is a beautiful area.
MRS. MC GUIRE-Yes, it is. I try very hard not to be the I’ve got mine, you know, so you can’t
move in here. I’m just not sure, we don’t mind the conditions.
MRS. JENKIN-You are on the river, though.
MRS. MC GUIRE-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-And you have access down to the river. Is it quite high?
MRS. MC GUIRE-Yes, 25 feet, 35 feet, and we have, everything is built 55 feet back because
that’s what the power company, but we all have gardens, and there were stairs there when we
bought the house. There are stairs down to the river. So we have access to it.
MRS. JENKIN-But you’re saying, so the property that they want to develop is behind that,
there’s no lake access, or road access?
MRS. MC GUIRE-Well, that’s another thing. You can’t even see the water from where we think
house one is.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, that’s the shape of it.
MR. OBORNE-That’s the property.
MRS. JENKIN-So it is along the river.
MR. OBORNE-Well, it doesn’t have riverfront because the power line, Brookfield Power has 50
feet from the mean high water mark of the river, inland, they own that. That’s ostensibly for
power lines. All along the Hudson River they own it.
MRS. MC GUIRE-You come down East Branch Drive and go in Michael Wynn’s driveway. It’s a
very sharp left hand turns, and there are usually two cars in the garage and two in the driveway,
and you try hard not to hit anything, and then there’s a left hand turn, and then you’re on the dirt
road, and you go down a hill, across a culvert and up a hill, and our house is on the right, and
another Cook house is on the.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, this is your parcel here, this one. Cook and the Wynn, Wynn’s right here.
MRS. MC GUIRE-And it’s very quiet down there. We don’t get the big.
MRS. JENKIN-How did you ever find it, to buy? That’s amazing.
MRS. MC GUIRE-Luck.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MRS. JENKIN-That’s okay.
MRS. MC GUIRE-Yes, the house is not, it’s kind of the house that Jack built. We say that David
Cook built his own house. He’s a finished carpenter. It’s very nice, and we say that our stuff
came in on the beer truck. It’s just a little bit off kilter, but it’s okay. It’s very warm.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Thank you.
th
MR. OBORNE-If you’re going to table it, my recommendation would be to the 27 of October.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2010 PAUL POIRIER, Introduced by James
Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
th
Riverside Drive. Tabled to the 27 of October.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-And we’ll leave the public hearing open on that one.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II PAUL DERBY & LORRAINE STEIN
OWNER(S): PAUL DERBY & LORRAINE STEIN ZONING: WR LOCATION: 86 ASH DRIVE
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 754 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION.
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE.
CROSS REF.: SPR 48-2010; BP 2000-065 DOCK RESTORATION; BP 2010-378 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 11, 2010 LOT SIZE: 0.57 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-9
SECTION: 179-13-010
PAUL DERBY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2010, Paul Derby & Lorraine Stein, Meeting Date:
August 18, 2010 “Project Location: 86 Ash Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 754 sq. ft. 2 story residential addition in a Waterfront Residential
district adjacent to Glen Lake.
Relief Required:
Applicant seeks relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental
Area.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The expansion of a non-conforming
structure precludes any feasible alternative from the request for an area variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requests for the expansion of a
non-conforming structure must be approved by the ZBA as per §179-13-010. The issue of
the request being “substantial” must be determined by the ZBA.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and
environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as the proposed foot print
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
of expansion is minimal, disturbance is located approximately 100 feet from the shoreline
and stormwater filtration is proposed by the use of a rain garden.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 48-2010 Expansion of a N/C structure in a CEA Pending 8/24/10
BP 2000-065 Dock restoration
Staff comments:
The applicant participated in the Warren County SWCD On-site Wastewater Improvement
Program for Glen Lake in 2009. Attached to the Site Plan review application are two invoices
indicating a bi-yearly pump-out and inspection of the wastewater system. The applicant
indicates in the submitted application narrative that the wastewater system in fully functional and
is on a routine program of inspection and pump-out every two years.
SEQR Status:
SEQR Type II
Application Protocol:
8/17/10 PB recommendation to ZBA Complete-see handout.
8/18/10 ZBA review
8/25/10 PB review”
MR. URRICO-The Planning Board resolved that, based on its limited review, has not identified
any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and
th
that was passed unanimously last night, August 17.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Paul, do you want to tell us, walk us through what you’re proposing
here?
MR. DERBY-Sure. I’ll just give some background on the project and what the plans are. Now
there are two real issues with the house. We’ve been living there now for 18 years, and the first
one is a very steep stairway that goes upstairs, and I have a picture of it, if anybody wants to see
it, and it’s very narrow. It’s 27 and a half inches wide, on both sides. It’s hard to get up and
down the stairway. I’ve been thinking about how to fix that. The second issue is the back
portion of the house, and this is the portion away from the lake, was built essentially on concrete
blocks, and put on dirt, and that portion of the house is falling away. The kitchen and the back
mud room is falling away on that side. So these are the two issues. So we’ve been working
with some builders to try to find a feasible way to resolve these, and the best way to do that, we
feel, is to square off the back portion of the house, this is the portion on the road side, to put a
proper foundation in under that back portion, to move the stairway to that new part, which would
require us to square off the back of the house with the second story, and that would take care of
those problems. We’re not adding any rooms at all. We’re taking out a bedroom upstairs, and
just the room that the stairway will be going into. We’re meeting all of the setbacks in waterfront.
It’s 130 feet from the road, 105 feet from the lake, 49 feet from the west side property line, 26
and a half from the east. It meets the height requirements, 25.4 feet, the Floor Area Ratio, and
the permeability, and also we plan to actually lessen stormwater runoff. The house now has the
sloped roof. We plan on guttering that. There are no gutters there now, and then directing all of
that water into a rain garden that we will build on the back northeast corner, at grade. So that’s
the nuts and bolts of the project. I do have a picture, also, of the squared off portion of the
house, if you guys want to look at those.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, as far as all the improvements, you’ve been working on it for many
years, especially the last few years, a lot of improvements as far as vegetation and, you know,
making sure that the lake doesn’t get affected by where we live, and your house is one of the old
ones that was built properly. What were they thinking, you know? Everybody else. This one is
set well back from the lake, and all the new construction’s going to be way on the back side
away from the lake, so you’re probably almost 200 feet back there.
MR. DERBY-It’s 170 feet back, yes.
MR. GARRAND-You’re living in the upstairs or downstairs?
MR. DERBY-We live in the house.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MR. GARRAND-The whole house, it’s just a single family?
MR. DERBY-There is an apartment in the front, it was built for the daughter there. It’s, we use it
as part of the house. It’s really not rentable. So we live in the house.
MR. GARRAND-What’s the current Floor Area Ratio? What’s it going to?
MR. DERBY-The current Ratio, this includes, of course, the, I have it right here. It’s going to
4612 and I believe it’s at 3850 right now, and for that sized lot, it would be at 5500, would be the
max.
MRS. JENKIN-So what you’re doing is actually taking the back portion and making a second
floor over the whole thing?
MR. DERBY-Correct, and squaring off that one corner. Now why, when they built it, they didn’t
square off that piece, I don’t know, but that’s where we would propose the stairway to go.
MRS. JENKIN-But isn’t this the front of the house? It says the deck on this.
MR. DERBY-No, that’s the backside.
MRS. JENKIN-And you’re going to put a little deck on it.
MR. DERBY-The deck is just over the entrance door.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. I thought, with the deck, it had to be the lakeside, and I couldn’t
understand what was going on here. That’s why.
MR. DERBY-But, yes, the reason that we liked that, we saw another house that the builder built
that they put a deck.
MRS. JENKIN-So are you going to take this whole section off and build the?
MR. DERBY-That section is where the slab is deteriorating.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, and you’re just going to take the whole thing off.
MR. DERBY-So we’re going to take that section off, put a foundation in, and then move the
stairway and make two stories. Correct.
MRS. JENKIN-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It must have been fun, all the times you had to move stuff up and down
those stairs, like mattresses.
MR. DERBY-Yes. It’s impossible. You have to get, we couldn’t get more than an actual double
bed up the stairs, and then split box springs. So, yes, it’s tough.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve all been on jobs like that, where you’re hitting your head against the
wall.
MR. GARRAND-Bang your knuckles a few times?
MR. DERBY-Yes. Definitely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Everybody pretty much understands this is on the backside, it’s not
out on the lakeside. Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public
wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any public comment?
MR. URRICO-I don’t see any public comment.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. DERBY-You didn’t receive the letter from?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MR. URRICO-Sorry, it was buried in there.
MR. DERBY-Yes.
MR. URRICO-“I received a public hearing notice for the proposed addition of a 754 square foot
addition to the residence of 86 Ash Drive. I am unable to attend this meeting, as I will be out of
town, but I wanted my support of this project to be noted at the public hearing. I am the
immediate neighbor at 88 Ash Drive east of the above residence, and have no issue with the
proposed expansion. They are very good neighbors and keep their property in excellent
condition. I support the variance. Respectfully, Gary R. Hicks, Taylor Hill Properties.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys want me to poll you, or does everybody think this is okay? All
we’re giving relief for is expansion of a nonconforming structure. It’s all conforming. All the work
that’s going to be done is going to have, as far as I’m concerned, no impact on the lake
whatsoever. It’s going to be a positive with bettering the roof. They were working on the roof,
today.
MR. DERBY-Yes, either way they had to fix the roof. Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, are you going to do it before winter?
MR. DERBY-I hope so, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Great. All right. So does somebody want to take this one?
MR. GARRAND-I’ll do it.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2010 PAUL DERBY & LORRAINE STEIN,
Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
86 Ash Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 754 sq. ft. two story residential addition
in a Waterfront Residential district, adjacent to Lake George. The applicant is seeking relief for
the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. The balancing test, whether benefits can
be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. This seems to be the most logical
alternative and logical thing to do when repairing a defective sub base and re-building above it.
Will this change produce an undesirable effect on the neighborhood or character of nearby
properties? No, it will not change the character of the neighborhood or have any adverse
undesirable effects on the neighborhood. Is this request substantial? 754 square feet, given the
size of this lot, it’s over a half an acre, is not significant. Will this request have adverse physical
or environmental impacts on the neighborhood? The homeowner has instituted stormwater
controls for runoff. So it’ll have a beneficial effect on the environment. Is this difficulty self-
created? I don’t think it would be self-created since I don’t think the homeowner contributed to
the degeneration of the sub base under the front of the house. So I move we approve Area
Variance No. 35-2010.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set, Paul.
MR. DERBY-Thank you very much.
MR. OBORNE-Paul, you may want to get some of the applications back. You had no
conditions. All you need to do is submit four of them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Take your maps and all that stuff.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II MARC D. FUCHS AGENT(S):
ADIRONDACK MOUNTAIN RIDGE ESTATES, LLC/ED RECHAK OWNER(S): MARC D.
FUCHS ZONING: WR LOCATION: 19 WOODS POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 480 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 276-1968 SUMMER RESIDENCE; BP 342-
1969 ADDITION; BP 98-025 DEMOLITION; BP 99-524 BOATHOUSE/DOCK WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 11, 2010 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE:
0.61 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.14-1-2 SECTION: 179-3-040
ED RECHAK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-2010, Marc D. Fuchs, Meeting Date: August 18, 2010
“Project Location: 19 Woods Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 480 sq. ft. garage on a 0.69 acre parcel adjacent to Lake George.
Relief Required:
Applicant request 7.5 feet of North side setback relief from the 20 foot requirement per §179-3-
040 of the Zoning Code
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to
moderate impacts to nearby properties may be anticipated as a result of this proposal due to
the proximity of the Single Family Dwelling on the adjoining property to the northeast and the
proposed location of the garage.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The limitations of the lot as well as the
location of the wastewater system appear to reduce any feasible method by which to avoid
an area variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 7.5 feet or 37.5 percent
relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement of the WR zone per §179-3-040 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 and
environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 276-1968 summer residence
BP 342-1969 addition
BP 98-025 demolition
BP 99-524 boathouse/dock
Staff comments:
The location of the proposed garage appears to be the most logical given the limitations of the
lot and the location of the existing wastewater system. There could be a potential impact on the
neighbor to the northeast as a result of the close proximity of the Single Family Dwelling to the
property line and the proposed garage.
Stormwater controls in the form of eave trenches are proposed for the garage.
SEQR Status:
SEQR Type II”
MR. OBORNE-If I could make a quick comment. I am not 100% sure, now, if that is actually a
single family dwelling on the property line there, because I did get a phone call from somebody
who got a letter within 500 feet, and he told me that the neighbor did not even use that structure.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
So it leads me to believe it might not be a single family dwelling, but nevertheless, there is a
structure right there on the property line. So I apologize for that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you want to add?
MR. RECHAK-Yes. Hi. I’m Ed Rechak, Adirondack Mountain Ridge Estates, and I’m
representing Mark and Betty Fuchs. Well, first of all I’d like to say, address Number Five,
whether that was self-created. In essence, yes, of course it was. Whoever built the house back
in 1968 built a structure based on the size of the property that per today’s, you know,
permeable/impermeable requirements is, and I don’t know if they were the same back then, but
obviously it created that close boundary there, which we haven’t exceeded, but it also, you
know, Mark and Betty bought this house, and my writing’s probably some of the worst in the
world, and that was a four. So they bought it in April, not September, but anyway, they bought
this house. Of course, when you buy a property like this, it’s a dream property, right on the
water, right on the point, and they never considered that, something like this, adding a garage, is
going to be an issue. It just doesn’t cross your mind when you’re buying a property like this, and
so, you know, when you say, was it self-created, yes, but it wasn’t created by the current owner,
and I would like to point that out. That house was built in 1968, to my understanding. Other
than that, you know, I think we’re actually, with the increased drainage that’s coming down, the
water, I’d like to give you pictures here if I may, if you are interested in seeing them.
MRS. JENKIN-Is this a year round home?
MR. RECHAK-I beg your pardon?
MRS. JENKIN-Is it a year round home?
MR. RECHAK-No.
MRS. JENKIN-Seasonal?
MR. RECHAK-Yes. They actually like, they’re surgeons. They live in Delmar. So it’s their
summer and weekend getaway home. Anyway. So, you know, if you look, as you come down
the lane, okay, if you stand at the top of the roadway where it ends and you look down, if you
pass the picture down, the visual view of the garage that’s going to be built, it’ll actually look,
unless you’re on the very far side of the property on either side, it’ll look like it’s attached to the
home. It’ll look like a natural part of that structure. It’s going to be designed in such a fashion
that the garage will have stone on it, along with the woodwork, so that it’ll emulate the existing
home. It’ll be a perfect blend. It’s not going to be an eyesore or look like an afterthought.
Further up the street, if you look at the site map, you’ve got garages on the left and the right that
just butt right up to the lane, and if you look at the pictures on there, and I indicated which one
was on the left side of the lane and which one was on the right, and, you know, those aren’t the
prettiest structures. So when you consider the fact that this is going to look like it’s part of the
home, and was supposed to be there all along, I think it is an improvement over the picture you
see there of just cars sitting out there in the open, especially in that type of a property, okay.
You’re talking about a 1.8 million dollar piece of property. Even though, I think you should be
able to hide your cars and not keep them out there, but that’s all I would have to add. I think it’s
a fairly simple issue, based on the size of the lot, very unusual lot, as you can see. I think we’ve
made it work as best as we possibly can and trying to appease everybody. Environmentally, it’s
far enough off the lake, and we’ve done enough for water control that there shouldn’t be any
impact at all, of any detriment. That’s all I have. Thank you.
MR. GARRAND-Are they going to keep the shed?
MR. RECHAK-They have, to my knowledge, they have not discussed with me taking the shed
down.
MRS. JENKIN-My question is, you have the one rock wall here. You have the lower one with
the pump, with the, yes, with the pump there. Will you be removing this lower?
MR. RECHAK-It will actually be pushed up and actually probably come in and connect to that
wall. That rock wall there is within the boundaries of the garage. So it’s going to be taken out.
It’s going to have to be re-graded there, and we’re going to re-create the wall, but a little bit
further up the hillside.
MRS. JENKIN-And a little higher.
MR. RECHAK-Yes.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. That was my question when, because I did visit the property, and I
thought that’s exactly where the garage was going to be.
MR. RECHAK-Yes, but we are going to re-locate all those stones further up the hill.
MRS. JENKIN-Is that a working pump?
MR. RECHAK-No, no. It’s just going to be removed.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. RECHAK-Yes. It’s kind of cute, though, isn’t it?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, has the Planning Board got to look at this, or is it just a regular
building permit?
MR. OBORNE-No, it’s just here for side setback relief. It’s not expansion of a nonconforming
structure, or anything along those lines.
MR. KUHL-What’s going to happen with this pump station? Is that going to be underneath the
structure, or are you going to re-direct it?
MR. RECHAK-We just have to re-direct one pipe. As we were just discussing, the hand pump
does not, it doesn’t work. It’s an old dried up well or something, but, no, the pump, we just have
to re-direct one line, which won’t be an issue.
MR. KUHL-But that steel covered pump station, that’s going to your septic field, your absorption
field? Is that what that is?
MR. RECHAK-Okay. Yes, the steel, that’ll stay there. That line that crosses through the
foundation was just going to have to come out and be re-directed.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. RECHAK-But, yes, the steel cover is going to remain where it is. That won’t move.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys?
MR. RECHAK-One other thing, if I may. I did also speak to, upon direction from Keith, I spoke
to Joe, and I don’t know if I’m saying his name right, Thorne or Thorzine, at the Lake George
Park Commission, and I sent him over an entire package like you have in front of you, per his
request. He said, maybe you were already aware of that, but he said he has no interest in
deciding anything. He feels it’s not his decision on that. So I don’t have to get any approvals
from them, per Joe.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public
wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I do. This is addressed to you, Mr. Underwood. “The above referenced
Area Variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional
engineer and the Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake George Water Keeper does not
oppose the requested variance but has concerns about the site plan. The Lake George Water
Keeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply the Town’s regulations, specifically §
179-14-050 Imposition of Conditions, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced
Area Variance application. I am unable to attend this evening’s meeting due to a conflict and
would like to offer the following for the Board: The site plan does not contain enough
information regarding the construction of the proposed garage. Information required for
determination of the extent of disturbance necessary for the construction of garage is needed for
a complete site plan review. The grading plan shows the garage proposed on a slope and
would not be constructed as shown. Also, additional paving will be required for access to the
garage and will require additional stormwater management. Therefore, the Lake George Water
Keeper recommends the Zoning Board of Appeals require site plan review for the proposed
garage as a condition of approval for the variance, if granted. The Lake George Water Keeper
Program looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your
consideration. Sincerely Christopher Navitsky, P.E. Lake George Water Keeper”
MR. UNDERWOOD-In response to that, Keith, is that something we can ask the Planning Board
to do, because it’s in a CEA? I mean, or is that going to be an aberration?
MR. OBORNE-It would be not typical protocol. That’s for sure. They do have stormwater
controls and E & S controls.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as your purview, I mean, is somebody going to go out and make sure
this thing is going to be done properly, as far as the infiltrators and everything?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we have a follow-up inspection on the part of our?
MR. OBORNE-Before they get ready to break ground, they need to call Bruce Frank and make
sure that he, once they put their E & S controls in, he inspects that and makes sure that they’re
compliant.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is Bruce going to make any kind of a determination as far as excessive
runoff from more paving and stuff like that?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Not really?
MR. OBORNE-No, that’s not his purview.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-I mean, there’s a minimal amount of disturbance. What was the section that he
referenced in there?
MR. URRICO-179-14-050, Imposition of Conditions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-He wants us to put a condition on it.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that would be up to you. It’s certainly, I’ve never seen it, but it doesn’t
preclude you from doing it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MRS. JENKIN-From what I saw when I was there, it didn’t look you’d have to have an awful lot
more paving done. Do you have any answer to that?
MR. RECHAK-Well, actually, I mean, you’re going to, if you consider where the garage drops
down, if you lowered it with a crane, onto the existing site now, completely built garage, you’re
not really going to be asphalting any more, other than the enlarged area, because you have a
car, the cars back up there on the asphalt now, and the garage is going to cut some of that off
and become garage floor. So really on either side, or in front of it, once the garage is complete,
there won’t be any additional driveway that isn’t there already.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And you’ve got catch basins in that driveway as it exists now?
MR. RECHAK-Yes. There’s a catch basin right up against the house because of the way the
slope of the land. It’s right there, open grade, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. All right. Then I guess I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And poll the Board. I’ll start with you, Brian.
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I think that this is far enough away from the lake. It looks like you’ve
done a good job of setting it on the property. My only concern would be from the neighbor
because it’s so close to the property and that’s where the variance is for. We haven’t had
anything from that neighbor. So I’d be in favor of the project.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. My concern was the neighbor, and was the neighbor approached at all?
MR. RECHAK-They were notified by the letters, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-There’s been no response?
MR. RECHAK-Not to my knowledge. Because the response would come to you, or whoever
sent the letters out in Queensbury.
MRS. JENKIN-I think that to put a garage there, that’s the only logical place to put the garage. I
think that it’s close to the house. I think that it’s certainly well planned, as far as this plan looks.
You’ve taken care of runoff. I don’t agree that the design of the garage will really fit the house,
because the house is so modern.
MR. RECHAK-May I? That’s kind of a generic plan. Mark and Betty didn’t want to go to the
expense of having the actual house, I mean, the dimensions, the proportions of the garage will
not change, but the aesthetics, the face of it, if you will, will be changed to match the house, with
stone, matching stone, but they didn’t want to go to that expense until they knew they were
going to do the project. So when we submit the building plan, it will be actually different.
Dimensionally, proportionally, everything will be the same. It’ll just look more like the house,
when we submit for the building permit.
MRS. JENKIN-That’s good.
MR. RECHAK-Yes. It’s not going to look like those two up the street. I mean, frankly, if those
two were teenage girls, they’d be home on Friday nights.
MRS. JENKIN-I don’t think that there’s any adverse physical or environmental effects of it. I
don’t think that it’s going to be an undesirable change in the neighborhood, and I would definitely
be in favor of the variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I have to agree with Joan. I see no effect. I see it as an, it should fit in. It
shouldn’t have any effect on the lake, and the stormwater control. You are going to add some
asphalt to, for the width of your garage.
MR. RECHAK-Well, inside, concrete, correct, yes.
MR. KUHL-Well, no, not only a concrete floor, but you’re going to have to go wider.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, where the wall is.
MR. KUHL-Yes, where the wall is. So you are going to be asphalting something.
MR. RECHAK-Actually, you’re right. Yes, I didn’t consider that. You’re correct.
MR. KUHL-And if, in fact, it’s not that much. So I’m in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to go?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’ll go. I don’t think there’ll be an undesirable change in the neighborhood,.
However, a previous member of the Zoning Board pointed out that a feasible alternative in the
case of garages is not to build one. There’s no right for having a garage, even on the lake. It’s
something that is determined by the size of the property and whether it fits the property. So, you
know, not having a garage is not something that is not an alternative. It’s a feasible alternative.
However, I don’t think in this case the setback relief is untoward. I think it’s minimal, moderate.
Whatever. I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think this, it meets the balancing test. It’s a modest request. So I’d be in
favor.
MR. GARRAND-I agree with Mr. Urrico. The alternative is to not build the garage, but if this is
done as proposed with the proper stormwater controls, I think this won’t have any adverse effect
on the neighborhood or the environment, and I’d just like to make note that, you know, Staff look
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
it over, because it is a Critical Environmental Area, and given the grades down there, there is a
potential for things to go wrong during construction. I just hope that typically I would not ask this
applicant or any applicant to put E & S or stormwater controls unless it was necessary. I did ask
Ed to do that, and he went through the expense to do that. So you’ve got it.
MR. GARRAND-So I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I, too, will go along with it. I think that they can mitigate any
stormwater that’s going to be created (lost words) given the fact that it’s already paved down
there, the minimal amount that’s going to be added isn’t going to push it over the edge. So it
appears that the applicants are people that are concerned with the way it fits in, and they’re not
going to hack down half the woods to put this garage up. I’m sure they’re going to do as minimal
amount as possible. So I’ll let somebody take this one.
MRS. JENKIN-I can take it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2010 MARC D. FUCHS, Introduced by
Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
19 Woods Point Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 480 square foot garage on a
.69 acre parcel adjacent to Lake George. The applicant requests 7.5 feet of north side setback
relief from the 20 foot requirement per Section 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code. The criteria for
considering the Area Variance, according to Chapter 267 of the Town Law, in making a
determination, the Board shall consider whether, 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 the granting of this area variance. Minor impact to nearby properties will be
anticipated as the garage will be located so close to the house, and is going to be away from the
rest of the properties, except for the one next door, which is close to it. Whether the benefit
sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible for the applicant to pursue
other than an area variance. The benefit sought can be achieved, as mentioned by the other
Board members, to not have a garage at all, but the limitations of the lot as well as the location
of the wastewater system appear to reduce any feasible method if they are going to build one.
Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 7.5 feet from the 20 foot
side setback requirement is considered minor. Whether the proposed variance will have an
adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or
district. There should be minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the
neighborhood. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. The difficulty is self-created, as it is
not really required to have a garage on a lakefront property, but they do want one, and they
have applied for one. So I move to approve Area Variance No. 36-2010.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mr. Urrico
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. RECHAK-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II PATRICIA (MC CAULEY) PENROSE
AGENT(S): GEORGE PENROSE OWNER(S): PATRICIA (MC CAULEY) PENROSE
ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 33 HELEN DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF
A 216 SQ. FT. SHED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2010-332; BP 6163-1979 SFD; BP 2007-375
PORCH/DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.39 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
301.12-1-41 SECTION: 179-3-040
GEORGE PENROSE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-2010, Patricia (McCauley) Penrose, Meeting Date:
August 18, 2010 “Project Location: 33 Helen Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes installation of a 216 sq. ft. shed within the rear setback of a parcel located in the
Evergreen Subdivision.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 22 feet of rear setback relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement of the
Evergreen Subdivision approved in 1973.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this variance request.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could move the location
of the proposed shed further from the rear property line to be compliant or more compliant
with the zoning code. However, the applicant states that moving the shed will impact the
aesthetics and use of the back yard.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requests for 22 feet or 73 percent
relief from the 30 foot rear yard setback for the Evergreen Subdivision may be considered
moderate to severe relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and
environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2010-332 216 sq. ft. Shed. Pending
BP 6163-1979 SFD Approved 1979
BP 2007-375 Porch/Deck Approved 2007
Staff comments:
The applicant has requested a waiver from the survey requirements of the application and was
granted this waiver by the ZBA Chair on or about July 19, 2010.
SEQR Status:
SEQR Type II”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you want to add or tell us about?
MR. PENROSE-Well, I would just add that if the shed was, complied with the 30 foot setback
requirement, I’d put it in the middle of our backyard. I don’t know the justification or reason or
rationale for the 30 foot setback requirement, nor do I understand the possibility of, without a
permit, two 120 square foot sheds that could be put back there, but neither of those alternatives
is good for us, to put it in the middle of the back yard. If that was the case, we would do without
the shed. It’s certainly more, we have a seven by seven Rubbermaid little tiny shed back there
now, and this would look a heck of a lot better than that. It would match the house. It would be
installed by Gardentime. We have estimates. It’s in your package. It’s in a wooded area back
there. It wouldn’t interfere with any of the neighbors or have any impact on the neighborhood as
far as I’m concerned.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’ve always been kind of baffled by why we have that requirement of
the big setback because it usually puts it right in the middle of somebody’s yard or floating in
their pool or some other oddball spot. So, you know, it’s understandable that most people want
to put their sheds in a corner of the back 40 on their property, and this one is not any different
than other ones that have come in before us, but any comments you guys want to make?
MRS. JENKIN-I just had one question. I wondered if you, you did include a photo of grass and
undergrowth. Do you plan to remove any trees or shrubs or anything like that to put it in?
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MR. PENROSE-It would be pretty much where this little seven by seven is right now. We’d have
to move out a couple of trees around it. actually we had some substantial tree work done this
summer, in other areas of the yard, but for purposes of the shed, I mean, we’ve got some minor
trees that we’d have to move back there.
MRS. JENKIN-Will there be any trees between, behind the shed, next to the neighbor?
MR. PENROSE-Yes, those would remain.
MRS. JENKIN-To screen.
MR. PENROSE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And in the these subdivision regs, did we ever have anything like, that’s a
neighbor back there, that’s not community property? I mean, a lot of these ones we’ve had in
the past, there’s like a green space in the back that doesn’t butt up to.
MR. OBORNE-There’s not a no cut zone, so to speak.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Okay.
MR. KUHL-But you’re going to place it where that Rubbermaid shed is?
MR. PENROSE-Pretty much in the same spot. Yes. I mean, it’s bigger.
MR. KUHL-I thought you had already done it. I’m looking at it from the street, I said, there’s a
shed back there already, and then I read it and I said, it’s not 12 by 18. So, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you guys want to know? I’ll open the public hearing.
Anybody from the public? No.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence, Roy?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. It’s a pretty straightforward proposal here, nothing that we haven’t
seen before. So, I mean, as far as detrimental effects, I can’t think of any, you know, and it’s
placing it in a logical place. It’s an upgrade from the one you have now. So, I don’t have a
problem with it. Does anybody have a problem with this one? Does somebody want to do this
one?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll take it.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2010 PATRICIA (MC CAULEY) PENROSE,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
33 Helen Drive. The applicant proposes installation of a 216 square foot shed within the rear
setback of a parcel located in the Evergreen subdivision. The applicant requests 22 feet of rear
setback relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement of the Evergreen subdivision approved
in 1973. The criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267 of Town Law,
whether there will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby
properties, and the aesthetics of the neighborhood will not be affected. Whether the benefit
could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. I think that wanting to have the
shed in the back is what generated this variance. Whether the area variance is substantial.
While 22 feet, or 73% from the 30 foot rear setback for the Evergreen subdivision may be
considered moderate to severe, it’s still not going to have much of an impact on the community.
Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. I think there’ll be just minor impacts,
and the alleged difficulty could be said to be self-created, and I propose we approve Area
Variance No. 37-2010.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. PENROSE-I just have two comments, if I may. One, I just want to be careful of this. On the
summary that you sent me, it indicates our address is 53 Helen Drive. It’s 33 Helen Drive.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. PENROSE-I don’t know if that makes a difference.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re not going to worry about it.
MR. PENROSE-The other thing is, when I applied for a permit, I was charged $40. I received a
phone call saying that it should have only been $20 because it’s a shed that’s being.
MS. HEMINGWAY-Yes, just stop in tomorrow.
MR. PENROSE-Okay. Thanks.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. I have just one more thing. I got a call from John Salvador, like
two weeks ago now.
MR. OBORNE-He called you at home?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and that was in regards to, remember when he was in the last time
and he withdrew his application because there was something wrong? I don’t even remember
what it was, but other than, I can’t, it’s something to do with Dunham’s Bay or something.
MR. OBORNE-It probably was some Notice of Appeal or something.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Some Notice of Appeal that hadn’t occurred with Craig. Remember?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think he didn’t have standing, something along those lines.
MR. GARRAND-Craig wouldn’t make a decision on it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig wouldn’t make a decision on it and so I talked to Craig and I said,
what we are we going to do? He withdrew his application, now he wants to come back, citing
the proper statutes that he had messed up on. So, I think we left it up the last time, it was going
to be up to us, do we want to let him come back and appeal under those guidelines, and I don’t
see any reason not to, other than we can tell him to take a hike, but I don’t think we want to do
that.
MR. KUHL-But he’s not coming out.
MR. GARRAND-He’s using the right Code book then?
MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s using, yes, and I think it was because the Code changed and he was
quoting some, you know, the wrong.
MR. KUHL-But isn’t he skirting the issue? Isn’t he?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Whether he even has standing, I mean, I don’t know because I can barely
recall what it is that we were even talking about. It was something up in Dunham’s Bay. So do
you guys want to have him come back at some point? Do we have to put him on the agenda to
do that, or?
MR. OBORNE-He has to go through the proper protocol.
MR. UNDERWOOD-He would have to apply and get his stuff in so.
MR. URRICO-The first meeting in September.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So can he be informed that he needs to proper up what he’s?
MR. OBORNE-He knows what he needs to do.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right.
MR. GARRAND-Find any decision Craig made and appeal it.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/10)
MR. CLEMENTS-Since he’s withdrawn it, doesn’t he have to do it within a certain amount of
time?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, we gave him time because he messed up. I guess he just picked the
wrong thing. Remember he came in and he talked at the end of the meeting to us. I don’t know
if you were here for that one.
MR. OBORNE-That site plan has not been approved yet. It was approved by the Planning
Board, but it hasn’t been signed off yet.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I guess we can, do we need to inform him, then, somehow, or
should I call him and let him know?
MR. OBORNE-Salvador? No, I would call Craig.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and have Craig handle it?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, well, Mr. Salvador can handle it. He should submit another application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right, and do you guys feel that’s okay? So be it.
MR. KUHL-Put him on at the end, though. Don’t put him on first. We spent, we went, took two
hours last time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we’ll put him on the agenda when he submits, then, and that’s it, and
I will contact Craig and have Craig contact him.
MR. OBORNE-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So I guess we’re done for the evening. See you next week.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
40