2010.10.20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 2010
INDEX
Area Variance No. 48-2010 Sam Wahnon 1.
REQUEST FOR RE-HEARING Tax Map No. 309.18-1-43.2
BY VAN APERLOO & NEIGHBORS
Area Variance No. 54-2010 Jerry Brown Auto Parts 5.
Tax Map No. 303.19-1-49
Area Variance No. 56-2010 Thomas & Maureen Valenti 11.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-41
Notice of Appeal No. 2-2010 John Salvador 20.
REQUEST TO RE-HEAR Tax Map No. 227.13-2-36
SEABOYER
Notice of Appeal Mary Monthie 23.
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 10/20/2010)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 2010
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOYCE HUNT
RICHARD GARRAND
RONALD KUHL
JOAN JENKIN
BRIAN CLEMENTS
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the October 20, 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 that 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, but 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. Okay. First up tonight we have an administrative item.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
REQUEST FOR RE-HEARING BY VAN APERLOO, JOHNSON, AND OTHER NEIGHBORS
DUE TO LACK OF NOTICE FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2010, SAM WAHNON, BIG BOOM
ROAD, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON SEPTEMBER
15, 2010. NEIGHBORS HAVE SUBMITTED A PETITION AGAINST THE PROJECT AND ARE
REQUESTING A REHEARING.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What I’m going to do is this. We, last month, approved the resolution for
this two story dwelling on a very small lot down there on Big Boom Road, and I think most of us
were here that are sitting this evening, and in the interim, it was brought to the attention of the
Town that, for some reason, people were not notified about that meeting, and, you know, the
usual procedures are that in, when a variance is requested, that the Town notifies everybody
within a certain distance of the proposed project, and at that point in time, it’s also, you know,
put into the newspaper as a physical product from the secretary and so that’s considered to be
notification. Under normal circumstances, I know occasionally when I was secretary, we would
get returned letters that were undeliverable and things like that, but in the instance of what
occurred here, the claim is that nobody got their notices, and so we really have no way of
knowing whether or not they got those notices. Under most circumstances, I think they’re
always mailed in a pretty timely manner, and Sue and the people that work down in the office
make sure they get out well in advance. So I don’t know what the problem was, but in any case,
we did receive this letter, and I’ll read it into the record. It’s addressed to myself, and it says, “I
am writing to you at this time hoping you can be a help to all of the undersigned in regards to the
home which is to be erected on the property on 117 Big Boom Road. Mr. Sam Wahnon intends
to erect a structure on said land that will not fit in with the rest of the homes on our side of the
street and we are trying to get a new hearing for this matter. I was shown a list by Craig with all
mailing notices so we could be at this hearing and only two people received such letter. The list
below are of the residents that are against this eyesore being put by our homes which will also
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
cause us to loose some twenty or twenty five trees on this site. After speaking to the woman
that sits on the board Sam gave the impression that we were with this arrangement which
definitely has no truth to it, we do not want this house erected and if you could give us a way to
prevent this all would be appreciated. Enclosed you will also find a copy of all the information
we received up at the Town hall concerning this matter. We hope that you and the rest of the
board will give this the utmost consideration and help us. Regards, Annette van Aperloo” And
it’s signed by a bunch of people in the neighborhood signed on there. Procedurally, for us on
the Board, you know, we go through a rational thought process when we grant variances.
There’s quite a bit of discussion and give and take on the part of it, and our greatest hope is that
usually that anybody who has concerns does have an opportunity to present their side of the
story. However, last month when we went through this process here, I mean, I think that there
were some concerns on the part of Board members, but we only had a couple of gentlemen that
did show up that evening that, you know, were not in favor of this project, and at that point in
time I think the Board ran through the balancing test as far as, you know, whether we thought
this was something that we could live with or approved based upon how we visualized what was
going to be built on that very small lot down there, and I think that we, most of us were pretty
comfortable with the outcome. I think, Rick, you were the only one that didn’t feel the project
was proper on that. So as far as the public goes this evening, it’s really up to the Board
members. We’ve received the information. We’ve received the request, but the one thing to
keep in mind is this, is that when a request like this comes in it’s extraordinary, and for the Board
to reconsider a variance that’s already been granted, it has to be a unanimous decision on the
part of the Board. If there’s one Board member who disagrees, that’s tough. I mean, there’s
nothing we can do about that. So, I mean, it’s something that we all need to think about. So
think about what you did last week, and I think all I’m really going to do is, I’m not going to have
a discussion about your philosophy about it or anything like that. I’m just going to poll the Board
and say, yes or no, you know, are you in favor of this project to be re-heard again, and also keep
in mind, at the same time, we have a responsibility to the party who proposes a project. In other
words, they came in. They take their time, they explain their side of the story, and last month
everybody pretty much was on board as far as the explanation as to what was proposed and
whether it fit, whether it was going to be a major detriment to the neighborhood if allowed, and
we did grant the variance. So, keep that in mind, too. So I don’t know who wants to start. Do
you have any questions before we go?
MRS. JENKIN-I have quite an important question.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly.
MRS. JENKIN-I wasn’t at the meeting. I was absent. So I read the minutes, and afterwards,
when this new request came in, and I read it in detail, and Mr. Koskinas, at the meeting,
questioned part of the deed, and the answer for that was that, well, yes, I originally thought it
was 85 foot frontage and then it wasn’t. When I read the deed over, it didn’t make sense at all,
and so what I did, I went through and measured out, in my head of course, and looked at all the
details of the deed, and the deed does not match the piece of property. It doesn’t match it at all.
It doesn’t fit, with the deed as it is, because there’s a 200 foot, westerly 200 foot line on the deed
that is not on this, is not on the map at all, and Mr. Koskinas mentioned it, and then it wasn’t
followed through with, but I re-did the map, and it shows that, and I’m not sure. You probably
know, legally, is the deed the most important piece of information, or is the survey?
MR. OBORNE-Well, I’d say the survey is at this point. I don’t know how he’s going to be able to
sell the property without a valid deed.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, the deed does not match.
MR. KUHL-This is only a warranty deed.
MRS. JENKIN-So what does that mean?
MR. KUHL-It’s not a deed, deed. Aren’t those two different things, a deed and a warranty deed?
MR. OBORNE-I’m not familiar with the process of the deeding.
MR. KUHL-Okay, but I agree that this doesn’t match that.
MR. URRICO-Before we get into the nuts and bolts of the case, what we’re trying to decide
tonight is whether there is standing for a re-hearing, right?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. We’re not going to re-hear it this evening.
MR. URRICO-Right, based on whether they received copies of the petition.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. URRICO-So that’s what we’re discussing, not the merits of the case?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but I mean, if you guys have any concerns at this time, but, I mean, you
weren’t here last week.
MRS. JENKIN-But I would think this was a legal matter that should be settled before either.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, that’s neither here nor there, because, you know, the subject came
up, to a degree, and there was some question as to why it went from 85 to 35, but I think Mr.
Wahnon explained to us he was under the impression that it was a wider lot than it ended up
being also.
MRS. JENKIN-Right. That has nothing to do with the deed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But, nonetheless, I think what we need to do is keep on track here as to
what we’re doing here. So it’s a matter of concern for the Board, do you want to re-hear this, do
you want to re-open a can of worms, and if you have something to add to that commentary, I
would appreciate that at this time. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I just wanted to ask a couple of questions of Keith. Keith, two things
have to be done, I assume, here. One is that it has to be publicized in the paper, and, two, that
the notice has to go out to the neighbors in a certain, within a certain distance.
MR. OBORNE-Within 500 feet, yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Number One, was the notification put in the paper?
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-We can show that, is that correct?
MR. OBORNE-There is proof of that, absolutely.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay, and how about notices to the neighbors? Now I know that some said
that they didn’t get it. It looks like some did, because there were some people here that were
against it. Can you tell me if all of the, if the notices were gone out to all of the people, well, first
of all, that are on this list, and there’s a lot of names on here that I can’t even read. Were this
many letters sent out?
MR. OBORNE-Well, that’s a petition list. That’s not necessarily a list of adjoiners within 500
feet.
MR. CLEMENTS-There’s 21 on here.
MR. OBORNE-Right. I can say unequivocally that all eligible people that were required to be
notified were notified. Now, did they check their mail? I don’t know. Did it come after the
meeting? I don’t know, based on the U.S. Mail. I mean, I can’t answer that, but I can state
unequivocally that notices were sent out at the appropriate time.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you, and I just have one other concern, Mr. Chairman, and that
is a lot of these names, I can’t even read them. I don’t even know who they are.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, it’s not so much necessary that we know who, what, when and where,
but, in other words, there was a request from some people, and so that’s what you’re going to be
deciding, do you want to re-hear, and, keep in mind that, you know, we do a lot of variances
every single year. How many times has this occurred in the past, you know, and, you know, you
have to weigh the consequences of what your decision is this evening, based upon what’s been
requested, versus what we did, versus what usually occurs, you know, so think of it that way.
You said you had a comment?
MRS. HUNT-I was just wondering whether all of these people were legally supposed to be
notified or not. We don’t know.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no idea. In other words, Keith has already said that notices were
mailed out to all the appropriate people, and I would think that, given the fact that the Town
always does that, in very few instances.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
MR. OBORNE-Under Municipal Law we’re required to do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Sure. All right. So if there’s no more commentary from you guys then
I’m going to poll the Board members, and that’s strictly do you want to re-hear this thing or are
you comfortable with what we did and feel that people were given a fair shake? And I guess I’ll
start with you, Ron.
MR. KUHL-Given the fact that Keith said that everything was sent out that should have been
sent out, everybody had fair notice, and it gets listed in the newspaper, so everybody can read
the newspaper and know when the variance meeting comes up, and if they didn’t come, and we
did everything we should have, I think it should be left the way it is. I wasn’t here last month for
the initial one, but in reading the minutes, I mean, we did what we had to do, and I think we did it
right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m just going to go through everybody else anyway. So I’ll go with
you, Roy.
MR. URRICO-I agree with Ron. I think proper notification was given. That’s the only thing that
we’re deciding here tonight.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I agree with both other gentlemen. I think that, I think we did our due diligence
in sending it out. We really never have a problem like this. I know that they send things out all
the time, so I wouldn’t be in favor of hearing it either.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rick?
MR. GARRAND-Staff has said on the record that all notices to effected parties were sent out.
So I’d have to say I don’t see grounds for re-hearing this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I’m not in favor of re-hearing it. As I said, you know, everybody that was
supposed to be notified was, and two of the neighbors showed up. If it was that important, they
would have talked to each other and come out.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. Yes, because this is what we’re actually, whether the proper notices were
sent out, and that’s been established that proper notices were sent out, and so I would have to
agree with that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I will also vote the same as everybody else on the Board. I think that
the system is set up so it’s a fair system. The system is set up so everyone has a fair shake,
and if people choose not to, for whatever reason, or they neglect to participate in the process,
then there’s really not a whole lot that we should be doing as far as that goes, because
otherwise we’d be subject to having every single variance that’s granted come back a second
time for everybody that disagreed with it, as far as I’m concerned. So I’ll make a motion. So as
far as the Administrative Item, there was a request this evening for a re-hearing by the
VanAperloo’s.
MOTION THAT REGARDING REQUEST FOR RE-HEARING FROM VAN APERLOO,
JOHNSON, AND OTHER NEIGHBORS REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2010 SAM
WAHNON ON BIG BOOM ROAD, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2010, HAVING DISCUSSED THE MATTER AMONGST
THEMSELVES, THE BOARD MEMBERS FEEL THAT PROPER NOTICE WAS MADE AT THE
TIME, AS IT HAS BEEN ON EVERY OTHER PREVIOUS MEETING, AND EVEN THOUGH
THERE WAS A SUBMITTED PETITION AGAINST THIS PROJECT THAT WAS RECEIVED BY
THE TOWN REQUESTING A RE-HEARING, THAT THE BOARD IS COMFORTABLE WITH
THE FACT THAT WE DID A FAIR JOB IN OUR ANALYSIS AND IN GRANTING THE
PREVIOUS VARIANCE NO. 48-2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
NOES: NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2010 JERRY BROWN AUTO PARTS SEQRA TYPE: II AGENT(S):
TOM HUTCHINS, HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S): JERRY BROWN ZONING: HI
LOCATION: 26 LOWER WARREN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF
A 900 SQ. FT. METAL STORAGE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2010-012 SHED; SP 63-2010; BP 94-620
WAREHOUSE; BP 89-305 STORAGE BLDG.; BP 2006-652 COM’L ADD; BP 2004-044 ALT.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: OCTOBER 13, 2010 LOT SIZE: 13.78 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 303.19-1-49 SECTION: 179-3-040
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2010, Jerry Brown Auto Parts, Meeting Date: October
20, 2010 “Project Location: 26 Lower Warren Street Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of 900 sq. ft. metal storage building 2 feet from the west side
property line.
Relief Required:
Side Setback Relief – Request for 48 feet or 96% relief from the 50 foot west side line setback
requirement for the Heavy Industrial zone 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 nearby properties are anticipated as the property to the west is vacant and the
property to the east is owned by the applicant.
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. Alternatives to multiple area variances
appear to be limited due to the constraints of the lot and the nature of the proposal.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 48 feet or 96% relief
from the 50 foot side line setback requirement per §179-4-030 may be considered severe
relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor 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.):
S.P. 57-2010 1,000+/- sq. ft. addition Pending
Staff comments:
Planning Board recommendation in hand out form.
SEQR Status:
Type II – No further review required.”
MR. URRICO-The Planning Board passed a motion making a recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals regarding this application, and in accordance with the resolution prepared by
Staff, selecting Option Number One, which is, the Planning Board, based on limited review, has
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
not identified any adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,
and that was approve 7-0 on October 19, 2010.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Hutchins?
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. For the record, I’m Tom Hutchins, Hutchins
Engineering, here on behalf of Jerry Brown’s Auto Parts. What’s proposed is the installation of a
30 by 30, unheated, unpowered storage shed which will allow the applicants to get more of their
inventory under cover. I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to visit the operation, but it’s really a,
it’s a pretty fascinating operation. It’s truly recycling. They’re incredibly organized. The site is
very well kept and they do a really fine job. I’ve marked on this sheet that the building colored in
green is where they’re proposing to build the storage shed, and that is an area where they
presently have outdoor storage of inventoried, recycled, cleaned, inspected auto parts waiting to
be shipped. The process here is when they receive a vehicle, the vehicle goes back to where
I’ve shown a staging area for a very short term. Then it’s transmitted or transported into where I
show as disassembly, which is very close. It’s kind of right across the yard. At that point all the
fluids are removed the vehicles. All the parts on the vehicles are inventoried, put into their
inventory system, and all salvageable parts are disassembled, with the exception of some body
parts, fenders and some that they leave on, but all engines and axels and all the things that they
inventory are removed from the vehicle at that time. Fluids are, again, removed. The parts
themselves are inspected, cleaned, and placed into their inventory system. They have, where
we’re proposing the shed, it’s presently used for outdoor storage of parts. They’re basically on
racks, and what this does for them is allow them to have some more under cover. The look of
the shed would be identical to a shed that they have on the property. There’s two photos of it
there. It would be a mirror image, but otherwise it’s identical, and the logic for the location, as
you can see, there probably is a location, there is a location on this site that this could be placed
in a compliant manner. However, it doesn’t work with the way the material flows within the
facility, and these folks have put a lot of thought and effort into running their facility efficiently,
and they do a really nice job of it, and with that, I guess I’ll turn it over to the Board for questions.
I would add, the parcel to the west that adjoins the area where we’re proposing this shed is a
vacant parcel. So, with that, I’ll turn it over to the Board for questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from Board members at this time?
MR. KUHL-Mr. Hutchins, what building is going up, the two door or the, is that the back of the
two door?
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s the same building. They’re two photos of the same building. It’s opposite,
looking opposite corners.
MR. KUHL-So it’s going to be a closed, secure building? It’s not going to be just a lean-to open?
MR. HUTCHINS-There is one open side, but it’s closed. If you see the shed roof there that, on
the one they have is presently pointing to the west. As I said, this one would be a mirror image.
It would be, the shed portion of the roof will be pointing to the east, and then it would be
enclosed.
MR. GARRAND-Down the road, if they want to do something with this Olson property, they want
to do something in that area, would he move it? I mean, you’ve got, right up on the property line.
I mean, suppose Olson wants to put something like a road or something back there? I’m just
thinking of the future. I mean, now there’s nothing going on back there, but I just don’t know,
you know, I don’t know what the future holds for that area.
MR. HUTCHINS-It is, I mean, as far as the construction of the building, it sits on a slab. Could it
be moved? Yes, it could be moved. I guess I’m not prepared to commit, on behalf of them, that
if someone, an owner of an adjoining property all of a sudden wanted it to be moved, I don’t
know that I can make that commitment.
MR. OBORNE-It’s not a temporary structure.
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s not a temporary structure. I mean, it’s.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a pole barn. You’ve got to set it in the ground.
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s on a slab, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-The property is fenced there.
MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. There’s a chain link all the way, the entire property.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions?
MR. GARRAND-There is space to move it in. Why didn’t they move it in say 10 feet in, just to
get it off the property line?
MR. HUTCHINS-Because it’s in the way. It’s more in the way. They’ve got a, many of these
parts are, like axels and things, that you don’t carry by hand, and they’ve got (lost word) aisles
going through there and racking, and the more they move it in, the more it’s in the way, and the
less efficient it is for them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys at this time?
MR. CLEMENTS-You already have a slab down there, a slab’s already put in for it?
MR. HUTCHINS-They have poured a slab.
MR. KUHL-If we would look toward the alternate location, where would that be? Has he said in
here there is?
MR. HUTCHINS-And I didn’t write the application. My last discussion with Mr. Brown, which
was the end of last week, if he was asked to pursue an alternate location, he probably would not
pursue this building because the alternate location, I mean, there’s alternate locations out in the
yard area, to the north.
MR. KUHL-But it doesn’t serve the purpose.
MR. HUTCHINS-But it doesn’t serve his purpose.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public
wishing to speak on the matter? Would you come up, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JEFFREY OLSON
MR. OLSON-Good evening. My name is Jeffrey Olson, and I’m actually, myself, brother, and
my sister. We are the owners of that adjoining property, and this is my mother here, Nancy
Olson here. What it is, it’s a life deed, where we’re on the deed, and we definitely oppose this
option, because that property is for sale, and that’s definitely going to affect our prospective
buyers having a building that close to the line, if somebody wants to go in there with something
else.
NANCY OLSON
MRS. OLSON-And may I add, the property has been for sale for a couple of years, and Mr.
Brown has made a bid two different times, but it was way too low, because it is one of the last
pieces of property for Heavy Industrial, and when I put it on the market to sell, in fact, Steve
Borgos has it with Realty USA. I did own the property. Since then I have a life estate for my
three children, and I do pay the taxes, and my three children didn’t know about this. I got the
notice late Friday. That’s when my mail was delivered, and the envelope was stamped at the
th
post office Thursday before, the 14, and Jeff was away. My other son lives in Saranac Lake,
and he’s been making some calls here today. So we really couldn’t get my other son and
daughter here, and we are definitely, I mean, I even though I don’t have a say, I’m not the owner
now, but certainly opposed to it, and I don’t understand, was a slab already put, just two feet
from our line?
MR. HUTCHINS-I’m not sure the exact dimensions of where they are from the line.
MRS. OLSON-And I drove by there yesterday and I did not see a fence all the way down by that
property.
MR. HUTCHINS-There’s a fence.
MRS. OLSON-Well, it isn’t all the way down, almost to the road, by the property. My husband
had a gas station there for 48 years, more than 50 years. So I’m very familiar with the property.
We all are, and there was no fence that I could see from the road driving by. It was open. So
the slab must be in the back if it’s already down there, and I don’t understand that. How could
he do that? So we’re asking for 50 feet from that, and we do know that he has more property
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
and a lot of people, a lot of businesses. They can change their operation a bit, change the way
they’re having the flow go. So that’s what we’re asking for, that it not be approved.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you want to add?
MR. OLSON-I think that pretty much covers it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Roy, do we have any correspondence?
th
MR. URRICO-There’s was one, one phone call was received, I guess today, October 20, at
3:26. It was a conversation between Sue Hemingway in the Zoning Office and Nanette
Rushlow, who owns her home at 1 Highland Avenue, and Mrs. Rushlow is very concerned with
the setback request of two feet by Jerry Brown regarding his proposal for the 900 square foot
metal storage building. It’s too close to the residences, and Mrs. Rushlow stated that she will
call Jerry Brown to see if there are other alternatives.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So would that be one of the houses on the back streets further back
with that letter? I’m not sure where that location is.
MR. HUTCHINS-I’m not sure. What was the address?
MR. URRICO-One Highland.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Up above, right?
MR. HUTCHINS-I’m not sure. I’m not sure where it is.
MRS. JENKIN-The two concrete slabs that are shown on the drawing, those are the existing
buildings that house all the different parts?
MR. HUTCHINS-Those are, the long narrow ones? Those are pads that house racks, just
palette racks.
MRS. JENKIN-The open racks.
MR. HUTCHINS-Open racks.
MRS. JENKIN-Because I was there and I saw the two long.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-That’s the location that I have marked there as 1 Highland. Right there.
Certainly somebody within 500 feet.
MR. URRICO-She is? I don’t see her name on the list. Is it?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, then.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And at this point in time, is there anything you want to add, Mr. Hutchins?
Or I’ll just go through the ranks with the Board members and discuss it.
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I don’t really have anything to add. I mean, we realize what we’re asking
for, and we’ve, I mean, that’s the location that works for the operation.
MR. KUHL-And you have no information on the alternate that you were talking about, that
location?
MR. HUTCHINS-I do not. I guess if we want to pursue that, I’m not in a position to make a
commitment on behalf of the alternate. If we want to pursue that, then I’d just ask for some time,
I guess.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to do a generalized discussion before I poll you,
or do you just want me to poll you? Do you guys have any suggestions or any ideas? I would
just say this. I mean, everybody’s familiar with the operation. It’s a very large junkyard, right,
and junkyards aren’t junkyards in the sense of the old days where you went out and picked parts
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
off cars and things like that. The modern way of doing things is that things are computerized.
Everything’s recorded, and stuff is done in a more logical manner, and I think that, you know,
when you’re talking about parts, as he explained, when the cars come in, they take them apart.
They take off salvageable parts that they can sell at a profit from what they purchase the cars at
at wholesale, and in this instance here, they’re asking to add an extra storage building, but it is
at what we would consider to be a pretty negative setback. It’s pretty close to the line there.
Those of you that have driven down Warren Street are familiar with what it all looks like down
there, you know, what kind of an area it is. It’s sort of an older part of Town. It used to be pretty
heavy industrialized in the old days. The lot next door is empty, and as the people who
commented made their comment, that was the site of an old gas station at one point in time I
guess. The considerations ought to be, I think on the part of the Board, the impacts. As Rich
pointed out, we don’t know what’s going to go in next door, if that property sells, and whether
they would be effected by a building in such a very close distance to the line. So that’s
something to consider, and the reason we have setbacks is for that reason, so we don’t impose
upon the neighbors or the neighborhood. So it’ll be strictly up to you guys what you want to do
here. As far as feasible alternatives, if there are feasible alternatives, it doesn’t sound like it, if
they don’t get the building where they want to put it here, they’re probably not going to pursue
the project. It’ll probably have to come back under some.
MR. HUTCHINS-I think that’s the case. I mean, if there were, eight to ten feet would make a
difference, maybe.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would make a suggestion, I think that as a business they know how it
operates. As you said, you’ve got to have forklift lanes and things like that. These are heavy
parts you’ve got to lift up. You can’t just go out and (lost word) back to the counter out in front or
something like that, in some instances. So it’s probably necessary that they have some kind of
an extra storage building somewhere, but they do have a lot of acreage back there, too. So, I
mean, there are some alternatives, as far as I’m concerned, on this one. I’m going to poll you
guys, and I’ll start with you, Joyce.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. Well, even though the Planning Board found no problem with it, I do think that
48 feet of relief is a lot, but I would like to suggest that we table it and give Mr. Brown a chance
to come up with an alternative plan, or wouldn’t he need a variance for this?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, he’s going, if he wants to build it in the same vicinity, I mean, he’s
either going to have the change the site of where he is. He may not need any variance at all if
he pursues that route. Rick?
MR. GARRAND-Part of the balancing test is detriment to nearby properties created. I’d say with
a property for sale next door there’s definitely a detriment that can be created that may diminish
from the value of the property. Like Joyce said, it might behoove Mr. Brown to speak with the
neighbors and come to some sort of understanding. I can see where putting a building here
may diminish the property value of the Olson property, thereby benefitting Mr. Brown if he seeks
to buy it, but like Joyce said, it’s definitely in his best interest to speak to the Olsons.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. We’re not talking about a little variance here. We’re talking about major
variance, 96%, 48 feet, as opposed to a couple of feet. That, alone, should raise a red flag, but
then we’re talking about changes in the neighborhood, detriment to nearby property and there
are feasible alternatives. If he chooses not to pursue it, that’s not, doesn’t mean there is not
one, or there may be several. So I would not be in favor of it at this time.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. When I went to visit, I was amazed, and I was actually impressed with the
organization of the whole facility. I didn’t know that’s the way they ran the parts now, but I would
agree with the other Board members. I think it’s too close to the property. I think it’s not being
considerate of the Olsons. We do have setbacks. They’re there for a reason. There’s a lot of
property that is available, and I think that he could probably place the building so that it was a
positive for both the Olsons and themselves. It would behoove him to be a little flexible in this
matter.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. While I sympathize with the applicant because of workflow, there is a lot
of other property here where it could be placed. I agree with Joan that it’s a very organized and
well kept up business. I also agree with Rich about this property next door, whether it may be,
the value of it may be diminished because of the closeness of this building, and there are other
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
alternatives. As a matter of fact, one might be to buy a strip of land from the Olsons and not buy
the whole piece of property. So I see that there are other alternatives here, and I’d be against
this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Well, I see the applicant said that there is another alternative. I’d like to see that
alternative before I go any further. So I’d say I’d disapprove this now, and what would prevent
you even from moving it into the lot and putting up trees, putting up growth behind it, as an
alternative, but I’d like to see where, if this doesn’t get approval, where he would want to put it.
Because apparently when he was thinking about it, he had an alternative.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think everybody recognizes that this is a Heavy Industrial area and the
junkyard has been there for a very long period of time. The auto parts business is a viable
business. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be improving the business on a steady basis, but at the
same time, there may be a way of changing things around. It’s probably not going to be easy
because you already have those outdoor racks out there, and I don’t know. Do the outdoor
racks come under any kind of purview or review as far as those open ones?
MR. OBORNE-That’s not my understanding, no.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No.
MR. OBORNE-It’s not permeable.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So I’m going to guess that if I were going to make a suggestion that those
open racks could get moved somewhere on a configuration the way they are on your plot right
now, and that you could put that building up somewhere over in the open, in the middle of the lot
there. Probably achieve the same thing that you’re trying to do. It’s not going to be as easy
because you’re going to have to move stuff around, but there are feasible alternatives, as have
been mentioned. So I wouldn’t be in favor of it either. So, I mean, I don’t know what you want
to do. Whether you just want to withdraw it?
MR. HUTCHINS-I guess, considering, and I’m not, unfortunately I’m not authorized, I don’t want
to make commitments on behalf of Mr. Brown that I’m uncomfortable with, and he’s out of Town.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to table it?
MR. HUTCHINS-Is that possible? Is that a possibility?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that’s fine. So maybe what we’ll do is we’ll just table you.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2010 JERRY BROWN’S AUTO PARTS,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
th
26 Lower Warren Street. Tabled to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of November 17 with
th
a submittal deadline of November 6.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess, Keith, we’ll wait to hear from you. It’ll probably be December,
right?
th
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Would you shoot for the 15?
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-That would put you December 15.
MR. HUTCHINS-Any potential for November?
MR. OBORNE-Or we could shoot for November. You have to give them a hard deadline date
ththth
for submittal. Certainly could do the 17 with a submittal date of the 30 of October, or the 6 of
November.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’ll give you 10 days to figure it out.
thth
MR. HUTCHINS-The 6 of November I’d prefer to the 30 of October, I guess. I can work with
that. Sure.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
thth
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So we’ll table you to the 6 for your submittals and the 17 for the
meeting.
MR. OBORNE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right.
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. OBORNE-Can I request of the Board that this be considered an additional item, above and
beyond what is already in the queue?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, and I think that, at that time, too, since we’re familiar with what’s been
proposed, you know, it may come back with slight changes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. You’ve already had your hands around it, arms around it, I should say.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II THOMAS & MAUREEN VALENTI
AGENT(S): MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S): THOMAS & MAUREEN VALENTI
ZONING: WR LOCATION: 117 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,000 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM MINIMUM SIDELINE, SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND EXPANSION OF
A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM
FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SP 67-2010 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-41 SECTION: 179-3-040;
179-13-010
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2010, Thomas & Maureen Valenti, Meeting Date:
October 20, 2010 “Project Location: 117 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes a 1,000 +/- sq. ft. second story addition containing 3 bedrooms, 1 bath and
laundry room. Further, the applicant is proposing a 92 square foot deck off of the second story
bedrooms facing to the east southeast.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1.Shoreline building setback – Request for 13.5 feet of shoreline building setback relief
from the 50 foot setback requirement as per §179-3-040.
2.Side setback relief – Request for 5.3 feet of east side setback relief and 3.4 feet of west
side setback relief from the 20 foot setback requirement as per §179-3-040 for the
proposed second story addition.
3.Side setback relief – Request for 2.03 feet of east side setback relief for that portion of the
proposed deck within the 20 foot side setback requirement as per §179-3-040.
4.FAR Relief – Request for 540 square feet or a 26.47% Floor Area Ratio. Maximum
allowable FAR in the Waterfront Residential district is 22% per §179-3-040.
5.Relief request for the expansion of a non-conforming structure as per §179-13-010.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
changes to nearby properties are anticipated as most structures in the neighborhood are
non-conforming in nature.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Alternatives to multiple area variances
appear to be limited due to the constraints of the lot and the nature of the proposal.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 13.5 feet or 27%
shoreline relief for the proposed second story addition may be considered moderate relative
to the ordinance. The request for 5.3 feet or 26.5% of east side setback relief and 3.4 feet or
17% for the second story addition may be considered minor to moderate relative to the
ordinance. Further, the request for 2.03 feet or 10% relief from the 20 foot east side setback
requirement for the proposed deck may be considered minor relative to the ordinance.
Additionally, the request for an additional 448 square feet of structure or a FAR of 25.8%
may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for the
expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA must be approved by this board.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to moderate impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as the
project proximity to the shoreline and the existing slopes may result in environmental
degradation. Further, storm-water and E&S controls have not been submitted.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
S.P. 57-2010 1,000+/- sq. ft. addition Pending
Staff comments:
The shoreline building setback is incorrectly noted on plot plan. Per §179-2-010 SHORELINE
BUILDING SETBACKS - Setbacks are calculated by using the shortest distance, measured
horizontally, between any point of a principle building or accessory structure in excess of 100
square feet in size (except docks and boathouses) and the shoreline of any lake, pond, river,
wetland and stream. This will need to be updated on the site plan.
Waste water system has been inspected and report has been submitted with the application.
Per the Director of Building and Codes, the applicant is required to upgrade the wastewater
system to accommodate the increase from 1 bedroom to 3 bedrooms or demonstrate that the
existing system is compliant with current code in regards to total bedrooms.
Planning Board recommendation handout before board members.
SEQR Status:
Type II – No further review required.”
MR. URRICO-The Planning Board made a resolution recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, and according to that resolution prepared by Staff, the Planning Board, considering
new information that evening regarding the applicant intending to install a modern, compliant
septic system and formulating a new stormwater plan to mitigate runoff onto Glen Lake, has not
identified any adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the revised project proposal. And
that was passed 7-0 on October 19, 2010.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor,
representing the applicants, who are here with me at the table, Thomas & Maureen Valenti.
They’ve owned this property for 30 some years, and are seeking to upgrade the property. With
me, also, is Gary Hughes, who did the plans for the project. When this was reviewed by Staff,
they did raise a couple of issues, and I think they were correct on a couple of them. One was we
had said that the setback from the addition was 38.5 feet and what we didn’t take into
consideration is that the property to the east of us jogs in a little bit. So we’ve had Chuck Nacy
actually calculate that, and that is a distance of 36.2 feet. So on the front setback, we will be
asking for relief of 13.8 feet, and I’ve got copies of his calculation, which I’d be happy to share
with you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re saying the seawall that’s in front of the dwelling.
MR. O'CONNOR-Is closer than our front seawall.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-So that was an infill in front of this building? This part over here it looks
like, to me, like the original, everybody else’s wall is set back further.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know that. At one time or another, probably.
MRS. JENKIN-So the change is from 13, it was 13.5. It’s now 13.8? That’s the only change?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and secondly, there was a comment by Staff that we were going from one
bedroom to three bedrooms. It presently is three bedrooms, and I found that the naming or
whatnot of the bedrooms was not correct or the rooms was not correct. I found on our site plan
or plot plan that we put in for the house, bedroom number two and bedroom number three were
not identified. So I’ve corrected the floor plan just to tell you that there were three bedrooms
and we are asking for three bedrooms in the future.
MR. UNDERWOOD-How much are you going to tear down before you start re-building? Or are
you going to build on what you’ve got?
MR. O'CONNOR-In the existing house right now, bedroom number two is the area that is shown
on the new plan as being an office area. There are actually closets in place there, and those
closets will be removed. Bedroom Number Two becomes a foyer. Bedroom Number Three,
which is downstairs, is going to be turned into just storage, and if you take a look at, I guess it’s
Sheet Number Five, in the front left hand corner of the house, you will see presently right now
there is a set of stairs that you can, from inside the house, go down to that bedroom area. Just
to be, to show and to make sure that it’s used as storage, those stairs are going to be removed
and that area is going to be floored over. So the only access to the basement is going to be
from the outside, and it will be used for storage.
MR. GARRAND-Are you going to keep the sliding glass doors?
MR. O'CONNOR-Probably. I think so. There was no intention to change anything down there at
all, but I am aware of the fact that everybody is concerned about additional rooms being used for
bedrooms and what not. So I think by making people go outside to get to it, that eliminates that
issue, or should eliminate that issue. There are two big concerns with this application, I would
think, from the point of protecting the lake, and one is septic. There’s a fairly new septic system
on the property. It was put in within the last 10 years. Unfortunately neither the contractor that
put it in, nor the Town have any exact plans of it, and we did have IBS Septic pump out the tank,
and there’s a report included in the filing, and they actually used a t.v. camera to go into the
drywell and see that it was okay, but rather than have controversy and to make this as simple as
we can, Mr. and Mrs. Valenti have agreed to put in a modern, up to date, compliant septic
system. So they’re going to remove that septic system, and right now the thought is that they
will put in one of these peat septic systems in about the approximate area of the existing septic
system. The other issue that I thought that would be discussed probably is stormwater. We are
not increasing the permeability on the site. We’re building a second floor over a portion of the
existing structure. It’s the same amount of roof, same amount of hard surface, after the project
as before the project, as we initially presented it, and as we proposed it, but since then what we
have decided, and so there really is no increase in stormwater which is the obligation of an
applicant is to make sure that after a project is completed that the runoff is no different than it
was before, that the flow rate is not any different than it was before. In this instance, though,
what we have decided to do, and we have said this to the Planning Board, and we’re willing to
have it as a condition of your approval, one, that we will put in a compliant septic system, and,
two, we will have stormwater design that will, in fact, decrease the stormwater runoff from this
property. The initial thought that Tom Hutchins has looked at is that he will put in like French
drains along the sides of the driveway as they come into the back of the property. We may put a
catch basin back there, if we can get the proper separation between the septic area and the
catch basin, and we will look at, if you look at the plan, there’s asphalt surface on the west side
of the back of the house. We will remove the asphalt surface to at least the back of the garage,
and we may come back even a little further to where the driveway becomes more of a simple,
one car driveway and take out some of the wider area, and we will put in permeable type
surface, and I’m not sure what it will be yet, but it will be something that we submit to the
Planning Board. It’ll be pavers that allow the rain to go through, or something of that nature. So
we think that, with the project, we actually are going to make improvements to the quality of the
lake as well as the quality of this property. As to the variances, I know there are a number of
variances that are asked for, but that really is dictated by the fact that we’ve got a pre-existing
house that we’re trying to build on the footprint of. That’s all those variances exist, or all those
setback deficiencies already exist. This is not a McMansion. If you take a look at the total
square footage, I think it’s 3108 square feet, and if you subtract from it the garage, that’s 587
feet, and you subtract from it the deck that’s, the concrete patio that’s underneath the front deck,
that’s 350 feet. I don’t really think that they’re living spaces. I know, under our Ordinance,
they’re counted as living spaces, but there’s a concrete deck out in the front, if you went up and
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
looked at the property and walked around to the front of it. That’s 350 of the square feet that
we’re talking about that we’re in excess of the Floor Area Ratio. Actually if you take out those
two items, we’re at 2171 feet of building, and we’re permitted to have 2660 feet of building, what
I call building, living space building, and I recognize the definition that’s within the Ordinance.
We don’t think that we will have any impact on the neighborhood except for a positive impact.
Improving our property will help improve the neighborhood in general. We have letters from
adjoining owners. I don’t know if you have those, Mr. Urrico, or not.
MR. URRICO-I have two letters.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. There was one from Colleen Beadleston who owns the property.
MR. URRICO-I don’t have that one.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. This is the property owner that’s immediately to the east of the site, and
this is to the Building Code Department, Town of Queensbury. “My name is Mrs. Donald
Beadleston and I live at 119 Birdsall Road, Queensbury, NY and have resided here for 40 years.
Twenty-five of those years have been spent with the Valenti family as our next door neighbors.
We have no objection or concern to any addition they make to their home or property, as they
have always been and expressed great respect for their property and our lake. Respectfully
yours, Mrs. Colleen Beadleston”. Moosbruggers are right behind. They’re to the south of the
th
property, and this a letter dated October 9. Queensbury Zoning and Planning Boards. “This
letter is in regards to the addition that the Thomas Valenti family on Birdsall Road is proposing. I
have seen the prints and see this as much needed additional space to their home. It doesn’t
enlarge the footprint of the house. Therefore with no additional foundation or roof space
requested, the environmental impact would be minimal. They had their septic system upgraded
not long ago, and I have never known them to use any fertilizers on the lawn. Therefore I do not
believe there would have any change in runoff to what there is today. They have a high regard
for the waters of Glen Lake, and this addition should do nothing to change that. They are
considerate neighbors and we are in favor of their application for this addition. John and Susan
th
Moosbrugger” And they reside at 130 Birdsall Road. I have another letter, October 19, from
Lisa Potvin-Jackoski.
MR. URRICO-I have that.
MR. O'CONNOR-And that’s RE: Valenti residence expansion application, 117 Birdsall Road,
Queensbury, NY. “To Whom It May Concern: I am a neighbor of the Valenti family and own Tax
Map parcel 289.17-1-51.” This is the property that is immediately to the west of it. So you’ve
got the property immediately to the east, the property immediately to the west. “I am unable to
attend the scheduled meetings for the subject application for October. I’m aware of the Valenti
family’s plans for a top up expansion with no changes to the existing footprint, and I support the
project and look forward to their investment in our neighborhood and community. Very best
regards, Lisa M. Potvin-Jackoski” And I’ll submit those three letters to you. The other comment
I guess I would make is, in our discussions with the Planning Board, we talked about having
some type of planting plan along the front of the property, even though we aren’t going to disturb
that area, and we will develop that. We have a little bit of a handicap there, because there is an
eight foot easement immediately adjacent to the lake that the property owner on the other side
has, that goes across the front of our parcel. So we can’t really do a berm on that, and if you
take a look at the plot plan, there’s only 11.3 feet between us and the lake. So we’re limited as
to what we can do out there, and if you take a look at the photos that were submitted, there
already is some shrubbery there. So basically we’ve got somebody that would like to upgrade
their house, and they can do it with only positive impacts. I really don’t see where they’re going
to have a negative effect either on the neighborhood, on the community, or the environment.
The alternatives are really not available. They really are trying to utilize the existing footprint.
They didn’t go all the way out. I mean, they were, again, conservative as far as how far out over
the existing house that they went, and as I said, this is not a McMansion. So we would answer
any questions that you have.
MR. GARRAND-Is this going to be a year round house?
MR. O'CONNOR-It is a year round house, yes.
MR. GARRAND-Because according to the Town information it’s a seasonal home.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s used on a year round basis, it’s much like my house. I went home, I don’t
know, I went home the beginning of September. We’re going up next week. It’s heated. It’s a
year round house. The septic system will be sized for year round occupancy. There is no such
thing as a seasonal septic system, you know, getting credit for saying that you’re only going to
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
use it seasonally, and they’re saying they’re not, and they visit weekends, not as often during the
wintertime, right now.
THOMAS VALENTI
MR. VALENTI-Our kids are in college right now. So we don’t come as often, but the ultimate
plan, if you don’t mind, is we wanted to retire here, just the two of us.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys have any questions you want to ask right now?
MRS. JENKIN-Would you repeat the changes to the west side of the house? Just to the
property itself, the asphalt surface, the paver, stone walk, those changes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The pavement that is shown, let me get the right plan, okay,
immediately to the house there’s an area marked asphalt surface, and from where the pavers,
stone walk is, back to that line that’s marked 20.52 feet, that’ll be taken out as asphalt and will
be replaced with some type of permeable type surface.
MRS. JENKIN-That’s where that permeable is going to go.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we hopefully will even be able to do a little bit better than that, and I think
it depends upon Tom Hutchins stormwater analysis. We would come back to the back side of
the garage probably for at least another 20 feet, and I don’t know, you know, I think where the
garage, the asphalt surface starts to narrow down, that would be left, probably, as asphalt, but
ahead of that, between that and the garage entrance, would be the permeable type pavers.
MR. KUHL-You know there’s permeable asphalt.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I don’t know what the material will be.
MR. KUHL-I have a question, just in reading this. You see on your map there where it says
deed reference Helen Kobor to Thomas Valenti and Maureen Valenti, what’s the deed 1224
210, and what’s the R 1229 210?
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not catching where you’re reading that from, Mr. Kuhl. That’s the date of it.
MR. KUHL-Yes, but it’s 2010. It’s December 24, 2010.
MAUREEN VALENTI
th
MRS. VALENTI-We did buy it December 24.
MR. KUHL-Of 2009?
MRS. VALENTI-Not 2010. No, no, no, 30 years ago when we got married, 29 years ago.
MR. KUHL-Okay. So that’s just.
MRS. VALENTI-That’s an error.
MR. KUHL-Got you.
MR. O'CONNOR-December 24, 1982. So we have an error that needs to be corrected.
MR. KUHL-And where is the septic going to go, where that manhole cover is? Is that where it’s
going?
MR. O'CONNOR-The manhole cover is where the existing septic tank is, and the leach field is
behind that, and that’ll probably be in the same area.
MR. KUHL-And you’re going to do some stormwater runoff?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right now there is no increase of permeability. We will decrease the
permeability from what’s there, and we will put in drainage along each side of the driveway.
That was the plan that Tom came up with initially.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
MR. CLEMENTS-You mean you’d increase the permeability?
MR. O’CONNOR-Decrease it, put in stone trenches.
MR. OBORNE-No, you’re going to increase your permeability.
MR. O'CONNOR-Increase the permeability. Increase the permeability.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the date of Beadleston’s next door? Was that done recently or?
MR. VALENTI-Their home?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean, that’s been there for a long time, too, right?
MR. VALENTI-It was there before we got there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And, Mike, didn’t you represent the people that built the one that Jackoski’s
are in now, too?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, that was built, the people that built, I don’t know how they did it, but I did
not represent them. I think the builder of that, the wife was an attorney. Whether she
represented herself, or they were both attorneys.
MR. KUHL-Wasn’t it about in ’95?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I remember when that one went in, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-’94, and I think the closest one I did was Hirsch, which is two or three down
from this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions you want to ask? All right. I’m going to
open the public hearing open. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other letters that haven’t been read, Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. One that Mr. O”Connor missed. It says, “Dear Mr. Urrico: As residents of
Birdsall Road, we would like to go on record as having no issues with the proposed construction
of 117 Birdsall. The addition should pose no problem to any of the homes in the neighborhood.
We’re happen that Valenti’s may be joining us more frequently. Kate and Wally Hirsch”
MR. UNDERWOOD-So as far as construction goes, there’s not going to be any cellar under this
back part of the house, the current back part of the house? You’re just going to have to re-set
the footings on there, I would imagine.
GARY HUGHES
MR. HUGHES-No, that’ll remain pretty much as is. There’s a possibility that we might have to
re-work the footings, but other than that, everything will stay the same.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and the front’s going to basically remain, just change the façade on
it, put new siding on it, things like that.
MR. HUGHES-That’s correct, all new siding, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So, overall, disturbance wise, the tree lines all staying the same on
Jackoski’s side and the other side. You guys haven’t done the total clear cut like a lot of people.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think there’s one tree, there’s one tree in that nook of the, when I went up and
visited the property with you, there’s one tree that may be trimmed or, I’m not sure whether it will
interfere with the second story or not, but it’s behind the entranceway to the house.
MR. VALENTI-Yes, well, you can see, there’s that big oak that’s on the lake, the bottom limb has
to come out to (lost word) tree out, it’s just that bottom main limb has to come off to accept the
addition.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from you guys? 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, Rick.
MR. GARRAND-I haven’t given it much thought. I don’t think an undesirable change will be
produced in the neighborhood. Expanding floor area, I thought about this a little bit, and I
thought how do you do it. You can’t go laterally without tearing up the permeability. The only
option is to go vertically. I think the request is substantial. If the applicant sticks to what they
said, and they do enact stormwater control plan as well as modifications to the septic to be large
enough for all the additional space in the bathrooms, I don’t think it’s going to have an adverse
environmental impact on it. On the balancing test, I’d give it a three out of a five.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think that it will be an improvement to the neighborhood, definitely.
They’re going to do, re-do the siding. You’re definitely going to finish the house off nicely. I
think that it’ll definitely add space, which would be a positive for you. I was worried about the
runoff, the stormwater runoff, but you’re definitely taking that into consideration and trying to
make it better, which is good. The septic is going to be a large improvement. So I think, overall,
the project is an excellent one, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. This is one of those applications that seems more oppressive than it really
is, when you look at the number of variances being sought, but each one was addressed. I think
there’s a reason for each one that’s either been addressed satisfactorily or has good reason
behind it. Based on the balancing test, I would be in favor of this application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I agree with Mr. Urrico, even though there are five variances requested, as
he said, they’ve all been addressed, and with the installation of a modern, compliant septic
system and stormwater management plan, I agree with the Planning Board, I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I agree with the rest of the Board. I think that basically there are a lot of
variances here, but that’s due to the existing non-conformity of the house. I see that all the
neighbors are in favor. You’re going to have a condition, I don’t know if there’s going to be a
condition of approval, but the Planning Board has not identified any adverse impacts that can’t
be mitigated with the runoff and septic system, so I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think the critical factors here are that, you know, the house is going
to be where it is, that’s 38 feet back from the water, which is adequate. There’s certainly a lot of
houses that are closer. I know my house is over there on Glen Lake, but at the same time, you
know, you’re going to preserve all the trees, the vegetation, nothing’s really going to change
other than it’s going to be a nice, like living in a brand new house, you know, and with the
upgrade of the septic system, I think that’s important too, and, you know, it’s a minimal impact as
far as, you know, disturbance while you’re doing it, too. It’s not like you’re going to be tearing up
the place and doing a number on the vegetation that exists. So I’d be in favor of it, too. So does
somebody want to take this one?
MR. OBORNE-If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that a condition of approval would
be to submit updated floor plans, existing and proposed, for the first floor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Whoever does that, make sure we add that at the end.
MR. O'CONNOR-I think that’s what I handed out tonight.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, but for your final submittal.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The Planning Board, will they be reviewing this again or are they finished
with it?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. In fact, they’re probably going to be tabling it on Tuesday because you
have to develop the plans.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think with the Planning Board reviewing this for the second time,
they’re going to pick up on anything that needs to be adjusted or, you know.
MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a little bit of a moving target, and we’ve tried to improve the target as we
went. So there are changes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, Rick, do you want to take it?
MR. GARRAND-Sure.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2010 THOMAS & MAUREEN VALENTI,
Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
117 Birdsall Road. The applicant proposes a 1,000 square foot second story addition containing
three bedrooms, one bath, a laundry room. Further, the applicant is proposing a 92 square foot
deck off the second story bedrooms facing to the east southeast. As a condition of this
approval, Staff has made it clear that they’re going to need updated floor plans for existing and
proposed first and second floor. Relief requested is as follows: Shoreline building setback
relief. That’s the 13.8 feet. Shoreline building setback relief for the 50 foot setback requirement
as per 179-3-040. Side setback relief for 5.3 feet of east side setback relief, and 3.4 feet of west
side setback relief from the 20 foot setback requirement as per 179-3-040 for the proposed
second story addition. Side setback relief for 2.03 feet of east side setback relief for the portion
of the proposed deck within the 20 foot side setback requirement as per 179-3-040. Floor Area
Ratio relief request for 448 square feet, or 25.8% Floor Area Ratio. The maximum allowable
Floor Area Ratio in the Waterfront Residential district is 22% as per 179-3-040. Also the request
for relief for expansion of a non-conforming structure, as per 179-13-010. On the balancing test,
whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting this variance? I don’t think any
negative aspects of this project came to light during the submittal. I think the only thing we’re
going to get is a newer house on this property. I don’t think there’s going to be any detriment
whatsoever, with a stormwater control plan put in place. Whether the benefit sought by the
applicant can be achieved by some other feasible method? Given the size of the lot, they’re
going to need relief one way or another to achieve what they want to achieve with this lot. So
feasible alternatives are limited. Whether the request is substantial? On paper it looks
substantial, but we’re basically not doing anything but moving this house. The homeowner has
agreed to increase the permeability on this property. While it appears substantial on paper, in
actuality it’s not any more than what we currently have. Whether the proposed variance will
have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the
neighborhood? Quite to the contrary. With an updated septic and stormwater plan, I think it’ll
have a beneficial effect on the neighborhood. This request may be deemed self-created since it
is the applicant that wants the expansion. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 56-2010.
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys want some of your surveys back so you don’t have to
reproduce more?
MR. O'CONNOR-Sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re probably going to need them.
MR. O'CONNOR-Whatever you don’t need, we’ll take back.
MR. KUHL-Did they get an rebate from the grant we have for septic pump outs? The Glen Lake
Association’s got that grant.
MR. VALENTI-Yes, and I actually did take advantage of it a few years ago, and I tried this year
but they haven’t contacted me back.
MR. KUHL-Stay with it, though.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
MRS. VALENTI-Yes, Warren County.
MR. KUHL-Because that grant is still existing. There’s a girl you can call at the County.
MRS. VALENTI-Yes, I think her name is Robin. Thank you very much.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, can I ask you, what was the date that you adjourned Kerr to?
MR. OBORNE-I don’t know, off the top of my head.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know, either. You’d have to call the office in the morning, probably.
MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We do have a bunch of administrative things to do, guys. So, we’re
going to take care of those now, and we’re got to do them on the record. All right. We’ve got
four sets of minutes to approve here.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 18, 2010
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF AUGUST 18, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Joan Jenkin:
Duly adopted this 20th day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
August 25, 2010
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brian Clements:
Duly adopted this 20th day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
September 15, 2010
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Duly adopted this 20th day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
September 22, 2010
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 20th day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. The first thing we’ve got up, we’ve got two administrative things
we’ve got to do here. We had a further request from Mr. Salvador to re-visit the Seaboyer
application again, and I don’t know what your inclination is on that one. I mean, we’ve kind of
digested it numerous times, numerous occasions, and I think that you will recall the last time he
came in he had quoted the wrong statute from the old Code or something like that.
MR. GARRAND-He quoted the wrong Code book.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So, it would be up to the Board members. I’m just going to ask for a
vote. Do you want to hear it again, or has he, have you reached your limit on the Seaboyer
thing? So I’ll leave it up to you, and so I’m going to move that we approve hearing it again, and
you can vote whichever way you’d prefer.
MR. GARRAND-It’ll have to be unanimous, right, unanimous in order for it to be a re-hear?
MR. OBORNE-He wants to re-hear the whole project again?
MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as I know he wants to, yes, I mean, that’s what he requested.
MR. OBORNE-Then, yes, you would need a unanimous decision.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We need a unanimous decision on it. So I’m going to move that we
approve the re-hearing, and I’ll need a second on that.
MR. OBORNE-You’re moving to approve, and if nobody wants to do that, then you have to put
forward a resolution to deny, then.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. All right. So, does anybody want to do the second on it?
MR. KUHL-I’m going to second it.
MS. HEMINGWAY-So you’re moving to approve.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Approve re-hearing the Seaboyer Notice of Appeal application, and we had
a second on that. So we’ll have to vote.
MS. HEMINGWAY-So this is on the Notice of Appeal. Do you have a file number for that one
particular?
MR. UNDERWOOD-The only thing I have is, I don’t have any number on it or anything like that.
So, I do not. Okay. It’s File No. 90-2010.
MS. HEMINGWAY-It is?
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the last thing that Cathi Radner sent back to him.
MR. KUHL-You sure it’s not 2009?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, it says 90-2010.
MR. OBORNE-That sounds right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And that was an application for an appeal from the Zoning Administrator’s
decision. That’s W. Steven Seaboyer property. So, you’re going to have to vote, now, either
yes or not on it.
MOTION TO APPROVE RE-HEARING THE SEABOYER NOTICE OF APPEAL APPLICATION
FROM JOHN SALVADOR, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt
ABSTAINED: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-So what does that mean?
MR. GARRAND-It means it doesn’t fly.
MR. OBORNE-You needed four to fly, at the very least, and you didn’t get it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I guess that’s the end of that. All right. The other one is. Rick
has to remove this. You can stick around, you just can’t make any commentary on this. Okay.
Everybody take one of these and pass them down. All right. I had to go into the office the other
day, and Craig handed me this, okay, and I don’t know if you guys are familiar with what’s going
on here, so in order to dial in our responsibilities here, all right, what you have before you is an
application for an appeal from a Zoning Administrator’s decision, all right, over in the area of
Hughes Court is a project currently underway with Hayes and Hayes, LLC on that Tax Map
parcel that’s noted on there. It’s on, by Dixon Road right next to the Northway is where this
parcel is, okay. The neighbors have obviously seen cause to apply for this appeal from the
Zoning Administrator’s decision, and in discussing it with Craig, I think what you have to do is
you have to go to the September 14, 2010, this is the current status of the process. All right.
Hayes and Hayes brothers have a building permit currently has been issued. They’re currently
underway building a total of eight duplexes. Is that what it is?
MR. OBORNE-I’m not privy to any information.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Seven or eight duplexes, okay, in a residential neighborhood down there.
Now, this was okayed by Craig, given the green light, with no variances necessary or anything
like that. One of the questions that came up in regards to the project, this is just for your
information, is, if you look at the Code book, duplex is permitted. All right. Read your Code
book and see what it says, it says, duplex is, Craig’s interpretation is that that means duplexes,
plural, okay, and I think that what we have to keep in mind is what was the intent of the Code?
Did we want to see a neighborhood that included a duplex here and there, or do we want to see
a neighborhood entirely of duplexes. All right. So, this is where the controversy emanates from,
but in other words, I decided I would do this, all right. You’re all familiar with Smoke Ridge.
We’ve dealt with that before, further out on Luzerne, and stuff like that, where we have duplexes
only in the neighborhood, all right, but those all come under subdivision review by the Planning
Board. They may or may not require variances depending upon where they’re located in Town.
So in order to figure that out, Craig’s take on it is this. There’s no review necessary. This was
green lighted, given the go ahead, and is currently underway. Now the neighbors are upset
down there, and so I decided I would come in today to the office. I asked Pam to dig out the old
files on the project, and so this is where you need to go next, all right. Skip the first letter which
is Hayes and Hayes from 2010. Let’s go back to the second page in there, and this is from ’04,
okay. In ’04, Hayes and Hayes proposed a project on this exact same site, all right. It was not
duplexes, but it was 12 regular, single family dwellings on that large parcel. It’s quite a large
parcel, and I would ask each of you to go down and take a look at it, all right. Now, when the
Planning Board reviewed that project in ’04, all right, it was Type I SEQR status, Unlisted action,
bingo, it means it’s got to go for major review. Turn to the next page, Page Two of Two. When
we do the SEQR review, and this is a good review for all of us, all right, there is something to
keep in mind. Usually when we do a SEQR review, if we give something a negative declaration,
what does that mean? It means we green light it. It’s okay. You can go ahead. You can do
your project. We go through all the environmental standards, and if none of them are exceeded,
any thresholds or anything like that, we give it the green light, but notice on Page Two of Two in
’04, there are a negative impact on land and water resources, a negative impact on aesthetic
resources, a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and the proposed development
by removing vegetation, and a negative impact on the existing character of the surrounding
neighborhood by negatively impacting land and water resources, all right. That’s a positive
declaration. When the Planning Board finds a positive declaration, what do we conclude?
There’s problems with this project as has been proposed, okay. Okay. So let’s go on to the next
page, all right. March 28, 2005, Craig received a letter from them, they withdrew the application
and they came up with, and you should read this at your leisure. I’m not going to read it into the
record because it’s all part of the record already, but make sure you read this letter and read
what they were proposing to do as an alternative, but this was just a proposal. It was not
anything that was reviewed by the Planning Board or anything else, all right, but read the
concerns of the neighborhood. Read their possible standards of what they were trying to
achieve there. Okay. Let’s go to the next page. Let’s go to April 13, 2005. Craig writes a letter
back in response, all right, and one of the things they said was, this is a single family residential
zoning area. Single Family Dwelling is an allowable use within the SFR-20. What’s the zone
down there now? It’s different, we don’t have single, it’s not SFR-20 anymore.
MR. OBORNE-It’s probably MDR, I would imagine.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. They proposed a possible clustering of houses, and what they’ve
done in this latest rendition, what they’re currently madly building down there, is a cluster of
duplexes, not a cluster of single family dwellings, but a cluster of duplexes, and so the question I
have is this, in other words, these people are appealing what the Town has done so far, okay,
and so it’s up to us to make a decision here, and I need to know this because we need to put it
on the agenda, because they’re still building the project. The neighborhood, if you go down and
you read the concerns of the neighborhood, I read the whole file today, the whole thing. There
were water problems in that neighborhood when the other houses in the neighborhood were
built, but the concern of the neighbors is, is that since the housing has started to build here
again, now with this new project, it’s been exacerbated by the building of this clustering of the
development right next to some of the other houses down there. So we have to decide, are we
going to set this as an agenda item, and I don’t know when we would do it, Keith, November, the
sooner the better?
MR. OBORNE-Well, yes, whatever the wishes of the Board is.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So whatever the wish of the Board is. So do you guys want to put
this on an agenda? We would have to vote for it, and we don’t need a unanimous vote. We just
need to vote, you know, whatever the vote is. My take on it is this. I’m open minded about it,
but I’m a little bit concerned because of this, and those of you that have the time and want to go
in and read it, I left the file out down there so you could read it, but, I’m saying this. Two times
before they proposed projects down there, both times the Planning Board reviewed it and came
up with red flags about the project. This time, they proposed duplexes and never went to the
Planning Board. They just went to Craig and Craig signed off on it. It’s the exact same piece of
property, and the environmental concerns that were brought up the last time aren’t any different
with this than they were previously. It was highway noise from the Northway, pollution, air
pollution from the Northway, excessive water problems with the perched water table, things like
that. I mean, you can go down and read the file yourself, but as far as I’m concerned, I think we
should review it.
MR. CLEMENTS-Why didn’t it go to the Planning Board again?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Big question mark, that’s just what I said. That was the first thing that,
when I read the file and I saw that it was positive dec’d, and I asked Craig, and Craig said to me,
it’s an entirely different project, and I said, yes, but these are environmental concerns. It has
nothing to do with what you’re building, but what the effect of any building would be, you know,
in regards to it. So, you know, to me, that’s my choice. So all I’m going to do is poll the Board.
Should we hear this, should we put this on the agenda or not, yes or no.
MR. URRICO-The SEQR status is the same, but it hasn’t been addressed with this project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t see how you can previously pos dec something and then
ignore that. I mean, you can say, well, yes, it’s not the same project, but if it doesn’t so through
the review process, then something is wrong, you know, as far as I’m concerned. You’re
jumping, you’re jumping like in checkers, you’re triple jumping.
MR. KUHL-It sounds like you’re saying that it should have gone to the Planning Board.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it should have gone to the Planning Board, and I think that they
should have given a good, thorough looked, based upon the previous.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, this letter says that it has to go to Planning Board.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s Site Plan Review for a subdivision, and that’s normally part of the
normal review process, subdivisions get reviewed by the Planning Board. Period.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Maybe it doesn’t come to us, but it should go to the Planning Board. So I
don’t understand how this happens, you know.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, are you saying that it isn’t going to the Planning Board? Because this letter
th
of September 14 says it has to go.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It will now go to the Planning Board, but the only subject that will be
addressed will be the amount of clearing they did.
MRS. JENKIN-Because it’s disturbed more than a quarter of an acre of land.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-They’ve exceeded more than a quarter of an acre of disturbance. That’s the
only thing that’s going to get addressed by the Planning Board.
MRS. JENKIN-Really?
MR. KUHL-If we bring it up to review it, they’re not asking for any variances.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re asking for, procedurally, did this go through the review process,
and was it done in a manner that was going to result in an outcome that people could live with?
MRS. JENKIN-And this is Mary Monthie that has submitted?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, she’s one of the neighbors.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s more than one neighbor.
MRS. JENKIN-Right.
MR. CLEMENTS-So this is just an appeal from the Zoning Administrator’s decision?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig’s decision was green light, go, you know.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, I mean, I think, and I asked, I said, well, you know, gee, if people are
concerned and you haven’t responded to them in a timely manner, other than this disturbance
came up that exceeded these vegetation disturbance effect, you know, that’s the only thing that
kicked in, but I would urge you, if you have the time, to go down and read, and it’s probably 10
pages, but just to read what the Planning Board’s thoughts were, and it didn’t seem out of line
with, you know, what we’re trying to achieve, and that’s making sure things work, you know, like
we don’t create more problems as a result of somebody trying to put up a house or something.
All right. So I’m going to move that we place this on the agenda for November. How many have
we got?
th
MR. OBORNE-The 17.
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-The 17 of November. Okay.
MOTION TO PLACE THE APPEAL REGARDING MARY MONTHIE ON THE FIRST MEETING
TH
IN NOVEMBER, THE 17 OF NOVEMBER, AND THAT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE MAKE
A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS DONE PROPERLY OR NOT, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-So Craig can do what he wants in the interim. I don’t know if he’s going to
make any, he told me he’s not going to make any determinations on this project. So I said,
okay. Well, then it’s up to us to make the determination, if he doesn’t want to take it upon
himself to do that.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Garrand
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, what are our dates for November? We needed to discuss, we
needed to dial that in, guys, our dates in November. Remember we talked about changing to a
Monday or something, and we did clear that date, did we not?
th
MR. OBORNE-Let’s talk about November first. I think the 17 works for everybody. All right.
thth
What you have potentially for November are the 15, which is a Monday, the 29, which is a
thth
Monday, or the 30 which is a Tuesday. So we would be on the 15 on a Monday and then the
th
17 on a Wednesday the same week.
thth
MR. OBORNE-Right, and then also the Planning Board has the 16 and the 18 of that week.
So I’d be working some serious hours, but don’t let that.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
th
MR. CLEMENTS-I had down that we decided it was going to be on the 17, which is a
nd
Wednesday, and then the 22, the next Monday.
MRS. JENKIN-Right. That’s what I have down, too.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that’s what I thought.
MR. OBORNE-But we didn’t put that in a resolution form, did we?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I thought we did last meeting.
MR. OBORNE-Where were you, Sue? I might not have been there for that meeting. I mean,
that might have been one of Craig’s meetings.
MRS. JENKIN-I think we did it after the meeting, Jim.
MS. HEMINGWAY-Maybe you had a general conversation about it.
th
MR. UNDERWOOD-So is the 17 available? We’re already on.
nd
MR. OBORNE-Well, we’re already on, but you want to go for the 22, which is a Monday?
nd
MR. UNDERWOOD-The 22 was the one that we said before. That’s the one I thought we all
decided.
nd
MR. OBORNE-So the 22 it is. Do you want that in resolution form?
MS. HEMINGWAY-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Let’s just keep it clean, somebody put forward a resolution.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO HAVE THE SECOND MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN
NOVEMBER ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin:
th
Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-And do we have any dates on December yet?
MR. OBORNE-That’s the next issue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
thnd
MR. OBORNE-Okay. For December it definitely looks like the 15 is fine. Okay. The 22
probably doesn’t work too well for people.
nd
MR. UNDERWOOD-I can do the 22.
nd
MRS. JENKIN-I can do the 22.
MR. OBORNE-Well, if everybody can do, then we can just leave it. That would be fine. Roy,
nd
are you okay with the 22, keeping it as is?
MR. URRICO-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-Well, we’ll keep it as is. Those are the current dates. No resolution.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Then, Keith, can we send some kind of notification to Salvador about, that
the Board did not vote to?
MR. OBORNE-The Board has not elected to re-hear this argument, something along those
lines. Yes. Something will be sent, absolutely.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2010)
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Thank you. Thank you, everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
25