03-21-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 21, 2012
INDEX
Area Variance No. 10-2012 Christine Mozal/Donald Marshall 1.
Tax Map No. 289.14-1-27.1, 27.2 and 28
Area Variance No. 9-2012 Donald Marshall (Cont'd Pg. 14.) 4.
Tax Map No. 289.14-1-28
Area Variance No. 13-2012 Michael Cantanucci 10.
Tax Map No. 239.12-2-69
Area Variance No. 12-2012 Michael & Geraldine Lyons 19.
Tax Map No. 289.15-1-7
Sign Variance No. 8-2012 AJK Properties, LLC/Countryside Veterinary Clinic 22.
Tax Map No. 303.8-1-6
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 03/21/2012)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 21, 2012
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
JOYCE HUNT
BRIAN CLEMENTS
RICHARD GARRAND
JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD
ROY URRICO
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. Today is March 21, 2012. We are here for the Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals meeting held here at the Queensbury Activities Center. It is 7:00 p.m.
The first item on tonight's agenda is the approval of, before I do that, for those of you who
haven't been here in the past, on the back table there is a sheet explaining our process. We will
bring each applicant to the table. They will present their application. The Board members will
inquire about the application. We will open a public hearing where it's appropriate and then we
will move the process along in that order. So the first item this evening is the approval of
meeting minutes of January 18, 2012. Now, Staff, because we don't have four members who
were here that evening, should we postpone the approval of these minutes?
MR. OBORNE-1 would suggest that you do that. Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Under Old Business, applicant Christine Mozal and Donald
Marshall.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2012 SEQRA TYPE II CHRISTINE MOZAUDONALD MARSHALL
AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) CHRISTINE MOZAL ZONING WR
LOCATION 99 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE
ADJUSTMENT INVOLVING 3 LOTS OF WHICH TWO ARE ASSOCIATED WITH A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK
AND LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF SUB 2-2012; AV 70-
2008; SUB 8-2008 MOD; AV 77-1998; SP 34-91 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT
SIZE 1.01, 2.42, 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-27.1, 27.2, AND 28 SECTION 179-3-
040
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2012, Christine Mozal/Donald Marshall, Meeting Date:
March 21, 2012 "Project Location: 99 Fitzgerald Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment involving 3 lots of which two are associated with
a previously approved subdivision.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows (all variances as per§179-3-040):
1. East side setback (Mozal) - Request for 15.9 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback
requirement of the WR zone for the deck located nearest the shore.
2. East side setback (Mozal) - Request for 15.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback
requirement of the WR zone for the deck located to the south. For the shoreline and
south portion of the deck respectively.
3. Lot size (Mozal) - Request for 0.99 acre of relief from the 2 acre requirement of the WR
zone for proposed Lot 1.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
4. Lot size (Marshall) - Request for 1.86 acres of relief from the 2 acre requirement of the
WR zone for proposed lot associated with the lands of Marshall.
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. Lot limitations and existing non-
conformities preclude any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 15.9 feet or 79% relief
and 15.4 feet or 77% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement of the WR zone for
both shoreline deck and south deck respectively for Mozal may be considered severe
relative to the ordinance. Further, the request by Mozal for 0.99 acres or 49% relief from the
2 acre lot size requirement for the WR zone for Lot 1 may be considered moderate relative to
the ordinance. Finally, the request by Marshall for 1.86 acres or 93% relief from the 2 acre
minimum for the WR zone may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Please note
that all request are as per§179-3-040.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Little adverse impacts on the
physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood may be expected.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created, however, some of the "difficulty" could be contributed to the existing location of the
house(s).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
AV 9-2012: Shoreline and side setback relief Pending
SP 03-2010: Exp. N/C structure in a CEA Pending
AV 04-2010: Removal/replacement of existing decks & stairways, addition of a 112 +/- sq. ft.
deck adjacent to shoreline. Relief shoreline, sideline setback requirements &expansion of a
nonconforming structure. 3/7/2010
SUB 8-2008 2 lot subdivision Approved 7/7/09
AV 70-2008: Relief from density, lot size, and road frontage. Approved 11/19/08
SP 34-1991: 6/18/91
Staff comments:
This boundary line adjustment is associated with property owned by Donald Marshall and
Christine Mozal and stems from the project to remove and replace stairs and decks on the
Marshall property. Currently the west property line bisects the existing dwelling on the Marshall
parcel and the existing shed belonging to Marshall is located totally on the Mozal parcel. It is the
intent of this boundary adjustment to have all structures not encroaching on the lands of Mozal
in the future and placed within the boundary of the newly adjusted parcel.
SEQR Status:
Type II-no further review required
MR. JACKOSKI-For the record, if you could identify yourself. That was quite a lengthy
description. If you have anything further you'd like to add, or we can open it up to the Board.
MR. HUTCH INS-Certainly. My name is Tom Hutchins, and I would turn it over for questions. I
think that was a good description.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do any Board members have any questions at this time of the applicant?
MR. KOSKINAS-I have a question. I understand in reading the Staff Notes that there would be
relief for two lots relative to lot size, and maybe this is a better question for Staff, but it seems to
me that Area Variance 10 should include, if it's a motion for approval, should include the lot size
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
adjustment only for the parcel that is 289.14-1-27.1, and then perhaps another variance for the
other lot or add it to the next.
MR. OBORNE-1 think that's a valid question and obviously the Zoning Administrator didn't feel
that that was necessary. I did get your message from before, and did talk to Craig about that
and he felt this all can be captured under this one application. That's the way he felt.
MR. KOSKINAS-Okay, because the variance, I understood, goes with the property.
MR. OBORNE-It does. So these would be joined at the hip, basically.
MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. The construction portion, this work, the replacement portion, and I know
that's not part of, that's Mr. Marshall's, that's the next application.
MR. HUTCHINS-That's the next application.
MR. KOSKINAS-But does the construction, this nonconforming lots that exist, does the
construction further exacerbate the nonconformance or do you stay within the envelope of the
existing nonconformance?
MR. HUTCHINS-The construction is the same as was approved by Area Variance 04-2010
when the Marshall's came here asking to put up their decks. What has happened is the parcel
lines have shifted because of the boundary line adjustment to be closer to the proposed deck.
The proposed deck location hasn't changed, but that one line moved a little closer to it so we
had to adjust those variances.
MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions from Board members? Okay. Hearing none, we
do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience
who'd like to address the Board at this time concerning this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, Staff, is there any written comment?
MR. OBORNE-There are no written comments.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and, just for the record, both of the parties here are in agreement
with this boundary line adjustment, correct?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and they have formalized an agreement as such.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. So I'd like to poll the Board. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Neither one of the parties are here. I mean, you're representing both parties?
MR. HUTCHINS-1 am representing the Marshalls and the Mozals, correct.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. In that case, because I remember the case before this when they were
here for the last variance, the Marshalls.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it was Mrs. Marshall.
MR. CLEMENTS-And I remember the conversation that went on, and we had talked about this
line. So I would be in favor of it. I think it's a good plan.
MR. KOSKINAS-I'm fine.
MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I can certainly understand why they want to change the lot line and not have
it go through a house.
MR. HUTCHINS-It's cleaning up an old mess is what it's doing.
MRS. HUNT-Yes, and the Planning Board had no problem with it, and I have no problem. I'm in
favor of it.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and just for the record, I was involved at the Planning Board level when I
was an alternate and I remember this project coming in front of the Planning Board several
times. So I think it's a great solution that the neighbors came up with and I have no problem
with it either. So at this time I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And request a motion.
MR. KOSKINAS-I'll do it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2012 CHRISTINE MOZAUDONALD
MARSHALL, Introduced by John Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce
Hunt:
99 Fitzgerald Road. Granting the following relief from the requirements of Section 179-3-040:
15.9 feet from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the deck nearest the shore; 15.4 feet of
relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the deck located to the south, and .99 acres
of relief from the two acre lot size requirement of the WR zone for parcel tax ID number 289.14-
1-27.1 and 1.86 acres of relief from the two acre lot size requirement for affected parcel tax ID
number 289.14-1-28. Findings: One, that no undesirable change to the character of the
neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created, reasoning that existing densities
and relative structure layouts will not change. Two, that the applicant does not have reasonable
alternatives not involving an Area Variance. Reasoning: lot limitations and existing
nonconformities preclude feasible alternatives. Three: That the variance is not deemed to be
substantial. Reasoning: That while percentages of relief are high, existing nonconformities are
not appreciably worsened by granting of the requested relief. Four, that the variance will have
no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Reasoning:
Again, that pre-existing conditions are not worsened. Five, and that the applicant's difficulty is
not considered to be self-created. Reasoning: the relative positions of the subject structures
were pre-existing. I move for approval.
Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Congratulations.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2012 SEQRA TYPE II DONALD MARSHALL AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) DONALD MARSHALL ZONING WR LOCATION
101 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF 130 SQ. FT. OF EXISTING
STAIRS AND REPLACEMENT WITH 320 SQ. FT. OF STAIRS, LANDINGS, AND DECKING.
FURTHER, A 23 SQ. FT. ACCESS LANDING AND STAIRS TO BE REMOVED AND
REPLACED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED
APPROVAL FOR A 116 SQ. FT. DECK ALONG SHORELINE (AV 4-2010); TOTAL SQUARE
FEET OF DECKING TO INCLUDE PREVIOUS APPROVAL EQUATES TO 456 SQUARE
FEET. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF
THE WR ZONE. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A N/C
STRUCTURE. CROSS REF A.V. 10-2012; SP 3-2010; SUB 8-08 MOD; AV 4-2010; BP 2006-
572 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-28
SECTION 179-3-040
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll turn it over to Staff to read into the record.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2012, Donald Marshall, Meeting Date: March 12, 2012
"Project Location: 101 Fitzgerald Road Extension Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes removal of 130 sq. ft. of existing stairs and replacement with 320 sq. ft. of stairs,
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
landings, and decking. Further, a 23 sq. ft. access landing and stairs to be removed and
replaced on the west side of the structure. Applicant has received approval for a 116 sq. ft. deck
along shoreline, (AV 4-2010); total square feet of decking to include previous approval equates
to 459 square feet.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Shoreline - Request for 40.5 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement of the
WR zone as per§179-3-040 for stairs leading to the shoreline.
East side setback - Request for 13.8 feet of relief from the 20 foot setback requirement of the
WR zone as per §179-3-040 for landing associated with stairs leading to the shoreline. Note
that this is the closest portion of the stairs and deck proposal that requires relief; majority of
stairs and deck requires relief from the 20 foot east side setback.
West side setback - Request for 17.9 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement of
the WR zone as per §179-3-040 for the landing and stairs associated with west side access to
camp.
Permeability - Request for 8.5% or an additional 519 sq. ft. of permeability relief from the 25%
requirement of the WR zone. Resulting permeability equates to 33.5%.
Expansion of a Non-conforming structure - The Zoning Board of Appeals must approve this
request as per§179-13-010F.
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. Lot limitations preclude any feasible
method by which to avoid an area variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 40.5 feet or 91% relief
from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement of the WR zone for the stairs adjacent to the
shoreline may be considered severe relative to the code. Further, the request for 13.8 feet
or 69% relief from the 20 foot east side setback requirement for the landing associated with
stairs adjacent to the shoreline may be considered moderate to severe relative to the code.
Additionally, the request for 17.9 feet or 89% relief from the 20 foot west side setback
requirement for the landing and stairs associated with west side access to camp may be
considered severe relative to the code. Finally, the request for the expansion of a non-
conforming structure must be approved 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. Little adverse impacts on the
physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood may be expected.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty could be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
SB 2-2012: Pending
BOH 38-2011 Holding Tanks Approved 11/21/11
AV 4-2010: Removal and replacement of existing decks and stairways and the addition of a 112
+/- sq. ft. deck adjacent to shoreline. Relief requested from minimum shoreline and sideline
setback requirements. In addition, relief requested from expansion of a nonconforming structure
3/17/2010
BP 06-572: 160 sq. ft. deck
SB 8-2008: 3.42 acres into 2 lots of 1.0 & 2.42 acres 5/28/2009
Staff comments:
As previously mentioned, the applicant had received approval for the deck proposed along the
shoreline; please see attached resolution A.V. 4-2010. The proposed property line adjustment
does not affect this approval; however, the other approvals associated with A.V. 4-2010 and the
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
parcel prior to the property line adjustment are void and now require relief as stated above. The
applicant has received approval for a holding tank from the Town B.O.H. on 11/21/11, see
attached.
SEQR Status:
Type II-no further review required"
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and welcome, and if you could identify yourself for the Board.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. For the record I'm Tom Hutchins, on behalf of the Marshalls.
MR. JACKOSKI-Would you like to add anything to that lengthy description?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I would briefly add that that sounded like a whole lot, but the way we look
at it what we're asking to do is re-affirm Area Variance 4-2010 with, and how it's been impacted
by the boundary line adjustment that cleaned up the property line issue. Again, all the
infrastructure proposed is the same as what we had proposed for 2010, that being the
replacement of the stairways that sorely need to be replaced, and the front side deck. This also
allows us, this allows us to install a holding tank in lieu of an antiquated septic system that's 40
feet or so from the lake. So it's another step to clean up this property and make it a little bit
nicer, and with that I'll turn it over for questions.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Staff, could we check, do you have a copy of the variance
approval for the shoreline deck? I remember it.
MR. OBORNE-Do I have a copy of it? It should be attached to Staff Notes. It was not?
MR. JACKOSKI-The actual wording of it?
MR. OBORNE-1 don't have that with me. Let me look, though.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there a way to look it up on line?
MR. OBORNE-1 do not have Internet access here. Is there a particular issue or?
MR. JACKOSKI-If I recall, I voted no.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-And we're asked to reaffirm it I'm still going to be a no vote.
MR. OBORNE-But that's not part of this application.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Not in the reaffirmation?
MR. OBORNE-No. The adjustment did not affect that whatsoever.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll start with some questions for the applicant. Can you tell me about
how many trees are going to be removed on the, I guess it's the north side of the property?
MR. HUTCHINS-On the shoreline side, is that where you're talking about?
MR. JACKOSKI-The side where the new proposed deck and landings and stairs will be going?
Is that east?
MR. HUTCHINS-There will be three or four. That would be east, yes. Deceiving, north is
actually up.
MR. JACKOSKI-They're fairly large hemlocks and stuff, right?
MR. HUTCHINS-The large ones are, actually the larger ones are more to the west and I
specifically avoided that area, directly behind the camp, for the holding tanks because I didn't
want to get in and excavate around those large trees. So the larger ones are more behind the
camp.
MR. JACKOSKI-And will any trees be removed within the 50 feet shoreline?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Do we know about how many?
MR. HUTCHINS-Two, about.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-There was one of them in the last photo.
MR. JACKOSKI-I saw it. Any other Board members have any other questions at this time?
MR. KOSKINAS-1 do have a question for you. On your drawing with the company's 9-2012, the
proposed deck and stair arrangement on the east side that the Chairman's referring to, when I
look at the photo that the Staff just had on the wall, where you show the existing stairs, and I can
see the silhouette of the existing stairs here, this is already a crowded property. I didn't sit on
the initial variance that was approved, and so I can't affirm that I think it was a good idea and I
can say that when you look at this lot, this is a challenge, I mean, from your point of view, from a
business point of view, it's a challenging lot even to live on. This is a challenging lot. To turn my
truck around was a challenging issue, too, but it seems to me any approval, particularly in light
of removing trees, look at the density of the work there and the steepness of that grade, I sure
know those stairs need to be replaced. I mean, they're rickety, I walked down them.
MR. HUTCH INS-They're dangerous. Yes.
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, but I think it would be more appropriate to stay in the silhouette of the
existing stairs rather than do all this work. I mean, I know people like what they like.
MR. HUTCHINS-The problem being we're trying to get a landing in there.
MR. KOSKINAS-Why?
MR. HUTCHINS-Why? Because we've got more than however many risers it is in a row we
want to have without a landing.
MR. KOSKINAS-The reason the stairs don't come back, is this a new line, this septic line, pump
up line?
MR. HUTCH INS-Correct.
MR. KOSKINAS-That's new.
MR. HUTCHINS-It's proposed.
MR. KOSKINAS-It's proposed. So it goes under the existing stairs.
MR. HUTCHINS-It goes in the location where the existing stairs are, yes. They'll be removed
obviously.
MR. KOSKINAS-And then you're reluctant to build over it? Is that it?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, I'm, frankly I haven't modified the geometry of the stairs and the decking
from what was presented at the last variance because I felt it was not appropriate to modify it if
the approvals were already secured, and that's what the owners wish to do.
MR. KOSKINAS-Is that the case that before this Board now that prior approval stands?
MR. OBORNE-No, because of the lot line adjustment.
MR. KOSKINAS-1 think this is a challenging undertaking on this lot. It's scope and size and
distance to the east, but that's just my take on it. It seems to me that when you look at this
whole parcel, actually several properties along there, expanding on what exists isn't doing that
lake any favors or the neighborhood.
MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes, well, I sat on the other one. I mean, I was very concerned about the safety
of those stairs.
MR. HUTCH INS-They're worse now.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MRS. HUNT-Yes, and we had approved that now the lot is even larger. I have no problem with
the application. I would be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR. CLEMENTS-1 had a question. Keith, could you put up the picture of the front where the
deck is going to be, there are some trees and a shoreline there. There it is. It was my
understanding the last time when we approved the other variance that all of those trees that are
along the shoreline there were not going to be removed. Is that still the case, those trees right
there?
MR. OBORNE-It has to be.
MR. HUTCHINS-If it was before, nothing's changed.
MR. CLEMENTS-So are you saying that the trees are going to be removed?
MR. HUTCHINS-No, I'm saying that if they were not to be removed, then they're not to be
removed.
MR. CLEMENTS-That was my understanding I believe the last one.
MR. OBORNE-1 believe you're right. That was a condition of approval.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I apologize for not having that with me.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here
in the audience who'd like to address this Board regarding this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment on this from Staff?
MR. OBORNE-No comments.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm not sure what the Board would like to do at this point.
MR. KOSKINAS-Mr. Chairman, because of the limited number sitting this evening, is this
proposal, the existing variance in jeopardy in some way?
MR. OBORNE-No, not at all. What happens obviously, if somebody's going to vote against it,
then it fails. Because you need four to pass. That's your simple majority.
MR. KOSKINAS-Well, I'm not comfortable with this, but I feel badly about the applicant because
at a full Board you'd have members here who were, have passed this before and I'm sure would
acquiesce. So if this Board votes, if you are there yeses, I'm a yes with you too.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I think what I'm struggling with is I feel it's a bit segmented and so that
certainly wasn't the intent, I understand that, but now that this entire project is in front of me, I
probably would have gone for an application where the front deck at the shoreline wasn't on the
house and the side deck was, but now I've got two decks. I'm not in favor of it. I think it's
overdeveloping what they've got there, and its encroaching the lines too tightly, and that's, I'm
struggling with it. I'm struggling with removal of the trees on that steep bank. I'm struggling with
erosion concerns, because of all of what's happening now along the side of that property. I think
the lot line adjustments were great. I'm glad that the property is bigger. I'm thrilled that we've
got a holding tank.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it's not, we don't have.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry, but that they've approved it and I believe the applicant is going to
actually install it.
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it was going to all be done as one project, but, yes.
MR. KOSKINAS-Is there any option that you could stay in the silhouette of the existing stairs?
Add a landing but keep the stairs, in effect replace what you've got?
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. HUTCHINS-1 certainly can't make that commitment on behalf of my clients who aren't here
tonight.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do you think that the applicant would be willing to forego the front deck being
built and keep everything off the shoreline as it is and allow just the side deck and stairs and
railings and landings?
MR. HUTCHINS-I'm not willing to make that commitment on their behalf, no. I mean, they feel
that, they're under the impression that the variances were approved for.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm sure they were, I'm sure they are. I think, as we look at more
development of the property, I'm sorry.
MRS. HUNT-Would you table this?
MR. OBORNE-Give them a chance to table it and come back?
MR. JACKOSKI-If they'd like to table it, I think that would probably be more reasonable, but we
could also call a vote, and you know me, Tom, I'm not, this one's a tough one for me. I think
with the tree removal and all the decks and stairs that are going on there now with that front
deck, that's what's bothering me. It came in piecemeal and it's not being done.
MR. HUTCHINS-The front deck's bothering you and the side deck's bothering you. Right?
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. KOSKINAS-And it isn't specifically the side deck. It's the scope, the overall scope of the
project is expansive relative to the amount of disruption on the lot, the grade of the lot, and it
seems to me that you could do much less and have a safe, functional stairway, and, you know,
what's the hardship here? The hardship is the stairway's bad and they want to replace it. The
hardship isn't that it needs to be bigger, needs landing, it needs decks at the shore. That's just a
want, and I understand wanting stuff. I invented it almost.
MR. OBORNE-So I think you have two options, Tom. You can obviously have it tabled and
come back with a full Board, in the hopes that this existing application will pass, or modify it to
appease their concerns.
MR. KOSKINAS-Actually a full Board might, with seven people sitting here, regular members,
you very well may carry it just as it is, but I don't think you have a very good opportunity this
evening.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. JACKOSKI-If the applicant tables it, can you tell me when they would get back on the
agenda? Because I'm sure they're going to try to get this project done for summer use of the
cottage.
MR. OBORNE-1 would think that if you tabled it you can condition it on it being the approach of a
full Board with the existing application, it can go on the April agenda.
MR. JACKOSKI-The first meeting in April?
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR. JACKOSKI-We're going to be discussing that agenda, correct?
MR. OBORNE-That's up to the Board. Either way, it needs to be tabled tonight obviously.
Unless you want to vote, then the application's denied and you have to re-submit.
MR. JACKOSKI-But to vote, what would the applicant get out of that?
MR. OBORNE-A denial.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but then.
MR. OBORNE-He'd have to resubmit.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. KOSKINAS-With something new.
MR. OBORNE-Or the same one again.
MR. HUTCHINS-Can I suggest an option three? Could I possibly come back and be heard later
in the meeting if I could make a phone call?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. Of course.
MR. HUTCHINS-Is that reasonable?
MR. JACKOSKI-Certainly reasonable. Thank you. So we will adjourn temporarily and put this
application on hold, and, Tom, when you're ready just let me know and I'll make sure to squeeze
you in at the next opportunity.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. I'll just talk to them.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you for your cooperation. Okay.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2012 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL CANTANUCCI AGENT(S)
DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) MICHAEL CANTANUCCI ZONING WR LOCATION 7
NORVIEW LANE - ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE
ADJUSTMENT FOR A PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING 0.56 ACRE PARCEL WHICH WILL
REDUCE THE LOTS SIZE BY 573 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF BP 6125 YR 1979 ADDITION
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 14, 2012 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT
SIZE 0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-69 SECTION 179-3-040
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, Dennis, and, Staff, if you could read it into the record, please.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2012, Michael Cantanucci, Meeting Date: March 21,
2012 "Project Location: 7 Norview Lane - Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes a boundary lot line adjustment for a preexisting nonconforming 0.56 acre
parcel which will reduce the lots size by 466 sq. ft.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
• Relief requested from lot size requirements for the WR 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 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. Feasible methods would include
placing the proposed boatlift in a compliant location on the adjoining parcel or leaving the lot
line as is and apply for a setback variance for the boathouse on the adjoining parcel.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Although the request for a reduction of
466 square feet may seem inconsequential, the resulting lot size of 0.55 acres is 1.45 acres
or 72.5% below the 2 acres minimum allowed in the WR zone as per §179-3-040 and may
be considered severe relative to the ordinance.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Little adverse impacts on the
physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood may be expected.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
None found
Staff comments:
The purpose for this lot line change, as eluded to in staffs reply to Question 2 above, is for the
placement of a boatlift outside of the 20 foot projected offshore property line requirement. The
parcel as it exists is 0.56 acres and proposed will be 0.55 acres, a reduction of 466 square feet.
SEAR Status:
Type II-no further review required"
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Again, welcome, Dennis. Would you like to add anything to that
brief description?
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. Well, a little clarification. First of all, Dennis MacElroy with
Environmental Design representing Michael Cantanucci. Mr. and Mrs. Cantanucci own the
parcel contiguous to the subject parcel, and they've owned that since '95 or so and I think in
2008 Mr. Cantanucci was able to acquire the neighboring property, the subject property in this
case, and because he owns both parcels, there was hopefully a relatively simple process for a
boundary line adjustment which would make compliance with the setbacks both at the Town
level and at the Lake George Park Commission, navigational setbacks, as I refer to it, but they're
off property setbacks from the docks, and as Queensbury considers a boatlift with a canopy as
part of the dock, then that measurement occurs from the structural support of the roof of that
canopy. So it was an effort to adjust this lot line slightly, 466 square feet, so that there would be
compliance on both sides of that property line, both for the existing dock on the main house
parcel and for the existing dock on the subject parcel. So it was a, let's say, an academic
exercise of getting all the dimensions lined up and modified so that there'd be compliance on
both sides of the line, and as in one case Mr. and Mrs. Cantanucci own one parcel. Mr.
Cantanucci owns the other parcel. They're able to do that somewhat readily through a boundary
line adjustment.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. At this time, are there any questions from Board members?
MR. KOSKINAS-1 have a discussion.
MR. JACKOSKI-Discussion.
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes. I know you've been before this Board a number of times, and you're a
familiar face here, and I'm just asking that you appreciate when things like this come before us
that we are supposed to try and mitigate hardships. There's zoning requirements, among them
is that you don't exacerbate nonconformances. Here you have a lot that's nonconforming by its
size, and your concern, if I understood you correctly, is to have enough relief for the 20 foot
minimum setback from the structure proposed, you're putting a lift beyond the lift that already
exists there, there's a lift just forward, just adjacent to this boathouse.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes, that lift was for a personal watercraft, a smaller.
MR. KOSKINAS-I'd like you to look at this from a zoning point of view, just for a moment. You're
moving the direction of the boundary line that approaches the lake. You're not moving the entire
boundary line. You're moving the last few feet in order to have a different interpretation of the
zoning code as it extends the boundary line from the high water mark out into the water. It
seems to me that we could have people with, and there are always people here with docks that
are problematic. So you make a lot line adjustment. Why go 52 feet? Why not go five and just
change the compass point of your boundary line and you're free, and to me that looks like a
circumvention of the zoning, and at the same time requires this Board agree to make worse a
nonconforming lot. This lot is nonconforming for its size, and you're asking it to be smaller, in
other words, a greater nonconformance, and actually the guidance before this Board by State
and Town laws are not to do that unless there's a compelling great reason to do it. There's a lot
of room here for boatlifts on this property.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. MAC ELROY-On the main parcel property? Well some are already occupied. It doesn't
clearly show on this, but the other boathouse to the east has two boat, canopy boatlifts on it, as
were previously approved. So this is an opportunity to have one at that dock. You can consider
it circumvention of those zoning laws. It's compliance with those zoning laws in this case to
create that situation and because he owns both properties it would seem to be a reasonable
request. I understand what you're saying. I'll leave it at that. The adjustment of that segment
not only extends, I assume you're familiar with that definition of the property line setback as it
either extends into the lake or perpendicular to the point of tangency of the shoreline, which is a
very mysterious calculation, but in this case it's both of those, as best we could control that and
calculate that, and I spent time with Molly Gallagher from the Park Commission to address that,
because now they're one in the same, at that point of tangency that was determined through her
computations, this becomes that 90 degrees. So it was an exercise of sorts to create that
condition that complied, and so the answer as to why it's 52, there was some reasoning behind
that. It wouldn't have worked if you'd just went five feet, because we need to be at the proper
angle of approach. That's getting in to the technical end of this.
MR. KOSKINAS-That's really my point.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right. It's an effort. It was an effort, clearly, to provide that opportunity. To
have that, the applicant feels that it's a reasonable request, particularly in consideration that he's
in ownership of both parcels.
MR. KOSKINAS-Today.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any more discussion points with the applicant at this time?
And for the record Mr. Garrand did join the Board. Welcome.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-No other discussions at this point? I mean, Dennis, I think what they tried to
accomplish, because you did make the line, the lot line adjustment the same point that was
perpendicular and/or following the lot line projection out onto the shore the same, I think you
came up with the most reasonable alternative and I suspect that that perpendicular point forced
you back to the point where it intersected the lot line. So instead of creating another point, you
kept that all constant and you just drove it back. So I think I understand that methodology. I
certainly understand, you know, the stewardship of the Cantanucci family and what they've done
at that end of the bay. So let's see if we have any public, if it's okay to open it up to the public at
this time. Okay. So we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone
here in the audience who'd like to address the Board regarding this particular application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. March 20, 2012, to Mr. Steve Jackoski, Chairman, Zoning Board of
Appeals, RE: Cantanucci "Dear Mr. Jackoski: 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 is not opposing the variance request to
improve the navigational setback on the docks along the said boundary line. It is our opinion the
Town of Queensbury review boards should take the opportunity to make water quality
improvements and bring properties more in compliance with the Town Code in regards to
shoreline buffers. The Lake George Water Keeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals to
apply the Town's regulations, specifically § 179-8-040 Shoreline Buffers and § 179-14-050
Imposition of Conditions, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced area
variance application. A substantial shoreline buffer should be required for the adjoining parcel
to the north benefiting from the boundary line adjustment. The subject property for the boundary
line adjustment currently has a well established shoreline buffer, which is opposed to the
neighboring property to the north. The northern property has no shoreline buffering and is
completely noncompliant with the vision of the Town's Comprehensive Plan and Town Code
requirements. The Water Keeper has documented significant algae blooms in this small bay
over the past few summers. The installation of a compliant shoreline buffer would reduce runoff
from carrying nutrients to the lake and improve water quality. The Lake George Water Keeper
Program looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to
defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your
consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Water Keeper" And that's
the only public comment I have.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. At this time I think we'll poll the Board, if that's okay. I'll start
with Joyce.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I don't have any problem. I think there'll be minor impacts to the
community, neighborhood. I think it's a reasonable solution to the problem, and obviously the
Lake George Water Keeper and Adirondack Park have no problem with it, so I would be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Rick?
MR. GARRAND-Would your client be in favor of a shoreline buffer for the northern parcel?
MR. MAC ELROY-1 can only speculate. If you've seen the property, it's a very well maintained
and landscaped property. There's no question about that. The idea that the shoreline buffer of
some description is essential in achieving runoff control is, I understand that rationale or that
thinking, but I also understand the stormwater controls that are in place on that property, and
they far exceed anything that other properties are required and take into effect. There is an area
of grassy lawn. Very nicely maintained. Now personally I don't know about the treatment that
receives. That gets off in another subject, but it will have to be compliant with Queensbury's
local law. To add a shoreline buffer of some form, and I've had this issue on other projects and
whatever, whether this is a 15 foot wide buffer that has a certain number of trees per linear foot
and a certain density, I'm not sure that that's something that the owner wants to pursue. Again, I
think if you see that property and see the landscaping and the trees, the vegetation that are in
that, on that property, it's very extensive.
MR. JACKOSKI-And Dennis if you reference, that's one of the pictures of the area we're talking
about and you can see the ground cover, the trees, etc. that's already on the property. I mean, I
personally can see this property from my own dock all the time. It is probably one of the nicest
kept properties on the lake.
MR. MAC ELROY-So I wasn't prepared to speak for him in that regard, but my opinion would be,
no, that wouldn't be his intent to add buffering or add more vegetation in a certain area.
MR. JACKOSKI-And is the Water Keeper referring to the bay that's around the corner?
MR. MAC ELROY-I'm not sure. That's a pretty general statement that he's made there and
there's no real documentation that where that occurs or when that was observed.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Nor, and I'm not speaking for Chris, obviously, nor is he stating that this is
the only reason why there are algae blooms there, you know.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, if you go way around the corner from this property and go way down in
that small bay, I could understand where there may be algae blooms there because that bay
right there is so small and so tight and there's so many other houses on it and it's very shallow
way over there, but I don't know if that's what Mr. Navitsky's, I mean, I don't think Mr. Navitsky's
referring to the large bay in front of this house. I don't know either, unfortunately. He's not here.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, we can't question him.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-My feeling is that since the applicant owns both properties, I believe it's a good
alternative. I was out there today and looked at it and I'd go along with what's been said here
that it's very well vegetated. It looks like runoff would not be a problem there. So I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Koskinas?
MR. KOSKINAS-1 certainly think it's a beautiful property and having voiced my concern about
manipulating the zoning, this project in itself has no negative impacts that I see, so I'd vote in
favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Having polled the Board and having closed, now, the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion?
MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce. Thank you very much.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2012 MICHAEL CANTANUCCI, Introduced
by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
7 Norview Lane -Assembly Point. The applicant proposes a boundary line adjustment for a pre-
existing, nonconforming 0.56 acre parcel which will reduce the lot size to 466 square feet. The
parcel will require variances as follows: Relief requested from the lot size requirements for the
WR zone as per Section 179-3-040. There will be minor impacts to the neighborhood as a result
of this variance. There aren't too many feasible alternatives that would be available to the
applicant. The request for a reduction of 466 square feet would reduce the lot size to 0.55
acres, which is 1.45 acres or 72.5% below the 2 acre minimum which may be considered
severe, but the lot was already nonconforming. There will be little adverse effects on the
physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood, and it may be considered self-created,
but it is an existing, nonconforming lot. So I propose we approve Area Variance No. 13-2012.
Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico
MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Thank you.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2012 DONALD MARSHALL (CONT'D)
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-I'd like to call back to the table Area Variance No. 9-2012 for the Marshall
property, with Tom Hutchins as the agent for the applicant, and again, for the record, Mr.
Garrand has joined the Board this evening and, Tom, maybe to help Mr. Garrand get up to
speed on this, if you could give a brief outline of what we're looking at here or maybe what your
discussions have been with your applicant.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. Of this application, we're looking at the, I guess I'd go through the
history is the easiest way to present it. The Marshalls came forth with an application to repair, or
to replace their stairway and install a deck on the front of this nonconforming parcel. In 2010, by
Area Variance 4-2010, they were granted setback relief for a deck on the front of, I call it front,
the lakeside of the cottage as well as to replace the stairs with a stairway, landing and a small
side deck. They received necessary variances at that time from this Board for that work,
setback variances. They went back to the Planning Board at that time with a Site Plan Review
with variances in hand. The Planning Board discovered an issue with a boundary line that was
actually going over a corner of their cabin. Now the Marshall's have owned this property since
1967, and it was clearly not the intent of the original subdivider to have that boundary line going
through the property. The cabin was there at the time. However, whether it be legally or
surveying, that's the way it happened, and so the Planning Board asked them if they would
attempt to come up with a means to correct this boundary issue. So we have come up with a
means to correct this boundary issue. We have made an agreement with the neighbor, who is
Mozal, to adjust the boundary line between the two properties.
MR. JACKOSKI-And just so Rick knows, that adjustment was approved by this Board before you
arrived.
MR. HUTCHINS-And that adjustment was approved by the Board. At the same time the
Planning Board asked them to look into the boundary issue, they asked them to come up with a
solution to the septic system issue. So they have additionally put together plans for installation
of a holding tank system. They've been to the Town Board of Health and they have approval of
a holding tank system to go in. After the boundary line adjustment, that impacted the original
variances from AV 4-2010, that gave them the setback relief for the decks. We're back here
tonight with the recommendation of the Planning Board from last night in support of the modified
variances due to the adjusted property line showing the same infrastructure outline as was
proposed during AV 4-2010. So we haven't changed what we're proposing any, but the property
line has been adjusted to mitigate the conflict on the south side with Mozals. Additionally, what
the Marshalls have also done as part of this process is filed an application and taken care of all
the legal and surveying and engineering fees associated with modifying Mozals subdivision
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
because her adjoining property happens to be part of an approved subdivision. So they have
also updated Mozals subdivision, done a boundary line adjustment on their property, done the
wastewater system application holding tank approvals, and now we're back with the same
original infrastructure looking to, what we're looking at is reaffirm the variance that was
previously presented by this Board, although it's actually not reaffirming it because the boundary
line has shifted and the numbers are different.
MR. GARRAND-Because the numbers are different, and the decks, all the decking proposed in
4-2010 is exactly the same as what you're proposing here?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-That is correct. Right? I'm not making a misstatement? Okay. I didn't handle
4-2010.
MR. OBORNE-It's the same. I believe it's Eric & Eric?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-It's Eric and Eric Architecture. It's the same plans they're presenting again.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, and unfortunately I was unable to get a hold of the owners tonight. I
would imply or I would just like to state that I was a little surprised at the reaction tonight. I
thought this was somewhat of a formality. It has been a, what I feel is a very long and
cumbersome process to get through this, and it almost seems to the point that it's unfair.
However, with that said, I would prefer a tabling to a denial. So, I would answer any questions.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, at this point, Tom, what I'd like to do is re-poll the Board for you if we
could. Mr. Garrand, do you feel that you have enough information at this time?
MR. GARRAND-I do.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I don't remember the order I went in last time. So I'll just poll again
from my right to my left. So, Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes, I would be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-This Board was in favor of this variance last time. As long as the decks are not
changing at all from the previous approval on 4-2010, I'd be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Koskinas?
MR. KOSKINAS-Apologizing to you, sir, but I was not here for 4-2010, and I think, based on the
condition of the lot, the steepness and the scope relative to hardship, less could be done to
solve the problem. So I would not be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-1 was here for the 4-2010. 1 was in favor of it. The only question that I had
was the trees along the shoreline. You've said that those are going to stay there. So I'd
continue to be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, Tom, I'm going to try to be as reasonable as I can with this, to make sure I
understand what I'm approving, because quite honestly I'm beginning to wonder if I wasn't part
of that meeting that was held for 4-2010, because I don't remember the side decks being this
large with this many stairs. So I could have not been here that night, but maybe I'm wrong. You
don't happen to have that approval with you, do you? So, while you're looking for that, let's just
talk of it based on the picture that we see here to the right side of the picture that's up on the
screen that Staff has which is showing the top of the hill to the lake view of the east side of the
house. The large tree that is in the foreground, as much as it is in the foreground, which Staff is
pointing to, that tree is going to be removed?
MR. HUTCHINS-That tree would have to be removed. Yes.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-And the tree slightly to its left which is closer to the lake, does that tree have to
be removed?
MR. HUTCHINS-That tree would have to be removed. That is the last one. I believe that's the
last one. I can't solemnly swear to you.
MR. JACKOSKI-What is the distance, do you think, from the side of the house to the west side
of that first tree? Is there any way to keep that tree, with the root structure and all that other
stuff?
MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't have the tree located. I'm not going to say there's no way to keep that
tree, but it would.
MR. JACKOSKI-It just looks proportionately like it's almost close.
MR. HUTCHINS-It looks like it's close.
MR. JACKOSKI-Anyway, do you think you have that approval?
MR. HUTCHINS-1 do not have it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-Keith, you can look that up on line, right?
MR. JACKOSKI-He says he doesn't have Internet access.
MR. OBORNE-1 don't have access.
MR. JACKOSKI-Tom, you're telling me that those trees were going to come out on the very first
application with Eric & Eric, they had to come out when they approved that and everybody knew
that?
MRS. HUNT-1 remember some discussion about the trees, but I don't recall exactly what.
MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't know what commitments were made on, at the earlier application with
regard to trees.
MR. OBORNE-1 know the shoreline was the major discussion with the trees.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I agree. I know, and the house is so close to the shoreline and I know, I'm
just struggling with the offsets.
MR. OBORNE-Keep in mind that they could take down all these trees within, outside of the 35
foot setback, any time they want. They don't need Board approval for that. I just want to make
that clarification there.
MR. GARRAND-I think what we don't want to see is a deck put in and somebody, you know,
clear cutting that whole area just to get a view.
MR. JACKOSKI-When the deck is encroaching the lot line and all that other stuff to begin with.
We're trying to find the balance here.
MR. OBORNE-And that discussion along the shoreline was very succinct that you were not
even to trim the trees along the shoreline, as part of the approval.
MR. JACKOSKI-And what, Tom, can you maybe help us understand how erosion control will
protect the grounds that will now be, you know, covered by decking or exposed to runoff, without
a root structure there now because the trees will be pulled out of there?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, where we need erosion controls will be done predominantly with rock.
There's plenty of native rock in the area, as I'm sure you're aware. The decking is actually
reasonably high. So there will be able to be growth up to and adjacent to, and steep slopes will
be stabilized with rock.
MR. JACKOSKI-And, Staff, this is going back in front of the Planning Board.
MR. OBORNE-This will be back in front of the Planning Board ostensibly next Tuesday.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MRS. HUNT-Could we make a condition that?
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I trust the Planning Board will do the right thing. How close is the closest
point of the, is there any chance of reorienting those stairs closest to the lake so that they come
off the deck closer to the lake and then go toward the property line to help reduce some of the
encroachment on the lot line? We're 6.2 feet off the lot line, correct?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well, what we're trying to do is keep them away from, we're trying to keep them
within the envelope of the building and not get them closer to the lake.
MR. JACKOSKI-I know, but we're 9.5 feet away from the lake.
MR. HUTCHINS-That's right. So we don't want to go any closer, and we're flush with the,
they're flush with the front lakeside face of the building.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So what'll happen is you'll actually come down the stairs and end up
under the camp, correct?
MR. HUTCH INS-Correct.
MR. KOSKINAS-But the approved deck is seven feet from the lake.
MR. JACKOSKI-I know. I don't like that deck at all.
MR. GARRAND-We can cut that down by half, I think, or more.
MR. HUTCHINS-1 do have the deck plans here that I didn't submit with the variance.
MR. GARRAND-And I'm going to say, that Zoning Board approval was on May 19th of 2011, that
2004. The '04-2010 Zoning Board Area Variance approval that this property got was May 19,
2011?
MR. OBORNE-If that's what Staff Notes say.
MR. JACKOSKI-I can guarantee you I wasn't here, because that was school board budget night.
So that's why this is all looking unfamiliar.
MR. HUTCHINS-Would you like to take a look at the plans for the decking?
MR. JACKOSKI-No, I got it.
MR. HUTCHINS-1 didn't submit them.
MR. JACKOSKI-How wide are the stairs?
MR. HUTCHINS-Three foot six.
MR. OBORNE-That's Code.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's with railings and everything?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-What's Code, is it 36 inches?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-Clear.
MR. JACKOSKI-And at the time that proposal was granted, how close was the closest point of
those stairs to the lot line? Because I know what you're going to argue next. You could have
kept the old lot line just like the previous application did for a certain point up off the shore, and
then cut back in.
MR. OBORNE-If you look at A-8 of Eric and Eric's, that gives you what the old setbacks were.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, because I've got so many maps here.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. HUTCHINS-If you look on our variance summary, it should say (lost word) side deck. It
doesn't say.
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, no, or table.
MR. JACKOSKI-I know, I'm sorry. I'm trying so hard to approve this thing, and I'm just
struggling with it.
MR. HUTCHINS-It was 13 feet.
MR. KOSKINAS-Then if your conscience isn't comfortable, have them come back, table it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I know. I also understand how difficult the lot is, and I understand that the
topography there is tough and this little cottage is sitting there, and the stairs are unsafe, and I'll
be in favor of it as approved. Can I have a motion, please?
MR. CLEMENTS-I'll do it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Brian, thank you.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2012 DONALD MARSHALL, Introduced by
Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
101 Fitzgerald Road Extension. The applicant proposes removal of 130 sq. ft. of existing stairs
and replacement with 320 sq. ft. of stairs, landings, and decking. Further, a 23 foot access
landing and stairs would be removed and replaced on the west side of the structure. Applicant
has received approval for a 116 sq. ft. deck along shoreline, (AV 4-2010); total square feet of
decking to include previous approval equates to 459 square feet. Relief required is parcel will
require area variances as follows: Shoreline - Request for 40.5 feet of relief from the 50 foot
shoreline setback requirement of the WR zone as per §179-3-040 for stairs leading to the
shoreline. East side setback - Request for 13.8 feet of relief from the 20 foot setback
requirement of the WR zone as per §179-3-040 for landing associated with stairs leading to the
shoreline. Note that this is the closest portion of the stairs and deck proposal that requires relief;
majority of stairs and deck requires relief from the 20 foot east side setback. West side setback-
Request for 17.9 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement of the WR zone as per
§179-3-040 or the landing and stairs associated with west side access to camp. Permeability -
Request for 8.5% or an additional 519 sq. ft. of permeability relief from the 25% requirement of
the WR zone. Resulting permeability equates to 33.5%. Expansion of a Non-conforming
structure - The Zoning Board of Appeals must approve this request as per §179-13-010F. In
making the determination, the Board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will
be produced in the character of the neighborhood. 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. Lot limitations preclude any
feasible method by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is
substantial. All requests are substantial, but it is generally due to previous conditions, and
basically was approved under the previous variance 4-2010. 4. Whether the proposed variance
will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district. Little adverse impacts on the physical or environmental condition in the
neighborhood may be expected. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The
difficulty could be considered self created. I move to approve Area Variance No. 9-2012. That
the Planning Board pay particular attention to our concerns regarding the trees and that if there
were any conditions on the previous Area Variance that they apply to this one also, in particular
the large tree that was to the east of this property, if there's any way that it can stay because it is
not within the footprint of that deck or those stairs that it'll be protected as much as possible.
That there should be no increase in the deck's square footage or stairs landings of stairs other
than what is presented, because I don't want to see a further expansion of that side deck
because the lot line runs away from it. Also that the front deck on the lakeside does not get
expanded in any way. I'd like the Planning Board also to make sure that the shoreline is well
protected and that the applicant must install the Town Board approved septic alterations.
Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any discussion?
MR. GARRAND-I'd just like to ask that the Planning Board pay particular attention to our
concerns regarding the trees and that if there were any conditions on the previous Area
Variance that they apply to this one also.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-And I'd like to add to Mr. Garrand in particular the large tree that was to the east
of this property, if there's any way that it can stay because it is not within the footprint of that
deck or those stairs that it'll be protected as much as possible. That there should be no
increase in the deck's square footage or stairs or landings of stairs other than what is presented,
because I don't want to see a further expansion of that side deck because the lot line runs away
from it. So I'm not in favor of increasing the footprint of that deck. I'd like to condition it also
that the front deck on the lakeside does not get expanded in any way. Is there anything else we
need to add to this one? I'd like the Planning Board also to make sure that the shoreline is well
protected and that the applicant must install the Town Board approved septic alterations.
MR. OBORNE-Well, they've already gotten their Board of Health approvals.
MR. JACKOSKI-But will they actually install it?
MR. OBORNE-1 think that would be up to the Planning Board. I think that would carry a little bit
more weight. I know their intent is to install it.
MR. JACKOSKI-But will it get installed? I'd like to condition this approval that that does get
installed. Is there any discussion on that? Call the vote, please.
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Koskinas
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico
MR. HUTCHINS-1 thank you, and I will make sure the Planning Board gets a clear picture of the
trees and your concerns as well.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Sorry about this, Tom.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2012 MICHAEL & GERALDINE LYONS OWNER(S) MICHAEL &
GERALDINE LYONS ZONING OFFICE LOCATION 763 BAY ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 840 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO THE REAR OF
EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND SIDE
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE ZONE. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. FINALLY, RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM THE BAY ROAD TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 90-
768; BP 97-382 DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 14, 2012 LOT SIZE 0.41
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-7 SECTION 179-3-040
MICHAEL LYONS, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll turn it over to Staff to read into the record.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-2012, Michael & Geraldine Lyons, Meeting Date: March
21, 2012 "Project Location: 763 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of 840 sq. ft. residential addition to the rear of existing single-family
dwelling.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1. Front Setback - Request for 3.6 feet of relief from the 75 foot front setback requirement
of the Office zone for the proposed addition as per§179-3-040.
2. Side Setback - Request for 13.5 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement
of the Office zone for the proposed stoop to the north of the addition as per§179-3-040.
3. Bay Road Travel Corridor Overlay District - Request for 3.6 feet of relief from the 75 foot
Bay Road TCO district for the proposed addition as per§179-4-030.
4. Expansion of a Non-conforming structure - The Zoning Board of Appeals must approve
this request as per§179-13-010F.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
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. Lot constraints and existing conditions
appear to preclude any feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than an area
variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 3.6 feet or 5% relief
from the 75 foot front setback requirement for the Office zone as per §179-3-040 may be
considered minor relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 13.5 feet or 54% relief
from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the Office zone as per §179-3-040 may be
considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 3.6
feet or 5% relief from the 75 foot Bay Road TCO district and the requirement that the setback
remain as open space as per§179-4-030 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance.
Finally, the request for the expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the
ZBA as per§179-13-010F.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Little adverse impacts on the
physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood may be expected.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
BP for 300 sq. ft. deck Approved 7/11/99
Staff comments:
Concerning the Bay Road TCO District, the specific requirement that the setback be maintained
as open space should be considered when deliberating that potion of the relief request.
The location for the expansion currently has an underground septic tank that will be removed
and replaced to the southern portion of the parcel.
SEQR Status:
Type II-no further review required"
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome.
MR. LYONS-Good evening. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do you have anything at this time you'd like to add to the description that Staff
read into the record?
MR. LYONS-No, that sounds pretty much like the project we want to go forward with. In the
original proposal I didn't talk about the septic being altered, but that is one of, obviously, our
intents, because we're going to be adding another bedroom to it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. No problem, and for those, we could almost look out the window and
see this project if it wasn't so dark out. So are there any questions from Board members?
Pretty straightforward project I suspect. Okay. Seeing no questions. Is there anyone here this
evening the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one. Sorry, if you could come to the table, please, and identify
yourself for the record.
SARAH HUSSA
MRS. HUSSA-Mr. Lyons came to visit me. I live just out of the picture on Cedar Court. I'm
Sarah Hussa. I live at 16 Cedar Court, which is just out of the picture. You came to visit me,
explaining this was for your mother or something.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. LYONS-Yes.
MRS. HUSSA-It sounded like a nice project, and if you've looked at Cedar Court, Cedar Court
has a large septic field that backs up to it, and nobody's really very close to it, so I don't see how
that's an objection. We'd just like your dog to be quieter. I'm serious. That would be my
concern. Your building addition sounds wonderful, but your dog is awful, but it doesn't seem like
it would interfere. It's trees and a very large septic field that'll never have Cedar Court buildings.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you very much for your comments.
MRS. LYONS-Thank you very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other comments from the public this evening? Seeing no one in
the audience, is there any written comment?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, there is. Date March 19, 2012. From Ronald Stewart, President, Cedar
Court Homeowners Association. "The Cedar Court Homeowners Association, Inc. met with Mr.
and Mrs. Lyons and we have no objection to their requested variance as it has little impact on
our common grounds." That's it.
MR. JACKOSKI-No other written comment?
MR. OBORNE-No, sir.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do I need to poll the Board? I saw lots of yes heads. So, why don't we go
ahead and poll, Brian, just real quick.
MR. CLEMENTS-I'd be in favor of the project. There's no people around it that are adverse to it,
so I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Koskinas.
MR. KOSKINAS-I'd move for approval.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-1 would also be in agreement.
MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have no problem with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-I have no problem either. I'm going to close the public hearing at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-Could I have a motion, please.
MR. KOSKINAS-I'll do it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2012 MICHAEL & GERALDINE LYONS,
Introduced by John Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand:
763 Bay Road. Granting expansion of a nonconforming structure and relief from Sections 179-
3-040 and 179-4-030 as follows: 3.6 feet from the 75 foot front setback requirement for the
proposed addition; 13.5 feet relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the stoop
proposed to the north of the proposed addition; 3.6 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor
Overlay for the proposed addition. Finding that no undesirable change to the character of the
neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties would be created. Reasoning: comments from
adjoining property owners and the neighborhood board are positive and that the percent of relief
sought is modest. Two, that the applicant does not have reasonable alternatives not involving
an Area Variance. Reasoning: that any expansion to the existing home will result in some form
of variance. Three, that the variance is not deemed to be substantial. Reasoning: the degree
of additional nonconformance is slight and being planned so as to created negligible local
impact. Four, that the variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood. Reasoning: that the boundary being relieved is directed toward
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
an adjacent open space, and, Five, that the applicant's difficulty is considered to be self-created.
Reasoning: the decision to expand is your own. I move for approval.
Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you and welcome.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 8-2012 AJK PROPERTIES, LLC/COUNTRYSIDE VETERINARY
CLINIC AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES, PC OWNER(S) SAME
ZONING NR LOCATION 270 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT SEEKS SETBACK
RELIEF FOR AN EXISTING +/- 25 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN FRONTING ON
QUEENSBURY AVENUE. CROSS REF SP 79-2011; NOA 3-2009 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING MARCH 14, 2012 LOT SIZE 10.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.8-1-6 SECTION
CHAPTER 140
DR. JAMES KELLER, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll turn it over to Staff to read into the record.
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 8-2012, AJK Properties, LLC/Countryside Veterinary Clinic,
Meeting Date: March 21, 2012 "Project Location: 270 Queensbury Avenue Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant seeks setback relief for an existing +/-25 sq. ft. freestanding sign
fronting on Queensbury Avenue.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require sign variances as follows:
1. Property line setback - Request for 13.6 feet of setback relief from the 15 foot minimum
requirement as per§140-613(1).
Criteria for considering an Sign 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. Feasible alternatives would be to
place the sign in a compliant location, 13.6 feet east of the current location.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 13.6 feet or 91% relief
from the 15 foot setback requirement per §140-6 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 or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
NOA 2-09: Determination of the Zoning Administrator regarding the operation of a kennel on the
property. Appellant upheld 5/20/09
S.P. 79-2011 Kennel expansion Approved 1/17/12
SEAR Status: Type Unlisted"
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-That was a pretty lengthy discussion of the project. Welcome, and do you have
anything you'd like to add, and if you could identify yourself for the record.
DR. KELLER-James Keller, owner of AJK properties and Countryside Veterinary Hospital. The
sign in question was placed there approximately five years ago. The sign prior to that, the
previous owner, Dr. Edward French, the sign actually had existed in front of that and at the time
that I put the sign there, I didn't realize the setbacks. I figured, based on where his was, I was
fine with actually putting the sign where it was, which was actually behind his existing one. This
really didn't come in to much of a question until I had recently submitted plans to do an
expansion on the building. That's passed. I received the permit on that, and basically at that
point we decided to go for a variance for the sign, mostly based on the fact that I initially didn't
have a problem with moving it, but if I move the sign back, do you have the picture? If I move
the sign back, which like I said I didn't have a problem doing the only issue that I would have is
that there's a hedgerow of the trees that over the last five years since I've been there I've
cleared the entire front end of the property and, there we go, I cleared that front end of the
property. There used to be a real thick hedge row across there. I've cleared that and really
made significant improvement to the property. If I bring the sign back, that mature line of trees,
I'd have to cut them down, because there'd be no way to really see my sign with bringing that
back. So I know that the setback requirement, versus where I have the sign right now seems
significant, but the environmental impact would be, for me, much more significant to cut down an
entire line of trees, to be honest. I hate to do it, but I'd have to do it if I had to move the sign.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you.
MR. KOSKINAS-If I understood you correctly, you'll cut down all those trees if you have to move
that sign?
DR. KELLER-I would. It doesn't seem like it would make a big deal, but if you drive up that road,
the way that the sign exists right now, it's in front of those trees.
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, I drive by every day.
DR. KELLER-Yes, and I'd hate to have to do it, to be honest, because right now the way the
sign comes out, and you can see the setback right now. Granted it's off the actual road. I don't
know the exact dimensions off the actual road, but obviously there's a right of way that exists
that, you know, from the grass line over to the sign, but to move that back, like I said, there'd be
quite a few trees that I'd cut down. I'd have to really because you'd miss the building.
MR. KOSKINAS-Are you mulching around those trees where you put those rocks?
DR. KELLER-Yes. Those are all mulch.
MR. KOSKINAS-You're going to kill them.
DR. KELLER-Well, maybe I would cut them.
MR. KOSKINAS-Seriously. I did this before and the bark rots and it cuts the tree. So for your
own edification.
DR. KELLER-Fair enough.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other discussion from Board members? Hearing none, is there anyone
here, I'll open up the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board
concerning this project this evening? Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written
comment?
MR. OBORNE-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no written comment, should we do SEQRA before we close the public
hearing?
MR. OBORNE-That would probably be advisable. Do you want me to run through the Short
Form?
MR. JACKOSKI-What are you thinking?
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. GARRAND-We do it after. We poll the Board before we do SEQRA.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. That's fine. We'll poll the Board first. Then we'll close the public hearing
and then we'll do SEQRA, if that's the appropriate order. How's that? Okay. Brian.
MR. CLEMENTS-I'd be in favor. I saw the sign that was there before, and you're right. It sets
back a little bit further now. I don't think it's an intrusion so I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Koskinas.
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, I think on that road it's not problematic. It's unfortunate that we can't have
conformance, you know, that's still pretty open area.
DR. KELLER-Right.
MR. KOSKINAS-1 don't think it's problematic on that road.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Garrand?
MR. GARRAND-I think the sign could be moved back 10 feet and it would still have the same
effect. I wouldn't be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Koskinas, do you want to add to your comments?
MR. KOSKINAS-Well, I don't know if the applicant's open to moving some distance, but I think
his issue was if he has to move it, he'd move it to compliance, but if you could move it part way,
that makes our job easier.
DR. KELLER-Honestly, I don't know that, I mean, and, you know, I don't want to sound like I'm
not being flexible, you know, for me to move it 10 feet I'm still in noncompliance regardless. I'm
in noncompliance right now, so 10, what's the difference, I guess, necessarily between being
noncompliant and being noncompliant? So, and for me to take it back 10 feet, I might not still
have to cut down all the trees along that hedgerow that I worked so hard to make the front of the
property look better, but there is that one large tree right there that's probably one of the oldest
on that road that I would still have to take down. The neighbor next to me, which you don't see
on the opposite shot, the neighbor next to me does not maintain his hedgerow at all. You
cannot see, you barely can see my sign right now based on his hedgerow. So my hedgerow is
cleared so you can see mine. If I were to drop the sign back, then I'd have to take down trees
along my side. I'd have to, just so that my sign would be visible, and like I said, I hate to do it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any distance you could set the sign back? Our mission is to grant the
minimum relief required. That's, when you asked the question if you're in conformance or not in
conformance, but our mission here is to grant the minimum relief in total. I mean, if we could get
it four, five, six feet back, eight feet, ten, if we could get the post in line with the tree trunks, so
that the arm of your sign stuck out past the trees, because they don't hang down as low as the
top of the sign.
DR. KELLER-Right. I mean, honestly I'd hate to do it. It's a fair amount of work as well involved
in moving the sign. The post is buried four feet in the ground, set in concrete. I'd probably wind
up tearing the post up and having to purchase a new post. Honestly I don't know that I would be
for moving it. I mean, like I said, if I had to move it, you know, if it came down to, yes, you're
moving it because we're saying so, because, in all honesty you have the final say over what I
want to do one way or the other, I'd have to cut the trees. I mean, that's kind of my flexibility is if
I move the sign, I'd take the trees, and like I said, if it means I have to move it, I move it, but I'd
have to take the trees down to do it, as much as I don't want to.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, with that, Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Well, there is, that road is curved there, and if I had to make a choice between
leaving the sign and taking down the trees, I would leave the sign where it is.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do you believe the posts couldn't move back at all without cutting the trees
down?
MRS. HUNT-No.
DR. KELLER-The trees really do, would block the sign, and like I said, that's only in one
direction. If you were to look at the other direction, which we don't have a picture of, but the
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
hedgerow on my neighbor's property is completely unmaintained, unmaintained completely, and
it's often that folks will completely drive by my sign, coming from Dix Avenue direction. If I were
to set it back, they're definitely going to drive right by it, because like I said, it only, as far as his
hedgerow, I don't know if we have that shot, but from his hedgerow it's often missed, believe it
or not. My building is set back far from the road. So it's not like it sits close to the road. It's only
that sign that they're catching to know where I am. So, it's often that if someone's coming from
Dix Avenue, they drive by it because of the non-maintained hedgerow from my neighbor's side.
Coming from the opposite side, coming from let's say Hicks, down Queensbury Avenue, most
folks don't miss it, but if I do set it back, there's a chance they're going to, and that's why, like I
said, I'd hate to have to do it. If I set it back, then I'll have to cut down some trees to make the
sign more visible.
MRS. HUNT-That was one of the comments I was going to make. The building is set so far
back that there really is no way of knowing what it is.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, Joyce, are you in favor or not?
MRS. HUNT-I'm in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-This is a long night for me. To be consistent, I've been opposed to keeping
signs this close to the road frontage in the past, and I look at all the little tiny signs that are along
the, in the right of way as well.
DR. KELLER-I would be absolutely fine with, you know, stating on record that there will not be
small signs placed on the road from here out, you know, I don't know that that makes any
difference whether or not, you know, that sways your decision one way or the other, but I would
make sure there wouldn't be another sign placed there in the future.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm just having a rough night. I don't want to see you cut the trees down, but I
am not in favor of the position of the sign, and I think there's some compromise that can be had.
I drive down that road constantly as well, and your sign is very noticeable, and 1, up the hill and
down the hill, in my opinion, but you feel very strongly that if we make you move the sign at all
you're going to cut the trees?
DR. KELLER-I will.
MR. JACKOSKI-So if we deny your application the alternative is you will make the sign
completely compliant?
DR. KELLER-I'll make it compliant but I'll take the trees.
MR. JACKOSKI-And that puts the sign at how far off the current position, how far back?
MR. OBORNE-13.6 feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-So for those coming from the Dix Avenue end, they'll really not see your sign at
all.
DR. KELLER-They won't see it.
MR. JACKOSKI-So you're not doing yourself any favors.
DR. KELLER-And I may actually wind up putting another sign then, I'll have to add another sign,
which I honestly don't want to do, and then there's going to be setback issues, I'm sure, with my
neighbor that'll come into play.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. I'm just trying to understand.
DR. KELLER-Yes, exactly.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm just trying to understand. The differential here is to move the sign back 13.6
feet and not have it visible at all from the Dix Avenue entrance, versus moving the sign back
five, six, ten feet to be in line with the tree line so that it projects out forward of the tree line,
you're not willing to do that.
DR. KELLER-And there's electric, there's buried electric on the sign. I mean, as far as moving
the sign, it's not, you know, pick the sign up, move it and we're done five minutes later. We're
talking a major job, you know, we're talking buried electric, on the sign. We're talking a post
that's four feet buried in concrete, you know, it's not, you know, okay, I'll do that this weekend,
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
and like I said, literally coming from Dix Avenue, the sign where it is, people miss my building as
it is right now with where the sign is placed. If I move it back, they're not going to see it from Dix
Avenue to start with, again, and they're not going to see it coming from the other side because
there's going to be a row of trees in the way.
MR. JACKOSKI-No, I understand. I'm a little concerned that if deny this application tonight,
which is where I'm leaning, because I can't get the sign moved back even some, I think you're
doing a detriment to you and your business because you're putting the sign so far back that that
other hedgerow is going to completely block it. So I don't know what you're gaining by doing
that, by not moving it a little bit.
DR. KELLER-If I move it, like I said, it's not going to be an easy task to move it, which is part of
the problem. The other part of the problem is if I move it back, then I can't sit here and say that
I'm not going to cut some trees down. I'm not going to take out the entire hedgerow of trees, but
that one tree that we can see right here that's the biggest of all of them, that one would come
down, no question.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't see how that tree is blocking the sign, if the post is in line with the trunk
of that tree so that the arm of the post is pushing toward the road. How is that tree blocking that
sign? I mean, I drove by it numerous times today, and I went back, you know, up and down
trying to make sure I was on task. I don't understand how you feel that it's going to block the
sign.
DR. KELLER-I feel that it would block the sign.
MR. JACKOSKI-I need to ask Mr. Koskinas, in our approach in granting the minimum relief,
refresh my memory on what we've done?
MR. KOSKINAS-Well, we've looked to grant the minimum relief consistent with relieving the
hardship, and the hardship here isn't a voiced hardship. It's that pursuant to another project, an
expansion on the property that was pointed out to the applicant that his sign was
nonconforming. His answer to the nonconformance is to ask for a variance. The hardship is
moving the sign. The sign can absolutely be put into conformance. It can be done. The
applicant said in his opening remark, I could have put it, had I known what the rule was, this is
your opening remark, had I known what the zoning was, I would have put it in a conforming spot
to begin with. So I fail to see the hardship, but I'm willing to say that I think you and Rich both
have the right idea, and I don't think cutting down those trees will help your property at all, but
that's your business.
DR. KELLER-Right.
MR. KOSKINAS-I think, following your lead, putting that sign in a more compliant position, I
mean, what's the benefit of a sign, to be visible from road traffic, and I agree with you, it can be
done. I think Rich had the right idea to come half way and I think your follow up is spot on. The
applicant can either accept that or we can go to denial.
DR. KELLER-Like you said, I mean, the bottom line, the sign's been there for five years. It
hasn't been a problem for anybody, other than the fact that I decided to that I wanted to put an
expansion on my business and then all of a sudden it became a problem.
MRS. HUNT-Mr. Chairman, besides being the minimum relief, it's also a balancing act, and
each application is different, and I think we have to look at all of the factors here, the location of
the building, the fact that the sign has been there for five years, and.
DR. KELLER-The building doesn't sit next to the road with a giant sign on it that says
Countryside Veterinary Hospital. It sits 300 feet off the road.
MRS. HUNT-1 would hate to see trees cut down.
MR. CLEMENTS-Question, Mr. Chairman. When they expand the airport so that 747's can land
there, and they make their road four lanes wide, it's going to have to be moved anyway.
MR. JACKOSKI-If only Southwest would start servicing that airport, I'd be very happy. So the
applicant, at this point, is not willing to move it back five or six feet without cutting the trees
down. I'm working very hard here to stay consistent with my previous decisions on signages
encroaching the front lot lines and side lot lines, and I'd want to try to get you to get through this
process, and I'm having difficulty with it, and I don't want to make you put the sign 20 feet off the
road, and then have an issue with your neighbor's hedgerow where you can't see the sign at all.
So I'm trying to find a balance myself, for compliance.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
DR. KELLER-Which I honestly think that, you know, I mean, if I move it back five feet, you're not
going to see it from Dix Avenue, and you saw it just fine today because it's fall and there's not
leaves on the trees.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand that. I've driven that road for my whole life, so unfortunately I'm
very familiar with where your facility is.
DR. KELLER-You know, I mean, five feet?
MR. CLEMENTS-1 might also add that the Planning Board requested the applicant to seek the
variance, too.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I mean, I just also know we've revised our whole Sign Code and all signs
need to come into conformance within the next five years of when it was approved.
MR. KOSKINAS-It's going to have to move in five years.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, not if we give this variance. This variance will go with the property, and
the Town's worked very hard on a Sign Code to bring all signs into conformance that don't have
approved variances. Is that correct, Staff?
MR. OBORNE-I'm sorry?
MR. JACKOSKI-That the Town has worked very hard to bring its Sign Code and signs into
compliance over the next five years, regarding square footages, etc., if there are no variances.
Correct?
MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, I'm not too sure about that, to be honest with you. The Town has
certainly updated the Code to make it more difficult for signs to be out of compliance, that's for
sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-And all signs need to come into compliance within five years of adopting of the
Code.
MR. OBORNE-That is my understanding. Yes. That was pursuant to hiring quite a few more
people.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right. I understand, but that's.
MR. OBORNE-Right, neither here nor there.
DR. KELLER-So if I move it five feet, in five years I'm still not in compliance regardless.
MR. JACKOSKI-No, because you have a variance. Because you have the variance and the
variance follows the property. Dr. French's sign was where?
DR. KELLER-There's no pictures of it, unfortunately. I have a picture that I could find, but it's
certainly not a picture that has my sign and his sign, you know, in the same position, you know,
or in relationship to each other. It was in front of my sign. It was probably.
MR. JACKOSKI-It wasn't as big, if I remember correctly.
DR. KELLER-No, it wasn't as big, but it was, the post was in front and the overhang was in front
of where my sign exists right now, but that was probably there from 1973 when probably a sign
code didn't even exist I'll assume. I don't know that it did or it didn't.
MR. JACKOSKI-So at this point we have three in favor and one opposed. Is that where we are?
DR. KELLER-If it was easy to move, then I'd probably be more flexible, to be honest.
MR. JACKOSKI-But, see, that's just it. It's not about being easy to move that should sway us
one way or the other. We should do it based on.
MRS. HUNT-Is five feet really going to make a difference? That's not very much.
MR. JACKOSKI-We're 1.4 feet off the front line with the sign. I can't wait for the next applicant
and the next applicant and the next applicant to come.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MRS. HUNT-But they're not going to have properties that are 300 feet off the road. We have to
take all of the conditions.
DR. KELLER-I'd be willing to move it five foot, but I can't guarantee that if I move it five feet that
that one large tree that's there, that I wouldn't take down that one.
MR. KOSKINAS-Mr. Chairman, if I understood you, I didn't think you were asking for five feet.
You were asking to be, the post to be in line with the tree.
MR. JACKOSKI-I just want the post in line with that big clump of trees, and that the sign will
obviously project forward of that, and then I'm happy. That's all I'm trying to do is get the sign to
be, project forward of that clump and that the posts are in line with the front trunk of that big tree,
and to me it looks like it can go back quite a bit, and, you know, you can't really read the sign
from much further from that distance. I mean, there comes a point where you can see it but you
can't read it until you get a certain point as to how close you are to it.
DR. KELLER-When I look at the picture right here and I look at what's even with that first line of
trees, it's like three feet. I mean, it's really not much. That is a cluster of mature trees. Literally
it would be three feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, if we conditioned it that if it proved to be three feet or less, the sign could
stay where it is, but if it was more than three feet, then it would get moved to be in line with the
tree, would that be fair?
MR. OBORNE-As long as the amount of relief given is greater than, is less than what is
advertised, you can do anything you want.
MR. JACKOSKI-Does the Board think that is a reasonable? I mean, I agree to move it two feet,
one foot, three feet, but if it's, you can't tell from the picture, and I'm trying to get the applicant an
approval, and I'm not happy with where the sign is right now, and if I had to vote on it, I think I
would reject it. So I'm struggling with it.
MR. KOSKINAS-As yourself where's the sign. It's not where the post is.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So I'm just trying to pull the post back and get it more off the road at 1.4
feet.
MR. KOSKINAS-That sign is really more drastically in violation of the Code, based on the
outlook of the beam.
DR. KELLER-No, the beam is, to the edge of the sign is 1.4. The post is over that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are you sure that the outside perimeter of the oval is actually within the drop
point of the arm of the sign? I think that sign is wider.
DR. KELLER-Yes. No, there's complete measurements as far as the actual sign. The post is
set back from, there's a survey that I paid to have done of the actual sign.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, you know, what I'm struggling with is the picture that I have in my packet is
a circle sign, but the picture that's there is an oval sign. What's the difference?
DR. KELLER-No, it is circular. That's on an angle. So that's where you're being a little bit
mislead as far as the actual setback of the sign. The post of the sign maintains an 8.8 foot
setback from the right of way, but the sign itself maintains a 1.04 setback. So the post is 8.8 foot
setback.
MR. JACKOSKI-What's the diameter of the sign?
DR. KELLER-The sign diameter is four feet.
MR. KOSKINAS-In my short tenure on this Board, this is the most drastic setback relief I've
seen.
MR. JACKOSKI-On a sign.
MR. KOSKINAS-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. CLEMENTS-We have had instances, though, where we have given relief because there
hasn't been a sign on the, correct me if I'm wrong, here, Keith. He can have a sign setting out
like that. He can also have a sign on his building. Would that be true?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. CLEMENTS-And is there a sign on your building?
DR. KELLER-No.
MR. CLEMENTS-So, you know, we weigh it. It sits back 300 feet?
DR. KELLER-Correct.
MR. CLEMENTS-It's hard to put a sign on there, unless you make it pretty big, to be able to see
that.
DR. KELLER-It would be huge, and then I'd have to illuminate it, which is going to get into a
whole other, we've been down that road before.
MR. JACKOSKI-But if the Town felt that they wanted signs this close to the road, they wouldn't
have put them at 20 feet off the road, and that's, and they've reinforced that just recently with the
Sign Code. Do you think it would be in your best interest, at this point, to table your application
so that it can come back to the Board?
MR. CLEMENTS-We have two more members.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right, we're short two members. I think, at this point, we're going to deny this
application because you're not willing to move it back some.
DR. KELLER-What is it, five feet, like I said that I'd move it?
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think if we knew where the point was, and I'd be more than happy to go
measure it myself. I mean, it's not rocket science, just to understand, and it's hard to see from
that picture, I agree with you. If it's only two or three feet, then, you know, we don't want you to
cut the trees. We'll make it contingent on keeping those trees, but if we can move, if it can go
back five or six or seven feet, that would be the preference.
DR. KELLER-Right. The sign, like I said, the post sits 8.8 feet right now, and like I said, with the
way this photo is shot, literally to move the sign back five feet, that's a large cluster of mature
trees. There's probably four or five trees in a cluster right there.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right, but the nice thing about those trees is they're not hanging down in front
of the sign. They're straight up and over the top. So they won't block the sign. It's just the
trunks, and we can easily identify where the trunks are. 1.4 feet off the line is really significant.
Well, we're going to poll the Board, and right now the Board would deny the application as
presented, and the applicant hasn't suggested any alternatives. That's where we would stand,
so that you know. We can move forward or you can request a tabling at this time.
DR. KELLER-I mean, you know, like I said, where's the middle point? Is it, like is it five feet?
We haven't determined that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Which is why I think if we table it we'll have better information and be able to,
you know, if it is only two, three feet, we're probably not going to, you know, I can't speak for the
Board at that time, because I don't know the make up of the Board at that time, but at this point
you've got a polling of the Board that says to deny the application as it is presented and there is
no option being presented to modify the application. So I don't want you to get, it's up to you
what you'd like to do at this point.
DR. KELLER-So I guess tabling it is my best option.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think that would probably be appropriate for you at this time, to give us a little
bit more data on the site conditions, and I apologize. I didn't think it was going to be an issue for
you to keep in line with the trees, so, and I don't have a number. So it's a little hard for us to do
a motion without having a final number. Can the applicant, if we table it, be put on the very first
agenda in April?
MR. OBORNE-If you so wish to direct us to do that, yes.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Being that the April meeting doesn't have any Old Business currently identified
in it, could he be the very first, when we talk about that, could he be the very first applicant in
front of the Board?
MR. OBORNE-Sure. Make sure that's part of the condition of approval, please.
MR. JACKOSKI-So at this time we would need a formal recommendation or request from you to
table the application and then move forward. I apologize. We just, it's so much relief for what
we have to do here.
DR. KELLER-That's fine, so I request that this be tabled to the April meeting.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So having that request from the applicant, could somebody put forth a
motion? And I should note that we kept the public hearing open and we did not continue
through SEQRA, but that'll be straightforward.
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-Brian, thank you.
MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 8-2012 AJK PROPERTIES, LLC/COUNTRYSIDE
VETERINARY CLINIC, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Joyce Hunt:
270 Queensbury Avenue. Tabled to the first meeting in April, the 18th of April, and the first
agenda item.
Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico
MR. JACKOSKI-And I assure you I will, tomorrow, go right by the property and take a quick look
for you, and I apologize for putting you through this, but we've got to get through the process. I
hope you can appreciate it.
DR. KELLER-That's fine.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
DR. KELLER-No problem.
MR. JACKOSKI-That ends our agenda for items this evening. We do have a couple of things I
want to make note of. In our packet, there was an original letter from Adirondack Dental Implant
Center concerning application Area Variance No. 12-2012 that was not read into the record. At
this point, if you don't mind, I will read it into the record, just so that we can acknowledge it.
January 29, 2012, Geraldine and Michael Lyons application for the house addition, again that's
Area Variance No. 12-2012. "To Whom It May Concern: I have personally reviewed the plans
for the proposed house addition of Geraldine and Michael Lyons. They are my next door
neighbors immediately to the north. I have no objections to the proposed addition. The addition
should have no adverse effect on the neighborhood. I am in favor of the addition to the Lyons'
house. Yours truly, Robert E. Sharp, D.D.D., M.S.D." I don't know how it got in my packet. So
the next item that we do have under miscellaneous business here for us is to look at the April
draft of the.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. We now have tabled, was it two or just one that we tabled to April?
MR. JACKOSKI-I think we got the Hutchins project through. The Marshall project went through,
so we did not have to table it.
MR. OBORNE-That's correct. So it would just be AJK. That's going to add another one on.
You have seven right now, that makes it eight. Do you want to try to rock out all of those in one
meeting or do you want them split?
MR. GARRAND-I'd rather see two meetings.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/21/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we certainly can't discuss the merits of each of the projects. So it's a little
hard to actually have that discussion.
MR. OBORNE-That's correct, and obviously, I'm sorry to cut you off there, Mr. Chairman, but
one would think that this one would have taken 10 minutes. You just don't know, as far as how
long these things will take.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think it's reasonable, if the Board is okay, that we do split it into two as Mr.
Garrand requested.
MR. CLEMENTS-Two meetings?
MR. JACKOSKI-Two meetings in April.
MRS. HUNT-That would be fair to the applicants.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I think that's reasonable, too, Joyce.
MR. GARRAND-It wouldn't be fair to the later people.
MR. JACKOSKI-So do we need to call a vote on that?
MR. OBORNE-No, not at all.
MR. JACKOSKI-Not at all. Great. Is there any other discussion matters in front of this Board?
Can I have a motion to adjourn?
MRS. HUNT-So moved.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. Do I have a second?
MR. CLEMENTS-I'll second it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Brian. Call the vote, please.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
MARCH 21, 2012, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian
Clements:
Duly adopted this 21St day of March, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. We are adjourned. It's 8:51.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
31