06-20-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 20, 2012
INDEX
Area Variance No. 28-2012 Joseph Mihindukulasuriya 1.
Tax Map No. 302.11-11-37 and 38
Area Variance No. 29-2012 Michael Gleasman 4.
Tax Map No. 240.5-1-7
Area Variance No. 26-2012 San Souci of Cleverdale 9.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43
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 06/20/2012)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 20, 2012
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOYCE HUNT
RONALD KUHL
BRIAN CLEMENTS
RICHARD GARRAND
JAMES UNDERWOOD
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. JACKOSKI-For those of you who haven't been here in the past, on the back table you'll find
a brief outline of how we conduct our meetings here. We will call each applicant to this table in
the front to present their application. Board members generally will ask some questions. We'll
open up for public comment when public comment has been noticed, and we need to do a little
bit of housekeeping to begin with here. So we do have the approval of the meeting minutes for
April 18th. Would anyone like to make a motion?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
April 18, 2012
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZBA MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2012,
Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl,
Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-We'll then need a motion for the April 25t"'s minutes.
April 25, 2012
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZBA MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2012,
Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Duly adopted this 20th day of April, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Okay. This evening, we have Old Business, but we're going to
start off with New Business.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2012 SEQRA TYPE II JOSEPH MIHINDUKULASURIYA
AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL - RUCINSKI - HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) JOSEPH
MIHINDUKULASURIYA ZONING MDR LOCATION 35 GARRISON ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A HIP ROOF TO EXISTING 1,370 SQ. FT. FLAT ROOF
GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF
THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2011-617; BP 97-559 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
N/A LOT SIZE 0.34 & 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.11-11-37 AND 38 SECTION 179-3-
040
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-2012, Joseph Mihindukulasuriya, Meeting Date: June
20, 2012, "Project Location: 35 Garrison Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to construct a hip roof to existing 1,370 sq. ft. flat roof garage.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1. Rear setback - Request for 10.7 feet of relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for
the MDR 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 alternatives appear limited
due to the nature of the project.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 10.7 feet or 36% relief
from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be
considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or
environmental conditions in 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,
A.V. 71-2011 Side setback and Exp. N/C structure Approved 12/21/2011
Staff comments:
As a condition of approval the Zoning Board may wish to require the applicant to combine both
parcels in order to avoid additional variances.
SEQR Status: Type II
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome, and I know that from our last meeting here regarding the
house, the neighbors are probably very happy that this garage is finally being looked at.
MR. HALL-I believe they are. Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski
Hall Architecture tonight representing the Mihindu's. The issue with this building is that it has a
flat roof. It does all pitch the back right now and it looks very much out of character with the rest
of the house with the additions that they've been doing there. It is their desire to put a hip roof
on this. It's just going to sit on top of the existing walls. There's no expansion of the existing
exterior walls. It's just going to sit on top of the footprint as it is, and because the footprint is in
current violation of the rear setback, that's the need for the relief there.
MR. JACKOSKI-Pretty straightforward.
MR. HALL-Pretty straightforward.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Anything else you'd like to add? Okay. Any questions from Board
members?
MR. GARRAND-Did you get any feedback from the neighbors as far as a design?
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. HALL-No. I haven't heard anything from the neighbors. I know that there were some of the
neighbors that were here when they were getting their initial relief for the addition to the house,
and most of the concern, I believe, was for the exterior of the property and the cleanup of the
property and this is just the next step in that continued cleanup. As far as the combination of
lots, one thing I did mention, Keith, I don't know what the status of this is, but I know that Mrs.
Mihindu was working with Craig, and I believe that that's already complete. She's just trying to
compile the paperwork for it.
MR. OBORNE-And just to let the Board know, I mean, that's just a safeguard to put that
condition of approval on there. Their permit's not going to be released unless the properties are
combined anyway.
MR. JACKOSKI-But it's not, right at this moment they don't have to combine the properties.
Correct?
MR. OBORNE-They do not have to. That is correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, it's up to us to decide if we want to do that.
MR. OBORNE-No, they have to in order to go forward with the project, absolutely, or come back
and request additional relief.
MR. JACKOSKI-Because of an accessory structure without a primary?
MR. OBORNE-Correct. You've got it, and side setbacks would have to come into play.
MR. HALL-Then we'd have some side, but it's already underway. If it's not already complete, it
is underway. I think it's already completed.
MR. KUHL-Seeing as how this has been discussed, one of the lot, what is it, to the east? What
are we combining?
MR. HALL-This whole property encompasses two lots. There's a lot line right down the middle.
It was when the original subdivision was done way back in the early 30's or whatever it was.
MR. JACKOSKI-The lot line goes right down the center of the driveway.
MR. HALL-It goes right down the middle of the driveway, yes. So this, in effect, encompasses
two lots.
MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open up the public hearing?
We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'd like to open that. Is there anyone
here who'd like to address this Board concerning this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-None.
MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. Should I poll the Board? I'll start with Brian.
MR. CLEMENTS-1 think it's a good project. I think it's been progressing. It looks much better
than it did the last time we looked at it, and seeing that there seems to be no neighbors that are
bothered by this, I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I think it's a good project at this point. I think it's an improvement over what
we saw the last time and I would be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. Last time with the main house all the neighbors were commenting about this
garage, and so it's now straightforward. I have no problem with it at all.
MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MRS. HUNT-Yes, I agree with my fellow Board members. It's been a big improvement since the
first time you came and I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think we should focus on the end result and I think what you've been
doing so far shows it's going to look a heck of a lot better than what you had.
MR. GARRAND-1 think this will truly make a positive change to the neighborhood. It won't
necessarily affect the character since it will be in character with the current house. I don't think,
without relief, they could quite possibly do this without tearing down the garage and starting
over. So I'd be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and of course I agree with my fellow Board members. So I'm going
to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to make a motion?
MR. GARRAND-I'll make one.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2012 JOSEPH MIHINDUKULASURIYA,
Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
35 Garrison Road. Applicant proposes to construct a hip roof to the existing 1,370 square foot
flat roof garage. This parcel will require rear setback relief for 10.7 feet from the 30 foot rear
setback requirement in the MDR zone as per 179-3-040. On the balancing test, whether
benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. I don't think benefits can be
achieved. They'd have to one, modify the driveway, two, tear down the garage, and, three make
other adjustments to the landscaping. So I don't think it's too feasible. Will this produce an
undesirable change in the neighborhood? I believe it'll produce a positive change in the
neighborhood. The request might be deemed moderate, given the level of relief requested. Will
this have adverse environmental or physical impacts on the neighborhood? I don't believe any.
Is this self-created? The applicant didn't put the garage here, but he is subject to the new
current zoning. So I don't believe it is self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance 28-
2012, with the condition that the two lots be combined.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. JACKOSKI-Should we condition this on the assurance of the combination of the two lots?
MR. HALL-That's fine with us.
MR. JACKOSKI-And the applicant has stated that they will do that. So that's added to the
motion.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2012 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL GLEASMAN OWNER(S)
MICHAEL GLEASMAN ZONING WR LOCATION 52 '/2 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING U-SHAPED DOCK AND CONSTRUCT A
164 SQ. FT. 30 FOOT LONG L-SHAPED WHARF WITH 480 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A DOCK. SPR 34-
2012 BOATHOUSE; BP 2011-264 BOATHOUSE; BP 2011-237 DEMO OF BOATHOUSE
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.14
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-7 SECTION 179-5-060
MICHAEL GLEASMAN, PRESENT
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2012, Michael Gleasman, Meeting Date: June 20, 2012
"Project Location: 52 '/2 Russell Harris Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to remove exiting U-shaped dock and construct a 164 sq. ft. 30 foot long L-shaped
wharf with 480 sq. ft. sundeck.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1. North side setback - Request for 20 feet of north side setback relief from the 20 foot
requirement as per §179-5-060A(7) for that portion of the proposed boathouse straddling
the north property line.
2. South side setback - Request for 10 feet of south side setback relief from the 20 foot
requirement as per§179-5-060A(7) for the south portion of the proposed boathouse.
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 alternatives appear limited
due to parcel size and nature of proposed project.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 20 feet or 100% relief
from the 20 foot side setback as per §179-5-060 for the northern portion of the dock may be
considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 10 feet or 50% relief from the
20 foot side setback as per §179-5-060 may be considered moderate to severe relative to
the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created, however the restrictive nature of the parcel adds to the request for setback relief.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
SP 34-12: Pending
BP 11-264: Boathouse
BP 11-237: Demo of boathouse
Staff comments:
The parcel has approximately 25 feet of shoreline frontage on Lake George. The applicant has
removed the boathouse due to damage as well as the northern portion of the dock in order to
accommodate a larger boat. The L-shaped dock will have a 480 sq. ft. sundeck supported on the
north side with a row of 6 x 6 posts located adjacent to the north property line. Planning Board
recommendation attached.
SEQR Status:
Type II
MR. URRICO-The Planning Board, last night, they made a recommendation on behalf of the
Planning Board to the Zoning Board that based on its limited review they did not identify any
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the current project proposal, and that
was approved six with one abstention.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome, and I'm anxious to hear what a cooked dock is.
MR. GLEASMAN-Does it say cooked?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-It says here, I think it says dock to become cooked.
MR. GLEASMAN-Well, it's not cooked. It was definitely crooked. It moved quite a bit, actually,
the northern part, the part to the right has been since removed, and that's just what we do want
to construct is something very similar, but it would be a four foot wide versus a five foot wide
dock in the center and have it centered right on the property with the sundeck above. We
purchased the property in December. So it was really, the current condition is very unsafe and
we want to make it a usable dock area and something that was not too dissimilar from what it
was but obviously not an enclosed boathouse but just a simple sundeck above with a single
dock versus the U-shaped dock which is in there which was too narrow to really put a boat. It
was less than seven feet wide and the left side is pushed so much and there's not enough room
on the left side so basically there wasn't enough room to even put a single boat into the current
condition.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Fair enough. Are there any questions from Board members at this time?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, what's the relative rule in regards to when you take something down
that's non-compliant? I mean, would they not have had a building permit already issued before
they took down the demolition of the structure?
MR. OBORNE-No, not at all. Dave allows them to demo within reason. That's what, he does
have that permit on file.
MR. GLEASMAN-Yes, I do.
MR. KUHL-So the four foot wide dock is going to be a crib?
MR. GLEASMAN-Yes.
MR. KUHL-Is that what it's going to be? And then what are you going to do with the single
verticals on the other side, how are they going to be secured?
MR. GLEASMAN-I'm working with a couple of dock builders right now to get the engineering
exact plans of the construction of that. I don't have those yet. Actually I should have them very
soon.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-It could be that they make you do a three foot dock with a one foot on the other
side, just for stability reasons. Is that what you're thinking? I mean, it's a possibility. It wouldn't
affect the variances, but it would.
MR. GLEASMAN-That is a possibility, certainly. They thought they'd be able to build it the way
it was kind of drawn. I went over it with them, but I've yet to get back the.
MR. JACKOSKI-Fortunately you're kind of protected in there. So you don't have a lot of wave
action.
MR. GLEASMAN-Right, yes, it is, it's very calm in there.
MR. OBORNE-As long as it's on the northern end that it's along the property line. He's asking
for zero relief. I mean, he's going to have to have a surveyor out there to make sure that things
get properly placed because Bruce won't let it roll if it doesn't.
MR. JACKOSKI-And you know how I feel about zero relief.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir, I do.
MR. KUHL-But, Keith, how can we say yes or no to this if this isn't the final design?
MR. OBORNE-You're approving what is before you. If there's any deviation, he'll be back. It's
not required for the building permit, I mean, for Site Plan or for the Zoning Board. It certainly is
for the Building Department.
MR. JACKOSKI-Why would they have to come back if they simply move the center line of the
berth toward the four foot dock and made a three foot pier and a one foot pier? It's still going to
be the exact same overall width.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. OBORNE-As long as the relief is consistent, fine.
MR. JACKOSKI-So they don't have to come back if they do that modification or change?
MR. OBORNE-That's correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-They could do two feet and two feet, they could do three and one or four and
zero. It doesn't matter.
MR. OBORNE-1 believe that would be correct. Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So is the Park Commission and everybody else considering this a
replacement of a previously pre-existing structure?
MR. OBORNE-That would be a question for the applicant.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That's what I would like to know.
MR. GLEASMAN-1 mean, the Lake George Park Commission? I put these exact same
information before them. It's not really an exact replacement. It's obviously very similar, but I
think that their view was, and I'm not sure, but it's replacing it, but it's a lot less, you know, as far
as keeping in at the beauty of the lake, not having an enclosed boathouse, which is what was
there. There's a photo showing the house next door which was actually pretty similar to what
was there existing and having an open sided, it was keeping in with what was the nature of the
surrounding properties and I don't think they knew, they knew it wasn't an exact replacement,
because it was not an exact replacement because that wouldn't really work, but it's a sort of
variation of what was there, but taking up less square footage on the lake.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there a reason you can't center the proposed structure in your lot?
MR. GLEASMAN-Well, it's pretty old. I mean, I don't know if it's really that safe. I mean, the one
on the right side that we took out, it was really kind of sinking in. It's pretty crooked. I mean, I'd
say out at the tip it's probably tipped out a good couple feet.
MR. OBORNE-1 think the question is, are you utilizing the existing cribs that are there?
MR. GLEASMAN-Well, the rocks themselves or do you mean the crib, I'm not sure the
terminology so.
MR. OBORNE-The wood.
MR. GLEASMAN-The wood? I wasn't planning on using the existing wood. I just thought, I
basically wanted something that was going to be new and built well. I really didn't want to have
to reconstruct anything in my lifetime, and so whatever is the best solution is what I would want
to do. So I would turn to the experts on what that would be.
MR. GARRAND-How are you getting up and down from the sundeck?
MR. GLEASMAN-There would need to be a ladder constructed which was part of the building
plan that I'm waiting to get back, or, you know, stairs, it would be a stair, not ladder.
MR. KUHL-Is the existing dock 41 feet also? Is that what you're doing?
MR. GLEASMAN-Yes.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions at this time from Board members? Okay.
Hearing none there is a public hearing scheduled this evening for this application. Is there
anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any public comment?
MR. URRICO-None that I can find.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to poll the Board, before we close the public hearing. Rick, I'll
start with you.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. GARRAND-On a project like this, I think the most impacted people are the neighbors here.
Also the mere fact that the old boathouse has been torn down, that was gaudy, awful looking.
To see things like that on the lake totally disrupts the landscape from the lakeside. It looks awful
when people do that. I'm in favor of this because of what you've taken down, and I hope that
you don't try to enclose it with something as tacky looking as that was. That was horrible.
MR. GLEASMAN-It was horrible. It was disgusting. I agree.
MR. GARRAND-1 couldn't figure out how anybody in their right mind would do that on the lake,
would disrupt the entire view scape of Lake George with something like that.
MR. GLEASMAN-1 wish my neighbor didn't have one.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-I think it's an improvement. I think it's a good project. It's strange that we're
approving something that we didn't see the final design, but as long as it stays within the
dimensions as presented here, I have no problem with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-1 also think it's a good project. I think the applicant, one thing he's pointed out
is you don't have a lot of space there to do things. I think it's going to be a definite improvement,
and I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The only objection I could come up with here is keeping in mind that
this is only a 25 foot wide lot, you know, and I think that really in the sense, when we're looking
at the lake, you know, when we're trying to accommodate everybody and everybody wants a
boathouse. Everybody wants, you know, their boat semi enclosed or fully enclosed, it is an
improvement over what was there, but I really think this is what you should be looking at, you
know, a dock with a boat that you can tie your boat up to, and I think that we've made
boathouses kind of an entitlement and I think that's wrong, and in this instance here, I'm still not
sure that we're doing the right thing here, but I guess I'll go along with everybody else's wishes,
if the majority of the Board wants to keep this thing as you've proposed it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think because this is a replacement of something that was far worse than
we're getting, and I don't think there'll be any negative impacts to the neighborhood. There
certainly are limited alternatives because of the size and nature of your project, and the
variances required are from moderate to severe, but again, it's a 25 foot lot, and I would be in
favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. The only one of the criteria that seems to be requested is the variance for
the area of the dock, and I see that we're replacing something and it almost needs to be this
size, although we probably could have with something smaller, but I would go along with it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I think we probably could have centered the proposed complex in the lot,
but I suspect that would affect the swimming area, that you seem to have some stairs going
down to the side which is to your south, I think, the left side.
MR. GLEASMAN-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-So trying to keep, you know, utilization of the property so that you have
swimming and boating, and you did have a very complex that needed to be maintained and
taken down and something nicer. I'll be in favor of the project, too. So, at this point I think I'll
close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And look for a motion.
MR. CLEMENTS-I'll make a motion.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2012 MICHAEL GLEASMAN, Introduced by
Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
52 '/2 Russell Harris Road. Proposed project description is applicant proposes to remove
existing U-shaped dock and construct a 164 square foot, 30 foot long L-shaped wharf with a 480
square foot sundeck. The relief required is, Number One, north side setback request for 20 feet
relief setback from the 20 foot requirement as per §179-5-060A(7) for that portion of the
proposed boathouse straddling the north property line. Number Two, south side setback
request for 10 feet of south side setback relief from the 20 foot requirement as per §179-5-
060A(7) for the south portion of the proposed boathouse. In make the determination, the Board
shall consider, Number One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character
of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting the variance.
Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated and there were no negative remarks from
neighbors. Number Two, 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
appear limited due to the parcel size and the nature of the proposed project. Whether the
requested area variance is substantial. The request for 20 feet or 100% relief from the 20 foot
side setback may be considered severe relative to the ordinance, but there are no real feasible
alternatives. The request for 10 feet or 50% relief from the 20 foot side setback as per §179-5-
060 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Whether the proposed
variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood. Minor impacts may be anticipated, and the alleged difficulty may be considered
self created. I move for approval.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 2012, by the following vote:
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy asked me, and I think I would make the addition, too, that you should
check with Staff about where you place the stairs on there for your access, so you don't require
future relief, you know, and you have to come back again, too.
MR. GLEASMAN-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right, because if you go outside that 15 feet or whatever it is.
MR. GLEASMAN-Yes, no, I would not.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. That's appreciated.
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations, good luck.
MR. GLEASMAN-Thank you very much.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2012 SEQRA TYPE II SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE AGENT(S)
BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART AND RHODES, PC/NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S)
SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE ZONING WR LOCATION 92 MASON ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES SITE MODIFICATION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AREA VARIANCE AND
SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SIDE SETBACK, FENCING AND
PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 9-2012, SUP 45-2009; BOH 14-2009; AV 38-2009 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2012 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.27
ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-43 SECTION 179-5-070, 179-10; 179-3-040
STEFANIE BITTER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFFINPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2012, San Souci of Cleverdale, Meeting Date: June 20,
2012 "Project Location: 92 Mason Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
to modify approved site plan to include the removal of vegetation and the installation of
"permeable" pavers on existing gravel parking spaces. Further, applicant seeks after the fact
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
approval for the installation of a +/- 665 square foot patio with access deck and stairs to
accommodate four tables as well as for the installation of a 6 foot tall, 112 foot long stockade
fence along the south boundary. Variances: Relief from side setback, expansion of a
nonconforming structure, and fencing requirements.
Relief Required:
Nature of Area Variance:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1. Side Setback - Request for 7.15 feet of south side setback relief after the fact for the
installation of stairs and deck leading to unapproved patio.
2. Expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
3. Front (west) fence height and style- Request, after the fact, for 2 feet of fence height and
style along the 15.5 feet of architectural front placement of 6 foot tall vinyl stockade
fence.
4. Front (east) fence height and style - Request, after the fact, for 2 feet of fence height and
style along the 28 feet of architectural front placement of 6 foot tall vinyl stockade fence.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to
moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as any decrease to permeability
could be considered detrimental.
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 build
what was previously approved in 2009.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 7.15 feet or 36% relief
from the 20 foot side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 for the deck and stairs
associated with the patio may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further,
expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the ZBA as per §179-13-010.
The request for 2 feet of fence height or 33% relief as well as style relief along the 15.5 feet
of front yard (west) placement of a 6 foot tall vinyl stockade fence as per§179-5-070 may be
considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 2 feet or 33% relief
as well as style relief along the 28 feet of front yard (east) placement of a 6 foot tall vinyl
stockade fence as per§179-5-070 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor additional impacts on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated as the site is
essentially built out as it exists.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty is self-created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
SP 9-12 Exp. of N/C structure in CEA and site plan modification Pending
SP 9-12 Recommendation to ZBA Completed 5/15/2012
SUP 45-09 Exp. of N/C structure IN CEA and site improvements Approved 8/25/09
AV 39-09 Front setback, Exp. of n/c structure, FAR, Permeability, parking Approved 8/25/09
BOH 14-09 Holding tanks Approved 7/2009
Staff comments:
The request for additional permeability relief due to the installation of the patio is also tied to the
desire of the applicant to have the proposed "permeable" pavers installed in part to reduce the
overall impermeable nature of the site. The Town Designated Engineer (TDE) has been asked
to qualify and quantify the amount of relief that the proposed pavers may provide, please see
attached correspondence. It appears that permeability relief is not warranted due to the
increase in overall permeability with the proposed paver system to be installed, please see
attached TDE correspondence with staff.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome back.
MS. BITTER-Stefanie Bitter here with Tom Center and Larry Clute. Just to recap what we
discussed last month, the way that I understand it there's really only three variances that we're
seeking. The first is for the side setback relief relative to the patio. The second is the expansion
of the nonconforming structure, and the last is relative to the fence only on the east side, not on
the west side. It's only on the Cleverdale side. Mason Road does have a four foot fence leading
up to the Mason Street section. So that side we are compliant, 20 foot off the property line. Just
to, again, discuss this, as we're well aware, San Souci is a longstanding gathering place for the
community. The patio was installed because of Mr. Clute's concerns for the patrons who were
waiting in the parking lot for their tables. This way he go them into the building, on the patio, in a
secured area so that there wasn't any safety concerns relative to the cars that were looking for
parking spaces. That patio is not for dining. It's merely for waiting and it's closed by 9 p.m. I
don't know if any of you had the opportunity to go to the site. It's too bad we can't be there
tonight, but it's difficult to have food down there due to the stairs that are in place. With regards
to the fence that we described at the last meeting, that fence was installed for the protection of
the neighbor. Obviously there had been some trees removed, and this provides the utmost
privacy that can be protected under those conditions. I don't believe, or we don't believe that
there's any negative impact with bringing that fence to six foot to that point because there is the
ability to view the visibility of the street, once you get to the edge of pavement. So we feel that
that shouldn't have any negative impact. Since our last meeting, Mr. Clute did have an
opportunity to side the Cleverdale side of the building. Again, I don't know if any of you had a
chance to go there. He also did have a chance to put in the plantings as was discussed at the
last meeting. We will give him an opportunity to discuss his proposed construction schedule
which I know you were interested in finding out as well.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MS. BITTER-I'll open it up to any questions at this time.
MR. JACKOSKI-Board members?
MR. GARRAND-When's it going to be done? How soon `til it's done?
LARRY CLUTE
MR. CLUTE-The left side of the building I'll do throughout this season. The right entrance and
the front entrance will be done in the Fall. The grass areas, if you guys are so kind to accept
them, will also be done in the Fall. March I'll be closing down for three weeks to accomplish the
interior kitchens. I'd like to say by Fall of next year, I'll use your word, done, say I'll be done.
We'll see. I doubt that my project will be done.
MR. KUHL-Larry, don't you have to do some modification to the septic also, the tanks?
MR. CLUTE-The septic is based on a failure. I'm thinking that I'm probably, if I'm lucky, I'm out
maybe three years, and that's point blank. It's the storage tanks that you guys have previously
approved. That's based on failure.
MR. KUHL-They're approved, but you're not putting them in until they fail?
MR. CLUTE-Well, it's actually the last thing I can do on the site anyway. That would be right in
the way of everything, but it is based on failure, and that's essentially what I'm riding on right
now, and it isn't going to, to be honest with you, the septic systems really probably won't last
three more years. It's really creeping through.
MR. KUHL-Does that approval have an open end, or does it have a time?
MR. OBORNE-Well, one would think, but discussions with the Building and Codes Department,
which Larry has been in contact with Dave Hatin on this issue, there is no sunset provision
provided by the Board of Health on this variance.
MR. KUHL-They just want him to do it, but it's open ended?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. They did not put a condition of a time limit or anything on it.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Can we condition the approvals that are in front of us with having those? I
mean, I don't understand why we wouldn't do that now before we agree to all these new grassed
areas and permeable grass parking and all that other stuff? Why wouldn't we tear the site up,
get the worst construction done now, and then do the top grade and be done with it?
MR. OBORNE-That's a question for the applicant at this point.
MR. JACKOSKI-By the way the siding in the front on the Cleverdale side looks great, and the
stonework.
MR. CLUTE-You did happen to see it?
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, the pizza even tastes better.
MR. KUHL-It was surprising. It looked like a new house.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, if only you could get the other three sides and it could all be the same
color. It would be great, but we're getting there. That's good. Got Cleverdale Road, that's
good.
MR. CLUTE-Absolutely.
MR. JACKOSKI-But we are concerned. I mean, there's the heavy use here in the summertime,
and these septic systems up there.
MR. CLUTE-This one we're monitoring very close. I mean, it's what I do for a living, and I'm not
gambling. We pump this about once a month, and the system is functioning, but it's been
teetering, essentially, since I bought it, but it has been functioning. Like I said, I give it, max,
three years. It just, I don't think that it'll make it that time, but I don't have that, you know, per se,
as a scheduled item, but it would be the last thing that I do because it essentially is the whole
top side. I've got to dig up that whole top side. So it would be the last thing I do on that project,
or I'd like to say it would be the last thing I've got to do on that project, but it's the last serious
excavation that I'll do. It's the outside of the perimeter. I'm trying to concentrate on the building.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What were your original circumstances why you had to go in to the Board of
Health? Was there some finite reason, or was that just something you did on your own out of
the blue, or I mean, you must have done it in anticipation of that it was going to fail?
MR. CLUTE-No, it was suggested to me in a very strong way that the storage tanks would be a
widely accepted choice. So that's a proposition that was put in front of Queensbury.
MR. JACKOSKI-Where's the dumpster on the master plan?
MR. CLUTE-That's up on the top side.
MR. CENTER-It's near, to the west of the garage area. It does show on the master plan, would
be 49224-1 of the previously approved submission. That's where the dumpster area.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm looking at the mod.
MR. CENTER-Yes, this the, the modification, I tried to keep that to green space and permeable
area only and what we were changing does not.
MR. JACKOSKI-What else is on the master plan that's not on this mod plan?
MR. CENTER-The master plan has all the absorption system location systems, or not
absorption, I'm sorry, the holding tank locations, and the entrance on the north side where the
ramp is located.
MR. CLUTE-There's a handicap ramp that I have to put in, the pad for the dumpster. All that's
on that, all that's on that map.
MR. JACKOSKI-I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't superseding, you know, this was not
taking the place of that.
MR. CENTER-No, sir. This is strictly in regards to the patio and the permeable pavement and
the erosion and sediment control for that.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Because the three arborvitae that are I think right at the four foot mark, are
looking a little skimpy. Now that they're in, they really don't do anything for your project. They
certainly aren't providing any buffer or, you know, privacy. I mean, they're kind of small. I mean,
I think if you look at them they're.
MR. CLUTE-1 was trying to stay to the four foot height. Arborvitaes being what they are, they'll
be four foot by the end of the season. If I leave them alone, they'll be six foot by the end of next
season. The intent is to keep them cut down, no higher than the four foot fence that's right
there. I had talked to John, anything I do on that property line I really try to communicate as
much as I can with John that neighbor, and also that line of sight coming off there. That's where
I got concerned. That's how this darn patio came into play. Up on that top side, I get concerned
with the traffic and out of there because it's so tight. So I was kind of questioning how far I
should go out towards (lost words) and stop that line.
MR. JACKOSKI-But if you're concerned about how tight traffic is there with that arborvitae area
and all that other stuff on Mason Street, which isn't as heavily traveled as Cleverdale Road, why
is the fence coming so far out to the Cleverdale Road without the arborvitae on that end also?
MR. CLUTE-The Cleverdale Road side, you may be under the impression it's more traveled on
Cleverdale. There's more cramming going up on Mason than there is on Cleverdale.
MR. JACKOSKI-Cramming, I agree, but we're traveling much slower there than we are on
Cleverdale Road.
MR. CLUTE-Right.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, I mean, I pulled in today into spot number ten-ish, you know, trying to, you
know, people backing out onto Cleverdale Road, they're definitely moving on Cleverdale Road,
versus 10 to 12 miles an hour on Mason.
MR. CLUTE-Right. It's more lit on Cleverdale than it is on Mason. Mason's kind of dark, and
then we also, we employ park three wide coming off of the six foot fence, moving north on the
Cleverdale Road parking lot, so it forces our guests further into the parking lot, increasing that
line of sight, if that makes sense.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand.
MR. CLUTE-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-That fence does feel a little bit close to the road.
MR. CLUTE-So you recommend that I talk to John?
MR. JACKOSKI-I also know your neighbor. I mean, now there's a lot of stuff on the neighbor's
side of the property in their yard against the fence.
MR. CLUTE-Right.
MR. JACKOSKI-So it's kind of interesting now all of a sudden that that side's looking over used.
MR. CLUTE-Right.
MR. OBORNE-If I could, I want to make sure that we all understand that you are here for four
variances, not three. You are here for four. You cannot have a privacy fence within the front
yard. That's the one other variance.
MR. CENTER-That end of the fence is 20 feet from that property line.
MR. OBORNE-As long as it's within the front yard, that can't encroach into it. That's why we're
here. We're here to get the relief for it.
MR. CENTER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-1 see on the plan I see it says four to six foot high vinyl stockade fence.
MR. CENTER-What revision are you looking at?
MR. OBORNE-1 am looking at, well, actually this is the December 2011. So it's the 4/15/12.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. CENTER-The May 23rd one that we revised shows 30 linear feet of four foot high vinyl
stockade fence which starts 20 feet off the southwest corner and continues on down to the end
of the, or to the patio where then it turns into 73 feet of six foot tall vinyl fence. So we did make
that modification.
MR. OBORNE-Right. Then you're here for style not height, then. You can't have a privacy
fence. That's a solid fence, within the front yard, but four foot's fine. Okay.
MR. CENTER-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions from Board members at this time?
MR. CLEMENTS-1 have one. Larry, maybe you could explain to me. I was on Cleverdale Road
looking in the parking lot there, and as I looked up over on the right hand side towards the
garage, which is on this other piece of property here that seems, that's owned by you, there
were some picnic tables up there. Were those picnic tables within the property lines of the San
Souci property?
MR. CLUTE-No, they're actually on the Chalet's property.
MR. CLEMENTS-They are?
MR. CLUTE-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Are they being used for the San Souci property?
MR. CLUTE-1 wouldn't say that, we don't deter them. That's where the smoking is, if that makes
sense. I don't deter, that's the only smoking is out there.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MR. CLUTE-Am I saying please use this patio? No. We don't use that for, like that patio we put
in, we don't encourage people to go to that, that's where the smoking is. So if they come down
to those picnic tables and use them, we don't discourage it, but we don't encourage it either.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-And you're not serving anything out there on those picnic tables.
MR. CLUTE-No. That's all the smoking is right there.
MR. GARRAND-I notice that in one of the write ups it said that you didn't plan to serve food out
on the patio.
MR. CLUTE-No.
MR. GARRAND-How about beverage?
MR. CLUTE-No.
MR. GARRAND-What will happen when people do to go but sit on the patio.
MR. CLUTE-No, beverage only. If they pick up a drink, we'll give them a plastic cup. If they're
waiting and they want, their kids want a soda or something or whatever, that would be the intent,
but they'd pick that up at the bar and hand carry that down themselves.
MR. GARRAND-So there will be beverages out there?
MR. CLUTE-Plastic, yes, to drink, yes.
MR. GARRAND-Will it be table service?
MR. CLUTE-No. That's what I'm saying, it's got to be picked up at the bar. We won't be doing
any running down to that patio.
MR. OBORNE-For those Zoning Board's edification, those tables that are out there have been
counted towards their parking requirements. So, but he's saying he's not serving it, well, then
that's his choice.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. GARRAND-Okay, any other discussion or questions for the applicant at this time from
Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone
here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? If
you could identify yourself for the record. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JOHN LA BOURR
MR. LA BOURR-My name is John LaBourr and I live on Fox Road in Queensbury. First of all I'd
like to thank you guys and women for volunteering your time. I've lived in the area my whole life
and have been a patron of the San Souci for over 45 years. I've seen many owners come and
go, and I can remember, can never remember any problems associated with the San Souci. At
times you would walk outside and the smell of sewage would hit you in the face, and I think this
is the only real concern that was ever at the San Souci. Larry Clute, Scott Parker and their staff
have brought the San Souci to a new level of excellence. The sewage system has been
corrected, and the inside is kept up to the highest of standards. The outside is coming along
very well, and as you would expect, after all they are in the construction business. These people
have had a very positive impact on Cleverdale, and they provide a great getaway place for the
year round residents, summer residents and visitors. Please let them continue in their process of
enhancing the business and making the area even nicer.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here this evening? Mr. Water Keeper.
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We appreciate the
time that Staff and the applicant have put into taking a look at the permeable paving. We
appreciate that and we do feel that that'll be a benefit for the property and for the community.
The discussion last month on construction schedule I think is important, and I would hope that
something could be put into the record on this. Many times in the past other applicants there's
been discussion on when things will be implemented and discussion at the Board seemed to get
lost. If there could be something put in writing with this that could be tied to the variance, we
would recommend that. Discussion on the wastewater treatment system, we do think, and I
agree with the Chairman, that now is the time to do that, if you're going to be in the project site
and doing construction, why wait a few years. June 15, 2009, when they got their variance,
there was discussion with the Town Board that evening. Councilman Strough, so get back to
the bottom line on the reason why you were going to holding tanks is because of building and
the parking and the propane, you just don't have any room for a filtration system. Mr. Clute,
there really isn't. So I think we need to get that system put in. Understand you may not want to
do that now, but I think in the near future, if it's teetering, why let it totter. Let's get it right now
and let's address that and put that in the record and make that a condition of approval. We also
support any additional tree planting that could be put on there. The site is in non-compliance
with permeability. Any way that we can increase that, as per your Article 8 of your Chapter 179
we recommend. Stormwater management, they're asking for waivers. We don't support the
waivers. We think that you should get stormwater management to the maximum possible. We
had discussions last month on restoring the soil underneath the permeable pavers. We had a
brief discussion after and they said they'd contact to discuss that more. We had never heard
from them, but we do think that that should be a condition also, to get in, rip up the soils
underneath where these pavers are going. If they've been parking on it for years, it's compacted
and it's basically like concrete. So putting in these pavers are a good thing, but we need to
make sure there's porosity and organic matter underneath to promote the infiltration. So with
that we think there should be some conditions with this variance if it's granted. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to? Yes, sir,
please.
CHARLIE MUNZENMAIER
MR. MUNZENMAIER-My name is Charlie Munzenmaier. I live off of 9L for about the last 14
years, and I've been a patron of the Sans for most of that time, and since Larry and Scott have
owned it, there has been a vast amount of improvements, and these improvements really make
the place a nice place to go to and a nice place to visit and a nice place to be with friends, have
a drink, that type of thing. So I hope you support what we would like you to support, and that is
let these guys finish the project and make it as nice and as aesthetically pleasing as they can.
So I hope you support it. Thank you.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here this evening in the audience who'd
like to address this Board concerning this project? Seeing no one else, is there any written
comment?
MR. URRICO-Yes, there's a few. "We Hal and Lynn Halliday support the San Souci in their
renovation project. The Sans Souci is our neighborhood gathering place for food and beverage.
They have established themselves as a great LOCAL restaurant. Their efforts to update their
building inside and out have been done with expertise. Please allow them to finish their
renovation project to complete their vision, as it will enhance the neighborhood visually. WE
SUPPORT THE SANS SOUCI PROJECT HAL AND LYN HALLIDAY" "Unfortunately, I will not
be able to be there in person next week, but I wanted to send my continued support for the
Sans. We have lived in the Cleverdale area for the past 11 years and have found that the folks
at the Sans are some of the most welcoming and friendly people you can meet. We have made
many friends there and it really is a focal point of the community. It is the go to place for folks in
the area who want to meet up with friends and family. When our family from out of state comes
to visit, they love going there, great food, reasonable prices and great people. I know the Sans
has been trying to improve their exterior appearance. I don't understand why our community
leaders would not want to support and encourage a local business to look its best. It seems in
these times when tax receipts have been going down, we would want to boost up our local
businesses to enable them to put their best foot forward and encourage more people to come to
their establishment. Ultimately, bringing in more tax dollars. In addition, the Sans IS a tax
payer. They should have every right to update both their interior and exterior appearance.
Please stop playing politics and just let them do what they do well, provide a great place to meet
and eat at the same time, make it a pleasant place for the community to live around. Regards,
Lisa Munzenmaier" "The recent work completed on the "Sans" is a welcome improvement to the
neighborhood. It would be a much more attractive neighborhood property if the board would
allow them to finish the exterior of the other side of the building and roof. The roof and the
modifications to the side entrance will improve the handicapped access and further enhance the
access for our friends and neighbors with disabilities. We continue to fully support the additions
requested and appeal to the Board for their support. Respectfully, John & Tammi Aust" "Here
you go, Scott. Good luck!" I guess that's the second page. "We have enjoyed coming to the
Sans for many years and wondered by the improvements were not completed. Seems to us the
Board should be able to approve the completion of this project. As new members of the
community (we just moved here) we offer you our total support in your efforts and are willing to
help in any way we can. Good luck, Barry & Sandy Franzino" "This letter is to express our
family's support of the Sans Souci restaurant. The Sans has become a vital part of our local
neighborhood community that provides a place whereby local residents can interact and enjoy
great food and beverage in a quaint and informal atmosphere. The exterior improvements
completed to date have been very well done and we hope the town will allow the owners to
complete the proposed improvements as requested. We are confident that the Sans owners will
continue to do an excellent job in their work and show continued sensitivity to the Cleverdale
neighborhood location. Sincerely, The Michaels Family" "Once again, we probably will not be
able to make the Town meeting regarding your proposed improvements to the Sans Souci
restaurant. We will try to make the meeting though because we feel that your improvements to
date have enhanced both the appearance of the neighborhood and the dining experience inside.
Completion of the proposed work will, in our opinion, be compatible with the neighborhood,
improve the exterior appearance, improve parking and continue to provide a dining and
socializing spot for local and "destination" customers. Good luck with your application. We
hope the Planning Board agrees with our feelings regarding the benefits to the neighborhood.
Sincerely, Debby and Steve Seaboyer" "As reinforcement to my original support letter, l now
restate the message below and add the hope that our town will recognize the advantages of the
Sans to our entire community and will approve the renovations as ,presented by those
representing the Sans on June 21, 2012 Jerilyn M. Howlett" "I live at 82 Mason Rd., adjacent to
the Sans Souci. Stormwater drainage is a significant problem on the north eastern side of
Mason Rd. down to Lackey Road. During a hard rain or snow melt, water streams down Mason
Road from the Sans Souci parking lot (approximately 4500 sq. feet), then more water is
accumulated from two paved parking areas (approximately 600 square feet each), goes past a
vacant lot and usually exits down my driveway at depths of 2" to 4". At the end of the driveway it
continues through my back yard and goes past my property line to a lot on Cleverdale Road.
Two or three years ago that homeowner had to replace his basement concrete block wall
because of the water damage. Accordingly, there is an immediate need to limit stormwater
runoff on Mason Road. Sincerely, James R. Finnecy" That's it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So, Board members, we have heard public comment. The
public hearing is still open. Should we poll the Board? Before we do that, does the applicant
want to address any of the items brought up in the public comment period?
MR. CENTER-1 think our revised plan has addressed, we've added five foot wide by twenty foot
long planting beds along both sides of the patio, and also the, where the three arborvitae are, up
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
on Mason Road in the southwest corner, that will also be depressed and planted with rain
garden style plantings. So we've brought those in as additional stormwater measures.
MR. JACKOSKI-That is already depressed, right?
MR. CENTER-Yes, and also in regards to stormwater, we waived the 50 year design
requirement, but we did not waive stormwater management on the lot because we are getting
stormwater retained within the permeable grassed and permeable crushed stone parking areas,
which is greater than what was previously approved. Actually it's almost five times greater. So
we have provided additional stormwater management on the lot with the (lost word) style
management parking style that we've gone with. So in those regards I think we've done the best
we can with the area that we have. It's very difficult, on these small tight lots, to try to get in
trees, especially anything that's going to grow large, becomes an issue, but where we could do
plantings we have added them, and tried to design them as stormwater devices also.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you accommodating any of your stormwater on your crushed stone
areas with infiltrators or any kind of?
MR. CENTER-No, it's all within the void area of the crushed stone.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So it's just going to flow to there?
MR. CENTER-Yes, and as part of the manufacturer's recommendation, as part of those
systems, the soil is going to be, soil restoration is going to be performed and that's a note on
both of the details for that. So when those are installed, there is soil restoration that goes on
prior to installation of the crushed stone, and also the engineer has asked us to increase it from
12 to 15 inches for the volume of the stone storage area underneath all of the, the two grassed
areas and the crushed stone parking area.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you do that by just putting larger stone?
MR. CENTER-No, we're increasing the depth. We're increasing the depth three inches so
there's more capacity, and that, you know, is a fixture of the void volume from the added depth.
MR. URRICO-What about what was suggested about the pavers? I mean, it seems like we're
moving in the right direction here, but if it's not done right, it's like putting the permeable pavers
over concrete.
MR. CENTER-Right. We have added to the detail soil restoration. That will be performed.
MR. URRICO-Okay. All right.
MR. JACKOSKI-Brian, did you have a question or Ron?
MR. KUHL-I just have one thing. Didn't we talk last time that you were going to come back with
a sequence of events and present that? I mean, bottom line of it here, would you be against
making that, you know, part of the record?
MR. CLUTE-1 can put it on paper.
MR. KUHL-I thought that's what we said last time and I thought your lawyer was going to work it
up for you.
MR. CLUTE-1 don't have it in writing, but I did communicate it because that was Rick's question,
and so I did communicate a schedule. I don't have it in writing, but I can easily produce to Staff
a letter with timeframes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Would you be willing to put in the tanks by May of 2013? Before the next
season?
MR. CLUTE-November 2014? The reason being is I don't want to burden anybody with
financials, but this thing is hogging money, and I already have it set aside, 25 to 50K a year,
that's when I'm done with it, and that's what I'm anticipating. The last expense is the storage
tanks. So if I'm being asked for a committed date on the storage tanks, I would like Fall of 2014,
two years, and the septic system will make it that two years. There's been no, when we
inherited this place, the Collins' boys abused this system. It was bubbling up in the parking lots.
You've heard that people smelled it. There's none of these issues are happening. None of
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
them. The septic system is functioning fine. I monitor it personally. Scott monitors it personally.
It's teetering, but there are no issues. There's no bubbling up. There's no smell of septic. It
works fine. I can commit to a two year. If you'll allow me the two year, and not summer, please,
Fall.
MR. CLEMENTS-Could you tell me what your definition is of a failing system?
MR. CLUTE-When it doesn't absorb anything anymore.
MR. CLEMENTS-Aren't you on holding tanks now?
MR. CLUTE-No. It's a Ieachfield system.
MR. CLEMENTS-But you're going to put holding tanks in?
MR. CLUTE-That's exactly, yes, what (lost words)which is on your master plan.
MR. CLEMENTS-But you're pumping out once a month you said?
MR. CLUTE-No, we pump out memorial, we pumped out Memorial Day, and we pump out at the
end of the season. We monitor it, if it seems like it needs it
MR. CLEMENTS-You're monitoring it each month?
MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. I misunderstood that.
MR. CLUTE-And if by chance it needs it, then we pump it, IBS, sorry, comes to pump it, but the
system is functioning. There's a high water table there. The soil conditions are, they are what
they are. There's high, we do have, that's why the stormwater is so important, but we've
monitored, I've been monitoring this very closely, and it's the last thing I honestly want to do on
the site.
MR. JACKOSKI-How big is the current tank?
MR. CLUTE-1 want to say it's a 20, but I don't know, Steve. We've never fully excavated it. I
know it's larger than 1,000. 1 think it's a 1250 because I don't believe it's quite, a 15 is an
entirely different monster, so I think it's a 1250 that's in there now, and I want to say there's 200
feet where the leach, but I don't honestly know that either. I don't know what the leach. Nobody
has any record of it.
MR. CENTER-They also had, when we were talking, during the holding tank, to the Town Board
of Health, they also have a grease reclamation system, where the grease does not get to the
absorption system, and that is a big saver on an absorption system. So that is probably one of
the reasons why it hasn't failed is because when these guys came in they did set up a system to
where they reclaim the grease before it gets out of the building.
MR. CLUTE-We addressed water, sewer. These are one of the first things I did when I got the
building. It's just an absolute, I have no idea how much you know about the Sans, but it was an
absolute mess, and a lot of the stuff you just can't see. We started right off the bat. Septic was
one of them. We put in a grease trap. Took a lot of the strain off that system, got the water
system out of there, put a new water system on in. So we started with a lot of the infrastructure,
but even with the improvements we've put on what's going on to the drainage, that septic
system is, it's functioning, but just barely, and it is functioning.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What was the original date that the original one was put in? There's no
idea?
MR. CLUTE-1 have no idea.
MR. CENTER-Yes. When 1, there's no record of it.
MR. CLUTE-It's a concrete tank.
MR. CENTER-It could be as much as a seepage pit, you know, as a drywell.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are they all low flow toilets?
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. CLUTE-No, not right now. They're the old ones. That's part of my March improvements.
I've got to put in handicap baths and extend that kitchen. The addition's on, but none of that
improvement has been done to the inside yet, and that's happening in March, and in March the
handicap low flows will be in.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments at this time from Board members? Okay. I'd like to keep
the public hearing open and poll the Board, and we'll start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it's important for us to look at the overall picture here, and I think
everybody on the Board would be supportive of what you've done to date and what you intend to
do in the future. However, I think that we have to keep in mind that in this instance here, failure
should not be an option. You know what I mean? And I think you understand that, too. The
thing could fail tomorrow. Where would you be? You'd be out of business until you fixed it, and
I think it's important for us to set reasonable parameters. We have restaurants located all over
Town. You're in a very unique situation. You are in a Critical Environmental Area. I think that
the Boards have been quite understanding throughout the whole process as to what you intend
to do and what you would have promised us to do. At the same time, I think that there's a
credibility issue here at hand, and that is how much is a reasonable length of time? And I think
everybody understands cash flow and things like that is very important to your business being
successful in the long term, and I think that you have a summer ahead of you that's going to be
very busy and that's your time to make money. I think I made the suggestion last time that
during the shoulder seasons when we're in that in between time, there really is no time that the
Sans is not used or utilized by the neighbors. I think that we all recognize that, too, but at the
same time, I think we should put some parameters, and 2014 seems overly generous to me, and
I think that, you know, if we go back and we look at the years that have gone by since the initial
concerns about the septic system, back to '08, you know, we're in a situation here now where I
think that we can put some teeth into what we're requiring you to do, and I think that, you know,
if it means that you have to shut down for a couple of weeks to do it, you know, in the Fall, and a
couple of weeks in the Spring, there are times of the year when things are pretty slack, and I
think everybody recognizes that with the restaurant business, and I think that we could put a one
year, 365 days from now, that this project should be completed by. I realize that may be
somewhat of a burden on you as a business, but at the same time I think it's important for you to
follow through, and I think that by procrastinating and saying, well, we can't do this until 2014, I
think there are times when you do have to stand up and do what you're expected to do, and I
think this is one of them. I don't have a problem with the relief that you're requesting, as far as
the issue goes here, but I think that the septic thing really is the key to the whole thing, and I
think that's the most important issue. Certainly in the past it's been an issue. It's not an issue
now because you seem to be maintaining the system at basically a tread water level, but to go
down for the count any time in the future, and I don't think, that said, you know, I would want you
to start tomorrow on the project or anything like that, but I think come November you could do it
in November this year, you know, even if it means it's going to be a burden, but I don't know how
the rest of the Board members feel, but I think that, you know, it's time to just get it done, you
know.
MR. CLUTE-I'm hoping you understand, it's not just the obvious. This was just an absolute
mess, and I can't say it anymore clearer than that, and it's a balancing act, and I have a ton of
work that I'm trying to get accomplished to the inside just for the place to function there, too, and
it may seem that it's procrastinating. It is not. There is a ton of work that's being accomplished
in there, and I can honestly only accomplish so much work on this site. As a prime example, I
might seem like I've taken forever, but I can tell you for the last four years this is the first year
that a Cifone sign actually got taken down on a house on the lakeside, and I'm a business. I'm
going to tell you, I've got a lot more going on in this building than that did, and that was four
years, and he's on the lake. So it's really, it's very difficult. This is what I do every day. It's very
difficult to coordinate all the different things that go on on a rehab. New construct I'm probably
the fastest you'll see, but on the rehab I'm really just so much here. So it is very, very difficult. I
have a lot that I want, I've got to get to the interior. I've got to get somewhere into the interior,
and that's why I say, I can come up with a pretty comprehensive schedule that will show you
exactly, interior and the obvious, the exteriors. The exteriors are always the obvious, and I'll
show you what we've got going on construction wise, and I anticipate, this Fall, an awful lot of
work going on, and it's really the entrances. It's the building.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Rick?
MR. GARRAND-Well, I'd like to put a condition on like November of 2014, but I also keep in
mind that this is a pretty much seasonal business. It's not getting year round use. The septic
system, as the applicant has said, is being monitored. I'd love to say, you know, get it done, get
it done now, get it done this year, but, you know, I don't feel comfortable with that. I don't feel
comfortable imposing that at this point. As far as the relief goes, I'm comfortable with that.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm comfortable with the relief, but I also understand the concern. I think we know
that some of the project has dragged on probably longer than it probably needed to or was
expected to, so that the history behind some of our variances already have some tracking that
we've been able to follow, and if this is delayed any further, and the septic does not get put in
per schedule and there is a catastrophe that happens, we're going to be the ones that have to
answer for it because we had the opportunity, at this time, to do something about it, and I think
before I approve anything I'd like to see the schedule. So if that means coming back one more
time with a schedule in hand, I'd like to see that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have no problem with the relief, and I would go along with a time schedule,
but I don't know that one year is enough time. I'm not sure. I agree with Roy. I'd like to see
some kind of a realistic time schedule set up and see where we go from there.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Well, the applicant's here for Area Variance 26-2012, and I have no problem with the
four variances he's asking for. If you think you can put the septic on, I'm here to do my job in 26-
2012. 1 have no problems with it, and that's where I'm ending. I did ask you, last time, for a
sequence of events, and you didn't come with one, you know, shame on you, but I'm here, and
I'll give you the four variances you're asking here, but the rest is up to you.
MR. CLUTE-1 apologize.
MR. KUHL-That's okay. No, no.
MR. JACKOSKI-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-1 really also have no problem with the relief. I am concerned about the septic
system. However, I know that in previous years when I've been there there has been a septic
odor and it's true that since I've been up there, since your ownership, I haven't had that, I
haven't smelled that odor. So hopefully you are monitoring it. I'm concerned about it. I really
would like to see a timetable for that being done, but again, I'm not going to ask for that. So I
guess I would be in favor with some reservations.
MR. JACKOSKI-I don't have any issue with the four variances. I think that they're needed. I
think they're going to be an enhancement to the neighborhood. I think you're keeping the
neighbors happy. There is a concern about runoff going down Mason Street. On the plans it
does note that Timothy Collins is still an owner of the Chalet parcel? It says Larry Clute and
Timothy Collins. I just was curious about that. It says Lands Now or Formally of Larry Clute
Timothy Collins.
MR. CLUTE-It's all Larry Clute.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR. CENTER-Right. That's just not updated from the original survey, and that's only on the
Chalet portion.
MR. JACKOSKI-I saw that. I think that, you know, if the applicant was willing, this evening, to
establish a date to complete the wastewater system by, and, well, Mr. Underwood has
suggested 365 days from today, I think Mr. Garrand suggested something in 2014. Maybe if you
would be willing to do it, you know, before the third season begins, so that puts you out to the
Spring of 2014, 1 mean, get two more full seasons out of monitoring it as you are, and assuring
no failure, but as soon as there's a failure, it needs to be replaced, and I think you've already
agreed to that in the former matters. I mean, you know, I think this Board is just trying to protect
the neighbors, protect the environment. Knowing that you're close to having a failure, as you
yourself have said it's teetering, why are we going to let it totter? And knowing there's a
deadline would really, I think, make it more palatable, but if you're not willing to give us that, as
Ron suggested, you're here for those four variances, and I'd move forward with it, but I do recall
that we did ask for a timeline before this evening.
MR. CLUTE-1 was actually thinking that we were going to be discussing that.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-We don't have any, I mean, that's your control. We're not, you know, we don't
have critical (lost word) analogies and construction management skills. I mean, that's your, you
tell us what you're trying to accomplish.
MR. CLUTE-1 completely understand. When Rick asked me the question, I was pretty forward
on schedule off the cuff. I can quickly and easily put it down into print if that's beneficial.
MR. JACKOSKI-I just don't want to make you come back another from now. I'd like to see some
of these things taken care of as soon as possible, and when are you going to do some of these
things?
MR. CLUTE-What's that?
MR. JACKOSKI-What being on the table now is actually going to be done sooner than later? Is
all this going to get done in the Fall? At the earliest? Well, the patio's done, I know, but after the
fact, and the fence, yes, the fence is done, too. The fence is done, too, you're right.
MR. KUHL-But you're closing down in March of next year.
MR. CLUTE-That's for interior.
MR. KUHL-Is that your low business?
MR. CLUTE-It's about the lowest.
MR. KUHL-Would you be against committing for March 2014 for the septic?
MR. JACKOSKI-That's what I was suggesting.
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-That gives you two full seasons, and just before your third season, you get
done with your septic.
MR. CLUTE-I'm going to put some thought into it. Straight up, I'm really thinking Fall of 2014. 1
can absolutely commit to Fall of 2014. If I have to commit to something sooner, I actually have
to put some thought into it, and what I'll do is right with the construction schedule, all of it,
because it's not just a septic system. I have other things, too. So if you're asking me to
consider, I can do that. I can't commit to it sitting in front of you right now, I can't do that. I can
commit to November of 2014. That I can commit to.
MR. CENTER-One of the concerns about installing those holding tanks in the Spring season
would be rain, would be, you know, seasonal high groundwater issues. That is a concern. Fall
would be the ideal installation time for those systems, because we have to get underneath them.
We have to put in stone underneath them. It's a better, you know, you have that closer that time
when you've had the summer. You've allowed the groundwater to go down. You get into the
Fall, you're less likely to have snow melt. You don't have a lot of those issues. You could even
work it in, you know, later into November during frost, and a lot of the holding tank systems that
we do do up around the lake we try to schedule them, you know, in the Fall. That's usually when
you have some lower groundwater.
MR. JACKOSKI-The Fall of 2013?
MR. CLUTE-It is extremely high on this lot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Have you done test borings out there to see what your water table is or how
much inflow you've got?
MR. CENTER-We did do some and it was around four feet.
MR. JACKOSKI-So is it already causing an effect on the leach fields that are already there?
MR. CLUTE-No, the leach fields are high. Where we start ending up with high, Cleverdale
Road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's kind of the same situation we had on Rockhurst over there, and I
remember that one project when the removed the wall and it gushed for like two straight days
like all the water in the whole point was backed up behind on that one project there and it was
like the river.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. CLUTE-Coming out of last season, as Tom had stated, March, April, May timeframes, this
is the highest water table. That's obviously the thaw, and down in our lower level, which isn't the
septic. The septic's up on the higher level, but down on the Cleverdale Road side, that water is
right there. Last year, with the conditions that we had with the heavy snow, it was even higher
yet than the four foot that Tom was describing, and he's right. Typically septic systems of this
nature you do want to try to avoid thaw. You want to put them, if you're in a critical area, you
want to try to put them in to the Fall timeframes. That's typically your driest timeframes.
MR. JACKOSKI-So if we don't approve these four this evening, what does that do for Staff in
monitoring, and, you know, they can't use the patio. They can't use the parking the way it's all
laid out and all that stuff. I mean, these are already built issues. They just sit?
MR. OBORNE-It doesn't do anything for Staff. They're already utilizing all that right now. There
has not been any action, there's not been any enforcement action. That's why they're here. If
you do table them tonight for any reason, whatever reason it is, we'll have to table them at the
Planning Board next month, which is, that's about the only effect it would have on Staff.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, I'm looking for advice on how to proceed from the Board.
MR. URRICO-We should vote on the variances that are.
MR. JACKOSKI-But if we turn them down.
MS. BITTER-May I propose a schedule? I mean, Mr. Clute did describe a schedule earlier and
we did document that. So I just want to reiterate it for the Board. Mr. Clute indicated he'd be
willing to have it placed as a condition, so that it is tied in here. The south side exterior, it'll be
completed the summer of 2012. The west side and entrance exterior, the Fall of 2012, the grass
and parking improvements, Fall of 2012, kitchen and bath interior completion by March 2013,
and septic system by the Fall of 2014.
MR. JACKOSKI-I certainly can live with that, but it's up to the other Board members. Joyce?
Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-1 guess so.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I'm okay with it, but I'd like to hear some dates rather than just the Fall of.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR. CLEMENTS-So if you could just put some dates in there, that would be good.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, summer's kind of.
MR. JACKOSKI-Now, remember, Mr. Clute, you're the fastest new home builder. So now
you've got to be the fastest remodeler.
MR. CLUTE-It's an education in itself.
MR. URRICO-How long are the variances good for? How long do they have to finish the project
or come back?
MR. OBORNE-I mean, this is the cart before the horse scenario that we have here, all around
on this project. They're required to pull a permit within one year after your approval.
MR. JACKOSKI-And then they could basically renew that building permit for two years?
MR. OBORNE-It's open until closed.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-They could just keep renewing it forever?
MR. OBORNE-They don't have to renew it as long as they open it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Make sure you open your building permit.
MR. CENTER-Okay. The south side exterior, August 30, 2012. The west side and entrance
exterior, November 30, 2012. Grass areas and parking improvements, November 30, 2012.
Interior kitchen and bath completion, March 31, 2013, and the septic system replacement
November 30, 2014.
MR. URRICO-Or sooner if necessary.
MR. CENTER-Right, if necessary. Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I'd like to clarify my comment on the permit. If it is not closed out within a year, in
other words, if they don't have a CO.
MS. HEMINGWAY-Right, you need to get a CO.
MR. OBORNE-Right, you need to get a CO within a year of opening the permit. If not, then you
have to renew.
MR. JACKOSKI-And you only get one renewal. Correct?
MS. HEMINGWAY-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-It's a permanent renewal, you can just keep renewing?
MS. HEMINGWAY-You can.
MR. OBORNE-1 think that's up to Dave.
MR. JACKOSKI-Dave Hatin? Okay. Fine.
MR. CENTER-The second bullet should read west and north side and entrance exterior
November 30, 2012. So that would be the north and west exterior.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the applicant now has put forth a completion schedule that they're
committed to. Would anyone like, first off, is the Board okay if I close the public hearing? So I
officially close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-Would someone like to make a motion?
MR. OBORNE-Keep in mind that whoever's making the motion that the four foot on the west
side is not in play. It's just the style.
MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2012 SAN SOUCI OF CLEVERDALE,
Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
92 Mason Road. The applicant proposes to modify approved site plan to include the removal of
vegetation and the installation of permeable pavers on existing gravel parking spaces. Further
the applicant seeks after the fact approval for the installation of a plus or minus 665 square foot
patio with access deck and stairs to accommodate four tables as well as installation of a six foot
tall, 112 foot long stockade fence along the south boundary. Relief required: side setback relief
of 7.15 feet after the fact installation of stairs and deck leading to unapproved patio. Number
Two, expansion of a nonconforming structure. Number Three, front east fence height and style.
The request is after the fact for two feet of fence height and style along 28 feet of architectural
front placement of six foot tall vinyl stockade fence. On the balancing test, whether an
undesirable change in the neighborhood will be produced. At this point the applicant has given
us a timetable. We have a plan of action for getting the project wrapped up. I don't foresee any
detriment to nearby properties. Whether benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by
other feasible means. Offhand I don't know. I don't know how other benefits can be achieved.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
Whether the request is substantial. I would deem this as moderate. From a quantitative
standpoint I think it's a moderate request. Whether the variance will have adverse effects on the
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The applicant has also outlined a
timetable for replacement of the septic system and he will also monitor said septic system for
failure in the meantime. If it does fail, I believe he agreed to replace it. With respect to the
plantings and the permeable pavers, I think it'll have a positive effect on the neighborhood, given
what was previously there. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? I think most of these
difficulties were created before the applicant bought the property. So I move we approve Area
Variance 26-2012, with the approved timetable outlined by the applicant.
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand,
Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations, and let the patrons know we're not against the project.
MR. CENTER-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do any Board members have any further business to bring in front of the Board
this evening? Mr. Salvador has requested some time in front of the Board, if he would, we'd like
to give him a few minutes. Mr. Salvador.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Is this being recorded?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, we are still on.
MR. SALVADOR-1 would like this to be recorded. I'm here tonight to present to you and to file
with you an application for an appeal, and I'm doing this because when I try to do this through
the Community Development Department, it gets stonewalled for a lot of reasons, and I don't
think it's proper, but I will leave it with you directly and I have a copy for them also. This project
is one that has not been before this Board, and that's what makes it a little bit difficult, and
without arguing the merits of the appeal, I'll try to outline for you what's been going on. In any
case, I answer Question Number Eight in this Notice of Appeal. This application is for an appeal
of the Zoning Administrator's wrongful interpretation that Town Code Chapter 179, as it relates
to accessory structures, allows an applicant to seek an after the fact variance from the Town of
Queensbury local Board of Health for an accessory use as defined in Chapter 179, involving an
accessory use structure which was put in place in violation of Chapter 179, Section 179-5-
02013(3), and I attached for the evidence as to the timing of this whole thing, the Resolution
Setting a Public Hearing for Sewage Disposal Variance Application of Diane Matthews. This
deals with a Class A Marina application that was before the Planning Board by Miss Diane
Matthews. A little bit of history on the project. Apparently the applicant was cited for a violation
by the Lake George Park Commission. My firm belief is that they had extended a dock without
permit, and they were forced to take it out, and I don't know what else transpired with regard to
that violation, but they took a long time in trying to come to grips with what they were going to
do, and they decided what they wanted to do was operate a Class A Marina from this particular
parcel, and they made application to the Park Commission for that. The Park Commission I
guess held their permit in abeyance pending approval by the Town of their application. It came
to the Town, and it went to the Planning Board for a Special Use Permit to alter a dock and get a
Class A Marina permit. The Planning Board approved the Class A Marina permit based on the
applicant furnishing restroom facilities because they weren't available on the site, furnishing
restroom facilities at their Marina, the Castaway Marina, which is two miles down the road. That
was their proposal to meet the requirement that they furnish restroom facilities as a Class A
Marina. Actually all Class A or Class B Marinas have to do that. The Planning Board accepted
this. Our Planning Board approved the Special Use Permit for them to offer their boating clients
restrooms two miles down the road, and that went back to the Commission. That went back to
the Commission with a special letter of support from our Zoning Administrator stating that they
had gotten the Special Use Permit. I guess the Commission couldn't believe what they were
hearing, but in any case, they conditioned, the Commission conditioned their approval on the
applicant's furnishing a port-a-john on site, a port-a-john on site in lieu of this two miles down the
road. So the applicant proceeded to put in the dock, open the Class A Marina and put the Aort-
a-john on the site, and I guess somewhere along the way they were cited by the Town because
it's not allowed as a permanent installation, a port-a-john, it's not allowed, and so the Zoning
Administrator determined that they would have to get relief from the local Board of Health for
making a port-a-john a permanent installation as opposed to just a temporary use, and there are
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
some very specific temporary uses allowed for port-a-johns in the Town. This is not one of
them, and that went to the Town Board this past Monday night, that went to the Town Board,
and of course I was present and I did testify. One thing that I took the trouble to mention to the
Town Board, and this is something that the Planning Board should have been fully aware of. I
mean, I spoke to it at the Planning Board meeting. Our Town Code regulations refer to the Park
Commission regulations. They're locked together, okay. You can't get a Special Use Permit
until you conform to Part 646 of the Park Commission regulations, all right. The Park
Commission regulations require restrooms, plural, including toilet facilities are required for use
by customers which shall be available at all times May 1St through October 31St of each year.
The use of the term customers implies commercial activity. Okay. A Class A Marina is in the
business of either selling services or renting facilities, okay. Those are commercial activities.
As such, they're required to meet the commercial regulations. Restrooms, plural, implies a him
and a hers, okay, including toilet facilities, hot water, cleansing facility, drying facility, okay.
Sanitary facilities for the women, okay. Would you expect your wife to use a port-a-john that's
just been used by an adult male? That's not to be expected, but in any case, the Planning
Board, excuse me, the Town Board did not approve this facility, this application, but talked about
the applicant doing something, and, well, Keith has left. He knows more about that from there
because they've got an application in, now, to the Planning Board for something, I don't know
what it is, but they've got to do something about their facility to make it compliant.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, Mr. Salvador, what are you appealing to us?
MR. SALVADOR-Well, I can't, without going into the merits.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, you're going to give us, but quite frankly I think we should receive the
appeal, if you're going to make us receive this appeal, give us this appeal. Let us digest it. Let
us speak with legal counsel, and then, you know, the proper way to handle this would be to have
the Board have the actual appeal and be able to do our, you know, our part, and then listen to
additional comment from you and/or the public and anyone else. So if you could, if you're going
to give us this appeal, give us the appeal and then we'll move forward.
MR. SALVADOR-1 will do that, and I'll clarify the.
MR. JACKOSKI-At this time, I think, you know, you asked us for a little bit of information this
evening. We can't possibly absorb all of this unless we have the documentation in front of us.
So if you could, give us the appeal, and then you did say you had another topic to discuss.
MR. SALVADOR-The crux of this appeal is the Town Code is specific, with regard to accessory
structures. No accessory structure may be erected without a principle structure and/or use.
Period. Now if we allow anything, what's going on with this Class A operation, you've got an
accessory use of a boat dock. You've got a.
MR. JACKOSKI-Did they just construct this?
MR. SALVADOR-It's all done. It's in operation. It's rented.
MR. JACKOSKI-But was it just recently constructed? No accessory building will be constructed.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. It's done.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand it's done, but was it recently done? Or has this been in place for a
long time?
MR. SALVADOR-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-This is brand new?
MR. SALVADOR-Within the last two months.
MR. JACKOSKI-All brand new activity?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Dock, boat dock, operation marina, and the port-a-john.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. If you could give us the appeal as you've said you've filled out. Next
item.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. UNDERWOOD-So I would think the issue would be if you have a blank piece of waterfront
residential property and you apply for a Class A Marina permit, you wouldn't be allowed to do
that without a principle structure being on their site previous to the application for the marina?
MR. SALVADOR-Yes, according to Town Code.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So until we get all the details, we're not going to make any judgments
until we get the documentation. The next item, sir.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. This concerns the cell tower, and I really don't know where to go with
this from here, but the Town Code.
MR. JACKOSKI-Just a moment. Is this another appeal?
MR. SALVADOR-This is not an appeal yet. It's not an appeal yet, and I don't know if it's
appealable to this Board, okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-So what would you like us to do for you this evening on this?
MR. SALVADOR-1 would just like you to listen to me for a couple of minutes, okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-But we've had public comment at the Town level. We've had public comment
at the Planning Board level.
MR. SALVADOR-It's done. It's been approved. It's done. It's approved by the Planning Board
last night. Okay. I wouldn't be here if it was still an open issue.
MR. JACKOSKI-Does the Board want to continue with listening to what's going on with the cell
tower that we have nothing in front of us on?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Give him five minutes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Five minutes.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Town Code has a regulation for telecommunication towers. It's specific
for that reason. Okay. Paragraph C of 179 something, it talks about designated areas.
Designated areas. Placement of telecommunications towers is restricted, it's restricted. It
doesn't say they're allowed. It says they're restricted, to certain areas within the Town of
Queensbury. These areas are as follows: Any light industrial area, any light industrial area, any
heavy industrial area, or co-located, that means in with some other structure, co-located, okay,
co-located on any property, any property, any other property in the Town outside of the two
industrial areas. Co-located on any property where, one, a telecommunications tower or other
tall structure over 50 feet in height exists. So you could locate that cell tower any place in this
Town if you had an existing cell tower there, okay, or you had another structure of some kind 50
feet high. You would need.
MR. KUHL-Another t.v. antenna, or an antenna.
MR. SALVADOR-It says structure. Structure over 50 feet in height. Okay.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-Now, if they had that situation, they would not need any variances, would
they? Wouldn't need a single variance. This application came to this Board for a Use Variance,
a Use Variance, but why? Why? I pointed out to the Town Board in May, it's reported in the
Post Star, I commented on this that it's not allowed on this lot, and Ron Montesi shot out, he
said, well, he says, the water tank is 50 feet high, and I said, no, it isn't. The water tank is only
40 feet high. Now everybody up to that time thought that that water tank was 50 feet high. I
happen to have been up on the site, and I can tell you from my experience, I can eyeball a tank
and I can tell you how high it is. That tank is 40 feet high. So they should have gotten a
variance from the requirement that they were not co-locating it on a site that had a structure less
than 50 feet, and that hasn't been done. Now John Strough responded to me, when I said it's
only 40 feet high, Third Ward Councilman John Strough said zoning does not apply to public
land. He's absolutely right, and yet the distinguishing feature of this cell tower project up on
West Mountain is it is public land. That's the distinguishing feature. Our Town Code is laid out
for private property. Our Town Code 179 doesn't regulate public land. It regulates private
property, and so there's really no place for any of this in this operation we call planning and
zoning, and in any case, that has all fallen on deaf ears, but I think it would be appropriate to ask
you to re-hear that project, but we'll take that.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/20/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. GARRAND-That should go before the Planning Ordinance Review Committee, the PORC.
MR. SALVADOR-It must, yes.
MR. GARRAND-It should. It should be included in the Code, what can and can't be done with
public lands.
MR. SALVADOR-It's not in the Code. The Code applies to private property only. Okay. It's not
foreseen. The Town just put this atrium up, re-did this atrium. Did they get a building permit for
it? Site Plan Review for it? They don't have to do that. Okay.
MR. GARRAND-Some food for thought for the next Code revision.
MR. SALVADOR-1 don't think you can. A Zoning Ordinance is not intended to regulate public
land, okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Any other Board member discussion? Can I
have a motion to adjourn?
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
JUNE 20, 2012, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Richard Garrand:
Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
27