12-19-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 19, 2012
INDEX
Area Variance No. 52-2012 LARIC Development 1.
Tax Map No. 308.12-1-3 and 7.1
Area Variance No. 41-2012 Jay & Patricia Cardinale (Cont'd Pg. 22) 3.
Tax Map No. 226.15-1-40 & 41
Area Variance No. 64-2012 Cheryl Daniels 12.
Tax Map No. 316.9-1-3
Area Variance No. 65-2012 Joseph Retort 16.
Tax Map No. 296.9-2-47
Sign Variance No. 66-2012 Sean Berger d/b/a Adirondack Retirement 18.
Specialist
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-55
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.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 19, 2012
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOYCE HUNT
RICHARD GARRAND
JAMES UNDERWOOD
RONALD KUHL
BRIAN CLEMENTS
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. I'd like to open the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting
for tonight, Wednesday, December 19th here in the Activities Center at 742 Bay Road. For those
of you who haven't been here in the past, there is a sheet in the back that kind of explains the
process. It's quite simple. We'll call each application up. We'll listen to the application be read
into the record. We'll ask the applicant questions. We'll open up a public hearing when a public
hearing is scheduled. We'll poll the Board, have some more discussions and make motions
accordingly. So we have some housekeeping to do this evening. The first item is to approve
the October 17th meeting minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 17, 2012
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2012, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
October 24, 2012
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2012, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl,
Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Just for the record, I assume this is Maria's wonderful fudge at all of our
stations. So, thank you, Maria.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2012 SEQRA TYPE 11 LARIC DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) J.
LAPPER, ESQ. & S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) DKC HOLDINGS, INC. ZONING MDR
LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD, OFF EXISTING BURNT HILLS SUBDIVISION APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 36-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1
ACRE TO 2.52 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF SUB NO. 5-2012 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES
LOT SIZE 58.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-3 AND 7.1 SECTION 179-3-040
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-With a public hearing scheduled tonight.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2012, LARIC Development, Meeting Date: December
19, 2012 "Project Location: Luzerne Road, off existing Burnt Hills subdivision Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 36-lot residential subdivision with lots ranging in size
from 1 acre to 2.52 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the MDR
zone.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Lot Size - Relief requested from the 2 acre lot size requirements of the MDR zone for lots 1
through 5 and 9 through 36; total lots in need of relief is 33.
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 would be to
design a subdivision that does not need lot size relief.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for lot size relief for 33 of
36 lots proposed lots may be considered severe relative to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. With an incomplete application,
this issue cannot be addressed at this point in time.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
SB 5-12
Staff comments:
No immediate issues due to incomplete site plan application.
SEAR Status:
Type II"
MR. BROWN-And where we are, and I think Jon will confirm this when I'm done, is that we have
a current submission from the applicant to move forward with the Planning Board for
recommendation in January. So what we're looking to do right now is table your decision tonight
until then. I know that you probably continued the public hearing from before until tonight. I
don't think there's going to be anybody here to speak about that, so you can just, I guess,
continue to leave it open or whatever you did last time, but probably the first Zoning Board date
in January would probably be the best date to pick, which is I believe the 16t"
MR. LAPPER-We have to get to the Planning Board first, though. Will that give time?
MR. BROWN-I think we have you on the 15tH
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Yes, you're right, it is on for the 15t". What happened here is that this
requires an Area Variance. It's in a two acre zone next to the Homestead trailer park, and so
Larry's trying to work something out that's less than two acres, but that's suitable with the
neighborhood, and we wanted to come to the Zoning Board to have you pass on it before doing
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
all the engineering for the lots, but because it requires coordinated review, the Planning Board
needs a certain amount of detail on stormwater, grading, septic so that they could do SEAR. So
we lost a month or so going, we went to the Planning Board and said, can you pass on this,
make the recommendation, before we did all the engineering, and they said we really need more
to be able to get through SEAR, which is fair. So we had to go back to the engineer to have
them do more of the stormwater and the grading and the septic. So we're now going to be back
for the recommendation in January. So hopefully we'll get through that and be back here next
month to talk about the variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-So are you requesting a tabling?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. BROWN-And again, I think the first January date makes sense. If we have to balance our
agenda and put their application on the second, you can just table it again at the first meeting in
January.
MR. JACKOSKI-Fine. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone
here, and I'll open that hearing again. Is there anyone here that would like to address this Board
concerning this matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any additional written comment?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-No additional written comment. We'll leave the public hearing open, and I need
a motion to table to the first meeting in January.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by
Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Until the January 16, 2013 ZBA meeting.
Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl,
Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. While we're waiting for the next application, Craig, I want to
ask. We've had some concern addressed to me that when a matter is going to be tabled and
the applicants know it's going to be tabled, and the Staff knows it's going to be tabled, but we did
have a public hearing scheduled, should we, in fact, actually open the public hearing without the
applicant here?
MR. BROWN-If it's advertised, I think you have to at least open it. If there's somebody here that
wants to make comment, you know, you can certainly let them know that it would probably be
better, they'd be better served making the comment when the applicant's here so they can
respond to the questions they come up with.
MR. JACKOSKI-Which we do.
MR. BROWN-Yes, if it's advertised, you're obligated to.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Very good. Thank you. The next application under Old Business, Area
Variance No. 41-2012. This is Gary Hughes as the agent for 10 Crossover Lane. It is a Type I I
SEAR, and I'll turn it over to be read into the record, and we do have a public hearing scheduled
for this evening.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2012 SEQRA TYPE II JAY & PATRICIA CARDINALE AGENT(S)
GARY HUGHES OWNER(S) JAY & PATRICIA CARDINALE ZONING WR LOCATION 10
CROSSOVER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,677 SQ. FT. 3-CAR
GARAGE WITH SECOND FLOOR STORAGE. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM
REAR SETBACK, HEIGHT, FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2006-791 SEPTIC ALT; BP 2005-670 ALT.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.14
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-40 &41 SECTION 179-3-040
MICHAEL O'CONNOR & GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2012, Jay & Patricia Cardinale, Meeting Date:
December 19, 2012 "Project Location: 10 Crossover Lane Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 1,677 sq. ft. 3-car garage with second floor storage.
Applicant requests relief from rear setback, height, floor area ratio, and permeability
requirements for the WR zone.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1. Rear Setback- Request for 18 feet of relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for
the WR Zone.
2. Height - Request for 7.2 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement for
accessory structures in the WR Zone. 45% relief requested.
3. Floor Area Ratio- Request for 894 square feet of relief from the maximum allowable FAR
of 2,599 square feet for this parcel. Note: Total proposed floor area is 3,493 square feet
which equates to a Floor Area Ratio of 29.6°/x.
4. Permeability - Request for 688 square feet of permeability relief from the maximum
allowable impermeability of 2,953 square feet for this parcel.
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 would be to
reduce the size of the garage to lessen the severity of relief requested in regards to the FAR
and height requirements. Concerning permeability, the applicant has reduced the size of the
driveway from the previous submittal.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 18 feet or 60% relief
from the 30 foot rear setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate
to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 7 feet, 2.5 inches or 45% relief
from the 16 foot maximum allowable height for a detached garage in the WR zone as per
§179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally,
the request for 894 square feet of additional floor area above the allowable floor area of
2,599 square feet for a ratio of 29.6% as per §179-3-040 may be considered substantial
relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for an additional 688 square feet of
impermeable surfaces resulting in a 31% lot coverage versus the 25% allowable
impermeability 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 to 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. 40-2012 Setback relief for decks Approved 9/22/12
BP 06-791 Septic alteration Issued 11/6/2006
BP 05-670 Residential alteration Issued 8/30/2005
Staff comments:
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
The applicant has submitted a plan that reduces the size of the proposed garage by 261 square
feet as well as a permeability reduction from the original plan of 386 square feet. Further, the
original height request of 25.5 feet has been reduced to 23.2 feet and rear setback request from
22 feet to 18 feet. The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to gauge the responsiveness to
previous concerns; meeting minutes were attached to November 28, 2012 notes.
Note: This application was tabled at the request of the applicant on November 28, 2012. No
new material was submitted.
SEAR Status:
Type II"
MR. JACKOSKI-And before I turn it over to the applicant, if there are any students in the
audience who need me to sign any acknowledgements of the agenda, if you guys want to come
up, I'll sign a piece of paper so you know were here. Okay, Mr. O'Connor, then they can leave,
right.
MR. O'CONNOR-It must be the Christmas season, guys.
MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Mr. O'Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I
represent the applicant. With me at the table is Gary Hughes, who is the designer for the
project, and Jay Cardinale who is the owner of the property. This is a request for area
variances. It's like any other area variance request, and it's approached on the basis that we're
hopeful that we have a compromise that the Board will accept, and the compromise is not
necessarily what they wanted, what they started with, but it is an attempt to reach an even
balance between the impact on the neighborhood and the community and the impact on what
their plans are. First thing I'd like to have you look at is actually the setting of it, of this property.
We obtained an aerial map, which I think is very similar to that up there, and the property, if you
will, is this property right here. Although it's in a Waterfront Residential, it's not on the
waterfront. In fact, the existing residence is closer to the water than what the proposed garage
is going to be. The proposed garage is probably 375 feet from the water, and they have
provided for stormwater for the new impermeable area. This area here is undeveloped and will
never be developed. It's part of that not for profit association that owns land throughout that
area. This parcel is also owned by them and this parcel is owned by them, and there's not going
to be any immediate neighbors on either side of the particular property. It's kind of like a project
where, I'm trying to think of an analogy. No one hears the tree deep in the forest fall. I don't
think anybody is going to really know the difference between the Ordinance and what he's
requesting, when it's all said and done. It's a very isolated piece of property. He has changed it
from when he was here before. I probably should address Staff comments first. I agree with
Staff comments. I don't necessarily agree with the way that they're presented, but if you look at
the Staff comments, they say that there's minor impacts to the neighborhood that may be
anticipated, and then they summarize that at the end of their comments by saying there's minor
impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
That's really the balancing. That's the impacts that you're looking at. I don't think, and I've
argued often, that looking at the balancing test is a matter of a mathematical equation or just
doing a mathematical computation and saying it's severe or likely to be severe or something of
that nature. What impact is this going to have on the neighbors? I think Staff has agreed. I
think the facts, if you look at the mapping and everything else, is going to show that it's not going
to have any real impact on the neighborhood or the community. The house that was built there
has only a crawl space. There is no storage. The crawl space was put there because of
groundwater. So what is attempted here is to get some decent storage. It's a year round house.
It's not overly ambitious. It's a garage, 36 by 24 feet, it's 864 square feet. It's not that big a
garage. I think the Ordinance allows 1100 feet at this point, if you were going to build a garage
attached to the house. He's lowered the height of the garage. He's modified, also, the
structure on the second floor. As I understand it he had a dormer on it before that faced the
road, and that has been removed. The area above the garage that actually is good for storage
has been reduced because he's lowered the roof of it. I think that's 20 by 34, and that has the
stairwell in it. So he does not have a lot of options. When you talk about the setback, if you
actually look at his, the survey that's filed, you will see that he's got a septic system, which
would have to be removed or moved in order to attach this garage to the house. There's nobody
behind him. In fact he has a good relationship with the people behind him. He's landscaped
some of their yard, if you will, without any problems or without any strong objections that I'm
aware of. So the back setback relief, although it's 18 feet, is not going to impact anybody, or
have any serious effect. The height relief of 7.2 feet, if you could attach this garage to the
house, you could have 28 feet. It's simply because it's not an attached garage and it's in this
Waterfront Residential zone that you're limited to the 16 feet. Again, I don't think that has any
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
impact on anyone. He's made the garage architecturally compatible with the house. He would
actually like to have the higher height to have the same pitch on the roof so it would match, but
he's reduced that to try and make it more compliant. The floor area ratio, he actually bought this
additional parcel or parcels in order to build a garage, with the understanding that he will join
those parcels, it'll all be one parcel. Given the size of the house, anything that he does in the
nature of a garage, whether it be a one car garage or a three car garage or a two car garage, is
going to require a variance. Again, I don't think there's any real significant impact. The variance
that he's asked for for the permeability he's addressed by taking care of the stormwater by doing
a rain garden. He's shown that there. He also has reduced the driveway width. Before you
had a full width of the garage. He's going to remove the old driveway and he is amenable to, if
he has to, to put in some type of permeable paving for the garage driveway that he's going to
construct. So, again, I don't think there's any impact to anyone by the request that's made, and
if you balance the impacts to him having a reasonable storage, a year round home as opposed
to the lack of impact to the community or the neighborhood, I think we meet the test, and you
should approve the variance. I don't know if I left anything out. We did a chart for you. Also that
was suggested by Staff to show some of the specific reductions. It doesn't show the changing of
the removal of the dormer, so that there's no, it doesn't look like it's going to be an additional
bedroom down the road. It won't be used as a bedroom. It'll be used just for storage, and that's
our presentation.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Any questions from Board members at this time?
MR. CLEMENTS-1 had one about the front setback with the, that you were supposed to talk
about.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. One of the items was the balcony off the front of the house, which wasn't
showing as part of the setback discussion.
MR. HUGHES-There is a balcony there. I did the original drawings for Jay's house. That was
an old, kind of rundown almost falling down, dilapidated.
MR. JACKOSKI-Malcolm's house. I walked by it for 30 years. Malcolm's house.
MR. HUGHES-Anyway, when I submitted plans to the Building Department, and we received a
building permit, that was on the original plan that I used, and I'm not really sure whether it was
an addition or whether that was something that I had, to be honest with you.
MR. JACKOSKI-But I think you've been in front of the Board two or three times, now, Mr.
Hughes, and we keep asking about that particular balcony and that front line setback. What is
the status of it?
MR. HUGHES-The status of it is that it is there, and it doesn't seem to meet the setback, but it's
existing.
MR. O'CONNOR-Was it there before, was it part of the construction?
MR. JACKOSKI-That's the concern is that apparently it may not have been on the original plans,
but now it's there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Like Gary has said, though, it's on the plans for which the building permit was
issued.
MR. HUGHES-Construction plans, yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-So was there a variance issued in the past for this parcel?
MR. BROWN-Not for the balcony that extended to the setback, and the building permit file, I
think, is in the box with the variance file, and I looked through the drawings. I didn't see the
balcony on those plans. I don't know if it was a later set or a revision that came in after the
permit was issued, but I didn't see it on the plans that were.
MR. HUGHES-1 pulled my original plans from my files, and it is on there and it's dated back in
2002.
MR. GARRAND-Was it, the picture that's on the Town of Queensbury website, is it on there, on
the Assessor's page?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I don't know. I can take a look at that real quick, though.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we'll move a little bit. While Craig's looking into the plans for that
particular issue, are there any other issues in front of the Board?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I have a question for Mr. O'Connor. Do you have a toilet in your garage?
MR. O'CONNOR-In my garage?
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-No, do not.
MR. KUHL-Neither do 1. 1 actually have two garages separately. What's the toilet?
JAY CARDINALE
MR. CARDINALE-If you're in the garage working on something (lost words) if you're outside
working in the yard in mud and stuff.
MR. KUHL-The drawing doesn't show the window, toilet area, that would be in the back, right, in
the middle of the thing? There's a window back there. According to, your one drawing shows a
slit over the toilet, and I assume that's a window.
MR. HUGHES-He has (lost words).
MR. KUHL-And the other feeling I had when I went up to look at your property is everybody's got
these big garages, as you go down the walk, but most of them are attached to the houses, and
so many people come and they say it's for storage. Maybe you have too much stuff. The other
thing I looked at, I mean, architecturally, this garage is different than your house, because,
again, a lot of times people come and say they want it to be architecturally pleasing. They want
it to blend with the house, but your house roofs are going this way, and your garage is going to
be going this way. So, I mean, I was looking for the arguments of why you wanted it like this,
and all I come up with is size, and.
MR. CARDINALE-We tried moving it around the property to get the setbacks, also.
MR. HUGHES-We did have, if you recall on the existing drawings that I submitted, there was a
gable (lost words) we were trying to have it look like somewhat what the house did, and the only
difference was that the house has a Dutch hip on the front, a very short one. (lost words).
MR. KUHL-I mean, the other position you could take is if you made like a barn roof, you'd have
more, and still have only 16 foot of height. You'd have more room in it.
MR. O'CONNOR-Then you end up with more square footage problem.
MR. KUHL-It's the height, and I don't think you need the height if it's just for seasonal storage. I
really don't, and that's just my own personal view, and the fact you have a toilet in there, that's
fine. You could have a slop sink in there, too. If your property were on the water, I could see the
value of that toilet, that people wouldn't be running in the house coming off the water, but you
don't have waterfront property. So then what you're saying is, okay, I'm going to use it for my
own personal use when you're working.
MR. CARD INALE-Right.
MR. KUHL-And I happen to know your real business and I know that you do those things.
MR. CARDINALE-(Lost words)six classic cars, and I'd like to get one home, or a couple at
home. As it is right now, I have two over (lost words) at my other house. I've got one at another
place. I've had any of my cars at home.
MR. KUHL-I'm not issuing the stack up. I'm not issuing the three garages. That's not an issue.
Just the height, that's all.
MR. CARDINALE-The other thing is (lost words) Christmas decorations, we have absolutely no
room in the house.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-There is a building plan, but there's no plot plan showing.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, Mr. Hughes, I mean, we've brought it up several times in the past. I
know it's been in the record and I know it's been in Staff comments that, I don't know what the
resolution of it is. I'm hoping you can tell us.
MR. BROWN-Both the floor plans and the elevation drawings that were in the original building
permit file do show it, but the plot plan which is what we use to confirm, does it meet the
setbacks, none of the plot plans that I've seen show a balcony and the setback from the
balcony.
MR. JACKOSKI-So because it's existing at this point, Craig, I mean, it was brought up, I don't
know, Brian or one of us brought it up at the, several meetings ago, but again, it's a
mathematical issue.
MR. BROWN-Well, I guess what you had, or have is, I'm not familiar with the site plan, but the
house is, forget the balcony for a second. The original house was pre-existing, nonconforming.
It was too close to the front property line, we'll say, or any property line, and now we've kind of
made that worse. Black and white, that needs a variance. What do we do now that it's been
built, it was on the building permit plan. They submitted it. It was on the building permit plan.
They disclosed that they wanted to build it on the building permit plan, but it's not on the site
plan. So, you know.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, it should have come before this Board.
MR. BROWN-It should have come before this Board is, I guess, the answer.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I have a couple of questions, too, for the applicant, or Mr. O'Connor.
The parcel that was just recently purchased to build this garage on, could a single family home
actually be built on that parcel, so that, I mean, you'd have another septic system. You'd have a
whole other round of usage there.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I don't know why it couldn't.
MR. JACKOSKI-It's a separate parcel.
MR. O'CONNOR-It was a pre-existing parcel not owned by the same owner.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, I mean, the concern to me is so then you could have a full sized, full height
house being built there by another single family.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is less impact than if that were utilized for that purpose.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR. CLEMENTS-1 think I had another question to go along with that. The floor area ratio, in the
Staff Notes it says that the floor area ratio is 29.6%. Is that including the two properties put
together, or separately?
MR. HUGHES-That's together.
MR. O'CONNOR-Together.
MR. CLEMENTS-That's together. Okay. Which they're not now, is that right?
MR. O'CONNOR-They're joined for assessment purposes. There's only one tax map number to
them, and I don't know if we're going to have to do a deed to join them.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that's the newly adopted process for the assessors and the county is when
you consolidate parcels it's basically a new deed that describes the out bounds of all the land,
instead of Parcel One, Parcel Two just, once they're described under one description you can't
take them back apart.
MR. JACKOSKI-So right now they're still apart and you will issue a new deed with new
descriptions?
MR. O'CONNOR-If that's a condition of the Board, we will abide by it. I object to that, because
you talk about deeding it from yourself to yourself, you're spending $500.
MR. JACKOSKI-But then you have an accessory part.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
MR. O'CONNOR-But we've joined it for assessment purposes, and you used to be able to just
file, we have to file a letter with the Town Assessor. The Town Assessor has to sign the letter.
They send it to the Real Property Tax Department, and the Real Property Tax Department then
makes it one parcel on the tax deeds.
MR. CLEMENTS-And it is that way now?
MR. O'CONNOR-It is that way. If we need to do a deed, we will.
MR. GARRAND-It says here in the deed, it is the intention of this deed to merge the
aforementioned two parcels to form a single lot.
MR. O'CONNOR-It already has been merged, but we can re-affirm it.
MR. GARRAND-I've got a couple of questions. One of the neighbors was in favor of this,
providing it conformed with all of Town of Queensbury zoning. Obviously it doesn't with the
variances being asked for here, and that was from Helen Jo and John Kelly. They're asking that
it conform to all maximum impervious, height compliant. Another thing is this garage is
significantly bigger than the first application we saw. It's over 600 feet larger, square footage
wise, than the first application. Why is it getting bigger?
MR. O'CONNOR-For the garage?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's not.
MR. GARRAND-Based on the first application here, it's 1,064 square feet, three car garage.
Now it's 1677.
MR. HUGHES-No, it's 864.
MR. GARRAN D-864 now?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it's half of that.
MR. GARRAND-That's including the second floor storage?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, the footprint. The footprint before was larger.
MR. GARRAND-Okay, because the application, the way it reads, it says, the first one says
construction of a 1064 square foot. The one I'm looking at is 1677 square foot.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think, Rick, at that first meeting we did identify that that number of 1067
actually should have been, quote unquote doubled, or whatever that number was, because it
only said the footprint and not the, I think that was an error, the way that was typed up. We do
have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'd like to open the public hearing. Is there
anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, yes?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-The total square footage?
MR. JACKOSKI-The total square feet is 1667, I think it is.
MR. HUGHES-1677.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any additional public comment? Any written comment?
MR. URRICO-Yes. This is from the Lake George Water Keeper. The above referenced area
variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer
and the Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake George Water Keeper supports the reduction of
building size and impervious cover in the revised proposal. However, it is our opinion that the
proposed project continues to exceed the supportive capacity of the land, especially with the
shallow groundwater table present and alternatives are available to minimize the requested
variances. The Lake George Water Keeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply the
Town's regulations, specifically 179-14-080 Criteria, during your deliberations regarding the
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
above referenced area variance application. The requested variances are not the minimum
necessary for the applicant to achieve their intended use and can be considered substantial.
There are alternatives for the applicant to reduce the FAR, which includes reducing the size of
the proposed garage structure. The FAR in the Waterfront Residential district is designed to
prevent oversized structures on property that cannot support the level of development in a
Critical Environmental Area. Regarding the permeability variance, the driveway impervious
surface could further be reduced by eliminating a bay or installing pervious paved pavement
material. Requested variances may have potential negative impacts to the environment and
neighborhood. The Water Keeper supports the use of the rain garden for the proposed
impervious cover. The Water Keeper would recommend improving stormwater treatment by
requiring stormwater management for the existing impervious cover. In addition, a bathroom
remains in the second floor of the garage. It should be considered as living space, placing
further demand on the property to accommodate development. This would require the on site
wastewater treatment system to be certified by a licensed professional and it can accommodate
an additional bedroom. The Water Keeper would recommend the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Board of Appeals request the applicant to consider further reductions for the requested
variances to reduce potential negative impacts. Thank you for your consideration of these
comments and I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Sincerely, Christopher
Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any other written comment?
MR. URRICO-I'm assuming previous comments were read into the application on October 17th.
MR. JAC KOSKI-Correct, and just before we continue, Mr. O'Connor, I'd like to go back and
address Mr. Garrand's comments about Honey Jo Kelly. In her e-mail, she does note that she
asked that if they gave the rear setback relief, as the adjoining lot owner, that if they could be
involved in the, I think it was the selection of the materials and colors to the building. Have you
had any discussions with Honey Jo?
MR. CARDINALE-Same color as the house, same siding, same color.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and the Kellys are aware of that?
MR. CARDINALE-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-And they're the ones who you landscaped some of their property with?
MR. CARDINALE-I didn't really landscape it.
MR. O'CONNOR-It looks like it, to me. You've got a wall across there.
MR. CARDINALE-No, that stone wall's previous.
MR. O'CONNOR-Your lawn goes back there.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to leave the public hearing open, by the way.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Just to the comments of the Water Keeper, there is no bathroom I'm
aware of on the second floor.
MR. URRICO-I'm just reading this. I'm not the Water Keeper.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. For the purpose of the record, and the stormwater was engineered by
Gary Robinson. He assigned it as a PE, that it is adequate, that it will handle the stormwater
from the garage. We also have said that we will do permeable pavement for the driveway as
well as remove the other driveway.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. I think at this time if there are no more questions, I'll poll the Board. I'll
start with Brian.
MR. CLEMENTS-I'm so glad you did that. Well, this has been a tough one for me because
there's a lot of things on this property that seem to be kind of out of whack and things that didn't
get shown in previous plans, but the property, but he could put a garage on the house. I realize
he doesn't have a lot of storage underneath because the crawl space, they have made it
smaller, and they're going to put a permeable pavement in there for driveway. So I guess at
this point I would be in favor.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think no matter what we do here we're going to have an impact, but I think
that they've tried to address the impacts of stormwater appropriately, but at the same time I think
we need to keep in mind this is a .14 acre lot, and up on the lake there's plenty of those small
lots that are very similar to this, and I think that, you know, if we were looking at a brand new
proposal for a home with a garage on a .14 acre lot like this, I don't think we would even give
them the time of day on the detached garage. I think that the alternative of the attached garage
to the house, even though it's going to be higher than what's proposed here, might be more
appropriate because it shrinks everything in instead of sprawling out and adding more building
further out into the yard here, you know, even with the addition it's still a .14 acre lot, which is a
tiny lot. I think that the Floor Area Ratio is there for a purpose, and that's to keep everything
appropriately sized for what it is, and I think that anybody could come in and make the argument
that they want a three car garage for their belongings, cars, whatever it happens to be, but at the
same time I think that you could propose something smaller, maybe something attached, and it
might have less of an impact than what you're proposing here. So I'm going to wait and listen to
what everybody else says.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I think that three cars work on that property. I'm just not in favor of the height. I don't
think you need the height for storage. You have a walk up staircase. You can make it so that
you can store whatever you want up there and deal with a pitched roof. So I'd be against it at
the current proposal with the height.
MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I'm sort of torn. There's still a lot of variance required, but you did make
some changes, which we suggested and you did do that. I guess it would be in favor, only if the
two lots were joined in a deed.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-Whether benefits could be achieved by other means feasible. Moving on to the
house, reduce the size, reduce the height. Will this produce an undesirable change in the
neighborhood? A standalone three car garage at this height, I think it will. Is this substantial?
Staff refers to it as severe to moderate. Water Keeper seems to think it'll have adverse
environmental impact. I'm against it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I was not here for the first hearing of this application, but it looks like there
were a lot of changes, a lot of reduction made from the last time, but it also seems there was a
lot asked the first time. So making reductions on a lot reduces it somewhat, but not enough in
my estimation to make this, make it a reasonable application. I think there are feasible
alternatives to the reduction of several of the aspects of this, and I think it needs a little bit more.
I would not be in favor of it at this point.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm kind of torn with Jim. I think if it had been a two car garage and a little bit
smaller, I probably would have been okay with it. I am concerned, though, that if this other lot
had another single family residence on it, it's another septic system. It's a lot more stress on the
environment. So I think, is there a way to reduce the height of it at all, that would make it
feasible for you?
MR. CARDINALE-I actually bought this lot from some (lost words) because they thought they
could build a house on it. I ended up paying more than what I should for the place just to keep
someone from building a house next to me and then basically just wanted to build a garage, but,
you know, when you said someone could have bought the place and they were actually selling it
as a lot to build a house on, and we would have no problems with the septic system (lost words).
MR. CLEMENTS-Could I make a comment, too? Because I know that a couple of the Board
members here were talking about putting a garage on the house. If you look at the plans for
this, if you do that, it's going to be over the two septic tanks.
MR. CARDINALE-Well, that was the other reason why we (lost words) to the house.
MR. CLEMENTS-So I just wanted to make that comment.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
MR. JACKOSKI- I know. I was trying to find a compromise with what Ron had a concern with
and Jim hasn't really weighed in yet. So I'm just trying to see where we can try to move
forward.
MR. O'CONNOR-Ron, if they moved the pipe down, so that the peak itself were lower, but put
dormers on the side so that they don't lose all the head space.
MR. KUHL-Mike, (lost word) yes or no on what you submit. Okay. Now if you drop the height
down with the roofline the way it is, put your staircase between bay one and bay two, you could
walk up and get upstairs, and you come in the middle of the height, the maximum height you've
got at 16 foot, and you could walk the whole thing. I do it over my garage, and I get, I mean,
sure, it slants way down, but if storage is what you want, you can do it that way.
MR. O'CONNOR-You run into your eaves very quickly.
MR. KUHL-I have holes in my head from the nails, too, because I didn't put any, you know,
board up there, but I'm suggesting to you that when I was doing my house, they said, we're
going to put a stairs, I said, no, no, no, but then I modified it and I store over a garage, and I get
all my stuff in there, and I've got one garage. You've got three. If you can't put all your stuff in
three garages, at a 16 foot height, you've got too much stuff.
MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. I'm struggling with three car garage on this tiny little parcel. We
hate to have you table it and continue to come back, but I mean, we still have this open issue
that we've addressed with you in the past about this balcony. The Zoning Administrator said to
you also that it probably should have been included, and we've addressed this before. We have
said that we have an issue with that balcony. You need to make it part of the application, and
it's still not, I don't know why you haven't done that.
MR. BROWN-And if we do end up moving towards a tabling and they want to make that part of
the application, we could advertise it.
MR. JACKOSKI-And we've suggested that two or three times in the past.
MR. BROWN-That's something that certainly can be handled the next time, if they want to.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can we table this just momentarily while you're doing your other business, see
if we can come up with a design that makes something, and then come back in and decide
whether we want to table it?
MR. JACKOSKI-I just want to make sure everyone's okay with that. Is everyone okay with that?
MR. URRICO-Sure.
MR. BROWN-I think in the longer term, to answer your question, you can either table it and
come back and deal with this and the balcony, or you submit a separate application in the future
for the balcony.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I acknowledge that. We'll do this and then we'll talk about the other.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So we are going to leave the public hearing open. We are going to
temporarily table this application for continuation of this meeting, and then we'll call you back at
the end of the meeting.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2012 SEQRA TYPE 11 CHERYL DANIELS AGENT(S) VAN
DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) CHERYL DANIELS ZONING WR LOCATION 5 BOSS
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 984 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,204 SQ. FT. HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF SPR 75-
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
2012; BP 2012-407 DEMO SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 0.32
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.9-1-3 SECTION 179-3-040
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64-2012, Cheryl Daniels, Meeting Date: December 19,
2012 "Project Location: 5 Boss Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes demolition of existing 984 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and construction of a
new 2,204 sq. ft. home.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1. Side setback - Request for 8 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement in
this instance of the WR Zone.
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 would be to place
proposed dwelling within the building envelope and subsequently avoid an area variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 8 feet or 40% relief
from the 20 foot side setback requirement 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 within 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,
SP 75-2012: Pending
BP 2012-407: Demo sfd
Staff comments:
This requires Site Plan Review with our Planning Board due to slopes in excess of 15% within
50 feet of the proposed dwelling. Please see the December 18, 2012 Planning Board
recommendation handout at meeting.
SEAR Status:
Type II"
MR. URRICO-And then there was a Planning Board recommendation on December 18th that
said based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be
mitigated with the current project proposal, and this was adopted December 18, 2012, and it
was unanimous.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and welcome.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Cheryl Daniels in this application,
together with me is Larry Clute who will be the builder of this structure. Cheryl is in the
audience if you have any specific questions for her as well. As Staff has stated, this is property
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
that's on the west side of Boss Road. The existing home, if you look at the existing conditions
plan, lies extremely close to the northerly line. She wants to be able to build a new energy
compliant, energy efficient home, a little bit more room, a little bit more modern than what is
there. We're trying to keep everything up on the upper slope. As it was stated, it went to the
Planning Board because the property has steep slopes in excess of 15% and we'll be within 50
feet of that, but we will not be disturbing anything on the back. Where the proposed house is, if
you look at the contours, it's extremely flat. There is less than eight inches of grade change on
the upper portion of that property. The one minor change to the proposed conditions plan, after
going through all the renderings of the house and having Cheryl work with Larry the designer,
the actual finished product is slightly smaller than what we had proposed. It's still going to sit in
the same location, but it's now going to be 2,098 square feet total. That would be the only minor
change. The existing structure, as I said, sits four feet off the northerly line, and 23.7 feet off the
road. If anybody's ever been down in that area, as it was stated last night by the Planning
Board, it is a very narrow road. We'd like to have a little bit more room off the road for parking a
vehicle, for the snow plows and stuff to get through. So that's why we're pulling this back and
making it comply with the front setback, the south side setback and the waterfront setback. The
reason to keep it parallel and pull it back to the 12 feet and not go to the 20 feet that would be
required and not need a variance, we looked into the southeasterly corner, that is a new septic
system that has been in place in the last four to five years, and this house has a full foundation,
and we want to maintain a new septic system and not have to destroy it and then try to put in
another one, because that's the most compliant location for a septic system on this property, not
getting it too close to the steeper slopes. It does meet all the required setbacks, 10 feet from
the road and 10 feet from the southerly line, and again, it's just something that we didn't want to
disturb if at all possible. We are definitely moving the house to the south, you know, eight feet,
and then making it parallel instead of at the (lost word) it is now, so in our opinion it greatly
improves the current condition with the proposed.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Any questions from Board members?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I have one. The Staff says that a feasible alternative would be to place
the proposed dwelling within the building envelope and subsequently avoid an area variance,
and I think you answered that when you said the septic system is there and you can't move it
further south. Is that correct?
MR. STEVES-Correct, and if you look at the position of the home and the style of the home, by
putting the garage like L shaped is to keep it as far away from the septic as possible so we're
not disturbing that and you don't have to replace or damage the septic system. So we took that
into consideration when designing the house, that there's no basement underneath the garage
so we don't have to excavate that area, and we put that key into the house that could wrap
around the septic system, and that's exactly the reason why we didn't pull it further south to be a
compliant setback, because then we would be definitely removing the septic system.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. GARRAND-Is that a tree right in the middle in the front of this yard where the driveway's
going?
LARRY CLUTE
MR. CLUTE-Yes.
CHERYL DANIELS
MS. DANIELS-There is right now, yes.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. How tall would you say that garage house is next door? Just out of
curiosity.
MR. KOHL-Twenty-four feet, that double wide one, the one that's facing?
MR. GARRAN D-Yes.
MR. STEVES-Yes, 24 to 25 feet.
MR. GARRAND-I was just curious.
MR. STEVES-Being down on the site, I would say that's right around the 24 foot mark. I would
agree with Ron on that.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MR. KUHL-Mr. Clute, should we take the challenge on and move the house south, I mean, you
could build it and not disturb that septic because you're a spectacular builder. I mean, you don't
want to take that challenge? No, I'm only kidding. I'm not against it, but if in fact you had (lost
words).
MR. CLUTE-No, you have to be 20 feet. There is a separation . It's part of the Code.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. CLUTE-So you have to be 20 feet from it. So if we do encroach further south on the
property, I would have to modify the system, although I do appreciate it.
MR. STEVES-And my bad on that, I should have mentioned. You have a 10 foot separation
from your tank to your house and a 20 foot for any subsurface structure, being the basement, to
the septic system. You can go as close as 10 feet to the garage, but moving it closer, and to get
the 10 feet from the garage now puts it within 20 feet of the house.
MR. GARRAND-According to your drawing, you're going to be close to that 10 feet now, so any
farther south, you'd.
MR. STEVES-Exactly. We comply everywhere with this current configuration.
MR. GARRAND-Except for the side setback.
MR. STEVES-You've got it. If we start moving it at all, then we start ending up with issues with
the septic, and again, I just want to reiterate that if you look at that lot, if we made that exactly
compliant, no matter what size structure, even if you use the current house, that septic system is
going to have to move, and where are you going to put it. We just think it's in the best possible
location. That's why we did it the way we did.
MR. GARRAND-That road doesn't get plowed all that well in the wintertime.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time? We do have a public hearing scheduled this
evening. I'd like to open that public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to
address this Board concerning that application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-None that I see.
MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. At this time I'll leave the public hearing open. I'll poll the
Board. I'll start with Rick.
MR. GARRAND-On the balancing test, I think benefits cannot be achieved by other means
given the location of the septic since it is a new septic. We should start tearing that up. We've
got to maintain the separation there. I wouldn't ask them to do otherwise. Will this produce an
undesirable change in the neighborhood? I don't think any. Is the request substantial?
Moderate. Any adverse physical or environmental effects? They're not building right on that
15% grade, so I don't see any impacts on the neighborhood except for cutting that tree down.
I'd be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I think you're making a good improvement, and the septic would have been
my concern, but being as how it's (lost word) I have nothing against it. I think you're doing the
right thing. Welcome to the neighborhood.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I support the application as submitted and approve of the explanation given by
Rick.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It's a small Waterfront Residential lot and everything's been
appropriately designed. The house fits and the septic's already there so why should we mess
around with it? So I think it makes perfect sense.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think it's a modest home and it's a moderate variance That you're asking
for. I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and, Brian, I waited until the end for you, so you wouldn't have to be
first this time.
MR. CLEMENTS-It's a reasonable request. I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll look for a motion.
MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2012 CHERYL DANIELS, Introduced by
Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
5 Boss Road. Applicant proposes demolition of a 984 square foot single family dwelling and
construction of a 2,098 square foot home. Request for eight feet of side setback relief from the
twenty foot minimum requirement for the Waterfront Residential zone. Whether benefits can be
achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. There are some lot constraints here as well
as the location of the septic. I think the applicant has made the most appropriate choices here.
Will it produce any undesirable changes? As I previously said, I can't foresee any undesirable
changes at all. Is the request substantial, no, I don't believe so at all. Any adverse
environmental impacts on the neighborhood? I can't foresee any at all. Is this difficulty self-
created? I would say no. So I move we approve Area Variance 64-2012.
Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand,
Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations and good luck.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2012 SEQRA TYPE II OWNER(S) JOSEPH RETORT ZONING
MDR LOCATION 24 OAKWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM FENCE
HEIGHT STANDARDS AS A RESULT OF AN OVER HEIGHT PORTION OF A FENCE
CONSTRUCTED ON FILL. CROSS REF NOA 2-2012 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A
LOT SIZE 0.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-2-47 SECTION 179-5-070C(3)
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there someone here for that?
MR. BROWN-We didn't get any notification of him not coming or any tabling requests.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I think out of courtesy, professional courtesy, we ought to table. Maybe Mr.
Lapper wants to do some pro bono work? I don't know. So, as a courtesy we should try to table
this for the applicant. Can I have a motion to table it to the second meeting in January?
MR. BROWN-We have like five applications. I mean, if we can put them all on one meeting, we
want to do it.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's fine. The first meeting.
MR. URRICO-Could we discuss this without him?
MR. BROWN-You could discuss it without him.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
MR. UNDERWOOD-He was in here previously. So I think everybody's pretty familiar. We
should be able to deal with it reasonably quickly I would imagine.
MR. GARRAND-What's the schedule look like? I mean, what do we have on the agenda for the
first and second meeting right now?
MR. BROWN-Right now we have enough for a first meeting. You maybe have five or six items.
This might be the sixth item.
MR. JACKOSKI-Just bear with us. Some Board members here are suggesting that we could
probably take care of this application without the applicant here, Craig. How do you feel about
that? We know the application. We've all heard about it. We all talked about it.
MR. BROWN-I don't think you'd have to wait for him. He was noticed. You have a public
hearing scheduled. You can act on it if you want to. I think he would care less, especially if
you're going to act the way that I think you're going to act.
MR. JACKOSKI-We don't know how we're going to act yet. We haven't finished the process.
MR. GARRAND-I don't know if I feel comfortable with that.
MR. JACKOSKI-Let's give it a try, and see how we go when we get to polling the Board. We all
know this application's been read into the record in the past. This is a Type II SEAR. Public
hearing is still open. There's no one here in the audience that wants to address this Board
concerning this application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. JACKOSKI-The public hearing is still open. Is there any additional written comment?
MR. URRICO-No, I'm not seeing any additional comment.
MR. JACKOSKI-So at this time I think what we'll do is we'll poll the Board, and I'll start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think Mr. Retort was pretty upfront with us when he appeared before
us previously, and I think we all recognize the fact that this fence came in because of a neighbor
who wanted to raise the issue. That neighbor did not appear, I don't believe, in the last
meeting, and so we didn't really have any real basis, other than that the fence was properly
addressed by Staff and that it was over height from what was allowed by the Code. My position
on it is I think he pretty much explained the topography differences along the fence line that he
wanted to keep it a single fence line down through the whole length of the fence instead of
stepping down to keep it in compliance, and it's a very short section. I think it's on the picture
there showing that short section on the floor plan of the fence. In my mind I don't believe it really
triggers anything exceptionally bad in my mind, as far as the way that the fence looks, and it's
been there for, I think, six years already. So I think that we can live with what it is.
MR. JACKOSKI-So you're a yes?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. This applicant came in front of us, and he just didn't come looking for a
variance, he came looking for something else, but the variance is what he needed, and he
explained himself thoroughly, and I think it's a good project. His property is good, and it makes it
look nice, and I'd be in favor of this variance.
MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. It looks like a beautiful yard, and I can't see any reason to remove
part of that fence. So I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I agree with everybody else. I'd be in favor of it at this point.
MR. JACKOSKI-Brian?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I also agree with everybody else. I think that if you lowered that, took
that down and lowered it down, it wouldn't make that much difference to the neighbors anyway.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I'm not against the variance in any way, shape or form. I just might abstain
given that the applicant is in absentia.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'd be in favor of it. Because I do think he was pretty straight up with us
and I think if he were here tonight we'd all be saying the exact same thing about it looks okay
and I guess we'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll ask for Jim to provide us a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2012 JOSEPH RETORT, Introduced by
James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
24 Oakwood Drive. The applicant is seeking relief from fence height standards as a result of an
over height portion of fence constructed on the top of a retaining wall. As previously explained
in his earlier appearance before the Board, in order to deal with the topographic differences,
there is a small rock wall under one portion of the fence which does kick it up over the height
variance that's being requested here this evening. Parcel will require area variances and that's
relief requested for the six eight foot long panels on top of the wall along the rear property line of
the parcel and the greatest amount of relief appears to be about eighteen inches. We do
recognize that this fence was created six years ago, and at this point in time, no Board members
feel that there will be any direct negative impacts to the neighborhood anticipated. Short of
removing the fence and fill, it would seem not imperative that anyone would want them to do that
at this point in time. So the request, again, is for eighteen inches or twenty-five foot relief from
the six foot height fence requirements.
Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Garrand
MR. JACKOSKI-And just for the record, we did that without any legal representation.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-2012 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SEAN BERGER d/b/a
ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT SPECIALIST AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S)
SEAN BERGER ZONING Cl LOCATION 351 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
PLACEMENT OF A 30 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN FOR ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT
SPECIALIST. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CI ZONE FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN. CROSS REF SPR 74-
2012; A V 57-2010; SPR 68-2010; BP 2012-309 WALL SIGN; BP 2012-169 FS SIGN; BP 2011-
043 COWL ALT WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 296.20-1-55 SECTION CHAPTER 140
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 66-2012, Sean Berger d/b/a Adirondack Retirement
Specialist, Meeting Date: December 19, 2012 "Project Location: 351 Bay Road Description
of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 30 sq. ft. freestanding sign for
Adirondack Retirement Specialist.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements for a freestanding sign.
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to keep
the sign in its current compliant location to avoid an area variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 12.2 feet or 81% relief
from the 15 foot minimum setback as per§140-613 1 may be considered severe relative to the
ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The potential for sight line
interference for those turning left from Bay onto Glenwood Road may be realized as a result
of the proposed location.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
SP 74-12 Modification to an approved site plan Approved 11-15-12
AV 57-10 Setback relief and expansion of a n/c structure Approved 11-17-10
SP 68-10 Expansion of office use Approved 11-16-10
Staff comments:
Only one freestanding sign is permitted per parcel as per §140-6(3)(c); application states 2
allowed. Originally, the freestanding sign on this property was constructed in a compliant
location. Subsequently, the applicant caused to have the sign placed in a non-compliant location
and they were directed to either move the sign or seek an approval to keep the non-compliant
sign. The applicant has chosen to relocate the sign to a compliant location and now seek
approval to reconstruct the sign closer to the intersection.
SEAR Status:
Unlisted -Short Form attached."
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Lapper?
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. Just to remind everybody about the development of
the site, we did need some area variances because of the small pre-existing parcel and the fact
that there have been some takings for the road right of way in the past, which is really what
effects how close this is to the property line versus how close it is to the street. I think everyone
will agree that it was a very nice simple re-development of a really dated building there. There's
not much you could do with a building that size, and a financial planner is a small traffic
generator. So it was just a, it was a nice fit, and it really looks good landscaping and the
architect that, Ethan Hall, the architecture came out really well. So there wasn't an intention to
violate anything here. They put the sign in. The legal argument is that it looks kind of dumb
where it is because it's just squished up against the building with all that lawn. Essentially if you
look at the map and you see where the road is versus where the property line is, it's more than
15 feet from the sidewalk. It's just not from the property line. As it is proposed, it does meet the
15 feet from Bay Road, just not from Glenwood, and the comment in the Staff Note that, you
know, I'll note didn't come from Craig who's sitting here tonight, there's not an issue with the left
turn because that's a signalized intersection. So if you're on Bay, and you're making a left onto
Glenwood, you're going when you have the arrow. So it's not a question. There's no conflict
there. The cars on Glenwood are sitting there. They're not going to be making a left turn onto
Bay and be a conflict, and you can see underneath the sign, but the simple benefit to the
applicant is it just doesn't look well where it is now squished up against the building and then to
have all the grass in front of it. It's just a, that's the issue. Just visually it doesn't look good. So
that's why he asked me to put in an application and come and talk to you, to see if it could get
moved farther out onto the lawn.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Do Board members have any questions at this time?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
MR. GARRAND-I do. Counselor, the point that Staff brought up is a very valid point. This light
gets run constantly. Somebody going down Bay Road in a rush to get to ACC decides that
they're going to run the yellow light and you have somebody coming off of Glenwood who's not
quite to the intersection, there is a potential for a traffic accident here, just because the person
with the green light will not see the car coming due to that sign. Where the current sign location
is, you know, they may be able to see it, but with that right up on the road, it limits the line of
sight. I mean, the closer that sign is to the road, the less visibility somebody is going to have of
that entire lane of traffic coming.
MR. LAPPER-Rick, if you look at where the pole is, where the light pole is, which is on the (lost
word), you're still looking in front of that. I mean, I've been there looking at this, knowing that
that would be an issue. When you're making that left turn, you still have all of the distance
between that pole and that sidewalk there. That's really where you're looking at the car.
MR. GARRAND-If you've got a green light, if you see a green light ahead of you and you're
looking at Lowe's, you're just going to go to that green light. Somebody runs that red light, I just
think it's.
MR. LAPPER-The sign is not a monument sign. So it doesn't come down to the ground, and if
you're there, you can look underneath the sign and you can look in front of the sign, and I think
in practice that's not an issue, but at the same time, you know, there might be a compromise
that, in terms of the minimum variance, that if we pull it back two feet more so it would be 4.8
instead of 2.8, maybe that'll accomplish your purpose and also just make it look more attractive
on the site, and I'd offer that.
MR. GARRAND-Craig, what do you think, in your professional opinion?
MR. BROWN-Granting less relief than what they've advertised for or the location of the sign?
MR. GARRAND-The location of the proposed sign?
MR. BROWN-That comes up a lot when you look at a site plan and you try and predict what
people are going to do when they're operating a motor vehicle. You put parking spaces in a
certain place and you stripe them a certain way and you put arrows in the parking lot or you put
right turn only signs up last week, people don't follow those sometimes. They're going to do
what they're going to do. So I'm not going to have an answer for you. If the sign's there.
MR. GARRAND-I'm just looking for a professional opinion.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I mean, you could argue that, without seeing it in place, or some sort of
simulation, I don't really have an opinion on what it would look like. I mean, if it's closer to the
road, is there a potential to have some conflict there, some sight visibility? Sure. I don't know
how realistic it is, though.
MR. JACKOSKI-But if the property lines, in this particular case it's not the case, but if the
property lines actually were down the center of the road, which happens a lot in the Town, we'd
be measuring off that centerline point and we wouldn't even have this issue.
MR. LAPPER-The grass is there. It's just not owned by the applicant.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's what I'm trying to say.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Are there any other questions at this time for the Board before we open the
public hearing?
MR. CLEMENTS-Can you tell me how far, the grass is right up against the concrete sidewalk
there, right?
MR. LAPPER-That's right.
MR. CLEMENTS-Can you tell me how far, I don't think that's on the plans here and I don't know
if I've seen it anyplace else, how far is it back from the sidewalk? Edge of the sidewalk where
the grass is? I mean, you've got two feet eight inches.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think from here over to here is about 14.
MR. LAPPER-There's more than 10 feet from the edge of the sidewalk to the property line.
MR. CLEMENTS-More than 10 feet.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
MR. LAPPER-Yes, I'm going to say approximately 11.
MR. CLEMENTS-So if it was from the edge of the sidewalk it would be 12 feet 8 inches.
MR. LAPPER-Probably 13.8.
MR. CLEMENTS-Thirteen.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time from the Board members? Okay. I will open
the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board
concerning this particular application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one at this time in the audience, is there any written comment?
MR. URRICO-I'm not seeing any.
MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. I guess we'll poll the Board. Kind of mix it up here a little.
Brian? It's pick on Brian night.
MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. Pick on Brian night? That's okay. I get the same thing at home. That
far back from the sidewalk with that much lawn, I'd be in favor of it. As a matter of fact, I would
have recommended that it even, at 16 feet 1 inch from the front, I would move it up to 15 feet, if
that's within the, I mean, then you could see it more from Bay Road, too. So as far as I'm
concerned, I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I go past there several times a day, and I've seen the sign moved before. I
have never had any problem, ever seen any problems there. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I was going to take Mr. Lapper up on those two feet, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'd like to see the two extra feet in there, and I think then it's still going to be
not too far cockeyed towards the house like the way it is now, it's way out of whack, and I would
agree with you on that point.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-You're going to give us the two feet?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. KUHL-I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I concur.
MR. LAPPER-So it would be 4.8 from the property line, rather than 2.8.
MR. JACKOSKI-So we're going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-At this time we're going to go into SEAR. Rick's always good at that for us.
MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND AN ANALYSIS OF
THE ABOVE DOCUMENTATION, THIS BOARD FEELS THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION
WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. SO
MOVE WE GIVE THIS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-2012
SEAN BERGER d/b/a ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT SPECIALIST, Introduced by Richard
Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Now we do need a motion for approval of this Sign Variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We're going to be looking at 10.2 feet of relief, is that right, instead
of the 12.2?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If we do the extra two. All right.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 66-2012 SEAN BERGER d/b/a
ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT SPECIALIST, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for
its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements:
351 Bay Road. The applicant is proposing placement of a 30 square foot freestanding sign,
and the parcel will require relief from the minimum front yard setback requirements for a
freestanding sign. Specifically they're asking for 10.2 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum
setback as per Section 140-613(1) which may be considered severe relative to the Ordinance. It
is the desire of the applicant to place a sign reasonably towards the center of the grassy portion
of the property, recognizing that a lot of the grassy portion is outside of the property line along
the sidewalk there, and moving it two feet back further from what they originally had requested, I
think the Board finds this to be a reasonable request in placing the sign in a more centered
manner on the property. So I would move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements,
Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Lapper.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you, everyone. Enjoy the holidays and I'll see you in January.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We will now go back to Area Variance No. 41-2012, and call the
applicant back to the table to continue this evening's presentation of this application.
MICHAEL O'CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for letting us confer. Basically what we
would propose is to modify the application by stipulation so that the requested relief on the
height is two feet, and we would ask that the structure be 18 feet at its peak. What this does is
that, and we will do a staircase from inside that'll probably be one of those fold down staircases,
and it may not even be a permanent staircase, but what that does is it reduces our Floor Area
Ratio because with an 18 foot peak, we will have only 306 feet in the second floor area that will
exceed the five foot level, artificial level for which we now count Floor Area Ratio, and we had
864 feet up there, and if we take, if we end up with the 9 foot by 34 foot, we end up with 306 feet,
we actually can reduce the 306 feet by another 27 feet for the 3 by 9 foot staircase. It gets the
Floor Area Ratio down to the proposed additional floor area on Page Three, instead of 1677, will
become 1143 feet. The total proposed Floor Area will then be 2959, and the Floor Area Ratio
will then be 25%, which still requires a variance, as opposed to the proposed or the request for
29.57%. The pitch on the roof will be eight by twelve. So I think we've tried to listen to you.
That seems to work. Again, it's not everything that they want, but it will work. You did ask a
question about merger of lot, and I apologize, but you have filed with you an actual deed that
merged the lots as part of your application.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's what Mr. Garrand read into the record.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. So the lots have been merged already, and as to the balcony,
apparently when the house was built, or re-built, there was no Board approval because it was a
pre-existing house, and we don't, what was submitted was the plans with the balcony shown on
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
it, whether that's right or wrong, with a door going out to the balcony, and that's the way it was
constructed. There was no attempt on behalf of the applicant to hide it. It apparently was
something that wasn't caught in the review of the building plans or whatever saying your house
violates the setback, so obviously if you put a balcony on it that violates the setback. If the
Town issues a violation for that, which I would urge them not to do, if they're part of this thing,
we put it to bed. If not, we'll come back to you, and I'll say what do you want me to do, tear the
balcony off, tear the door out and restructure the house? I mean, occasionally those things
happen on Craig's side of the table as well as on our side of the table, but that gets us a lot
closer to, I think where you were sending us, if we change the height of the building from 16 feet
to 18 feet, or from the 22 foot request to 18 feet, it leaves us a little bit of room up there. Not an
awful lot of room. So we would amend our application to that. I would file it, just for the file I'll
give a form for her to type up with those figures on it, as opposed to saying it in the record.
MR. JACKOSKI-And there was some brief discussion, I think, with Mr. Underwood, also, that
three cars versus two cars.
MR. O'CONNOR-The whole purpose of it is to be able to store some of his collectible cars there,
as well as cars that they operate. That's the whole purpose of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments from Board members at this time?
MR. CLEMENTS-I have one for, question for Craig, I think. Craig, would, should we include in
this variance a part of that for that balcony that hangs out?
MR. JACKOSKI-We can't.
MR. O'CONNOR-It wasn't advertised.
MR. CLEMENTS-It wasn't advertised.
MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, Mr. O'Connor, I appreciate that you're addressing it, because we've
been asking about it. So now at least we know, you know, what the applicant can do and would
be willing to do concerning that balcony. Thank you.
MR. KUHL-I just have a question. Your new design, are you going to still have those three
windows over your doors, is that the plan, or are they going away?
JAY CARDINALE
MR. CARDINALE-Yes, there's going to be a gable roof.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'd like to re-poll the Board if I could, and the public hearing is still open.
Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it's more in keeping with what we're requesting. I still don't like the
fact that it's a three car garage rather than a two garage, because I think a two car garage would
be more appropriate on a small lot, but I think that the 18 foot height satisfies me as far as the
relief for that. I don't have a problem with the rear setback, and I really don't care about the
balcony because I don't think the balcony has any effect on the future of the lake, anything at all
either. I think it wasn't caught by the Building Department when they issued the permit, nor
when they did the final inspection. So I don't see why we would bring that up at this point, but I'll
wait and hear what everybody else has to say first.
MR. JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-Thank you. I think that's pretty significant, going down the five feet in height. It
was a 23.2 foot originally. Eighteen feet is quite a compromise. The applicant's made a good
faith proposal here. So I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with the height, and I also like the permeable pavers. We get into that
a lot, but I know your classic cars don't drip anything, so we don't have to worry, but I mean from
the standpoint.
MR. CARD INALE-They'II be in the garage. I won't even drive them out.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
MR. KUHL-No, no, I'd be in favor of it, the way you present it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I was in favor before. I still would be.
MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes, I'm still in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-With those changes, I would be in favor of it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-I'll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2012 JAY & PATRICIA CARDINALE
Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
10 Crossover Lane. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,143 square foot two car garage
with second floor storage. Applicant requests relief from rear setback, height, floor area ratio
and permeability requirements for the WR zone. The relief required is: Number One, the rear
setback requests for 18 feet of relief from the 30 foot rear setback for the WR zone. The height
relief request for two feet of relief from the sixteen foot maximum height requirement for
accessory structures in the WR zone. Number Three, the floor area ratio request for, the total
proposed floor area is 2,959 square feet, which equates to a floor area ratio of 25%.
Permeability request of 688 feet of permeability relief for the maximum allowable impermeability
of 2,953 square feet for this parcel. In making the determination, the Board shall consider,
Number One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of this area
variance. Minor impacts may be anticipated. 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. The restrictions of the lot, feasible alternatives are, it's tough to have any
feasible alternatives. Number Three, whether the requested area variance is substantial. The
request for 18 feet or 60% of relief from the 30 foot rear setback may be considered moderate.
The request for two feet of relief may be considered moderate, and additionally the request for
additional floor area ratio may be considered moderate. Number Four, whether the proposed
area variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions may
be anticipated. The difficulty may be considered self-created. I'd move for approval of Area
Variance No. 41-2012.
Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations, and the house does look great, by the way, from the days
when Malcolm had it. So we do have no additional business in front of the Board this evening.
Any further discussions of anything? Anything to be brought before the Board? Everyone, the
last meeting of 2012.
MR. GARRAND-Feliz Navidad.
MR. JACKOSKI-May I have a motion to adjourn?
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
DECEMBER 19, 2012, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Richard Garrand:
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/19/2012)
Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand,
Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
25