05-22-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 22,2013
INDEX
Area Variance No.61-2011 Queensbury Partners,LLC 2.
Tax Map No.289.19-1-23 thru 35
Notice of Appeal No. 1-2013 David Klein/North Country Engineering 15.
Tax Map No.226.19-1-39
Area Variance No. 61-2012 Steve and Jennifer Kitchen 21.
Tax Map No.226.19-1-39
Area Variance No. 18-2013 Alfred&Alice Schuman 38.
Tax Map No. 227.18-1-30
Area Variance No.20-2013 Robin Benak 50.
Tax Map No.252.00-1-71&72
Area Variance No. 15-2013 Paul and Denise Przybylo 53.
Tax Map No.290.18-1-12
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 05/22/2013)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MAY 22, 2013
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
RONALD KUHL
RICHARD GARRAND
JOYCE HUNT
JOHN HENKEL
KYLE NOONAN
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER&HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening, everyone. Welcome. Tonight, May 22nd at 7 o'clock here in the
Queensbury facility. This is the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, and for those of you who haven't
attended in the past, it's actually quite simple, but there is a sheet in the back, an information sheet
that kind of explains the process for you. We will call each application. We'll read the application
into the record. We'll ask the applicant to address the Board with any additional information.
Generally the Board will ask some questions. When there's a public hearing scheduled we'll open
the public hearing. Depending on the outcome of the public hearing and some polling of the Board,
we may keep the public hearing open, or we may take action on the application. So it's quite
simple. We're going to start with Old Business after we do the approval of meeting minutes for
March 20th and March 27th. Do you want those approvals separately or together?
MRS.MOORE-Separately.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The approval of minutes of the meeting of March 20th, and, Ron, you were
absent, I believe.
MR. KUHL-Yes, I was.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 20, 2013
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
OF MARCH 20, 2013, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Joyce Hunt:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. We'll go right into approval of the March 27th meeting minutes. Can I
have a motion? Again, Ron,it looks like you were absent.
MR. KUHL-Yes, I was.
March 27, 2013
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
OF MARCH 27, 2013, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard
Garrand:
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Now we'll get onto the Old Business of Queensbury Partners.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 SEQRA TYPE I QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC AGENT(S)
MATTHEW FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC ZONING O-OFFICE
LOCATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BAY & BLIND ROCK RDS APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF 11 BUILDINGS TOTALING 132,000 SQ. FT. ON A 34.05 ACRE PARCEL. THE
INTENDED USES FOR THE SITE INCLUDE OFFICE, BUSINESS RETAIL AND MULTIFAMILY.
ACTIVITIES ALSO INCLUDE LAND DISTURBANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF PARKING AREA AND
OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL USE SETBACK FROM BAY ROAD AND FROM THE
MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE ZONE.
CROSS REF SP 62-2011; FWW 6-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2013 LOT SIZE
34.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23 THRU 35 SECTION 179-3-040
MATT FULLER&MIKE INGERSOL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR.JACKOSKI-This application has been read into the record numerous times. I will turn it over to
Roy to add anything if necessary. There is a public hearing scheduled this evening, a continuation
from April 24th,and I'll call the applicant to the table.
MR.URRICO-I don't see anything different in the Staff Notes.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Great. Then we'll just start with Mr. Fuller and the applicant.
MR. FULLER-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,and congrats on last night.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. FULLER-For the record, Matt Fuller with Meyer & Fuller now for the applicant Queensbury
Partners, and I thought what I would do is just give a, I know we've got some new ZBA members. I
wanted to give just a quick history how we got to where we are (lost words) a lot of the plans and
things here tonight, but just give that little insight. A few years ago now, at this point, many years
ago there was a project, 170 plus or minus units of residential development that faced some
significant opposition, and there was some zoning moves and things done by the Town back then
that stopped any project in its tracks, essentially, and a couple of years ago when we kicked off the
latest plans for the project, we went back through all those old minutes, you know, countless,
planning/zoning board meetings,and developed a project that was zoning compliant,with the units
in the back, the offices in the front that you see along, or the subdivision that's on the map now,
along Bay Road, and all the residential units to the back, outside of the 300 foot setback, and we put
that together, came in to the Planning Board at that point for Sketch review, and, again, put on a
presentation how we got there, read the quotes out of the planning and zoning minutes, and it was
made very clear very quickly that that wasn't necessarily the idea that the Planning Board had in
mind, and they had expressed an opinion that they'd like to see more of a village concept and sent
us back to the drawing board,which we did. I think back in hindsight at that point what we would
have done is also come to you guys and gotten your comments at that point, but we followed the
Planning Board's direction and the Town,you know,went through months and months of revisions,
and a couple of meetings with the Planning Board, and came in with a plan that originally had,
again, the residential units more to the back, a commercial structure, a couple of commercial
structures right here along Bay Road, and again, you know, went through some Planning Board
meetings and ultimately ended up with a sketch, as opposed to what it looks like now, with a
building that was, I call it the main focus building, right at the corner of Bay and Blind Rock, that
was much closer to the corner of Bay and Blind Rock, and at that point we did end up working with
Craig and ended up on the Zoning Board agenda at that time, and the ZBA certainly had somewhat
of a different opinion than the Planning Board, and so we went back and forth and tried to do some
modifications and ultimately the Town came up with the idea for a joint meeting. We had
petitioned the Town, the Town Board for a zoning change to allow PUD plan, and the Town Board
said, no,that's not a good idea at this point. Get a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Boards,
get their comments and see if you can come up with a plan. So we did that. We had an initial
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
meeting, got the comments, went back, revised the plans. I headed up a couple of additional
Planning Board meetings, came back to the ZBA yet again, and ultimately ended up having one last
follow up joint Zoning and Planning meeting, which kind of sent us on the way to where we are
today. It was made very clear. I kind of disagreed with the count on how many variances we
actually need. I think a lot of them were counted, but it was high. It was in the 20's, and if you
counted them how they were counted, it was over 30, and it was made very clear that that wasn't
acceptable. The direction was keep the density where it is,keep back the main buildings off of Bay
75 feet,keep the height,you know,right around 40,the way it was originally in the mid to high 50's,
and come back with a plan, and that's where we are today. We worked through those plans. If we
could, could we flip that plan up? Well,while she's pulling that up,we did go back to the Planning
Board. The Planning Board did issue a Negative Declaration on the SEQR, recommended,gave us a
positive recommendation to this Board on the variances, and we were in last month, I couldn't be
here. Jeff covered for me, and we're back here tonight. I did submit as well for the Board a
comment letter. I do also have some clients that live in the neighborhood around here. So, I mean,
this morning got a copy of a notice that was put in everybody's mailboxes yesterday, and I wanted
to get just some comments. One, that were made on the record last month, and also just some of
the things that were on this little flyer that was handed out. One being that this project doesn't
comply with the Comprehensive Plan, and I think,you know,we can have a discussion pro and con,
about what you like about the project, what you don't like about the project, but we've got to base
this on facts and what's in the documents and not emotion and innuendo and who people are or
who people think are connected to. That's just not going to get us anywhere. This project
complies with the Comprehensive Plan, it complies with the Office zone directive, and I'll (lost
word) the letter,the primary objective for the Bay Road corridor is to create a professional identity
mixed with some high density, multi-family residential units. That's what we have here. The
Comprehensive Plan has directions, make projects pedestrian friendly. We've done that. We're
going to go to the substantial expense of including sidewalks throughout and even stubbing the
sidewalks out to adjoining properties so that they can be continued. Promotes an interconnect
relationship with the neighboring residential uses and commercial uses. We've got that. Again,
we've got the interconnect that we've established on this project,and that should be drawn forward
going down Bay Road. Encompasses distinctive architectural style to attract quality business and
individuals to the area. The plan's not up there, but we've shown, even through the original mock
ups that we had,you know,we're going to have a mix of stone and colors and not just a single color
facade on the buildings and the residential units to the rear. The residential units will have porch
like entrances and balconies on some of the commercial structures to the front, again, trying to
improve the architecture. Buffers the neighboring residential district. I got asked actually tonight
about the cut zones and things to the back, and you can see the line that goes around where the
wetland, the darker line, we're not invading the wetland at all to the rear, and again I didn't get to
make the meeting last month, but there was some interesting comments, and again, I'm not one to
generally point things like this out, but when people are being fed information that's just patently
false, you know, I have a duty to my client to defend their interests here, and that's what I'm going
to do. One of the comments that was offered was if Rich Schermerhorn owned that property, I
guarantee you he'd do something that would look nice, be functional, and he wouldn't ask for a
single variance on it because he's never asked for one on Bay Road,not one. Well,the project down
the road at Willowbrook did get a variance, a couple of years ago. Variance 31-2011, bumped one
of the buildings, for the same reason that we are, for mechanicals and just structural look, up to 45
feet. We're looking at asking for 47 and a half, and again,we've said in past meetings that we could
cut that and make it flat. It's just going to make those buildings out front look flat. This is not to
increase living space,it's not to increase commercial space. It's for mechanicals. So,again,to come
up and say, you know, that arguments and petitions are being based on specifics,when people are
being told the opposite, because I get it outside of these meetings, too, you know, we're not just
going to sit here and stand for that. So, for the record, I've submitted a letter that takes those
arguments on, but, looking at the variances., looking at Blind Rock, I do believe that Schermerhorn
still owns the residential project right across there, the setbacks on those buildings, and again, it's
setback from property line, not setback from road. That's also a big misunderstanding. When we
measure zoning setbacks, we measure from property line, not pavement. That pushes it back
further, but the buildings right in here are running upwards of around 38 feet, 39 feet, maybe 40
from Blind Rock Road. The commercial structures right here, same boat, high 30's, 40's. Right
here along Bay,what's now a bank building, again,that's about 38 feet if you measure it, using that
GIS system I believe this afternoon. In fact, the building that we're sitting in, the Town's own
building, is about 38 feet off of the property line. So, you know, as far as the area variances, you
know, staying within, in the neighborhood, certainly along Blind Rock where that, it's in standing
with what the rest of the buildings were, those buildings certainly were constructed before it was
75 feet, and I think if,you know, if we were looking at the zoning and changes,you know, when the
new zoning was adopted, regional, and I forget what the other arterial was,we've got two arterials
that were merged into one, collector roads, and so Blind Rock wasn't an arterial originally. It was a
collector and then it ended up as an arterial. So,you know,whether or not it would be 75 I think is
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
debatable, but in any event, the variances that are requested right here along Blind Rock are in the
standing of the neighborhood. The variance on the height, again, you know, you've got
Schermerhorn's down the road. There is precedent in the Bay Road corridor proper for buildings
above 40 feet, and again, it's an aesthetic issue. It could be cut down,and that's certainly a decision
for the ZBA and Planning Board. The one that has driven the most discussion is the 75 feet from
Bay Road, and that was a direction that came out of those joint meetings. There was no guarantee,
and I 'm not going to say there was. It was a design the project and come back to us and request it,
and we will debate it properly, as we have to, at this time. No Board was in a position to make a
decision at that time, and we fully knew that. That's why we're here tonight., but again, sticking
with trying to kick off this corner, trying to compliment the other corners that are immediately
there, I think the 75 feet is reasonable. It is, preserves the first floor. The building to the south,
there's been some comments out there that they can always come back and ask for residential here.
To be clear in the law, they could. We have said we won't, and it would need a substantial Area
Variance because all of the density that Craig has calculated for residential is being used in the
corner and the back side of the project. So there is no residential density left for this part of the
project at all, period. We have previously committed, and we're sticking to it, that this part of the
project, the residential will kick off. This isn't a, another comment I've heard, the wolf in sheep's
clothing,where we're going to build the residential, or build the commercial,build some residential
and leave it. We've committed to a project that's phased like that,and that's the way it's going to be
built. A couple of final comments, water and sewer. I've heard those out there, too. Water, we
have worked with the Town. The permit application is individual Department of Health for part of
the site plan review, and there's adequate capacity. We have a letter from the Town in to the
Department of Health that there's adequate water capacity for this project and the neighboring
uses. That's not an issue. The sewer line. Much has, again, been made about the impact north of
Bay and Blind Rock on the sewer line. There's a sewer line that was put in as part of,we'll call it a
settlement between Surrey Fields to the north and The Michaels Group because the septics were
failing. I know, I was involved. That line, I believe, is a three inch line. Should they have made it
bigger? They probably should have, but from Bay and Blind Rock south, the design capacity of this
line is,we're under it. So there's enough capacity, and that line was designed with this project and
the uses,and at that time I know there had been some comments out of Cedar Court,what about us.
There was a map plan and report that was done that would have allowed them into that district and
they opted out. There's still enough capacity in the line. Now they would have to drop a new line.
That three inch line wouldn't, I don't think, support the capacity out of Cedar, but there is enough
capacity coming south for them as well. Town Hall's on that line. There's enough capacity for us
on the line, and there's been comments about the pump station issue down here, and our project,
the sewer has already been submitted to the Town sewer department, and we've gone back and
asked are there any further comments, because we certainly don't want to get blindsided in site
plan with a pump station issue, and there aren't any. It's being thrown out there. No engineer's
come in here. We haven't gotten it back from the Town. We are proceeding, and we are working
through that sewer permit with this down here. So if there's an issue, somebody needs to bring it
because there hasn't been. It's just rumor at this point. So,with all that,where are we now? We're
here for the variance request, height, the setback from Bay and Blind Rock, setback from Bay, and
the encroachments just for the lights and things like that, overhangs, on the buildings. Looking at
the character of the neighborhood, the densities that we're using are allowed. We're not over
density. There's no density here requested, 56,000 square feet commercial office, and 142 units
residential meet the zoning. This isn't a density variance. We comply with zoning. The variances
that we requested are as part of the design that we've gone back and forth, and with that I'll take
comments and I know you have a public hearing that's open,too. Thank you.
MR. JACKOS KI-Thank you. Are there any comments from Board members at this time? Okay.
Hearing none, I will open the public hearing. Again,for the public hearing this evening,we do set a
timer. We do try to ask that you keep your comments brief and succinct and for those of you who
may speak after other commenters, if you could focus your comments onto new information that
would be very helpful in the process. I'm going to first ask Roy if there's been any additional
written comment received?
MR.URRICO-None other than the letter from Matt Fuller.
MR.JACKOSKI-And Matt,do you want us to read that into the record?
MR. FULLER-That was part of the record. I went through it in detail.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. No other comment written?
MR.URRICO-No.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Now that we all know what the written comment is, is there anyone here in
the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter? Sir? And if you
could state your name for the record,please,and your address.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MIKE SIEGEL
MR. SIEGEL-My name is Mike Siegel. I live on Chelsea Place here in Queensbury. A number of
years ago I was the Chairman of the land use committee for the Lake George Association. So I'm
fully aware of the tough job that you guys have, and it's a thankless job and I thank you all for
putting your time in on it. Back in,about six years ago, Comprehensive Land Use Plan was updated
and talking to my neighbors I've come to the conclusion that with very few objections the citizens of
Queensbury are happy with the update, and now our developer is asking to just trash that and go
from a 300 foot setback to a 75 foot setback. The only word I could think of it it's ridiculous.
People are moving into Queensbury rapidly. We see an expansion in our population, and what
they're doing is moving away from cities, moving away from congestion, coming to a rural
atmosphere, and that's what they want, and I implore this Board to consider that and keep that in
mind when you come to your decisions. We are not against construction. We know it's inevitable.
We know it should be done, but it should be done with a lot of thought about what the citizens
want, rather than what our builders want, and with that I thank you again, and hope that you
consider what I'm saying. We're not against a slight change in the height regulations. That would
be fine. There are, as the previous speaker said, 38, 39 foot buildings around here. So if we could
stay within that,no harm done,but the setback really,really gets to me. Thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. Sir?
DOUG AUER
MR. AUER-Good evening, all. Doug Auer, 16 Oakwood Drive. What you're doing here tonight is
very important,okay. It's probably the most important decision that's come out of this building for
quite some time, for a number of reasons, okay, and I can speak authoritatively to what I'm going to
comment about tonight. I want to correct one thing that Mr. Fuller said. I was advised by Jon
Lapper,because it was my comment that Rich Schermerhorn didn't ask for any variances. I'll stand
corrected because apparently that variance was asked for after my tenure with him. I was his staff
engineer for a number of years, but Jon advised me at the Town Board meeting that Rich never
asked for a variance. So I'm sorry I was given incorrect information,but I'll stand by that comment,
that Rich Schermerhorn, if he had that property,he would do a really good job,and I guarantee you
he wouldn't ask for a variance on it,okay. Now,what I'm going to speak to,and please indulge me a
little bit because this is important. There were two documents generated back,this is the first one.
This is the map plan and report done in June 2000, which was the lynch pin component for the
sewer that exists on Bay Road, and this was done at the request of the Baybridge Homeowners
Association. I was their business manager at the time. I'm not a P.E. I've got a friend of mine,
Kevin Hastings, who is a P.E., and Kevin and I put this together, okay, and what happened was the
Town at the time said, gee, that's really great. We were originally going to operate, or request an
out of district user designation. The Town said, look, this is a really good plan. It sounds like you
guys know what you're doing, why don't you build into this some additional capacity, in other
words, make this thing more robust, and plan is so that this lynch pin component,this pump station
component,will be able to handle the rest of development on Bay Road, and we said, sure, and they
said, and we'll pay you for that, and they did. They paid about$191,000 in additional fees over and
above what was designed just for Baybridge as an out of district user. Now,we said,gee whiz,we
don't know,you know, what should we be designing for,what are the design parameters, and they
said the Zoning Code. Look at what the zoning is, and we did, and I'm going to focus in on one
particular piece of property,this one right here. At the time that we did it,and it is in the map plan
and report, there's a table on Page 8 of this, that specifically talks to all of the future development
for Bay Road and what the sewer usage would be, okay. At the time, that project had an approved
22 lot subdivision, 22 units,it was under BRB Subdivision. That was the name of it,and six or some
office lots totaling 64,000 square feet, okay, that's what is in the map plan and report, Page 8. This
was approved,accepted by the Town. Now,we ran all the calcs on this,we came up with a number,
okay. We plugged that number into what Schermerhorn's needs were, and this took into account
everything on Bay Road,with the exception of Surrey Fields up north here. Now,just a little aside.
The soils on Bay Road are terrible. They do not lend themselves to a collection system for multiple
homes. So if you were going to go with residential properties,you really needed to have some sort
of a sewage system, a collection system, and ultimately discharged to the City of Glens Falls. Now,
that's what we designed and we built. Now, the amount of, this is a little bit arcane here, but the
amount of sewage that we allowed for discharge from that facility was something around 20,000,
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
less than 20,000 gallons, it was like 18,000 gallons, something like that, 12,000, gallons whatever.
Significantly less than a residential, which what they're talking about now. Now, why that is
important is because the pump station and other considerations downstream for us, and again,this
was in the map plan and report. We mentioned in this there were limitations, considerations and
limitations for the entire system, but it would accommodate all of this. Now, we put this to bed,
done. Rich Schermerhorn went and developed what he developed, Baybridge hooked up. There
was capacity. They know what the usage is because they can monitor that,the Town Engineer, and
the Town Engineer has given an opinion on this, but for some reason it hasn't gotten into black
letter type yet, and I'll get to that in a minute. What it seems has happened here is Mr. Galusha put
in a sewer line and, unbeknownst to me, he didn't ask for any compensation from the Town for it,
and I have a suspicion why, but when we built the sewer lynch pin component to this, we were
compensated for the additional capacity. Now, from what I'm gathering, and what I have been told
by the Town Engineer,that this project will basically sop up all of the capacity for this project. Now
the problem that I see is not with the Zoning Board. You guys have done a great job up until this
point. You guys got sucked into this thing. The problem is with the Planning Board. The Planning
Board Negative Dec'd this thing. They should have never done this. Because this thing has got a
huge impact on the sewer. It maxes it out on paper. The engineer will tell you that. Now, let me
tell you something about on paper. You want to stick with on paper. Because when Boeing
designs an airplane that has a certain capacity to it,they figure that the people that are going to get
on that may be getting on board may be chartering it and they're going to go to a fat farm for some
sort of a week or two thing. So they make sure that that airplane is designed to carry people who
are going to be heavier than the average person, and that's what we did with this. We designed
additional capacity. Some of that now has gotten used up by Surrey Fields. I'm told that some
more is going to be used up by Dan Valente. This project coming along is going to sop up all of that
excess capacity that we designed into this,and the Town made a promise,because they paid for that
extra capacity. They paid that$191,000 and that promise was to the other residents, Cedar Court,
the professional office that exists across from Schermerhorn on Walker Lane, help me out, what's
the name of that, Baybrook, is that it? Baybrook office park in there, okay. The College court
apartments, Green Mountain Development, Adirondack Manor, Canterbury Woods, Old Coach
Manor, all of those folks were taken into consideration and were part of that. They banked that
capacity. Now this,when we did this this was 2002, and the last time I was here and I spoke to you
folks my memory was a little a bit rusty. I had to pull out the map plan and report on this to
refresh my memory. It's 11 years ago, and there's not a lot of space left up here anymore. So this
stuff gets pushed out,you know,that's the way it goes when you turn 65, I guess,but one thing I do
know is that there was a promise made. I have a letter here from Rich Schermerhorn to the Town.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr.Auer, I mean, I've allowed you double the time so far, can you try to wrap up so
other people can speak for a little bit?
MR.AUER-Okay. This is important.
MR.JACKOSKI-We know.
MR.AUER-It's really,really important,because you're going to create a burden that is generated by
the developer. They had a 22 lot unit subdivision approved, okay. When this sewer came along
they said ah ha, now we can turn this thing into a blivit, okay, and that's what it's turned into.
There was a reason why there was a 1,000 foot setback. It went from 1,000 to 600. They didn't
like the 600. They got 300, and they're asking for something less than that. This is wrong. Okay.
I'm tired of this. I have no dog in this fight. I really don't,but it's just wrong. So do the right thing,
folks. This all didn't just happen. This happened because good people did the right thing. Do the
right thing.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to address the
Board concerning this project?
JOHN KOSKINAS
MR. KOSKINAS-Good evening.
MR.JACKOSKI-Hello,old friend.
MR. KOSKINAS-My name's John Koskinas. I'm a resident in Queensbury. I've watched this project
for a long time. I'm sensitive to the work that is done by this Board, and by all the Boards in this
Town. This project has drawn a lot of comment. I've addressed this Zoning Board before. I've
addressed the Town Board in a formal public hearing. I've listened to other people. I've never
heard one citizen stand up and speak for this project, other than those who are financially vested in
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
it or their counsel, but every citizen who's spoken has had concerns, and the basic concern, as I see
it,as I've heard them,I mean,whether you're talking about the sewer or the traffic or the turn lanes,
the fact is the character of our neighborhood, the character of our community is what's at stake.
The Bay Road overlay, the Comprehensive Plan and the existing zoning speak directly to the
character of our community and the character that's been asked for by the citizenry in this
community, and I know it's easy to turn a deaf ear because, you know, we don't have a Board
member in this Town who was elected by more than 1,000 votes. You could say that this room is
full of people who are pretty apathetic. They trust the people who run the Town. Most of the
people who we vote for run unopposed. So they don't need a lot of votes, but I don't think we're
apathetic. I think we're trusting. I think we trust the people who are here to serve our interests to
literally serve our interests. The character of this community is important to each of us, and it
matters, and it'll matter to our children and their children. So this project which manifests itself
initially from a fully conforming project, I remember at the joint Planning Board/Zoning Board
meeting which was an anomaly to begin with,but that's only the threshold of unheard things,but at
that meeting this, and a subsequent Zoning Board meeting,this Zoning Board, in its construction at
the time,we unanimously opposed to granting this carte blanche variances. At the time there were
34 created (lost words) probably get you down to 20, but there's a lot of variances. The Planning
Board, the ownership had a conforming project. The Planning Board fathered a nonconforming
project, encouraged it, and when the Planning Board and the applicants brought it to the Zoning
Board, the Zoning Board said, no. The our Town management used a creative approach to the
Zoning Board having done its job. The Zoning Board said no, but the Town Board said let's have a
conflict resolution. I doubt that's even a legal approach to solving things. The Zoning Board,being
an appellate board,there has to be a complaint. This project began with no complaint, no financial
burden, no nonconformance, and it's evolved by the Town Planning Board, not an elected board by
the way, the Town Planning Board to (lost words) not one citizen who's spoken is in favor of. It
came to the Zoning Board. My hats off to you. You did your jobs, and after you did your job, the
Town Board said let's have some conflict resolution. It's not a conflict when the Zoning Board does
its job. It's just,you made your decisions, and you can make them as you choose. I'm embarrassed
for the Town Board. I'm personally embarrassed for them that that would be their approach. Now
it's here again. What do you want there? Should that project, problem, that property be
developed? Yes, sure it should. Do they have a right to do it? Yes,they do. Do they have a right
to present it to you? They do, but you also have obligations, as I understand them, that are based
on all the training you've had, that says what elements will be considered. I've done a lot of
research on this project, but I won't bore you with those details, other than to say, you've done it
correctly. How we keep pushing the boundaries of your decision, and how we're letting it and how
you're letting it is beyond me. You said no. Nobody liked your no. They pushed it a little further.
They had a conforming project. The Planning Board didn't like it. They pushed it a little further.
They were concerned about the Zoning Board's take on it, had a joint meeting, pushed it a little
further, and now they're moving the shape of this project until the setbacks will be completely
violated. The height will be completely violated, but most importantly the character of our
community and its Comprehensive Plan and its zoning won't mean anything. I'm encouraging you
to hold the line. I know it's not an easy job, not a popular job, when you get these gifted counsels
on you, no fun. I wish you well and I hope you do the right thing. As this gentleman said, Samuel
Clements,always do right. This would gratify some people,astonish the rest.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to address the Board?
Ma'am?
KATHYSONNABEND
MS. SONNABEND-Kathy Sonnabend, Cedar Court. I purposely delayed my surgery for tomorrow so
I could be here tonight. I feel that strongly about it. I agree with John Koskinas. The process has
been perverted. You have had so many meetings with this developer and the Planning Board, and
the Town Board, without many public hearings, and over the course of an extended period of time,
they've fed you piecemeal documentation that got me very accustomed to hearing about this
project over and over again, to the point where it seems okay, but the problem is it doesn't comply
with the Zoning Code, and while you can find examples like TCT that do a bank building that are
closer to the road, the vast majority of development along Bay Road in the past, 10, 20 years has
complied with the Code. Those other buildings are older buildings before the Code recognized that
we needed further,we needed some changes. The sewer issue is very real and the Town Engineer
has acknowledged that, and it's not just the question of the size of the pipe. It's very complicated.
I'm not an engineer. Doug is a retired engineer,but the Town, I don't know why the Town Engineer
hasn't let you guys know that. I don't know what's going on behind the scenes. The bottom line is
that the owners of Blind Rock and Bay Road, over the past decade, have repeatedly come back with
proposals for a very dense residential development, in a zone that was supposed to be primarily
professional offices, and at a time when it was supposed to be a 1,000 foot setback for residences,
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
they wanted 174 apartments. Then the Town helped them out by changing the setback to just 300
feet. They still don't want to comply with that, and this business about the Planning Board causing
them to have a noncompliant project, yes, the Planning Board did encourage them to change the
character,which is John Koskinas' main problem with it,but the Planning Board never told them to
put apartments in the upper stories of that retail office building. They never told them to build
their apartments so close on Blind Rock Road. I was present at a Planning Board meeting when the
developer kind of intimated that they might be putting apartments above that first floor of the office
building on Bay Road, and I remember Gretchen Steffan speaking up, who was a Planning Board
member at the time, and saying,well,you can't have apartments in that building, it has to be offices
because of the 300 foot setback. So the Planning Board never told them that they had to comeback
with those variances. So instead what they did is they took a, what they say was a compliant
project in 2010, I don't know because I never looked at it really closely, but I did look back in the
records and found out that at that time they were asking for 98 residential units in that compliant
project. Why on earth they didn't go forward with that project I don't know,but when the Planning
Board asked them to be creative, they decided, okay, we're going to go from 98 units to 142. The
Planning Board didn't tell them to do that. They created the need for these variances. They
decided they wanted a three story building instead of a two story building. The Planning Board
didn't tell them to do that. So, these variances they're asking for, I understand you've got five
criteria that you have to look at when you're approving or denying an application. They have
created this problem. Yes, the Planning Board was somewhat complicit in it, but if they had just
come up with a project that was, and stuck to it, a project that was compliant and in character with
the Bay Road corridor as it has been developed, they would have had that project already built and
done. Now there are a lot of people that are really upset. I've been working on this since 2004,
and I'll tell you,when we go around now talking to people,they're shocked that this is still the issue,
that they're still coming back with these dense residential projects, and a lot of people don't even
know there's a meeting tonight. I wrote a letter to the editor of the Post Star to alert people to the
Planning Board meeting in April. I didn't get it in in time. They told me they didn't have enough
time to put it in. So this time I updated it, sent it in earlier, and they still wouldn't publish it. So
how are people supposed to know what's going on when it's not in the paper, when we're not
getting mailings. I remember twice receiving mailings over the past decade about that project
proposals and public hearings. I don't know what's happened lately,but I'm being told by people in
the buildings right across from Blind Rock Road that they never got notice of the last few meetings
where there were public hearings. So don't take the fact that this room isn't completely packed as
evidence that people are not interested. We went through another petition drive and we've got a
couple of hundred signatures again. With more time,we would have gotten a lot more. People are
not happy. They want the process followed. They want the Zoning Code upheld, and they don't
want special favors just for one developer. Yes, maybe Rich Schermerhorn got one small variance,
but all along up and down Bay Road he had been building residences 1,000 feet back. Valente was,
too. They weren't happy about it,but they complied. So why are we giving special treatment to the
owners of Blind Rock and Bay Road over and over again? I just don't understand it. I would like to
seethe law followed, the process maintained properly. It's therefor a reason. They should be
coming up with a compliant project, fully fleshed out with full documentation, reviewed by Staff,
before you were supposed to even consider it, and this just hasn't been happening for years with
this proposal. I don't get it, and with respect, I understand you guys have a hard job and it's a lot of
work and I do appreciate the fact that you're willing to step up and do it, but please don't damage
our community by making the wrong decision tonight. Thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Mr. Brothers?
PETER BROTHERS
MR. BROTHERS-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll make this brief because we're all tired, at least I am
and I think most people are. I am totally opposed to any variances for this project. I think it's an
ill-conceived project. They've worked on this for a long time, and continuously, even after a little
fine tuning, a little fine tuning, somebody in the developer's area, they're not getting it, that this is
ill-conceived. We should have, in this particular area, more commercial and/or professional office
use to be with the spirit of the neighborhood. It's much better for the Town, better for the
taxpayers, and quite honestly with them coming back here repeatedly, it really shows a lack of
respect for your time, in my opinion. I'm sure all of you have a lot of other things going on, and just
to have these people come back all the time is really a waste of everyone's time, and lastly, even
though this is digressing a little bit, I have to say that we in North Queensbury were denied a fire
district and I can't even get my own Councilman to even advocate with the rest of the Board,
collaborate, and try to get something that was part of his campaign promise to push through, and
this particular project is going to require a lot more fire personnel because that's the nature of
apartments and because of the way the fire district is set up here in Queensbury it's very unique,
and it's not really fair, we're going to be paying the lion's share of the cost, the fire costs of this
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
particular project, and again, with regard to all the variances, I can't approve of this project, and
that's all I can say.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Brothers. Is there anyone else here in the audience this evening
who'd like to address the Board at this time concerning this project? Sir?
MIKE WILD
MR. WILD-Good evening. My name is Mike Wild. I live on Blackberry Lane, Queensbury, not far
from the project, and I want to start off by apologizing for being late this afternoon or this evening,
but one of the things I'd like to do is go a little bit in my background,because I think it's pertinent. I
was in front of this Board in its fashion and its form in mid-2000's when I developed some property
not far off of Blind Rock Road. So I understand the process of going through and requesting
variances. I also participated in the master plan development that happened probably not long
thereafter, and I participated as a member on the planning and ordinance review committee, and if
you guys don't really understand what that is,we're the ones that helped structure the zoning laws
that reflected the nature of what was defined in master plan. So I do have a little background and
experience in some of this,and one of the things that I wanted to convey is the process that we went
through, and the Board was very diverse. The planning committee or the PORC committee was
quite diverse. I would say I was probably the one pro-development person on that committee, and
one of the things that I fought for and I was successful in trying to do, at least I believe,was to try to
make the zoning laws fair, reasonable, such that developers didn't have to go through this type of
problem in developing projects and moving forward in the community. This corridor was the
subject of long, late night discussions about how it should be structured, and we worked hard at
trying to figure out what made sense and what was right. Part of that was maintaining the
character and the fairness of the other developers who had already built and dealt with the current
regulations in the corridor. Now, I have to say that I agree that this has been a long, convoluted
process. I attended many of the meetings that this project and developers have brought before
here. I don't quite understand it. To me, I think there's some political pressure going on, but I'm
not trying to accuse anyone on either Board. It doesn't seem quite right, but if you look at the
premise of the zoning laws trying to be fair and reasonable and setting guidelines for people to go
forward, the thought was is that variances would be minimal, if at all required. The idea was to
move forward, stick with the master plan, abide by the zoning regulations, and move forward, and
this project it really hasn't happened, at least not yet, and I'm hoping you guys will come forward
and decide that there is still problems with this project in its current form,but I just have to say that
my concern is the precedent, because granting a zoning variance for me was, one of the big
questions was, am I going to change the character of the neighborhood? Now, I think that if you
guys step back and look,this is very different from what's on the rest of the corridor. It will change
the character of the neighborhood, for good or bad, I'm not going to make that judgment, but you
guys have to make a determination on whether or not this is going to change the character of the
neighborhood. I believe it does, and that's all I had to say this evening. Thanks. I appreciate you
guys have a tough job and it's going to be a tough decision, and I'm curious all the defenses that are
going to be made when the final decision is made,if it is to approve. Thank you very much.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone else this evening?
MS. SONNABEND-I just want to turn in these petitions,if I could.
MR.JACKOSKI-Certainly. Give them to Staff. Okay. So I'll call the applicant back to the table. lam
going to leave the public hearing open at this time. I would like Staff just to confirm that public
notices were made through our normal protocol and procedures concerning this meeting this
evening.
MR. BROWN-Well, I guess the protocol and procedure is if the application was tabled to a specific
date, we don't send out additional notices, unless that period of tabling is beyond, I think, 60, 62
days. So I don't believe notices went out for this meeting because it was tabled.
MR.JACKOSKI-But that is our protocol?
MR.BROWN-That's exactly the protocol.
MS.SONNABEND-We didn't get any this year at all.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, but I can also tell those in the audience, for future reference, the agendas for
these meetings are always on the Internet, and feel free to check periodically when you can, but
there are public notices issued in the newspapers accordingly with the process. Okay. Mr. Fuller.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR. FULLER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On that note, I'll note, too, that if anything on the notice
part Queensbury has more notice than I would say any municipality around here. You can listen to
the minutes. You can actually listen to the recordings. You can see the application materials. I
deal with a lot of municipalities around here, and I don't know another that gives you that
opportunity to look at that stuff on line, and I do live in Town. So it's my tax dollars, too,that are
paying for that. I want to just briefly hit on some of the comments that popped out. A gentleman
made a comment that the Town,you know,made a promise to other residents. When a town has a
sewer, the promise that the Town makes is to the residents, the property owners that are in that
sewer district and pay that sewer district tax. That's what the capacity is for. The Town cannot
charge a taxpayer for the capacity and then promise it to someone else. That's what your,that's the
argument that's being made. Properties were outside of the sewer district,they still are, that have
connected, and the argument is being made, don't allow the resident or the property owner, this
property owner that's in the sewer district to use that capacity. That's patently false. That's not
the law and it's not legal. So the Town, I don't know who's making promises,but they can't promise
the people outside of the district. Much has been made, again, about this 1,000 foot setback, and
fairness and politics. I know there's some newer members that may not have known the whole
story behind that 1,000 foot setback, but that 1,000 foot setback was enacted within 60 days of a
couple of members taking seats on the Town Board. Politics, political retribution, political
vendetta, that's exactly what that was. It was not predisposed by the Comprehensive Plan or any
planning at all. It was a political payback to the people who got elected, and rather than sue the
Town, the property owner waited for the PORC and the zoning process to carry out. The
Comprehensive Plan had been adopted, and the zoning through the process had, the new zoning
had been adopted. The project,at its core, meets the density,and all of the arguments about sewer
and flow don't go to height. They don't go to setback. They don't go to any of those variances.
This isn't a density request. These are planning requests. The Zoning Board and Planning Board
got together. Not everybody likes every aspect of the project. I get that, but I would argue that a
lot of variances,people along the lake and what not that get granted, a lot of people don't like that,
but the property owner who constitutionally has a right to request relief, and it's not a question of
whether or not the neighborhood character will change. Any project on land is going to change the
character of a neighborhood. The question is,to what degree is that adverse. What is the adverse
impact to the neighborhood? That's the question that they have to deal with, and again,we're not
dealing with density. We're dealing with the setback, and the setbacks are,you have to look at the
neighboring property owners. On the one hand, if the neighboring properties along Blind Rock
were 75 or 80 feet back,you betcha they'd be in here complaining that ours is going to be 40,42,45,
47, and the rest of them are all 80. That's the character of the neighborhood. That's what you're
bound by. That's why people can come in and ask for a variance. If all the neighboring properties
are set back a certain distance, and you're going to replicate that or be within that,you have a right
to do that. That's the flexibility that has to be built into zoning, and that's why we're here. I think
that was really the gist of the comments. Again, I think the criteria is there. This has been a long
process. To say that it was pushed or we're pushing, no, this was planned. That's what we've
done. We've worked with the Planning Board. We've worked with this Board. We've had our
own public meeting on a Saturday where we rented this facility out, paid the Town, and sent our
own notices, further than the zoning notices. We sent them to more, and invited people. A lot of
people didn't come. They waited to come inhere, once we've designed, and,you know, as could be
the case, and made complaints. That meeting, for the people that did attend, we did take some of
those comments in. The Blind Rock is a classic example. Originally, if you see the original plans,
the road along Blind Rock was actually in front of the buildings. Right in the area,again,right along
Blind Rock,the driveway, if you will, the road was out in front of the units,which pushed the units
back towards the wetland. Somebody said, well, why don't you flip that, why don't you put the
units closer to Blind Rock, again, in standing with the other side of Blind Rock, and put the road
behind it. It's more aesthetically pleasing. You could have some sidewalks out front. So we did it,
and yet here it's portrayed as us pushing that. That's not pushing. It's good planning. It's
addressing Staff comments. It's addressing Planning Board comments and your comments and
public comments. Again, some people don't like it. Those that got the change they liked aren't
going to come here and tell you they like it. They like it. So with that,we would ask that the Board
review the criteria and we hope that we've presented a case that justifies the four variances.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So at this time what I'd like to do is poll the Board,just to get a
general feeling for the project,if you don't mind. I'll start with Rick.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you. My thoughts on this project really haven't changed. I do have a new
concern. I trust the opinion of one of the people who spoke tonight with regard to the capacity of
the sewer lines going through that area. I have some grave concerns about it. I would love to hear
from the Town Engineer what his thoughts are on the capacity for that area. While sewage
capacity is not anything we necessarily govern,we're, part of our responsibility's health, safety and
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
general welfare, and I think basically with the setbacks being the way they are, shorter setbacks are
going to result in more flow in that area. Instead of having a pump 1,000 feet long,we've got a lot
shorter pipe. So it might increase the flow at various times. I am concerned about capacity. I'd
like to hear from the Town Engineer.
MR.JACKOSKI-So at this time you'd be not in favor of moving the project forward?
MR. GARRAND-I was in favor of the variances asked for last time around. Going through the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan as well as the Town Code, Town Code encourage compatibility
between residential and commercial uses. This basically is a transitional area, I think the project
does a lot of that,but right now I'd like to hear from the Town Engineer.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. Thank you. I wasn't in favor of the height. I'm still not in favor of the height. I
would ask you one question, though. Why not 75 feet off of Blind Rock instead of 48? Does that
move you into the wetlands?
MR. FULLER-It would do one of two things. It would move it back to the wetland, or we would flip
the road back to along Blind Rock.
MR. KUHL-I'm not in favor of the height. I'm not in favor of the plan the way it is.
MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I'm not in favor of the height at all, and I really don't like the 75 foot front
setback when 300 is required. I think that's excessive. I'm not in favor of the variance.
MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-Thank you. I wasn't present last month, but I did have some concerns, and those
same concerns that I had last month I still have, and they do deal with the 75 foot and the 300 foot
setbacks,and at this point I would not be in favor.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. In the last meeting I was not in favor of the setback also, of 75 feet, and I'm still
not good with that,and so I have to say no for the project right now.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-When a project starts out with 20 to 30 variances and cuts it back to four, it looks like
we've made a lot of progress, but if the project had come to us clean, tonight for the first time, and
they were asking for four variances of this nature,we would look at it as being excessive. In going
through the criteria, I'd say that there might be an undesirable change to the neighborhood. We're
not sure about that,but I'd rather err on the side of caution rather than plunge ahead and not know
what the results are going to be until after the fact. I think there is enough concern that there will
be a change to the neighborhood. I think there are some methods feasible for the applicant to
pursue, including scaling it back further. I think when it comes to the requested variances, at least
two of them bother me quite a bit. I think when you do the combination of it being closer to the
road than what's allowed except by variance, and excessive height, you're creating a canyon effect
down that road, and I think that's something that bothers me quite a bit, and as far as the impact to
the physical or environmental conditions, I think we've heard some cases tonight where there
might be some concerns environmentally as well, and of course it is something that the alleged
difficulty was created by the applicant, in trying to put this project together. So I would be against
the project,as I was last month.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I guess we should try to address quickly,if we can,the sewer capacity matter
as best you know it. Clearly what's been brought up here tonight in the public hearing has raised
concerns and modified some opinions on the project. I think everybody recognizes the joint efforts
of the quote unquote committee that the Town (lost word) and certainly many people on this Board
worked diligently with the Planning Board. It is kind of a reverse process, in that the Planning
Board, those planners that are here in the Town for us, that's what they're there for, they plan,
actually believed that they were helping this process, but clearly this evening there hasn't been a
member here who's in support of the project at this time. So before we move forward with tabling
requests or more public comment, as I stated in the last meeting, I was for the project as it was
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
developed by the joint committees and the joint efforts. I did have concerns with the 75 feet. We
all know that,and the little patio area on the corner, but I thought I got over those hurdles. So let's
talk about the sewer capacity as you understand it, and you know it, and maybe Staff can add. If
they can add, that would certainly be appreciated. So why don't we give the applicant the
opportunity first,and then Staff.
MR.FULLER-Thank you. Time for the engineers.
MR. INGERSOLL-For the record, Mike Ingersoll from the LA Group. I'll try to react (lost words)
Kevin Hastings when he wrote that report. When we were brought on the project, we asked the
very same question. We have a copy of a report from 2004 from C.T. Male that analyzed the
sewage and the sizing of the pipe that was installed, and we can answer the specifics of the sizing
and the reserve capacity in the service of the pipe. So the pipe that is in the ground has much more
access for others to receive. We've also, over the past several months, requested several times
from the Town if there's a concern from the sewer department, the water, we have received none,
and then when we went to the Planning Board with a full set of plans and a sewer report, drainage
reports, if you've seen the plans submitted, they're very exhaustive and fairly complete. So at this
stage, ask the applicant to study the sewage, I can understand that, but we also, under the SEQR
review, received a Neg Dec, but if you have specifics about the amount of reserve capacities, Doug
can speak directly to that if you want to.
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,just briefly I think it's reasonable.
DOUG HELLER
MR. HELLER-So, my name's Doug Heller from the LA Group. Like Mike said, there was a report
completed in 2004 by C.T. Male and it was basically for the extension of this gravity sewer main.
With the extension,they assumed that this property would produce sewage flows of 45,000 gallons
per day. Our proposed development is going to, we're anticipating 44,000 gallons per day. So
we're 1,000 gallons under what the C.T. Male report for this sewer line extension assumed. Also, in
the report they reviewed the capacity of this proposed eight inch line along the frontage, with all
the improvements and this project and everything connecting into it. They have an excess capacity
of approximately 80,000 gallons per day, and that's basically based on the slope of the pipe and the
size of the pipe. So the eight inch pipe at a one percent slope,which is the lowest slope that they
have along this stretch. Even with this connection has an excess of 80,000 gallons per day.
MR. GARRAND-That's for the whole length of Bay Road?
MR. HELLER-It's basically the length of,along the frontage of the property.
MR. GARRAND-We're already got a project that, basically in motion on Bay Road for an apartment
complex. How is this going to affect project already in motion?
MR. HELLER-We can only (lost words) what we know. We don't know about the project and the
municipality if they have a Town Engineer,they'll have to review it.
MR. GARRAND-See, one thing we don't want to get into is to have to rip up the entire Bay Road all
over again at the expense of taxpayers,so one developer can have his development.
MR. HELLER- No,well, not to debate that. I'm sure Dan can do it on his own,but there has been no
expense to the taxpayer for this particular stretch of line.
MR. GARRAND-Right, I'm aware of that. I just don't want anything in the future.
MR. HELLER-I believe there's also fees to be paid for tying in,substantial.
MR. GARRAND-But there is another project right now that came before this Board and already went
through the Planning Board for Bay Road,and it's a large project.
MR. INGERSOLL-The Town sewer department has looked at this and has issued no concern.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. Did our Town Engineer provide any paperwork,documentation or anything?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I don't know if you guys are done yet. I mean, we forwarded this project to both
the Town Engineer, Chazen Engineering, as well as our Wastewater Department, and I've had, you
know, specific conversations with Chris Harrington, the Wastewater Superintendent, about this
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
very issue, and I can just confirm some of these statements that the applicants have made.
Basically there are no capacity concerns for both the project that's underway and this project. I
think that existing infrastructure can handle that. The question becomes what happens if
somebody else wants to be added to the district? And what happens there is, or wants to use the
capacity that's already planned for in the district,and what Mr.Fuller said earlier is,you know,I can
echo that that's correct. If you're in the district,you're entitled to the capacity, and if you're outside
the district, you're not entitled to the capacity. You may want to ask for it. You may want to be
added to the district. You may want to be out of district user,but you don't get that capacity. You
don't have any rights to that capacity unless you're in the district. So for the users that are in the
district, it's theirs to use. Once it's gone, if there's no more capacity, the next guy in basically ends
up footing the bill for either a pump station expansion or a line replacement. That's a mitigation
they have to do when they've created this environmental factor that's gone beyond the limits of
what the infrastructure can hold. That's something that falls to the last guy in, basically. If you're
in the district,you get the capacity. If there's not enough for you,you have to do something to help
provide that capacity for yourself. So, at this point, I'm not aware of any capacity issues with the
existing infrastructure, and again, that's based on my conversations with the Wastewater
Superintendent,if that helps.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-Are there any more questions from Board members? No more questions.
MR. FULLER-Well, if we could get into a little bit of a discussion about direction and things like that.
I mean, height seems to be a big issue. Like I said,we can flat top those roofs if it's strictly a height
issue. I mean, like I said, it was a design issue down the road, further down the road on Willow, I
think it is,or Willowbrook with the apartment or the elder facility that went in there,and it bumped
up to about 45 feet, again, to hide trusses. I went back and read that variance again today, for the
similar reason here, aesthetics. If it's a two foot issue, is it a keep it at 40 feet straight issue? I
guess I'm somewhat interested in hearing that,because we,you know,have to take the design ideas
back along Blind Rock. Like I said,the buildings across the street are all in that same vicinity.
MR. INGERSOLL-The setbacks on Blind Rock may be my fault. I'll take credit for that. We really
felt that by taking the car lights and the driveways to the back behind the buildings, the buildings
would shield Blind Rock, and it's two structures that we're asking, not all the structures on Blind
Rock. If it's the Board's desire to move that back and flip the road to the front,that's an easy move
to make. It's just, it's an unfortunate move, I think, from a planning perspective, but we can make
(lost words). It's just you'd be seeing the car lights all day long.
MR. FULLER-I think in the corner structures along Bay and Blind Rock at that corner, you know, if
the pergolas and things were a concern, and they can be stepped back,you know,to 75 feet as well.
Just more direction.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think at the last meeting I had raised concerns about the 75 feet, and as I listened
to the explanations, I'm not keen on two roads running parallel with each other, which is basically
what would end up happening. So I understood that reasoning and I understood the limitations of
the wetlands in that area. So I got over that hurdle myself. I think tonight we've heard more about
the 75 feet, but again, I keep going back to thinking about the Planning Board and all of those folks
and all of their experiences and why, you know, this project is where it's at. So, fellow Board
members, I guess if we were to give some direction, are we suggesting that that would work for us
to actually put the road back along Blind Rock Road and take away that variance?
MR. INGERSOLL-I mean, what we tried to do, again, was if you look at,we tried to give a front door
to the buildings (lost words) the street which is a pretty common planning practice, and all the
garages are in the back. So what we would do is flip these two buildings. Actually this is compliant
at this point. It's just these two corners. So you drive along and you pull into the garage. It's just
the address of the building is different. That's all.
MR. JACKOSKI-And I understand that planning concept. I need some direction from fellow Board
members on what you want to do.
MR. URRICO-It's very simple. I'm against the height and I'm against the setback off of Bay Road,
more than the others.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I guess this Board, this is where we are. You're going to have to decide how
you want to move forward.
i3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question,just to clarify Roy's comments? The setback
to the residential within 300 feet of Bay Road or the pergola opening,the residential within 300?
MR.URRICO-I'm opposed to granting,being located 75 feet when 300 feet is required.
MR. BROWN-Okay. So just so you know, the building meets the setback. It's just the use on the
building.
MR.URRICO-I understand that.
MR. BROWN-Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
MR. JACKOSKI-I think what Staff is pointing out for the public is that, you know, if these buildings
were all commercial usage, all floors were offices,you'd still have that tall building appearance right
where it is. Is that what Staff is saying? So it's just a matter of what's inside the building versus it's
not the actual quote unquote canyon effect.
MR. FULLER-Yes. If the upper floors were removed, the residential requirement, we would not
need an area variance, which, that could be done. Given what's going on, that could be the
direction.
MR.JACKOSKI-There's an awful lot of vacant office space out there.
MR. FULLER-The net effect of what will happen is we'll end up going and redesigning this southern
part that we had committed to keep as commercial. We will redesign that and put a residential
component behind it. I mean, we've been through sitting with Staff and looking at alternatives.
We have to. That's part of,yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-I think what you're hearing from the Board is no,that's what you're hearing.
MR. FULLER-Yes,okay. Do you want to table right now so we can go back and work on it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I have another tabling motion for this project.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC, Introduced
by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Tabled to a July ZBA meeting with a June 17th submission deadline.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 2013, by the following vote:
MR.URRICO-Is it going to be re-submitted as the same project?
MR.JACKOSKI-Let's clarify. So I do have a second, and let's have some discussion about this. So as
Roy is raising a very good point. What are we expecting on how this is going to be re-submitted?
A whole new project?
MR.URRICO-Well,then it's not being tabled. Then it's being denied.
MR. JACKOSKI-You're right. We actually haven't taken an action. So I guess what I'm saying is
we're tabling it. They could come back to us with the same application,but they may come back to
us with a whole new application.
MR. FULLER-We could withdraw it and come back with something different, or not have any
variances at all. We're asking for the opportunity to make that evaluation.
MRS. MOORE-The Board is asking for the applicant to review the opportunity to redesign the
project.
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-So that's a tabling.
MRS.MOORE-That's a tabling.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR. JACKOSKI-That's a tabling, correct, but they could come back with a completely new project
that may not require any variances or all new variances. We just don't know. Is that fair to say?
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm seeing a few nodding heads on the Board. So okay.
MRS.MOORE-The timing that you want information submitted for Staff review and for?
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, I think in this regard, Mr. Fuller, I think it's reasonable that we get as much time
for the application to be put back in and we get as much time for the public to review it,that we try
not to get this onto next month's agenda, and I think that there's time needed here so that the
process works.
MR. BROWN-So I guess that would be the June 17th submittal deadline,the 15th is on a weekend, for
a July meeting.
MR. JACKOSKI-For a July meeting. I'm not seeing any objection by Board members. Okay. So to a
July meeting with a June 17th submission deadline.
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: Mr.Urrico
MR. JACKOSKI-And thank you, and just so you folks know, it is hard for Board members to try to
provide guidance for you on the spot when there's so many components to this thing. So it's just
difficult for us to be able to sit there and say,well do this instead. It's too hard.
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2013 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID KLEIN/NORTH COUNTRY
ENGINEERING OWNER(S) STEVE & JENNIFER KITCHEN ZONING WR LOCATION END OF
FOREST ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
DETERMINATION OF MARCH 4, 2013 LETTER REGARDING SEPARATION DISTANCES
REQUIREMENT FOR INFILTRATION DEVICES AND LOT CLEARING REQUIREMENTS FOR A
PROPERTY AT THE END OF FOREST ROAD. CROSS REF AV 61-2012; SPR 48-2012; FWW 3-
2012; SP 28-10; BP 10-556 (TEST PIT) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.34
ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-39 SECTION 147-11
DAVID KLEIN, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-Does Roy read anything into the record? Probably the actual Appeal, I guess, the
letter.
MR. BROWN-Probably the cover letter and Staff Notes.
MR.URRIC0-What about this,this letter that was handed out tonight?
MR. BROWN-You may just want to wait a second until the noise goes down.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So, Staff, what have we decided as far as having it read, or counsel,
welcome. Go ahead and read the letter into the record of the Appeal itself from Mr. Klein.
MR.URRICO-I'm just going to read the cover letter.
MR.JACKOSKI-The cover letter. Fine,great.
MR.URRICO-And the Staff Notes,right? Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 1-2013, David Klein/North Country Engineering, Meeting
Date: May 22, 2013 "Project Location: end of Forest Road Description of Proposed Project:
Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to a March 4, 2013 determination
from the Zoning Administrator regarding the development of a property on Forest Road.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
Staff comments:
First,Standing:
Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing party
aggrieved?
The appeal was filed within the required timeframe.
• The Notice of Appeal application was signed and filed with the Town on March 27, 2013
with a revision and re-filing on April 8,2013.
There does not appear to be any obvious direct impact on the appellant to indicate that the
appellant is an appropriately aggrieved party.
• The appellant is not a property owner of the parcel in question.
• The appellant is not an immediate neighbor or even a property owner within an arguable
"zone of influence."
• The appellant's papers do not offer any proof of injury in fact or of a very significant
possibility of future harm to him that differs from any impacts on the general public as a
result of the decision in question.
The appellant does not appear to have adequate standing for this appeal to move forward.
Second,Merits of the argument if the appellant is found to have standing:
The appellant is appealing a Zoning Administrator interpretation regarding the development of a
property on Forest Road and the need for Town reviews.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Administrator offers clear explanation in his March 4, 2013 letter.
Additional information/testimony can be provided if necessary."
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. So to begin this process, first off, welcome. Counsel, we need to
address the matter of standing first. That is my understanding, and we understand that the notice
was received when it was, and that the letter that was being addressed met that 60 day clock.
Correct? Okay. So now the next question becomes is Mr. Klein himself the appellant or is he
representing his client? Can you help us explain that?
MS. RADNER-Well, the legal standard for standing is that you need to be an aggrieved party, and
there is a recognition,primarily in case law, that an immediately adjoining neighbor is generally an
aggrieved party and you don't need to show anything more than that. So an immediately adjoining
neighbor generally is given standing to appeal something without showing a whole lot more. For
people who are farther away from a project,though,you have to do a little bit more digging, and it's
the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that they are the aggrieved party, and that is generally
either a financial loss, something that directly impacts them from this project, or that they are
injured in some way that is different from the public at large. You have to make that determination
whether or not they're aggrieved. I can't make that for you, but that is the legal standing. The
other legal issue that I would point out to you, just because it hasn't been made obvious from the
Staff Notes,is the viability of some of the issues raised on appeal. You have limited authority,as the
Zoning Board of Appeals, you can only hear appeals that are from a determination of the zoning
officer,typically that means an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. So to the extent that in the
papers from the engineer and the attorney, they're raising issues about the failure to issue a Stop
Work Order or the failure to compel enforcement actions, those are not really properly within the
Zoning Board of Appeals. Those are enforcement, discretionary decisions. They couldn't be
brought to a court of law to compel mandamus because they're solely within discretion, their
enforcement. It's whether or not the police officer gives a speeding ticket to the Volkswagen or
gives the speeding ticket to the Ferrari. You can't compel the police officer to issue the speeding
ticket if he doesn't see it as speeding. So I just want to point out to you that some of the issues
raised really are not proper issues for a Zoning Board of Appeals appeal. As for the last issue which
you asked me on, are they representing themselves or are they representing an aggrieved, or
another aggrieved party, are they in an agency position. Typically that's their obligation to
demonstrate to you, and what we most often see is an entry of appearance for somebody saying I'm
entering my appearance, I represent the following parties, or this appeal is followed by, you know,
Attorney Smith acting as on behalf of the neighbor. I haven't seen any indices of anything in the
papers that I've been given for review. I would think that if Craig had any agency document or any
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
indication that the documents were filed in a representational capacity,that he would have brought
that to your attention. That is all I can offer you,gentlemen and lady.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Counsel.
MS.RADNER-You're welcome.
MR. JACKOSKI-So in the matter we have received the documentation as a Board, and in the matter
of determining whether there's standing here for this Board, I'd like to get some input from the
various Board members to determine if there is standing concerning the matter. I think that's what
the Counsel is referencing. So, Rick?
ARKLEY MASTRO,JR.
MR. MASTRO-Mr.Chairman,do you want to hear from the applicant at all?
MR. JACKOSKI-I think at the moment we need to determine if there's standing first, and if we can
get past the standing matter,then we can certainly address the Appeal itself.
MR. MASTRO-Okay. Well, the appellant was Mr. Klein. He submitted a letter to clarify his position
on the.
MR. GARRAND-Yes,we read that. That's already in the record.
MR.MASTRO-Okay.
MR. GARRAND-Now, Mr. Klein,who pays you?
MR. KLEIN-I get paid by the Jaegers, Mockley.
MR. GARRAND-That's good enough for me. Thank you.
MR. KLEIN-I have other clients that pay me,too.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-If he gets paid by the Jaegers,then he has standing,doesn't he?
MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-If he is representing a neighbor, I assume he has standing.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy?
MR.URRICO-I agree. I think he has standing.
MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-I agree also.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So it appears that the Board acknowledges that there's standing here for this,
for this Appeal to be heard.
MR. MASTRO-Thank you.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, if I could. At the time, just to clarify, at the time the appeal was filed,
there was no authorization form that indicated that Mr. Klein was representing anyone. The
information about agency and representation is something that came in after the 60 day time clock
has run, and maybe Counsel can speak to this, but I'm not aware of any law that says you can
substitute an aggrieved party for the appellant who files the original appeal. In this case North
Country Engineering filed the original Appeal. The 60 day time clock ran. The,hey, I'm the agent
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
for this person letter came in well after that 60 day time clock had run. I don't believe you can
substitute an aggrieved party to create standing.
MR.GARRAND-But the Appeal was never heard. I mean.
MR. JACKOSKI-But wait a minute. Let's take this slowly. What we have here is that we had an
appeal letter issued to us, and there was no agency status noted, and there was no documentation
in the files that there was representation by the letter writer or the person filing the appeal or the
company filing the appeal,then we must go back and determine how, if they are an aggrieved party.
So, I'm going to go back to Counsel and go slow, and make sure I understand, but at the time the
Appeal was filed and at the time the letter was written by the Zoning Administrator, there was no
legal substantiation of representation. Okay.
MR. KLEIN-May I interject?
MR.JACKOSKI-Hang on,just let us get through the process.
MS. RADNER-Yes. That is my understanding of the factual pattern here. So on its face the Appeal
did not indicate there was any standing at all at the time filed, unless, as I indicated and Craig was
just saying there isn't, there was something in the file indicating an agency relationship or a
representational capacity. That's normally something this Board requires before it allows one
person to speak for another.
MR.JACKOSKI-I understand. I know we have those documents in the office. Okay. So,again,what
I heard the Zoning Administrator tell us was that the substitution recently occurred. Correct? This
week. Okay. So I'm going to go back through this Board very carefully now,because,please,we've
got to understand our burden here. During the time period of the 60 days,was this,was the Appeal
being represented on behalf of the Jaegers that is currently being addressed with us?
MR.URRICO-So this letter that we received today,dated May 22nd.
MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately it's after the 60 days, and we have to, it's my understanding that we
need to follow the 60 day,we have,in the past,followed the 60 day precedent. So let's go back to,is
this an aggrieved party as it was represented at the time of the letter being written, and until May
22nd. That is the question.
MR. MASTRO-Mr. Chairman, I understand that you want to go slow. I understand that you have a
process,and we'd like to be part of that process,but Mr. Klein and I have appeared here on behalf of
these clients on multiple occasions going back nearly a year. The minutes of your meetings, the
correspondence from your meetings and the record shows that Mr. Klein has been representing the
Jaeger, the Mockley family and others as have I. So I think if, you certainly can't make a
determination on standing on the semantics of the letter that was written by Mr. Klein, and I must
say that the Staff characterization of this whole standing issue, which I understand just came up
yesterday, is virtually taken verbatim from Mr. Lapper's letter dated May 21. The answers to those
questions that were raised in that letter were filed with the Town today. So I actually think that the
whole standing issue is,it should be a moot issue.
MR. JACKOSKI-I can appreciate, counsel, I can appreciate, but I'm also, I have Town Counsel here
this evening. I want to go very carefully and very slowly. So I need to get over the standing issue
first in order, and I understand that letter, Mr. Klein. I need to get over the standing letter and the
time clock of 60 days. That's what I'm now being presented by Staff and Counsel, and it's
unfortunate.
MR. KLEIN-This letter was sent in on March 19th indicating that I represented the Jaegers. I carbon
copied both Sue and Craig Brown. It wasn't in the file until I inquired about it yesterday.
MR. BROWN-The only thing that's in the Appeal file is whatever the applicant or the appellant has
submitted. We don't add our own choice of documents to a file. In this case, like you mentioned
before, we have an established process on how you become an agent for someone and legally
represent them before this Board or the Planning Board or any Board in this Town, and that's an
authorization form. You get your name on it. You have the owner of the property sign that says
you are their agent and you have the ability to represent them. In this case, at no time during any
of the meetings that you had on the Kitchen application has any authorization form been submitted
by Mr. Klein, and certainly no authorization form was ever submitted in accompaniment with this
Appeal that's been filed. So we have no documentation, no signature from the Jaegers, other than
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
the recent letter this week that says Mr. Klein represents them and has their interests at hand. We
just don't have that legal document that's required.
MR. KLEIN-On March 19th,we submitted a letter to Mr. Hatin, carbon copying Craig Brown and Sue
Hemingway and Pam Whiting that said that our client has expended considerable resources on
engineering, the bottom paragraph, first line in the back of it it talks about our client, and it was,
you know, regarding their property on Lake Parkway. The intent was to have this submitted into
the file, Kitchen file. It was never submitted into the Kitchen file until I inquired about it this week.
MR. BROWN-And again,we don't add things to the file, and that letter doesn't specify who the client
is.
MS. RADNER-May I see that letter?
MR.JACKOSKI-So, Counsel, I know you love us, Cathi.
MS. RADNER-Yes, I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Go ahead.
MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry. Do we have anything that is signed by the Jaegers that say that they are the
appellant here?
MS. RADNER-Not that I know of. The application for appeal clearly states North Country
Engineering, P.C. is the applicant's name, and it's not accompanied by any statement or notice of
appearance or anything of that nature,any agency forms.
MR. JACKOSKI-On this most recent letter, it says appeal of North Country Engineering on behalf of
clients. Is that language on the original documents?
MS.RADNER-No.
MR.URRICO-If I might,can I jump in,can I say something?
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes.
MR. URRICO-I see a letter here from Evelyn Jaeger dated May 21ST, notifying us that North Country
Engineering, P.C. will be submitting documents and providing testimony on their behalf, on our
behalf, and I'm looking at the March 19th letter. It's addressed to Dave Hatin, and at the bottom,the
last paragraph on the first page, it says our client has expended considerable resources on
engineering test pits, fees imposed by the Town, percolation tests, document research, etc. So it's
referring to our client in this letter. It's signed by North Country Engineering.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I guess my response would be, again, that client's not identified in my client has
kind of letter and,again,the Appeal that was filed isn't accompanied by any authorization form.
MS. RADNER-I guess the fear here is that you're creating sort of an opportunity for
disingenuousness for substituting one party for another. The old documentation didn't give any
indication of who this client was. There was no representation made on the record who the client
was, and now at the 11th hour after receiving an argument from the applicant's attorney saying
there's not standing, somebody is being named who would meet that obligation. So I think the
concern here is that you're creating a loophole and allowing it to be filled.
MR. MASTRO-If that were the case, then shouldn't professional staff have noted that at the
beginning rather than having us respond to a letter filed by the applicant's attorney 24 hours before
this hearing?
MS. RADNER-Well, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you there, because as I recall this
application was by,or the application for appeal, I don't want to get my applications confused. The
application for appeal was filed less than 24 hours before the application itself was scheduled to be
heard, and so the Staff did not have a lot of time to respond to you and to analyze this application.
The applicant's attorney appeared that night and requested an adjournment, and so we were not
asked to give any legal opinion that night regarding standing or those issues would have been
addressed that night.
MR.MASTRO-Well,we've had 60 days since then, and this is really a form versus substance. Really
the substantive issue is the Appeal itself, and it strikes me as it's a real technicality. You're almost
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
talking semantics, and why would this Board, if there's going to be open hearing and fairness, want
to deprive somebody of the opportunity to be heard because of the semantics of a letter?
MR. KLEIN-The other thing is, at the last meeting, we were not allowed to ask any questions. We
were told to work it out with Staff. I met with Staff. I talked to them, what do you need, and
followed exactly what was told of us.
MR. JACKOSKI-Here's where we are right now, and there should be no insinuation that we're not
trying to make this as reasonable as possible. So I'm going to go back to the Board here at this time.
Given the advice of Counsel and what Counsel has informed us of, and what Staff has informed us of,
I'm going to poll this Board again. I thought we were going down one way and now we're going
down, I want to check and see where we're going this time. So, John, I'm going to start with you.
Given what we've heard, and this is my question to this Board as I poll it, given what we've heard
from the appellant and Counsel and Staff,is there a proper standing determined here?
MR. HENKEL-I'm going to say,no.
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-No.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-No.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR.URRICO-No.
MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-And, on the advice of Counsel, I believe no. So we are going to request a motion for
a denial of the Appeal.
MR. MASTRO-Before you hear that,you read the second, the third paragraph of Mr. Klein's letter to
you dated today. It states that given the number and the magnitude of the variances required by
the Kitchen project, any person that resides on or near Lake George could certainly be considered
an aggrieved person who would suffer injury from the project because of the negative impact on the
lake by this application.
MR. KLEIN-And the number of variances requested.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I'll start. I don't believe that, I'm sorry, I don't believe that this residential
application in the middle of Assembly Point is going to harm the entire lake. It's my personal
opinion,but I'll seek information from other Board members on that part of this argument. Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I don't think that, as somebody living near the lake,they can be,you know, they can
have standing on something like this. I don't think an aggrieved party can be somebody living
miles away. I think they have to be an authorized representative of somebody who does live
adjoining to the property within say 500 feet.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. John?
MR. HENKEL-I've been up to the property quite a few times, and I've got to say, I can't say it would
be a problem to the lake or where it's situated.
MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-Are we commenting right now on that last quote about the person aggrieved?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, the counsel has suggested that since we believe that they weren't representing,
and I suspect that's why it's in this letter, since we determined that they were not representing a
neighboring property, the Jaegers as they've suggested, they're suggesting that North Country
Engineering itself is harmed, or it could be an appellant because of being in close proximity to the
lake. I believe that's the argument.
MR. NOONAN-So North Country Engineering is seeking clarification whether there was standing?
MR.JACKOSKI-As themselves.
MR. NOONAN-So,no, I don't agree with that.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron,did I ask you already?
MR. KUHL-No,you didn't. You usually miss me.
MR.JACKOSKI-Sorry.
MR. KUHL-No, I don't think you have standing.
MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I agree. I don't think they have standing.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Not to belabor this and make this longer than possible, than already exists, but
wouldn't this require a new filing for that portion to be considered?
MR. JACKOSKI-I think the attorney is saying that, okay, take away the fact that they were or were
not representing the Jaegers, that it's just North Country Engineering filing the appeal itself. Do
they have standing?
MR.URRICO-I would say no.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So could I have a motion, please,to deny this Appeal? Okay. Should I ask for
a motion to approve this Appeal?
MOTION TO DENY NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2013 DAVID KLEIN/NORTH COUNTRY
ENGINEERING, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Garrand
MS. RADNER-And just before we close the record on this one, I want to point out that, to the extent
that the letter from both the engineer and from the attorneys raises objections based upon the
zoning variances requested, they do have the opportunity to appear at the public hearing on those
variance requests and to make those arguments in that context.
MR. JACKOSKI-And just for clarification, Counsel, we did not open the public hearing because we
determined that there was no standing at this time, otherwise we would have opened the public
hearing for the Appeal.
MS. RADNER-Right, but I'm saying the hearing on the application that this relates to, they are
allowed to appear and speak on that.
MR.JACKOSKI-Absolutely.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2012 SEQRA TYPE II STEVE AND JENNIFER KITCHEN AGENT(S)
NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) STEVE AND JENNIFER KITCHEN ZONING WR LOCATION
END OF FOREST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY DWELLING
WITH ATTACHED GARAGE WITH A TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF 3,171 SQ. FT.; ASSOCIATED
WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SYSTEMS PLANNED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
SEPARATION DISTANCES REQUIREMENT FOR INFILTRATION DEVICES AND FROM THE LOT
CLEARING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 48-2012; FWW 3-2012; SP 28-10; BP 10-556
(TEST PIT); NOA 1-2013 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2012 ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-39 SECTION 147-11
JON LAPPER&TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. JACKOSKI-It is the same project as previously discussed regarding the end of Forest Road.
This project has been read into the record a few times. This was tabled. There is a public hearing
scheduled this evening, and there were public hearings, and I'm going to go through this long list,
originally scheduled and heard on December 5th, January 16th, February 20th, March 27th and now
today, May 22nd. Welcome back to the table, and for those of you here in the audience, there will
be a public hearing shortly, and we will be taking public comment. Mr.Lapper?
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Center and Steve and
Jennifer Kitchen. Since we were here last,the Kitchens have closed on the purchase of the property
and we've submitted that deed to the Planning Staff as part of the record. We can't tell you why
this project has taken on a life of its own with some neighbors. We see this as a pretty
straightforward application. This is in the Shore Colony subdivision,which was created well before
all of the zoning codes in the Town, but certainly before the most recent stormwater regulations,
and these variances that are requested are the minimal variances to allow a moderate sized house
to be built on this lot. I'll go through the details with the project engineer and show you specifically
what we're requesting, but the stormwater is being properly treated. Because of the topography,
because it's a sloped lot, water flows downhill, the place to treat it is close to the boundary of the
property, close to the wetland, but I think you'll see that everything has been done to mitigate any
impacts, and so that this project, with the stormwater plan in place, actually protects the wetland,
protects the lake far better than any of the other grandfathered houses in the subdivision, and
including some of the neighbors who are complaining about this,who have no stormwater controls,
and who have stormwater running directly into that wetland, untreated, not infiltrated. So the
engineers have really gone out of their way to do the right thing here. We're not trying to jam a big
house on a tiny lot, and in fact because this is a double lot,this is bigger than many of the other lots
in the subdivision, and many of the other lots are cleared to a greater extent than what's proposed
here. We're trying to just come in with the minimum to make this a buildable lot, and it is a
buildable lot. When we were here last time, the one thing that this Board said was that the rain
garden that was proposed to be on the Town right of way which we had permission from the
Highway Superintendent to do,you asked us to look at whether or not that could be re-located, and
that has been re-located onto this property. Because of the toe of the slope of that,it still required a
variance because of,just a very small variance, because it couldn't be graded in a way that it would
be the full distance required from the wetland,but we were able to get that entirely on this site, and
do some treating on Forest Road of what's coming down untreated from the neighbor's property
and from the road before it gets into the wetland. So there's a net benefit to wetland from
stormwater that has nothing to do with this house, and certainly a lot of treatment is done on this
house. Just to set the record straight,too, and I certainly don't want to get into a tit for tat,but that
March 19th letter that was referenced a few minutes ago, it wasn't about this application. It was
about Mr. Klein submitting an application to Dave Hatin to re-locate the septic, apparently
compliant septic system or a septic system that wasn't failing on the Jaeger's property, to move it
right next to the boundary of this property, to try and preclude the Kitchens from developing it
because there would be nowhere on this site that you could put a well on the property. So it's
somewhat of a spite septic system, something that, a concept that I'm not familiar with, that I've
never seen anybody do, and it was in that context that that letter was submitted to Mr. Hatin. It
wasn't about the appeal,and that's just an unfortunate situation.
MR.JACKOSKI-Can you help me? Because I'm not following what you're suggesting.
MR. CENTER-To explain that, this, right here, actually you don't need to go into the PowerPoint. I
can do it right here. The Jaeger house is in here, and this is their parcel, here. What Mr. Klein had
proposed with the Jaegers was to put a septic system in this area, and that would preclude us from
having any availability to put any well on that lot.
MR. LAPPER-Because of the required separation.
MR. CENTER-Because of the setbacks.
MR. LAPPER-Separation distance between well and setback.
MR.JACKOSKI-Is the Jaeger septic system failing?
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR. CENTER-Mr. Hatin went up there and looked at it and did not see an obvious failure of the
existing septic system. He also wrote a letter,which I believe Craig may have,that went further. It
probably didn't make it into the file, but he wrote a letter in response to Mr. Klein to say that they
had adequate area on this side of Lake Parkway to put a compliant septic system if their system was
in failure, and I do not believe it was purported to be failed. I don't know that for exact fact, but I
don't, I know he went up there and determined that there was not a failed system on the lot, that
they found other areas that would be compliant on this side of Lake Parkway that they could locate
a septic system.
MR. JACKOSKI-And if the Jaeger system is failing, that would slope down and flow into the
wetlands?
MR. CENTER-No. The Jaeger's property slopes this way. The top of the slope is up.
MR.JACKOSKI-It is,it's right there. Okay. Sorry.
MR. LAPPER-So apparently it was just to try and preclude the development of this lot by precluding
somebody putting a well on it. Obviously this lot doesn't have access to the lake, so it couldn't get
lake water. So if it can't have a well, it couldn't be developed. So just an unfortunate situation, and
that's what that letter was about. So, again, getting back to where we were, the application has
been modified. There were more variances previously required. We heard the Board about
moving that rain garden out of the public right of way. Tom, if you could, at this point, just go
through the development proposal and show where the variances are.
MR. CENTER-If you could call up the PowerPoint. As we talked about the last meeting, we've
incorporated a number of low impact elements into this by using rain gardens, drivable grass
driveway, re-directing the roof water to a septic system other than the driveway, providing more
vegetation. With this plan we've also proposed plantings along the west and south line to replace
some of the clearing that needs to be done in order to grade to get the drainage around the house.
We've reduced the site impact by having a smaller house footprint, using an Elgin septic system,
and designing the house on the long contour of the site. To ensure the value of the community,you
know, we've stated that before, we've gone over some of these things. We've worked with Town
Highway in regards to the road extension, and providing a stone level spreader along the road to
treat stormwater that comes, currently comes down, you can go to the next slide, please. This is
the size house, obviously, 1620 square foot house, very small, very moderate size. Fits within the
building envelope allowed. You can go to the next slide. The water that we're talking about that
comes down Forest Road currently comes down Forest Road and goes directly into the wetland as a
point discharge right in here. What we had proposed to do by re-grading this, we're going to take
that runoff that comes down Forest Road and take it to a level spreader, stone level spreader, that
allows it to go into the level spreader and just go out over here,where you actually have a larger, if
you look at it on the map over here, you have a larger separation distance before you get to the
wetland boundary. Whereas here, it goes straight right into the closest point of the wetland.
We've worked with the Soil and Water Conservation in looking at this, and we've talked about some
avenues, you know, should we do a detention basin, something along those lines, and he
recommended that a dispersion device would be better than any device that we would put in where
we'd have to take more land and dig into the ground and do a lot of different things. This is a
recommendation that we worked out with him that it takes that existing runoff that comes down
Forest Road currently now. If this project isn't done, it will continue to go straight down the road
and run into the wetland. With this project, with this extension, we're going to be re-developing
that to that level spreader.
MR. LAPPER-Tom,to clarify,that is water that is not created by this.
MR. CENTER-That is water that is not created by this site. So as we get onto this site, as you
requested in the last meeting,you asked us to look at different paths and try to get the rain garden
proper onto our lot,which we re-located the rain garden onto our side of the property line, and that
also required us to reduce the amount of paving another, not paving, but the permeable grass
driveway, it would reduce the driveway area by pulling the rain garden up to there. We've also, as
I've said, we've added the plantings along the side, and re-directed our stormwater, or continue to
direct our stormwater to the front rain garden, and this stone trench that is used just as a
directional device is actually lined with poly so that it's just nothing more than a conduit for the
water to come from the roof to the rain garden and go through the filtering process there. The 100
foot requirement, the one we're asking, the first would be separation distances from infiltration
devices, would be to the roof rain garden and the driveway rain garden are, you know, between
here and here, and here and here. The actual language within 147 states that,you know, 100 foot
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
separation required, less can be shown to be mitigated. We purported at first that, okay, we're
down gradient, we're not effecting our septic system. The New York State Department of Health
design manual for septic systems only requires 20 feet of separation between rain gardens and
septic systems, but to be more conservative, we've asked for the variance and we've asked the
Board to look at it to see if that's something that we need a variance for. So we've asked for those
variances and separation between the infiltration devices and the absorption system. The other
variance,I'm sorry,is between the wetland the two rain gardens.
MR. LAPPER-Can you talk about whether there'll be any impact because of the need for that
variance?
MR. CENTER-There is,we purport, and we feel comfortable, that the is no issue with the separation
distance between the rain gardens and the absorption system. They're down gradient.
MR. LAPPER-Which is down gradient?
MR. CENTER-The rain gardens are down gradient from the absorption system.
MR. LAPPER-So they wouldn't flow uphill.
MR. CENTER-They wouldn't flow uphill and effect the absorption system, and New York State
Department of Health, in their latest design manual, has come out with a 20 foot separation
between rain gardens and absorption systems. So we felt we've met that requirement. The
wetland to infiltration device separation are this separation here and we've used the toe of the
slope for this in here. The toe of the slope on here is right there, and the toe of the slope for this
wetland, we actually called it down here. The actual stone infiltration portion is up here along the
property line,but again,you've taken a more conservative approach. We've asked for the variance
to be from 13 feet from the wetland.
MR. LAPPER-So again what you're saying is that the actual infiltration area is, meets the setback,
and it's only the toe of the slope.
MR. CENTER-Well,it's still less than 100 feet between here and here.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. CENTER-And the same with here. It's still less than 100 feet between those areas.
MR. LAPPER-But you put the infiltration device as far away as you could.
MR. CENTER-We put the infiltration devices as far away as we could. We have to capture the
stormwater at the lowest point of the site because we are on a sloped site, and that's, you know,
we've used the land to do that. The second variance would be the infiltration vertical separation
distances having 2.75 feet of relief. We've done our test pits out in the area of the lower rain
garden and we've done several test pits throughout the site, several deep hole test pits, and we
believe that we have identified that and worked with the Town Engineer, that that wasn't a
comment that we got back in regards to our soil testing during the Planning Board stages. His two
comments had nothing to do with the soil testing that we've done so far. Number Three, lot
clearing requirements would be the 30% maximum. Again, this is very difficult on any lot in the
lake to clear less than 30%. This is a 15,000 square foot lot on a sloped site, and you have to get
stormwater,septic system,house, driveway on it. It's virtually impossible to try to meet a 30% of a
small 15,000 square foot lot. So we've tried to reduce that impact by adding in plantings along the
way, and the Kitchens have,and we've also said that the Kitchens will be allowing the grass to grow
up in their New England style fashion, tall grass mowed, you know, once a year, and be a higher
type of grass that'll not just be a lawn on a slope. The fourth one is vegetation removal, 13 feet
instead of 15 feet, and that's for this area in here, and if we can go to the next slide. I did go out and
take some pictures. This would be the property line here. The road is in this area. So this, the
blue would be the property line. The green is the disturbance limits. The pink in here would be
where that roadway, or where the roof rain garden would be in this area of the site. That's the
eastern property line. Can you go to the next slide, please. This would be the disturbance along
the eastern side of the Town right of way. The road's in this area. The property line is here, and
the rain garden is up in here. As you can see, stormwater comes down, currently comes down here
and goes directly into the wetland where you see the silt fence. You can go to the next slide,please.
Again, these are the southeast corner, the limits of disturbance. This is what will be disturbed to
create the extension of the Town road and the grading for the rain garden up in this area. This is
the limit of disturbance, and this is the rain garden for the driveway, that location. Next slide,
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
please. Again, this is looking back in the same area. There's the rain garden for the driveway.
There's the property line. There's the disturbance within that 15 foot of the buffer. Next slide,
please. Now this is looking out towards Forest Road. That would be properties of Malone. Here's
the rain garden for the driveway. This is the area of disturbance down by where the toe of slope
would be and where the rain garden, and this is where the natural path flows right now, the
stormwater comes straight down through here, where the silt fence is, and off of Forest Road, and,
you know, off of the property. Next slide, please. Again, this is looking on the eastern limit of
disturbance on the back side. This is the Town road over here, the wetland is off to this side, and
the green line is the limit of disturbance. As you can see, there's not a lot of growth, mature trees,
or,you know,very much of anything in that area. Next slide,please. Again, now this is the eastern
property line, and this is the area where the rain garden will be constructed. Again,this area was
previously cleared, not by this client, not by the previous owner,was cleared after the storms came
through, Irene came through. Many trees were knocked down. An unknown party came across the
parcel and cleaned out trees on this parcel and on the neighboring parcel. Had nothing to do with
the Kitchens or the previous owner, DeLaura. Don't know who did it, but it was done without the
knowledge of the owner or the current applicants,but we are using that area for the rain garden for
the driveway. We'll go to the next slide, please. Again,this is just another view along that property
line looking back. This is the rain garden location for the driveway. Again, it'll be built up, fill, and
used along that property line. Next slide. Again, this is looking from the parcel down into the
driveway rain garden. Again, you can see, there's the limit of disturbance, and there's not a lot of
mature trees or buffer in that area currently. Next slide, please. And again, this is, again, looking
down into that. This is the limit, that very southern corner of the disturbance within that toe of
slope where we're going to come down, and you can see here, again, this is where the stormwater
comes down the road and where it's being protected from sediment right now by the silt fence and
the drainage channel that will now be directed out here, out this way towards where the bump out,
where the land raises up higher than the wetland before it gets to the wetland boundary. Next
slide,please. That would be it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to add at this time?
MR. LAPPER-Not at this time.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the Board has a lot of information on this project. Are there any
additional questions at this time from Board members?
MR. GARRAND-Last time here, a member of the Board, for the December meeting, said, you know
that you can build, this site is inappropriate for a house this size. You've come back with a house
that's exactly the same size as the last application.
MR. LAPPER-The house is within the building setback on the lot, and the floor area ratio. So in
terms of that inappropriateness.
MR. GARRAND-Yes, but a smaller house might mean less land clearing, you know, you're clearing
80%of the lot.
MR. LAPPER-Two answers. Eighty percent is pretty much what everybody else has done, and I'll
grant you there are new rules now,but they don't have stormwater protection,which this one does,
and if we were here, you know, building a house twice this size, this is a very modest house,
especially in that neighborhood. So I don't think that they're pushing this. They're not trying to get
too much house, and it is within the floor area ratio and it is within the envelope, the building
envelope.
MR. NOONAN-I was curious to know what percentage of rain water runoff would be kept on
property as a result of your engineering designs? I've been out to the property a few times when
there was snow on the ground,when there wasn't snow on the ground. I went out yesterday or the
day before when we had significant amounts of rain and looked for certain things,and (lost words)
can follow up in a second, but I was curious to answer the first part of the question. What
percentage of that water will be kept on property as opposed to running off the property?
MR. CENTER-We will keep everything that's coming off of the roof, off of the driveway, is being
directed, the roof is being directed to this drainage area, and the driveway is being directed to this
drainage area, except for a small portion because we're on a slope and everything still slopes down,
a small portion in here will go off,but as with any sloped driveway,you can't maintain 100% on the
property, but we have directed everything from the new impervious surfaces. The water that
comes (lost word) point here, anything from this point here is shown to go through this rain garden
here and capture in here. Again, you're going to have a built up grassed lawn, New England style
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
lawn in this area. Over here we have taken the stormwater, like anybody else, can direct the
existing flow of existing stormwater and have directed that off into this area and go down and off
the site,which,in the path where it goes now.
MR. NOONAN-Right. Real quick, on the property right now it seems to be like this big mud pit.
What is that?
MR. CENTER-What happened was is we did drill the well for the location right up in this corner.
MR. NOONAN-Okay.
MR. CENTER-And when we do that we have to capture any sediment,due to the drilling operation,a
trench was dug, and that was dug in there to allow capture of that water while you're doing the
drilling,you have to re-capture that water. That water was captured and contained in that soil.
MR. NOONAN-And it didn't go off the property.
MR. CENTER-It did not go off the property. We have a letter from the APA who came out after a
complaint was filed against us stating that we had impacted the wetlands. APA found no impact, as
far as the pits. They found that everything we had done to protect the wetlands was in place. The
stormwater, the erosion and sediment control was appropriate. I believe Mr. Strough was out to
the site, Mr. Montesi was out to the site. They also found that we had done appropriate controls for
what we had done.
MR. NOONAN-And that silt fence that's there now was there during this whole thing?
MR. CENTER-The silt fence was placed up during the operation,yes.
MR. NOONAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. GARRAND-You don't need a permit to drill a well?
MR. CENTER-We did not need a permit to install the well. We were told by Staff and Building
Department that a permit was not required.
MR.JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions at this time?
MR. KUHL-I like the fact that you brought the rain gardens onto your property. I also like the fact
that you're trying to take care of Forest Road. Other than that, I have no other issues.
MR. NOONAN-I guess I have another question. Sorry. The vegetation that you're going to put back
on the property, again, in terms of percentages here,how much more are you going to put back on
based on what's there right now? It's actually a pretty bare piece of property with a lot of twiggy
type things. I understand you do have a good root base and they certainly hold soil from runoff
from moving downhill. What percentage, again, of vegetation are you going to put back on to keep
that soil where it is?
JENNIFER KITCHEN
MRS. KITCHEN-That's a great question. We actually went out and we counted, and in terms of, I
would say stable trees,up on the top side, there's about six that are within our property line, okay.
There's a few that are, I know you probably saw that beech tree that's crooked,that's unsafe. That
was unsafe, actually I have pictures of it from a year ago when we were looking at the property.
That would have to go anyway because it's going to hurt somebody. So there are some unsavory
trees, but in total there's about six, and on our plan, I don't know if you can go back to that, we've
added many more,more than six trees.
MR. CENTER-We added a mountain ash in the back. We added a red raspberry, another mountain
ash along the side,three balsam firs and another red raspberry along the property line.
MRS. KITCHEN-Right, and in addition to that, the rain gardens themselves are chock full of
vegetation. The whole point of these are kind of like, they're a lot of vegetation to collect that
water, to treat, you know, deal with the water, absorb the water so that doesn't exist there today.
So when you look at the size and the scale of these rain gardens, we're really adding a lot of
vegetation, and in addition, with the, you know, with the idea of the driveway having grass, right
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
now it's just dirt and it's been dirt for God knows how long. There's really no grass on it. So we're
adding a lot more things to slow the water that doesn't even exist in its natural state.
MR. NOONAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any more comments from Board members at this time before I re-open the public
hearing? Okay. We are going to re-open the public hearing. Again, for clarification for those who
haven't been here before, may have just joined us, we will have a public hearing. We do limit the
public hearing to a period of time with the timer and we try to be a little bit lenient when it comes
to making discussions, but for those of you who may be speaking after other speakers, please try
not to reiterate the same points because we've heard them once. Certainly add some new points if
you can. I'm going to ask Roy if there's any additional written comment to be read into the record
before we open the public.
MR. URRICO-There is some additional comment, but I also notice some of those folks in the
audience that may want to.
MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Could you ask the audience member, if you know who it is, if they want
that letter read into the record?
MR.URRICO-I have Winfried Kathleen Maloney.
MR.JACKOSKI-Kathleen,would you like your letter read into the record?
KATHLEEN MALONEY
MRS.MALONEY-What letter is that?
MR.URRICO-May 21St is the received?
MRS.MALONEY-That's not,that's a separate letter.
MR.URRICO-Okay.
MRS. MALONEY-That particular letter is a request for determination, if that's the complaint, and a
request for a written determination by the Zoning Administrator.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So that isn't in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Is there another letter
for anyone else that's here in the audience, Roy?
MR.URRICO-The Water Keeper.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Water Keeper, would you like your letter read in or will you address it
personally?
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-I'd like to address the Board.
MR.JACKOSKI-Personally? Okay. Thank you,and the next letter?
MR. NAVITSKY-If I could ask a question on that. Do members get copies of that letter?
MR.JACKOSKI-We would have it read into the record at the.
MR.URRICO-Yes. All right,and North Country Engineering.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mr.Klein,do you want that letter read into the record?
MR.URRICO-There's several of them. The latest one is the one you submitted today.
MR.JACKOSKI-No,he'll address them personally.
MR.URRICO-And that would be the latest letter.
DAVID KLEIN
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR. KLEIN-I think you got copies of all that.
MR.URRICO-Okay. All right. Then we go to one that I can read in,then.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,Roy.
MR. URRICO-"I write as a concerned neighbor living about a 1/2 mile distance from the proposed
Kitchen Forest Lane application. I walk every day, observe this site,and what I see is a tiny piece of
property that could not conceivably house the structures and encompass the variances responsibly
that are being applied for in the Forest Road project on Assembly Point Area Variance 61-2012 and
SP 48-2012. I am a support in theory people having access to our beautiful resource, Lake George
and its surround, but not at an irreparable cost. I believe that this particular piece of property is
inappropriately small and ill-suited to the structural load proposed. Why would the Town of
Queensbury approve more variances that do not preserve wetlands from overload and do not
support approved restrictions on stream corridor, lake and wetland regulations? At the last
meeting relating to this issue, I gave Craig Brown a video I taped in early spring graphically showing
the extreme road runoff onto the Kitchen property from the upper part of Forest Lane. Please do
show it, as it will illustrate the fragility of that particular piece of property, unsuited in my opinion
for development of anything other than a minimal ecological structure. Lisa Adamson 128 Lake
Parkway Lake George,NY 12845". Okay. That's okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. For the public hearing, is there anyone here this evening who'd like to
address this Board concerning this matter? Mr. Brothers.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
PETER BROTHERS
MR. BROTHERS-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go on record as opposing this project. I
feel that the variances proposed are too significant and I think it would cause significant
environmental concerns, at least near the area,and I think that's something that all of us who enjoy
the lake,don't want to swim in other people's wastewater,basically,and that's all I've got to say.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you,Mr.Brothers. Sir?
ARKLEY MASTRO
MR. MASTRO-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Arkley Mastro. I've been a resident with my
family on Assembly Point since 1957. I'm an attorney with the Lavelle & Finn firm in Albany and
for more than 27 years I've been counsel to planning and zoning boards, as well as lectured on
estate planning, zoning and development before the New York Conference of Mayors of Bar
Association and various other boards, and I must say that I think that the applicant and their
counsel have done a very good job of trying to portray this application as a minor application with
minor variances, but the facts and the percentages belay that representation. To come before the
Board, and I recognize that anybody can come before a Board and make an application for pretty
much anything. So to take a small, 15,000 square foot lot and ask for eight substantial area
variances,quite frankly in my experience is outrageous. The variances that are being asked for are
178%variance for clearing the property; 88%variance requested for a driveway to the rain garden,
rain garden to the wetland; a 45%variance for rain garden to the wetland. They're asking for 47%,
but by our calculation they need 54% variance for the septic system distance to the rain garden,
and they're asking for 29, but we believe they actually need 35% variance for another distance
setback. This is a small, 15,000 square foot lot that's in the, on the Shore Colony subdivision. The
lots are so small because when it was approved in 1957, it was restricted to seasonal cottages.
These folks intend to put a year round home with a well. The reason seasonal cottages were
approved was that they were all connected to a seasonal water system. By granting the approval
here, you will effectively prevent the next door neighbors, the Jaegers and the Mockleys, who have
been contemplating putting in a new,upgraded septic system for two to three years,from locating a
new, improved septic system anywhere on their lot. This applicant comes before the Board
seeking eight substantial variances,well,we think they actually need more variances than the eight,
and while the application is pending,and as part of the relief they're asking this Board to grant,they
improperly, illegally went on the property, in early March, cleared the lot and sunk a well. I would
maintain that a permit is required to put a well on the property. By sinking that well where they
did on this Kitchen lot, it prevents the Jaegers from getting approval for an otherwise full Town
Code compliant septic system. I think that's an act of extreme bad faith that they don't come before
this Board with what's known in the law as clean hands, and I don't think the Board should act on
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
this application at all until those violations and acts of bad faith have been corrected. Secondly, I
would have to take issue with Mr. Lapper's comments at the last hearing that took place in January.
The application that's before the Board violates the Shore Colony subdivision restrictive covenants
that requires a garage to be a minimum of 60 feet from the property line. That is a valid,
enforceable restrictive covenant. If the project goes forward,the clients that I represent, and there
are several and they are contiguous property owners, have indicated that they intend to enforce
that restrictive covenant. I know that that's not an issue before your Board, and it's not an issue
that you'll have to address as to whether it's an enforceable covenant or not, but the Board should
take that into consideration, because that's an outside matter. So that even if this Board were to, I
believe, improperly grant the application, it may not be built as a result of that restrictive covenant.
We don't believe that the application is complete, in addition to the eight variances that they have
requested, and professional staff has actually characterized it as four variances,which is inaccurate
because they ask for two variances under each of the four sections quoted in the summary provided
by professional staff. Since all of the requested variances,variances that are necessary haven't been
requested, I don't think this application is complete. I don't think the Board should take any action
on it. With regard to some of professional staffs recommendations that certain issues with regard
to lot clearing and 15 foot setback from the shoreline with regard to vegetation removal should be
handled under subdivision or rather, strike that, under site plan approval, that's improper. Site
plan approval is for site locations. The Planning Board, which handles site plan approval, has no
legal authority to grant an area variance or any other variances. The Town of Queensbury Code
addressing site plan review says that site plan review is to ensure that the site can properly
accommodate the proposed new uses with minimal effect on neighboring properties and the
general area. Site plan review is to address things such as parking, means of access on and off the
lot,screening toward neighboring properties,signs,landscaping,architectural features and the like,
not to grant variances from setback requirements. Only your Board,which is known as the Zoning
Board of Appeals for a reason,you can grant variances. The Planning Board can't. I believe that the
applicant and their advisors and counsel have done a very good job in presenting this application to
get this far with the substantial variances they require. You have to recall that this small lot buts
right up to the wetlands,which under your own Town Code is part of the lake. Mr. Klein and I have
tried to do our job on behalf of our clients, and we think now it's going to come down to the Zoning
Board to do your job. When you signed the oath to become members of the Zoning Board, you
swore to uphold the constitution of the United States and New York State, but also to uphold the
Code of the Town of Queensbury, and to make your job a little bit easier, on professional staff's
summary of the application,they give you the five reviewed criteria, and I think if you look closely
and carefully at each of those review criteria, I don't think there's any way that you can vote to
approve this project.
DAVID KLEIN
MR. KLEIN-I'd like to pass out,this top one is for the record,pass it around for Board members.
MR. JACKOSKI-It's an awful lot of paper for us to digest this evening. We normally don't,
submissions like this, I mean,we try to be lenient.
MR.KLEIN-Well,there's a lot of issues with this project.
MR.JACKOSKI-Well, let's try to review it as best we can here,but, I mean.
MR. KLEIN-This is a markup of the disturbance that was done on the Kitchen property on March
11th, 200 square foot, or 61% of their entire lot is what was disturbed. You have the first
photograph. This is the entrance of the lot the day after they sunk the well. You can see the heavy
equipment traffic. In their erosion and control plan they show a stabilized construction entrance to
the site. The first thing you do is put your silt fence up, and that silt fence was not completely put
up while they were drilling the well and bringing the heavy equipment in there. They brought it,
they continued the silt fence and the stabilization after the well rig got out of there.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mr. Klein,could I ask you,if you don't mind. I know I'm interrupting you during your
time, but I'll give you more time. Can you tell me, is that Town property right there, or is that the
Kitchen's property?
MR. KLEIN-The Kitchen's property corner is here. This is Town property.
MR.JACKOSKI-So that's all town property.
MR. KLEIN-The property line goes somewhere across here. So they're clearing up into their
property and.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR.JACKOSKI-I understand,but that's the portion that'll get paved and we won't have that problem
going forward.
MR.KLEIN-That's the portion that should have the stabilized construction entrance before you start
construction.
MR.JACKOSKI-I understand.
MR.KLEIN-If you put the crushed stone in there,that wouldn't have all been (lost words). If you go
to the second photograph, this is a picture of the runoff that was coming down there the day that
they were drilling the well. We had snow melt coming off the west side on Forest Lane running
down the side of the road going through the construction entrance. Also Wilcox was pumping out
his basement foundation into the road. So that water was coming down there,and this silted water
was flowing directly freely into the wetlands. Next slide. Here's a picture of the well drilling
operation. They were sending the water down into this large excavation. It's more than installing
a well. They cleared 61% of the site. They did excavation. The next slide. That was a silt fence
they installed. Here's a picture of the cut up site with some trees and stumps that they put on the
other side. If you go to the next slide. This is more than a three foot excavation here. You can see
where they cut the roots on the downhill side of the tree that's leaning over. It's a safety hazard.
I've notified the building official, Fire Marshal that it's a safety hazard, could fall down. Somebody
could be riding a bike on the road up there or playing, some kid could be playing up there. They
completely ignored the safety hazard. It's been there since March 11th. There's, you can also see
some trees that they've removed in the background and some stumps. Next slide. This is a letter
from the Department of State. They got direction from the Code official that you do not need a
building permit to install a well. Wells are governed by the New York State Building Code. They
reference the Department of Health standards. This is an e-mail from the Department of State who,
Department of Codes division,that says that you need a building permit to install a well. We've got,
basically this well was installed in spite to prevent our clients from installing a septic system. My
clients have 183 foot of lake frontage. They have two seasonal cottages on the property. It's been
in the family hands for generations. They're trying to hold on to the property, and it's got two
functional septic systems that are too close to the lake to meet current standards. They would like
to move the septic systems to the back of the property. If you take a look at the property just to the
north, they tore down the seasonal camp and they built a five bedroom house, and they put the
septic system on the east side of Lake Parkway. Everybody that,when the property changes hands,
they put a large house on the property, and they always have to deal with stormwater. Some have
to deal with wells, and they have to increase their septic system. This property will support a
10,000 square foot house plus. It would have to deal with stormwater, and you've got the same
setbacks. You've got to be 100 foot from your septic system. You've got to be 100 foot from your
well, if you're down gradient. So basically the only place they can put a septic system and develop
that property in the future is on the east side of Lake Parkway. We have, we've applied to appeal
the Building Department's decision on denying our clients a septic permit. We applied for a fully
compliant septic system. We didn't need any variances. It was going to be an improvement for the
lake, and we submitted on a Thursday morning. Mr. Hatin came in on Friday morning, called the
applicant's engineer Friday afternoon the well was staked out and Monday morning they came in
and cleared the lot and installed the septic, or the well, and then I got an e-mail from Mr. Hatin. He
went out Monday afternoon, instead of granting us our permit,he e-mails me and says, oh,there's a
well going in and we're going to deny you your septic permit application, and it's an illegal well
going in because they didn't have a building permit. It's part of the site plan review. It's on this
plan here to be put in here,and they've started the project before they had their variances,their site
plan review,their building permit. Next slide,please. Oh, in the package for the record,by the way,
there's forms that the New York State Department of Health provides for the building official to go
out and inspect and grant a building permit for the well. They wouldn't have these forms if you
didn't need the building permit for a well. Let's see. This is a list, I'm not going to go over them all.
I'll spare you the time, but this is five violations that currently the Kitchens have created. We've
asked the Zoning Department, the Building Department for an enforcement action. It falls on deaf
ears. We don't get a response. We ask for a Stop Work Order, no response. So we can't appeal
that. If you go to the next slide. The property transferred names recently. It was sold from
Delaura,the owner,to the Kitchen. Consideration amount is$25,000. That's a fairly low price for a
buildable lot with lake access. Can you go to the next slide?
MR.JACKOSKI-What do you believe the fair market value is?
MR. KLEIN-Well,it was assessed for$43,000.
MR.JACKOSKI-I guess it doesn't matter.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR. MASTRO-I guess it depends what this Board decides.
MR. JACKOSKI-Well, that's what I was thinking, I was thinking, my God, if all the money they must
be spending on developing the lot,maybe that's why the price was so low.
MR. KLEIN-Yes, they just said tonight $300,000 is going to go on to the tax roll. They said in their
application that they were going to spend $200,000 developing the lot. So,you know, in any event,
also, in your package and in the record, we have had appraiser go out and figure out what the
diminished value of the Jaeger property is based on not being able to put a septic system in the back
of their property, and he estimates that the diminished value is between $300 and $750,000 to the
Jaegers. They are significantly impacted by this. We've got a $25,000 lot that is diminishing the
value of the property next door between $300 and $750,000. At a minimum, that's 12 times the
value that the Kitchens have paid for their property. Could you move to the next slide. This is the
map that's on file in Warren County in 1957 for the Shore Colony subdivision. Over in this area
here is the Kitchens property. You can see it's the lowest property in the whole subdivision,and it's
closest to the wetlands of anything that's ever been developed down there. This is, these
highlighted areas, talking about cottages, cottages. This note right here, it says water supply to be
from the Shore Colony water district, approved by the water power and control commission,
August 1, 1957. It doesn't say anything about a well. It says they have a municipal water system
there, and it was, these lots were broken up because they can't support a well and a septic system
on,without impacting the neighbors. It was put on there,just like deed covenants,that this is to be
tied in to a municipal water system. Putting a year round residence on here with a well is beyond
the intent of the original subdivision. If you'll go on to the next slide. Our appeal was denied
tonight so we could hear this, but here's a list of 30 different,which we believe are Code violations.
The ones that are in red are the ones that have not been identified yet. The ones in the black are
the eight that have been identified. So we believe there's 32, or 22 additional variance requests
that this applicant will need. The second page of this goes into the soil evaluation that is Schedule
B, attached to Section 147 of the Town Code, which is under the Zoning Board's authority. They've
already acknowledged that they have to comply with the New York State DEC Stormwater Design
Manual,but here's a procedure of soil evaluation that was in your Town Code that they're ignoring.
It says that they have to do a soil test and percolation test in every infiltration device. There is no
soil test in this infiltration device there. They're asking for relief, and that relief differs from Craig's
write up to what the applicant has asked for. Craig's write up says they're looking for three inches
of relief. In the applicant's write up,one is three inches,the other one's six inches of relief, and the
fact of the matter is, nobody knows how much usable soil is there because they haven't done any
soil tests there. You don't know how much relief is required there. It's just like requiring somebody
to get a survey to find out what the setback distances are. You don't have the tests that have been
prescribed in either your Code or the DEC Design Manual. If you would go to the last attachment.
It's kind of on this Board also. When I was laying out a larger copy of it, I realized that the applicant
hasn't spaced his wastewater system out correctly. The infiltrators are three foot wide, and he's
got 16 foot long,but it requires six inches of sand all the way around it, and the separation distance
is measured from the outside of the sand. So when you have a series of infiltrators, not infiltrators,
Elgins, stacked up here,you've got to have a four foot area, not a three foot area, and a 17 foot long
area, not a 16 foot long area, and consequently the setbacks that they've requested from all these
different areas are understated. I've put the percentages on the plan view, and I've also described
all the deficiencies in their rain gardens. The rain gardens have a number of deficiencies that are
required by the New York State Design manual. We've got 80%variance request over here. We're
asking for 58%, 88%. They've got the wrong application for the silt fence. You were supposed to
run the silt fence parallel to the contours. They have a very,they have a one on two embankment
coming down here, and if you don't run the silt fence parallel to the contours,the water collects on
the silt fence, at the base of the silt fence, runs down to the bottom, and creates a failure, and
where's that failure going to be? The closest point to the wetlands. In the upper part of the area
you can see where the wetlands have already been disturbed there. Those wetlands probably went
pretty straight there, but they're pushed back in that center area, and it's because of all the
development that's already occurred up on Forest Lane. The water's come down and flowed into
there and has destroyed the wetlands. Approving something like this so close to the wetlands with
such significant variances is definitely going to have another impact on the wetlands. The far areas,
100% of what they're allowed. It's not a modest thing, and you're not supposed to be building an
infiltration device on fill. Both of them are on fill. The depth is supposed to be six inches or
eighteen inches. Usable soil,the side slopes,maximum is one on three. They've got one on one and
a half or one on two. It's, you know, significantly different than what's prescribed in the design
criteria. You're not supposed to have an infiltration device on a slope of greater than 15%. They're
asking for a slope of 100% in this one area, 46% in the other area. That's a 567% relief they're
asking for. These are pretty significant. Now, if you, the Town Staff normally, they tell me, I was
under the impression they were going to have the Town Engineer review this application before it
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
came to the ZBA. Evidently they don't do that. They leave it to the Town Engineer to review it for
the Planning Board only. So,you know, I'm a licensed professional engineer. My clients have paid
an awful lot of money for me to go through this. It should be up to the Town Engineer to verify the,
what I'm stating here. We've got two professionals that are stating different things. Why don't you
get the Town Engineer in to verify what I'm prescribing here. I think there's a lot more variances
that are going to be required. As a matter of fact,they did have the Town Engineer review it at one
time for the Planning Board. As you remember,this thing went to the Planning Board for approval
before it even came to the Zoning Board. It was our firm that brought up the need for variances,
and the first time I came in front of this Board,the senior members will remember that our purpose
was to get it in front of the Board once, identify all the variances, and go through it, but we've been
here several times, and they keep on revising the submission. So I think I'll let my, unless you have
any questions.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. We're still in the public hearing. Please.
DORIS HOPPER
MRS. HOPPER-My name is Doris Hopper. I live on Assembly Point, and Linda Delaura who owned
the lot is my daughter. So my presentation may be a little different. I've been a homemaker all my
life. I'm not used to meetings, but I'll tell you what I know. My daughter bought the lot from the
Dubins years ago as a building lot. Her plans changed and she decided to sell the lot. The first one
that wanted the lot was George Hearst, and John Owen said the lot,the fair market value on that lot
at the time was $50,000. George Hurst offered $17,000. My daughter turned down the offer. She
said when you come up and offer me more money, call me, and she gave him her number. Well,he
didn't call, then if you remember Mike Grasso was interested in the lot, and I was here at a meeting
and Kathleen Maloney was sitting next to me, and she asked me at the time, what does your
daughter want for the lot, and I said $50,000, and Kathleen said, I'll buy it, and that was the end of
that. Never heard from Kathleen Maloney again. Well, time goes by and all of a sudden there were
games being played, and I call it sabotaging the lot. My daughter paid the taxes on the lot for years
and years. She knew she wasn't going to build,so she knew she was going to get rid of the lot. Well,
with all the sabotaging, nobody wanted the lot. They wanted to get it for nothing,I guess. How can
you want a lot so bad as Mr. Hearst, or Kathleen, and then that's the end of it? I bought a little
cottage, I built a little cottage years ago. When the lot behind me became available, I wanted to
keep it green. I bought it. When the lot on the other side of me became available, I'd like it to say
that way,too, I bought it. Why didn't these people buy it? So the games started to play. Eventually
we met the Kitchens. They were willing to take this,almost a fight on because they knew what they
were doing. They're both engineers. So at this point my daughter sold the lot to the Kitchens for
$25,000. She lost$25,000,but that's okay. The Kitchens are very nice people. They're not going to
do anything wrong. They want to comply with everything that the Town wants them to do. Now, I
read the letters that the Bodenhorns wrote, who I've known for years and years and years, and I
called Greg Bodenhorn and I asked him why he wrote a letter that was so against this home that
these people want to have, and he told me that Mr. Klein had gotten in touch with them and
convinced them that the Kitchens were developers that develop property and destroy the
environment every place they go. This is what I was told. I said that's a disgrace,because that's not
what these people are. They just played games for a year and a half with this property. When it
comes to that septic tank, that was another game I believe. It's been games for a year and a half at
the expense of people losing money and them getting almost sick over it. It's disgusting, and that's
the games people play. Maybe they can afford to play these games, but a lot of people can't. The
other thought I had was maybe they were waiting for my daughter to just stop paying the taxes and
let the Town take over, and then they would get it for nothing. The other thing I can't understand is,
if it rains and a drip comes off the Maloney's roof, it's fine,but if there's a drip going to come off the
next house, the one that's going to be built, and it drips, that's toxic. How come? They're not that
far apart. The water comes off that roof is fine. The water comes off that roof is toxic. I don't
understand as a homemaker what is going on, but it isn't very pretty. Mr. Klein works for George
Hearst. They must be very good friends. Peter Brothers, very good friend. I live there. I see it. I
hear they're walking down the street celebrating. That's wonderful,you can do what you want,but
this is something more than you see here. It's not very pretty. There is more I want to say and I
can't remember. I get upset. If they wanted, I'm sure it's costing Mr. Hearst more to do what he's
doing than if he'd just made a reasonable offer to buy the lot. $17,000 for a beautiful building lot. It
was sold to my daughter as a building lot, and these games just have cost people money and
absolute upset. There's a song, it's called the games people play, and maybe some people can
afford to play these games and other people can't, and I came here tonight to get it off my chest
because it bothers me. I live there. I see it. Oh, and the other thing. I went down when they were
clearing all the trees from the middle of the point that went down and somewhere up on Hearst's
property, and they were driving through my daughter's property without permission. I have a
picture of the man, lovely man with this big machine, and he's a local. I can show it around.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
Somebody's going to know who he is. They were the ones that went through this property with the
trucks. So there's a lot that's being said here that is not true. I hope I got it off my chest. I'm sorry
I'm not professional when it comes to this. I did my best.
MR. GARRAND-You did great.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MRS. HOPPER-Thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else? Mr.Salvador.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. For the record, my name is John Salvador. I'm a resident in North
Queensbury. The agenda, or the agenda advertised this meeting and the public hearing at this time
fails to mention that this project is in a Critical Environmental Area. The CEA of which I speak was
established by an act of a State agency, namely the Lake George Park Commission. Said CEA was
established on May 11, 1988 and became effective June 3, 1988. Section 645-3.8 defines this
Critical Environmental Area. The Commission hereby designates the waters of Lake George, all
land lying within such waters and within 500 feet of the mean high water mark of such waters and
wetlands, and all land within 500 feet of such wetlands to be a Critical Environmental Area
pursuant to Paragraph H of Section 617.4 of this title. Your agenda fails to mention that this is in a
Critical Environmental Area, and it's extremely important. It puts this whole project into a new
category of review. Town Code Chapter 147-11 E speaks to project classification for stormwater
management. There's two categories, Minor projects and Major projects. A major project is any
project not expressly exempt from regulation or defined as a Minor project shall be a Major project.
In addition the following may be considered to be Major projects. By the way, as a Minor project
exempt from the regulation is not a project in a Critical Environmental Area. Major projects, any
part of a major project which occurs on: Soils of high potential for overland or through-soil
pollutant transport;An area with a slope of 15% or greater when measured in any direction over a
distance of 100 feet from the center of the proposed building or site; or An area with a soil
percolation rate slower than 60 minutes per inch. Minor projects shall be treated as major projects
in any case if such treatment is warranted in the judgment of the Stormwater Management Officer,
which I believe is Mr. Brown, due to specific site limitations or constraints, anticipated
environmental impacts or the need or advisability of additional public notice and comment. When
determining whether to treat a minor project as a major project, the criteria to be considered shall
include,but shall not be limited to,whether the site lies within or substantially contiguous to any of
the following: A critical environmental area established in accordance with SEQRA; A wetland; A
stream corridor;An area of significant habitat for any wildlife or plant species;An area of particular
scenic, historic or natural significance. The project sponsor of a minor project that will be treated
as a major project shall be given a written statement of the reasons for such a determination, and
that's what's failing here. It hasn't been noticed as a project in the Lake George Park Commission
CEA,and I question whether or not,on that basis,it is a SEQRA Type II action. Thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else this evening? Yes, Mr.Water Keeper. Chris,we're running real
late. So how about like 15 seconds,is that good?
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good to see you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank the Zoning Board of Appeals for
the opportunity to provide comments. We remain concerned about the extent of the variances and
the potential negative impacts to the wetlands and Lake George. The removal of a buffer will
change the character of the neighborhood. In our opinion,there has not been substantial change to
the application from the January meeting when the consensus of the Board was not in favor of the
application. There are alternatives present to reduce the size of the dwelling. The current
proposal is the maximum allowable under the FAR calculations. The road extension has not been
looked at and whether that could be reduced. There will be negative impacts to the wetlands from
the requested variances. Research indicates a buffer of 50 feet is necessary to protect the wetlands
under most conditions, and larger buffers are necessary for high value wetlands such as this,which
is classified by the Adirondack Park Agency, and they will provide protection from intense land
uses,and as we all know, a road drains directly into the wetland, and the effectiveness of a buffer is
influenced by slope,vegetation type and soil, each of which is changed by the proposed project. We
did submit a letter back in March and we provided some technical information in there. On slope,
the application proposes to double the slope within 50 feet of a wetland. We have a Figure 2 in our
presentation which shows that the sediment removed by buffers doubles with slope increase from
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
10 to 15%. They're increasing it up to 25 to 30%. Vegetation. The application proposes to
remove the existing vegetation and replace with grass which has less nutrient removal for
phosphorus, which is a limiting nutrient in the lake. Again, exhibit three shows the difference in
removal of grasses and trees for phosphorus. On soils, the existing soils are loamy soils, loamy
sands with very high percolation rates which have very low nutrient removal rates. Therefore the
changes will have negative impacts to water quality. The proposal fails to address the impacts
from the portion of the Town property which is segmentation. There was reference that they will
provide a level spreader. That does not provide stormwater treatment. The reference that it was
studied by Warren County Soil and Water. With all due respect, and I work with Warren County
Soil and Water, that's not a professional engineer. In our opinion, the Town Engineer should
provide recommendations to the Zoning Board requiring the adequacy of the stormwater
management system prior to deciding on variances. These are engineering devices. You need that
technical information. In fact, it is a requirement of the Lake George Park Commission, regulation
646-48C. Duly qualified engineering consultants shall be required for reviewing development
project plans, report, etc. For example, it's our opinion that the proposed project does not provide
the required 10% of infiltration under frost line. This project, as we all know, we get a lot more
rain events in the wintertime. When we do not provide that area for infiltration, you will get all
that runoff leaving the site right near the wetland. We feel that that is,should be part of this. There
has not been adequate subsurface soil information provided, and the Board does not know if the
proposed stormwater management plan will properly treat stormwater with the variances
requested. So you should have that information. I was disappointed. I heard some Board
members statements said that this will not impact Lake George. I hope it doesn't prejudice your
decision on this, but does anyone on the Board feel there has not been detrimental impact to Lake
George, as indicated through increased algae growth? This is a result of nutrients from cumulative
actions in the watershed that failed to provide adequate protection measures. You have them in
place. Please do not reduce them. We recommend the Town of Queensbury deny the variance
request based on the impact to the neighborhood, based on the fact that variance requests are not
the minimum necessary,based on the fact there are alternatives, and there will be negative impacts
to the environment. A couple of other points. There needs to be a 100 foot separation between the
wastewater system and stormwater. That's under the Lake George Park Commission
requirements. This is a major project,based on the cumulative disturbance,you can't segment out
the clearing and the grading on the Town property outside of the property of the development.
That is needed for the development and you need to include that. Also they were talking about the
amount of vegetation removed. The trees indicated on the site plan, I count between 10 and 15
trees being removed. So, again,I think that also should be incorporated. Thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-Wait. Chris,can I ask a couple of questions?
MR. NAVITSKY-Sure.
MR.JACKOSKI-When you talked about the road extension reduction,what did you mean?
MR. NAVITSKY-Can that driveway be reduced more? Can that road extension going up in front of
the property, can the driveway and everything be shifted further and we could reduce the
impervious cover? So, again, I think is this the minimum necessary, and clearly the Lake George
Park Commission actually has a memorandum of understanding with all towns that state, Lake
George Park Commission has a memorandum of understandings with all town highway
departments that states highway departments, quote, shall design stormwater management
provisions for all new town highways. They don't provide (lost words). A level spreader is not
stormwater management. It doesn't treat the stormwater.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Chris. Very informative. Thank you.
MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to? Mrs. Maloney. Welcome.
WINIFRED MALONEY
MRS. MALONEY-Good evening. I have a letter, not the May 21St letter. This is a letter that's dated
today. This is addressed to you, Mr. Jackoski, and members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm
going to identify myself, first. I'm Winifred Kathleen Maloney. I'm the executrix of the estate of
Eleanor D. Maloney. My mother, Eleanor D. Maloney, purchased the property in 1957, and my
parents built the seasonal residence there, and I have been living there, seasonally, since
approximately 1960. I guess that's telling how old I am,huh? Excuse me. The estate of Eleanor D.
Maloney, owner of a seasonal camp located at 36 Forest Road, Shore Colony, the abutting property
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
to the subject property, opposes the granting of any variance for the Kitchen application for the
following reasons: First, development of this property will significantly damage the wetlands and
result in a diminution of Lake George water quality, which will adversely affect the neighborhood,
the Town of Queensbury, and all who use and enjoy the waters of Lake George. In addition, the
proposed placement of the well, five feet from the property line, and the proposed substandard
stormwater facilities will be a detriment to the adjoining properties. Second, a feasible alternative
exists for the applicants. A smaller,seasonal camp, as intended by the 1957 subdivision plan for the
Shore Colony,that would be connected to the Shore Colony public water system could be built. It is
noted that five of the six currently developed properties on Forest Road are connected to and utilize
the Shore Colony public water system, which functioned from April until November. Third, the
applicants are seeking substantial relief as follows: 88% relief from the wetland to the proposed
driveway rain garden; 45% relief from the wetland to the proposed roof rain garden; 47% relief
from the proposed septic system to the proposed roof rain garden; 29% relief from the proposed
septic system to the proposed driveway rain garden; 178% relief in the proposed clearing of the
site, removal of 83.5% of the vegetation on the property, and 20% relief in the proposed clearing
near wetland, and the installation of fill material for the driveway rain garden. In addition, the
applicants are seeking relief from the vertical separation distance of eight percent for the driveway
rain garden, and 17% for the roof rain garden. The soil testing for these proposed stormwater
management facilities should be done in compliance with Schedule B of Chapter 147 of the Code of
the Town of Queensbury Town Code and Appendix D of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation Stormwater Management Design Manual required by Town Code
Section 147-11-1 Subpart 3. Subpart A, Subpart 1. The result of such tests should be available for
review and comment by the public. The Town Designated Engineer should review and advise the
Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board regarding soil testing for the latest proposed
stormwater management facilities, the latest proposed stormwater management report, and the
latest site plan. Such Town Designated Engineer written review should be available for review and
comment by the public. Fourth, the variances requested are substantial and cumulatively will
adversely impact the adjoining properties, the wetlands and Lake George water quality. Lake
George must be protected for use and enjoyment by the present generation and future generations.
Fifth, the alleged difficulty is self-created. The applicants can build a smaller, seasonal camp. In
early March 2013, the applicants removed vegetation from the property, allowed heavy equipment
on to the property, and dug a well close to the property line. Machine oil and other contaminants
were allowed to flow into the wetlands during the well digging process. Given the fact that neither
the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals nor the Town of Queensbury Planning Board
have completed their respective review of the applicants proposed area variance request, the
proposed stormwater management report plan, and the proposed site plan, the applicant's actions
are very troubling and are a sign of bad faith. In sum,given the detrimental impact to the adjoining
properties, the wetlands and Lake George, and its water quality, the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Board of Appeals should deny all the applicants area variances and direct the applicants to remove
the well and restore the property. Preservation of the wetlands and Lake George water quality will
allow the Maloney family and our neighbors to use and enjoy Lake George and the respective homes
or camps for many years to come. In addition, earlier you asked whether my May 21St letter was
my letter. The May 21St letter was a complaint that I filed, and it was addressed to the Zoning
Administrator, regarding the regulated activities that were undertaken at the above referenced
property in March, and I've requested a written determination regarding that. As an aside, it is
very difficult for me to discuss this, but I need to clarify something, because I respect Mrs. Hopper.
However, I did speak with her daughter. I spoke with her daughter in May of 2010,and that was at
the time when Mr. Grasso was trying to develop this property, a prior person, and how I remember
it so well was it was the same month my mother stopped walking, and we ended up having to have
private care until her death. During my conversation with Linda, by telephone, she offered the
property to me or my mother, because my mother was the owner of the adjoining property, for
$65,000. Then she changed it to $75,000 during the same conversation. I asked her what about
Mr. Grasso, and she said she had no written agreement with Mr. Grasso. Due to the fact that my
mother stopped walking, my family's considerations were to take care of my mother,which we had
to do so, and we had to do private pay nursing care. I just wanted to clarify the record that the
property was offered to me. It was offered for more than $50,000, during oral conversations. I
also might note that the property was subsequently put on the market for $50.000. However, my
family was dealing with my mother. Thank you,and I would like to put this into the record.
MR. JACKOSKI-Sure. Roy will take that from you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here this
evening that would like to address this Board that hasn't addressed the Board yet? Please. I'm
going to try to take one more, and if we could we're probably going to try to move forward.
BEVERLY POSEY
MRS. POSEY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I'm Beverly Posey, and I live on
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
Assembly Point. My family has been in residence there seasonally for 60 years, and I would like to
state the following. It continues to be of grave concern to residents, many of us residents of
Assembly Point,which is an area of Queensbury that wetlands are at risk. As I'm sure you all have
read, Chapter 74 Freshwater Wetlands, Town of Queensbury Code, there are many statements
supporting protection of the wetlands. There are also statements regarding area variances,Section
79, and the Item One, is there an undesirable change that will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties, and, yes, damage to the wetlands results in
damage to water quality of Lake George. That is a detriment to the neighborhood, and stormwater
facilities that are less than standard set a detriment to the nearby properties. Item C in that Code,
is the requested area variance substantial? Yes, we've already heard that it varies from 45 to
178%, and Item D in that Code,do proposed variances have adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Yes,they impact the wetlands and the
water quality. As you all are well informed,there is a valiant effort ongoing to combat the invasive
species which can't be totally eliminated. However, they can be contained, so that the future of
Lake George and its surrounding environment, which includes Queensbury, will be economically
prosperous for future generations. Yesterday there was a well-attended meeting of the Lake
George Park Commission, and many informed, knowledgeable attendees voiced support to contain
the invasive species. If wetlands are overwhelmed with nutrient rich runoff,they will be unable to
do the job of sequestering these nutrients. Excess nutrients will reach the lake and create habitats
more conducive to the growth of these invasive species, and I urge you to consider not setting the
stage to nutrient invasive species. Thank you, and I apologize for not getting this to you earlier,but
I have a copy for each one of you.
MR. JACKOSKI-And you can give those to Roy. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to
address this Board? Seeing no one at this time, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. I'm
going to ask the applicant to come back to the table. However, I am going to ask Board members,
because it is 10:20 this evening, does anyone want to take a break at this time? Okay. So, if you
don't mind, Mr. Lapper,we're going to take a five to ten minute recess. Okay, everyone,we're back
in session,if that's okay with everyone, and I guess for the applicant probably there's a lot of things
that were raised this evening from required building permits to major and minor stormwater
projects,etc. So have at it.
MR. LAPPER-I think we can hit it pretty briefly. I mean,to respond to that, since you mentioned it,
this is designed as a Major stormwater project, and that's why we need the variances. In terms of
the statements that there's going to be a detrimental impact on the wetland or the lake, that's the
whole point here,that the stormwater devices are being installed, are being designed and installed,
but they can't be put exactly, somebody said you have to, the last woman said stormwater facilities
shouldn't be less than standard. Qualitatively, everything's being done the way it's supposed to be
done. When you have a lot that's a third of an acre, that was the lot, and again, a double lot, this
was created before we had the new stormwater regulations, so this whole project is an attempt to
do more than everyone else has done to make this lot comply as much as possible. The number of
variances, I know that the engineer, Klein, was talking about needing additional variances. Craig
determined, the Zoning Administrator determines what variances we need, and that's why we're
here. He made the determination, and we've requested those variances and I hope explained them
carefully enough,but the wetland is being protected. The site is being designed to treat,handle the
stormwater. The Maloney lot next door is a single lot without any stormwater protection. That's
what's causing the water going into the wetland, and again,we're going to be dealing with sediment
control from their lot. That's what that spreader is all about, and Tom can go into any detail,but it
is a Major stormwater plan as Mr. Salvador had mentioned, and once it's in the wetland, and we all
know that a wetland acts somewhat as a filter. It's 500 feet to the lake. So this is being treated on
site and then it's 500 feet from that wetland into the lake. It's an attempt to make the new
regulations, to comply with the new regulations as much as possible on an admittedly 1957
subdivision, but fortunately there's two lots here to make this possible, and the thing I'd just
mentioned, just because it's not very nice, the letter from Dave Hatin dated March 11th say, which,
dealing with the Jaeger property in the back, it says "It appears there is plenty of property on the
west side of Lake Parkway to install a compliant sewage disposal system and meet the required
setbacks of the Town of Queensbury Sanitary Sewage Ordinance and NYS DOH 75 A. The property
is over 180 feet deep from the lake shore to Lake Parkway according to the plan you submitted to
this office allowing more than enough area to install a compliant system as you previously
proposed." And that there's no failure. So, I mean, we're not doing anything to preclude the
neighbor from replacing their system if they need it, and Dave is saying that it doesn't appear that
they do need it,but if they built it on the back part of their property,where they'd have to pump it
up the hill, rather than a system that didn't require pumping, then there wouldn't have been any
room to put a well on this site, and that's all that that was about. Tom went to Dave, didn't need a
permit. Everyone came out to the site to look at it. We have a letter from APA, that should be in
your packet, dated March 15th to the former property owner. Dear Ms. Delaura, it's just two quick
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
sentences. Agency staff met with your engineer Tom Center at your property on March 13, 2013.
This site inspection revealed no evidence of the violation described above. Accordingly this case is
now closed. Thank you for your efforts to resolve this matter, and Craig was copied on that. So, I
mean, there's, this whole thing has become a little bit of a brawl, but not because of the Kitchens.
We're just trying to comply to the extent possible, seek a variance so that the lot can be a buildable
lot, and it's still much better than everybody else in the neighborhood, a modest house with
stormwater controls,and that's it,and we're here to answer any questions.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. At this time are there any questions from the Board members? I will
remind you, I have left the public hearing open. I'm going to poll the Board after we ask questions
and then see where we go from there. No questions. So that I don't forget about Ron, I'll start with
Ron.
MR. KUHL-When you first came there was some other issues, and you took the rain gardens off the
road,which I thought was good. You moved them in on the site. I don't think that this is too large a
house. I'd be in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-I've been up to the lot quite a few times since this has been going on for a while now,
and I feel that the engineering designs that are going to be in place, given what's currently on the
lot,what's going to be there,what the rest of the neighborhood looks like with the clearing that's on
those lots. Some of the other thoughts are brought up some of the runoff coming down Forest
Road,it's not really an issue. It's other people's issues that they've created. I'd be in favor.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Also, I'm in favor of it. I feel that they've done everything they can do, and they're
doing above what they need to do compared to a lot of the homes that are on that road to handle
the stormwater and the sewage,and I think I'm definitely in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-Let's go through the balancing test. Whether benefits can be achieved by other
means feasible. A smaller house, less stormwater. That's what you'll get with that. Less land
disturbance. Undesirable character, change to the neighborhood, nearby properties. I don't think
it's going to change the character of that neighborhood. Is it substantial? You've got a whole list of
variances here, yes, it is substantial. I mean, when you're clearing more than 80% of the lot it is
substantial. Adverse environmental effects? It most certainly will. Is the difficulty self-created?
Yes. I think they could get by with a smaller house. I wouldn't be in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm kind of sorry this has turned into a neighborhood brawl, because I think it
has sort of obstructed our vision of the project itself. I think we have four variances here. I stated
earlier tonight that four variances for any project is substantial, and I agree with Rick, there's,
you've done a lot of work, but I think there's still a little work to do. I would be against it at this
point.
MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS.HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. I think that there could be a smaller house on the
lot. So I would not be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-I love when they put me in this position. I've struggled with this project. I've
looked at it extensively. I've been to that site many times myself,including trying to hit rain events,
and this is one of those projects, for me, that the Town Code just can't contemplate. There's no
doubt in my mind that it's a building lot. I feel very comfortable with that. I think it was always
intended when they developed this,that it was a building lot. I think the controls that are being put
in place for stormwater,septic,separations, I don't think the house is too large. So I'd be in favor of
the project. So, I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.JACKOSKI-And seek a motion,and, Ron,would you be able to do that for me?
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR. KUHL-Sure.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2012 STEVE AND JENNIFER KITCHEN,
Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel:
End of Forest Road. The applicant proposes construction of a two story dwelling with attached
garage, with a total floor area of 3171 square feet associated wastewater and stormwater systems
planned. The relief requested: separation distance from infiltration devices, a. required 100 feet
from down drinking water supply, lake, river, protected stream,well water, pond or wetlands. The
required is 100 feet, the proposed is 56 feet. Relief requested 44 feet. Driveway rain garden
related to the wetland, required 100 feet, proposed 13 feet. The 100 foot minimum subsurface
treatment systems of the wastewater treatment system, the roof rain garden related to the
absorption system required 100. The proposed is 53 feet, and the driveway rain garden related to
absorption field required 100, proposed 76 feet, and relief is 64 feet. Infiltration separation
distances required three feet, proposed 2.75 feet. Waterfront residential design, the lot clearing
maximum is 30%, the proposal is 83.5%. Vegetation removal distance required the shoreline is 15
feet, proposed 13 feet from the shoreline high water mark. Whether an undesirable change to the
character of the neighborhood. I would say minor impacts to the neighborhood. It is a building lot.
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by some other method feasible,
there are feasible alternatives but very limited because of the size of the lot. Whether the
requested area variances are substantial, we can go through and say some are minor and some are
substantial. Whether the proposed area variance will have an adverse effect? Minor impacts on
the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and it is self-created. I recommend
we approve Area Variance No. 61-2012.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand
MR. LAPPER-Thanks,everybody.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2013 SEQRA TYPE II ALFRED &ALICE SCHUMAN AGENT(S) LYNN
GOLLHOFER; STAFFORD, CARR, MC NALLY OWNER(S) ALFRED &ALICE SCHUMAN ZONING
WR LOCATION 85 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING 228
SQ. FT. U-SHAPED DOCK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 360 SQ. FT. STAKE DOCK IN ITS PLACE.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF NONE WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1-30 SECTION 179-5-060
BRIAN REICHENBACH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 18-2013,Alfred &Alice Schuman, Meeting Date: May 22, 2013
"Project Location: 85 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 360 sq. ft. stake dock. A pre-existing 1973 non-conforming u-shaped dock existed
on the site but was destroyed several years ago.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Side Setback: Required 20 ft. from each side; Proposed North side 12.4 ft.; Relief 7.6 ft.; South side
14.1 ft.; Relief 5.9 ft.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
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 are limited
due to the projected property lines from the owner's parcel. The dock is 6 ft wide where a
reduction in width would reduce the variance requested but a variance would still be necessary.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The plans indicate the proposed dock
is toward the center of the property where the relief requested would be considered minimal.
The dock is located 20 ft from the south neighbors dock and 24 ft from the north neighbors
dock
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,
None
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes the construction of a 360 sq. ft. stake dock that does not meet the required
20 ft side setbacks. The dock will be located 12.4 ft from the north property line and 14.1 ft from
the south property line. The applicant has also made an effort to address the neighboring docks by
locating the proposed dock 20 ft from the south neighbors dock and 24 ft from the north neighbors
dock. The dock is 60 ft in length from the mean-high water mark and less than 40 ft from the mean
low watermark. The applicant has indicated the dock is a replacement to a u-shaped dock that was
destroyed several years ago. The applicant is seeking the same variance request from the Lake
George Park Commission. The agent has included a narrative letter describing the dock situation.
SEQR Status: Type II -no further review needed"
MRS. MOORE-I'm just going to correct. Under the Description of the Proposed Project, earlier
under Staff had indicated that this was a replacement dock, and a site visit obviously indicates, and
the applicant has also indicated that there is no dock there now, and that the U shaped dock was
destroyed several years ago. So that's incorrect.
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,and there is a letter in the file from the Gollhofer. Okay. Welcome.
MR. REICHENBACH-Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I apologize for perhaps
looking over my glasses at you while I read. I printed this in the same font size I used last time I
was here, and apparently my eyesight has deteriorated additionally since then. So I can't read it
without my glasses. The dock was destroyed several years ago. There was no permit required. It
was done by ice on the lake. So there was no demolition, obviously. Just replacement of what had
been there, although the previous dock was also nonconforming. It was a much larger U shaped
configuration. So it's about the simplest and most limited access to the lake that the applicants, my
clients, Mr. and Mrs. Schuman, could obtain. I'm confident that this project would pass each test
that this Board has to look at to grant the variance requested. When you weigh the balance
between the benefit to the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Schuman, against any perceived detriment to
the health, safety and welfare of the community or the neighborhood, it should be crystal clear to
you that you should grant Mr. and Mrs. Schuman's application. My clients have a sales contract for
their property on the lake. It's contingent,however,upon their ability to get a variance to build this
single pier stake dock. They've experienced financial and health difficulties over the last few years,
and they were actually unable to re-build the dock once it was destroyed during the 18 months
provided for in the Town Code. They need, then, this variance to obtain a market value for their
property. They have the contract that's contingent on being able to obtain the variance. So that
they can, the buyers can have access to the lake. There is no detriment to the safety, health or
welfare of the community or neighborhood. The first factor, whether there is an undesirable
change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties by granting
the variance is no. There will be a change to the neighborhood clearly because any addition or
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
deletion of a dock would be a change. However,there's no detriment or an undesirable change. If
you look at the photos submitted with the application and the survey map,you can see that the area
of the lake has many docks. There are single pier docks. There are neighboring docks that are
more complex or two docks, longer docks, more wide docks. This is perfectly in character of the
neighborhood. The granting of this minor setback variance and shoreline variance will have no
discernible effect on the character of the neighborhood. In fact,you can see by the survey map that
Mr. Dickinson did that the straight pier dock will exceed the setbacks of both of the neighboring
docks on the north and the south. The Staff Notes indicate that minor impacts may be anticipated.
We agree with that. However, I believe the statute requires that the change be detrimental or
undesirable. I don't think that's the case here. The second factor, whether the benefit sought by
the applicant can be achieved in some other feasible method. No, it cannot. The benefit that is
sought is the one that is sought by this particular applicant. Mr. and Mrs. Schuman, as I indicated
earlier, have a contract for the sale of this property. It's contingent upon getting a variance so that
a dock can be constructed. There may be other benefits that other people may want, other people
in the neighborhood, other people that may address you this evening. Those are not the benefits
sought by the applicant. The applicants seek only to receive a fair market price for their property.
Again, they were not able to reconstruct the dock in its earlier nonconforming structure size or
form during the 18 months because of age, health difficulties and financial difficulties. So they
come here now seeking to make a much reduced stake dock into the lake to be able to sell their
property that they've held for over 40 years,just at a market price. If they are not able to get this
variance here this evening, not only will they lose this particular contract, I'm not sure that they'll
be able to get another buyer at a reasonable price. They'd also be burdened by the additional time
that it would take to market the property again,perhaps get another buyer, and we all know that as
we sit here that a house near the lake, as this is, much more valuable with a dock than without a
dock. The requested variances are not substantially. There's 20 foot setback for each side of the
dock. We would be asking for 7.6 feet of relief from the north shoreline, I'm sorry, for the north
property line as it's extended and 5.9 feet on the south side. We've planned this project so that the
proposed dock will be almost exactly in the center of the property lines as extended into the lake,
and as I indicated earlier, closer to the, I'm sorry,further away from the setbacks than the adjoining
docks. The proposed variance will not have any adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood. I don't agree with those individuals who firmly believe that any
access to the lake is detrimental to the lake. I think responsible landowners and lake users can use
the lake, have access to the lake and it is not detrimental to the center of all our universe of Lake
George. The difficulty is not self-created. I believe there would be a distinction between whether
Mr. and Mrs. Schuman have been able to reconstruct the dock within the 18 months or whether
they had destroyed the dock for themselves. The dock was destroyed through no fault of their
own. They then were not able to rebuild it. They come here seeking only now to restore the
condition of their property under which they purchased it, which is access to the lake in a much
more minimal fashion, so that they can sell their property, realize their fair market value for the
investment they've made over the last 40 years. Any questions from the Board?
MR.URRICO-When was the dock destroyed?
MR. REICHENBACH-I'm not sure exactly. It appears that it was at least three years ago.
MR.URRICO-At least,or was it longer than three years ago?
MR. REICHENBACH-I believe it was around three years ago, but I'm not able to establish that with
certainty.
MR.URRICO-What was the size of the dock that was destroyed?
MR. REICHENBACH-It was, it's shown on the upper left corner of the survey map there. It was 228
square feet, 36 feet from the low water mark.
MR.URRICO-I see that.
MR. REICHENBACH-And it was a U shaped arrangement there.
MR. GARRA ND-Question for you about the wharf registration. The Lake George Park Commission
wharf registration was included in the packet, and it says the wharf described herein meets the
requirements of qualifying as a pre-existing structure and no permit is required to re-install or
maintain the existing structure, blah, blah, blah. A new permit is required for any work that alters
the size, shape or location of the wharf. What they submitted to the Lake George Park Commission
is a U shaped dock,similar to the one that was there.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR. REICH ENBACH-That's dated,sir. We have an application for this particular property.
MR. GARRAND-Yes,you have a new application for the new dock.
MR. REICHENBACH-We do. That'll be heard next week,next Wednesday.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. Is there any reason why it's 60 feet long? I mean,the neighbor's dock seems
considerably shorter.
MR. REICHENBACH-The water's very shallow there, and they need about 60 feet to be able to put a,
I guess a 24 foot boat in there and not have any problems with the lower unit.
MR. KUHL-Is that a factor,or is that an assumption on your part because you're representing them?
MR. REICH ENBACH-That's my assumption based on the review of the drafting drawings and from
my discussion with the owner's agent.
MR. KUHL-You're suggesting that they're not going to park multiple boats there. They're just going
to use it for personal,or you really can't say,can you?
MR. REICHENBACH-I don't know that,because I don't represent the prospective purchasers.
MR. GARRAND-(lost words) with that shorter dock.
MR. REICHENBACH-I don't know. The contours of the lake may be different there. Those are pre-
existing.
MR. BROWN-Yes, if you look on the survey map, there's a line that's called the mean low water
mark that shows on there. What the Town Code says is you can install a dock over 40 feet from the
mean low water mark, and I believe their dock dimension is about 30 feet from the mean low water
mark. That mean low elevation is 317.74, and with the current elevation of the lake about a little
less than 320, it's less than a couple of feet of water. So it's relatively shallow from that mean low
water mark towards the shore. So it seems like a reasonable explanation to me.
MR. REICHENBACH-So that's not one of the elements of the variance,per se.
MR. GARRAND-I know. It's a question. I know the variance is from one side to another. You're
going to need a variance for anything you put there.
MR. REICH EN BACH-That's correct, and the wharf registration, my clients have maintained their
wharf registration. Even though the dock was destroyed, they've maintained the wharf
registration with the Park Commission. They just weren't able to afford the reconstruction of the
dock itself.
MR. GARRAND-I was just curious. I didn't know how the procedure worked.
MR. REICH ENBACH-They will be heard next Wednesday at the Park Commission meeting.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? I am going to open up the public hearing. You may not have
to leave the table. We'll see. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board
concerning this matter? Actually there are. Sorry.
MR. REICHENBACH-May I have time to rebut afterwards?
MR.JACKOSKI-Of course you will.
MR. REICHENBACH-Thank you.
DENISE BUHER
MS.BUHER-I have a letter to be read.
MR.JACKOSKI-You can come to the table and you can read it in. Sure. Was it submitted already?
MR.URRICO-Yes.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR.JACKOSKI-Do you want Roy to read it in, I mean,he can. It's up to you.
MS. BUHER-I'll comment after.
MR. URRICO-"Dear Zoning Board of Appeals: I am a resident of the property to the South of the
Schuman's, and my family and I have concerns over the proposed dock. Please consider the
following points according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: Undesirable Change and Detrimental
to Nearby Properties First and foremost, this application states in many forms that the applicant
is replacing an Existing dock. Lynn Gollhofer of Leavitt Realty wrote a letter stating that the
"existing non-conforming dock on the 41.5 feet of shorefront owned by the Schuman's since 1973."
The dock she is referring to has not been in existence for 25 to 30 years, and the dock had never
received a permit from the Town of Queensbury at any time. Ms. Gollhofer also stated the reason
the dock was not rebuilt was due to the "Schuman's advanced age, financial limitation and health
issues." I feel that since the dock was removed at least 25 years ago, this is a misrepresentation
regarding Mr.Schuman's health and age. Also, I would need clarification,but our family thought the
dock was requested to be removed by the Town of Queensbury because of non-compliance, not by
damage sustained by ice. A second concern is an undesirable change will be produced in the
character of the neighborhood and a possible detriment to nearby properties. The area is already
overcrowded with docks and boats. A 60' dock would impede the view of the lake from
neighboring properties, but most importantly adding more crowding becomes a safety issue for
swimmers and boaters. A 60' dock would allow 2 to 4 more boats in this confined area. Adding
the 6' width crowds the area even more which makes it again dangerous for swimmers. The
parking on that section of Pilot Knob Road is difficult and congested which presents a safety
concern for motorists and pedestrians. The Schuman's property near the road has a steep
embankment and does not allow more than one small car. The variance request is substantial.
The neighboring set back provides only 14' from our property line and 12.4' from the other
neighbor. Combined with the minimum requirement of 45'lake frontage which is necessary in this
confined area. Again,there are safety issues for both swimmers and boaters and we are asking for
this variance request to be denied. Sincerely, Members of the Casa La Rocca, LLC/The Didio
Family Denise Didio Buher"
MS. BUHER-Yes, I have concerns about how crowded it is in this area. It's a very mucky area and
there's several renters along this road. I don't know if you guys have been up there, but my
concern is that there'll be more renters,and I'm not sure where that low water level line is,but I put
my boat at that shorter dock, and it's a 20 foot, 25 foot boat, and there's plenty of room for my boat.
It's not that shallow. So I have a problem with the crowding, but especially with a six foot wide,
sixty foot long dock. That's my biggest concern. There's not a lot of room for swimmers there. My
kids are always swimming off the end of our dock, and if that dock is out there 61 feet, you know,
it's going to be dangerous out there with all that boat traffic.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here?
PETER DIDIO
MR. DIDIO-Good evening.
MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome.
MR. DIDIO-My name's Peter Didio. I'm also a resident of the family camp. My family's been there
for 60 years. There's a, as I look through this paperwork, I'm really amazed at some of the things
that are written here, because it's not an accurate representation of either the existing dock or
supposed existing dock or the timeframes whatsoever that existed or the conditions that caused the
dock to be removed. That dock probably is closer to 30 years that there's been a dock there. I
remember when the,you know just the, I don't know if it was exactly the ice,but I remember that's
a U shaped dock, and I remember as the wing fell off basically through disrepair and possibly ice or
some damage like that, I actually helped Paul and Phillip remove that part of the dock as we were,
you know,teens. The rest of the dock,as I understood it then,was removed because of the fact that
it was not, it was never permitted. There was a dock there, a stake dock there originally, with a
previous owner,two owners prior to the Schuman's, and that dock was taken out because it did not
either conform or it was not permitted. The Schuman's purchased this dock, I mean, excuse me,
this property without a dock. They put the dock in without approval and as far as I know, you
know, they did it without an approval, a permit from the Town of Queensbury, and we never
complained. We were good neighbors, and they still continue to be good neighbors. The house is
for sale. There is an offer in on the house. It's difficult because we liked,you know,protecting that
area, it's been in our family. That whole area is still the same neighbors that have been there for,
you know, the Herricks on the other side, well, actually it's not the Herricks anymore because Mrs.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
Herrick died,but,you know,they've been there almost as long as we have. The preservation of that
dock in that area, you know, the whole area is, we keep it close and dear to our hearts, and we
always are on the side of preservation, understanding that development is important, yet when
you're looking at minimum setbacks and minimum lake frontage, you know, five feet, nine feet,
seven feet, six feet, it's substantial in the sense that they only have 41 feet of dock, you know, of
waterfront. So as I look at this I'm just amazed, quite often, at, and I understand that counsel is
probably not aware of some of the conditions or circumstances that do, are involved in this as
expressed by the realtor, and I'm not certain as to the realtor's knowledge base for the past and
present condition of the dock. Obviously she knows that there has been no dock there,but not that
she knows that the dock hasn't been there within three years. As I said, there hasn't been a dock
there in 30, nearly 30 years. So as I look at this, and I hate to belabor the issue. I know you folks
have been here for a long time, and I certainly appreciate your commitment. It's way more than I
could do. Just sitting in one of these meetings is outside of my comfort level,but I would just like to
go through a few things, and I'll try to make it as brief as possible. As I look at the letter from
Leavitt Realty, the Schuman's have owned the subject camp for the past 40 years. I don't believe
they actually owned the camp for 40 years, but let's say for all intents and purposes that it was 40
years. There has been a non-existing conforming dock on the 41.5 feet of shore owned by the
Schuman's since 1973. That's not true. I don't know how to state it otherwise. It's just simply not
true. The dock destroyed by the elements several years ago. Again, I've already explained the
situation there and I won't explain it any further unless you wish, but financial limitations, it really
was just a matter of priorities or not wanting a dock and not having the authority to do that. As a
matter of fact, several years ago the camp was hardly used. Several years ago I asked Mr. Schuman
if they were ever willing to sell to let us know because we would be interested in preserving the
area. We're not looking at developing, and he said, well,you know, it doesn't have a dock permit,
and we were fully aware of that, and so, I don't want to get ahead of myself. So the financial issue
is, I mean, it's arbitrary,but I know that that,you know,really wasn't the situation,that they just let
it lapse, and now that they're looking to sell the property, they're looking to try to get a dock in
there to increase the value of the property, when in fact they bought the property without a dock,
without a permit,without the ability to have a dock. So, as far as degrading the value of the house,
or the property, I can speak with authority saying that that dock, that property never had a dock, a
legal dock. In my opinion, my estimation, and as far as I know, they'd prove me different with the
Town of Queensbury, but it never had a dock, a legal dock. So when they talk about replacing an
existing dock,that U shaped dock for a smaller dock, actually there hasn't been a dock there for 25
years or so. So, I mean, where do you draw the line with accuracy,with legitimacy,with variances,
with minimum setbacks, with the minimum amount of lakefront. Honestly, that's your decision.
Certainly I have my own opinion, but,you know, a dock is, in and of itself poses problems of access
and aesthetics, but really the usage of the dock is critically important. As far as just a simple dock
itself,yes,you look at the setbacks. You look at the minimum frontage and all those things,which it
doesn't comply. However, it's the usage of the said dock which causes everlasting difficulties with
the existing residents, the usage, the density, the safety, the parking, the water quality. There's a
lot of sedimentation in that area. The least, I mean, we swim there because we're used to
swimming there. We swim there all our lives. It's muddy. It's murky. It's pretty,you know, it's
not a real desirable place to swim,yet it's home. We'd like to protect that, and as a matter of fact,in
discussing with the realtor the intentions of the owner and my sister's discussions with the owner,
apparently he's looking to flip the house and increase the value of the house. It was communicated
to her that he likes to buy things cheap and turn around and sell them. Well,you know what,this is
our home. This is where we live. So, what are these requirements set for? It's to protect, you
know, the quality of the area, to maintain a character that exists, and despite the fact that some
people may think it's a swamp, it's our home. It's place. So, with that in mind, you know, I asked
her about renters, and I said, well, you know, if it were the Schuman's, and I really hate going
against our neighbors,because we have been good neighbors for many years, and we've taken care
of their property, and they really haven't been around much in the past 10 or 15 years, but we've
looked out after them, and so this is very difficult for us,but when you're looking at a new authority
coming in, and I said to the realtor, I said,you know, I'd be interested in buying the dock,buying the
land without a variance. We have our docks. That property has been there unused for many years,
and in preservation of, if nothing else, just to preserve it. The conclusion of her letter is really
outstandingly, you know, difficult for me to not argue, but it is difficult because I never meant to
decrease the value of their property. I expressed an interest in it, but I'm not going to put an offer
in on a piece of property that already has an offer. I think morally and ethically it's a little, you
know, weird, and yet, you know, so, and I didn't want to contribute to any ill feelings of that, that I
was trying to compromise the sale value of the property. I actually had a realtor come up and
assess it, and so I went based on their assessment, and I made a, I just said, well, would you
entertain a price of, and the realtor expressed an interest in doing so,but I felt as though that was a
little bit, well, first of all, you know, it would be a further discussion, and I didn't want to jump to
something only to create a whole bunch more problems, but it wasn't to erode the value of the
property. I wanted an accurate assessment of the property as it stands without the approval for
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
the dock, and with no intention of building a dock,but my, and I posed the question to the realtor at
the time, I said, well, it's my understanding that this person isn't going to live there, and she said,
no, that's accurate, and I said, well, is he going to rent it. I really don't know. I know he wants to
fix the place up, and I said,well,you know, really the issue isn't, it's the amount of usage to an area
when you include a dock, a 60 foot dock. You have the potential for, you know, as many as four
boats. When you have four new boats, you've got four new neighbors. You've got four more
people trying to park a car on some of the most dangerous stretch of road in Lake George,which we
always confront, you know, we're always watching the kids. We've asked for extra police
protection,not protection,but,you know, oversight in that area because people fly down that road,
and people are getting out of their cars with the coolers, with the kids, you know, animals are
constantly getting hit on that road. We don't keep an animal up there because we've lost so many.
It's not safe, and particularly on that piece of property,when you have renters on a dock,you know,
then you're dealing with parking issues. You're dealing with parties. You're dealing with pollution.
You're dealing with people,you know,up all night,lights on. It's like,if that's not changing the area,
I mean, I'm sorry, it does change the area. It changes the whole dynamics of the situation. It's a
quiet little spot. Again, I don't mean to take you folks any further than you need to. I'm just
looking at notes here, if you'll excuse me for a moment. A 60 foot dock profoundly change it in an
undesirable way, the characteristic of the neighborhood, the access to the existing docks, and
obviously the aesthetics and the obstruction of view. In response to counsel's comments,
neighborhood docks are 40 feet. Our dock is 40 feet. The median water line, as one of my family
members said,you know, if you let go of that ruler and let it sink into the mud,then you're going to
get your median water line, because it is just full of sediment right now, which further erodes, you
know, the water quality with a boat moving in and out of there. It is a, if I can, if you see that
property there, I wish I had one of those fancy pointers, but the flow of the lake is north to south, I
mean, excuse me, south to north, and that little inlet right there creates a little bit of an eddy. So,
you know, we try to maintain our property, and we do a very good job of it. We have a terrace, so
there's no erosion from the road runoff, and they have a sand, so their dock is essentially, or the
median water line, I would question, unless it was done by an authority,you know, for the Town of
Queensbury, I would question that median water line if a dock was approved or a variance was
approved,but I'm saying right now that I think the thing should be denied,of course,and that's why
I'm here. So the neighborhood docks are 40 foot with the exception of one dock at the very end. It
is very shallow on the northern side of that dock that's on an angle. It's a floating dock, and they
didn't have it properly secured at that time.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Didio, you're actually, we've given you like eight times longer than normal. I
think we understand your concerns,but.
MR. DIDIO-Well, I'm just, the main thing, as it relates to this, is they don't have the minimum
frontage, the setbacks, and one other comment I would like, which is, again, not represented
properly. We've spoken to the immediate neighbor to the north. They never said that they
approved this variance. So, they weren't aware that they were looking to put in a 60 foot dock. I
question so many things in this whole thing that I question it all, and I hate to be a naysayer. I'm
just really concerned with this Board being,you know, mislead in any way,to make an accurate and
just decision.
MR.JACKOSKI-And just so you know, and so that we can wrap up here,we are looking at a map that
is stamped by a certified engineer, and that map states that the existing dock layout of 2011, and I
understand what you're saying. I just want you to know what we've got in front of us also.
MR. DIDIO-It's erroneous. It's not true. It is not true,and I can,it's just not true.
MR.JACKOSKI-I understand. So,just so you know.
MR. DIDIO-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else here? Did you want to come back to the table? Let me just
make sure there's no one else. The Water Keeper had left, I think. Is there anyone else here who'd
like to address the Board on this project?
MR. REICHENBACH-Sir, I'd like to address some of Mr. Didio's comments. A fair number of them
are irrelevant. So I'm just going to not belabor those points, but Mr. Didio questions not only Mr.
Dickinson's measurement of the mean low water line and high water line. I understand Mr.
Dickinson's been practicing surveying in the Lake George area since probably before he and I were
out of high school. So I would trust Mr. Dickinson on that particular point. As to Mr. Didio's
questioning of whether the Schuman's have owned the property for 40 years, he's correct. It's not
40 years. It's 40 years and about 3 months. I have a deed here from February 9, 1973, (lost word)
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
clause indicating when they purchased the property. So it's,by my rudimentary math skills that's a
little over 40 years. Mr. Didio addressed the concerns of the setbacks. If you'll look to the
surveyor's map, Mr. Dickinson's map, you'll see that Mr. Didio's dock, where five families use the
premises there, is far fewer feet from the property line than is my client's proposal. I would like to
turn the mic over, now to Ms. Gollhofer who's the owner's agent,to set the record straight on some
of the other facts that I didn't have at my disposal. She's also been involved in some of the
conversations that Mr. Didio related to. So I'll ask her to make those points as briefly and as
concisely as possible.
LYNN GOLLHOFER
MS. GOLLHOFER-Thank you. My name is Lynn Gollhofer, and I am an associate broker for 20 years
with Leavitt Realty in Lake George, and whenever we get a property like this,we really take a lot of
effort and due diligence to make sure things are correct. It is true, the only,the information, in the
beginning I have to go with the Schuman's in what they recollect and what they give me. Then I get
the deed. Now, I went immediately to Molly Gallagher with the Lake George Park Commission, and
I asked her if there was any way she could determine when the dock was there and when it wasn't
there, and what was proper and what was acceptable. She gave me the information of the wharf
and said that the Schumans have paid continually for a sticker, wharf sticker for that dock. She
gave me the photograph that you have in there of the dock, and then I found through, it's not dated,
but it's more recent than what Mr. Didio claims, is another photograph of that boat, and their dock.
Molly Gallagher checked the aerial photography, and she said that it showed that it wasn't in, there
was a dock, some type of a dock there approximately five years ago,but we were saying,well,when
they showed the aerial again it was not there. I'm sure, as a neighbor, Mr. Didio maybe knows some
of the facts that I don't. The Schumans showed me their boat pictures, showed me themselves in
the boat,and as I said, I have a picture of where it was docked. So I have to assume that they had a
dock there. Now, in 1973,you didn't require permits. That only came into effect in 1988. So from
'88 on,they were compliant with the Lake George Park Commission and the permits. The reasoning
for the 60 foot dock is not to have four boats, because with the, in that area north,there's a reason
why the neighbor from the north has a 60 foot dock. It's because of the shallowness. Mr. Didio's
area is not as shallow.
MR. REICHENBACH-On the survey map, the mean low water line and high water lines are
contoured such that the water is deeper near Mr. Didio's dock and a little shallower where the
Schumans want a variance for their boat dock.
MS. GOLLHOFER-As far as renting and having parties and parking, it is well known that there isn't
parking off of Pilot Knob,and it is not safe. This is the reason why the property is above and there's
stairs that you have to navigate down to the dock, and the Schumans have an additional small lot
that was purchased so that they have additional parking available to their home that is 1,000
square feet. The size and minimum lakefront, Mr. Didio has about the same. So we're talking
about the same area and the same size. We were very diligent in trying to minimize and I
consulted diligently with Lake George Park Commission on what would be the best utilization of a
dock environmentally, and she said what she called the I dock or single stake dock, and this is why
we have the permit.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you.
MS. GOLLHOFER-Thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-Are there any Board member questions for the applicants at this time? I'm going to
leave the public hearing open. I'm going to poll the Board.
MS. GOLLHOFER-There's one other thing, I didn't mean to,when we were talking about value. This
property, full market value according to the Lake George School District, is $ 524,800, and if they
cannot have a dock now, they're going to lose at least $100,000 on value, and we were, when the
agent, when I came on the property with the prospective buyer, one of the Didio members of the
family were there. They requested, I said, we do not have an offer yet. We may. If you're
interested, contact me. That's why they have all the information they have. I gave them the
information, and they did not want to pay what they felt was not a fair value, and they said, well,
you're not going to have a dock anyway.
MR.URRICO-Mr. Chairman,is this relevant?
MR.JACKOSKI-No.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MS. GOLLHOFER-I apologize.
MR. JACKOSKI-A bunch of things are going through my head. First off, just for the record, as Vice
President of the Lake George School District, I assure you of not making any decisions tonight
regarding the tax dollars being collected on the property,the fair market value. So let's get that off
the table. Secondly, we need to move on to poll the Board and discuss the project, and I'm going to
start with Rick.
MR. GARRAND-I think the dock could be smaller. The variance isn't necessarily significant,but I do
feel that a 60 foot dock seems a little overkill. You can still get a boat in there. I've been down
there numerous times to this area, and I've never run aground. I've raised trim up down there,but
I've never dragged the outdrive in the mud there or anything, maybe in the weeds, because there
are weeds, some weeds down there,but I think,you know, 40 something, in that range would be all
right. I mean, given that they're farther out,you might have a little bit of difference there between
the Didio's dock and this dock. They might have to go, you know, another five or ten feet out, but
not 60 feet. It just seems excessive to me, and also I've been going up in that area at least two or
three times a week for the last 14 years. I don't remember seeing a dock there. I'm up and down
that road all the time.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree. I think, I know it doesn't seem significant,but 7.6 feet is .38%, and 5.9 is
.29%. So that's still significant for that area, and for that size dock. I think the dock width could be
reduced and that would lessen the burden on the side setbacks, and that's where I stand on this. I
would not approve it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-I think they have a right to have a dock there. I don't know how concerned I am
necessarily right now with the length of the dock, considering if you have boats out farther on the
end of the dock, it would be less boat traffic in closer to shore, maybe where people were
swimming. It would also keep the turbidity down of the silt, you know, the stuff that would be
kicked up in the muck that's being talked about. So I'm in favor of the project.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I think that the width and the length should be modified. I don't think you need six foot
of width. If you're going to really use it for one boat,and that's something you can't say as a lawyer,
but I think that the length is too long, and I don't think you need six foot. If it's just going to be for
personal use. So I would not be in favor of a six by sixty.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. I also think, lengthwise, it's out too far. Even though the land does go out,juts
out there and it's protected. I still think you're asking too much,it's too big.
MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-The width and the length could both be reduced.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and for me, this Board knows how I feel about some of these docks. I
commend you for putting it in the middle of your parcel. I think that's important for us, and I'm
going to ask Staff,the dock that we approved,that did not exist on Old Assembly Point Road,on a lot
that was only eight feet of lakefront,her name was,there was no dock there. Correct?
MR. BROWN-There was a dock there.
MR.JACKOSKI-And we allowed them to put the dock right on the line, and it was, I'm getting at how
wide was it,two to three feet?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I think it was two feet wide.
MR. JACKOSKI-Enough to walk on it and tie your boat up, but that was because they only had eight
feet total lakefront. Right?
MR. BROWN-Right.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,and this is a land hooked lot.
MR. BROWN-Yes. You can see it's on this highlighted parcel.
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, I know it's not an independent parcel taxed separately,right?
MR. BROWN-I don't believe that's the case.
MR.JACKOSKI-So I think I agree with my fellow Board members. I don't like the idea that this could
easily be,you know, a marina of some sort here with four boats for a house. I would have to defer
to Mr. Salvador if it's a Class A or a Class B. I can never remember which is which, but it doesn't
matter. I can't remember. Sorry. So I would be much more in favor of a narrower dock, and, I
mean,we can grant a variance this evening for less relief, if you were to modify the request tonight.
Correct?
MR. BROWN-That's correct, and with any reasonable condition that you might want to add, you
know,like only boats on the north side,or anything that might get them what they want and get you
what you want. You can do that,too.
MR. JACKOSKI-It's the length that really, I mean, that gives you an opportunity, and I know you say
that high water line is there, but I also hear that it's quite mucky, and,you know, I don't know how
deep that water is there. I don't think I've ever seen Lake George get to the point where the low
mean water line would actually be way out there in the lake, but I just think that dock is too long
and it creates a problem for me, too, with boats getting in and out of there that could be stacked
four to a dock.
MR. REICHENBACH-Mr. Chairman, may I ask what the sense of the Board is for the dimensions that
would be acceptable for a variance?
MR.JACKOSKI-Well, I'll speak personally. I think if you were to have a four foot wide, and the same
length as the, maybe a little bit longer because it looks to me like this property projects forward
more toward the west,I guess it is,than the Didio dock,but I would say,from the shore, my opinion,
a four foot by forty foot dock,forty-five foot dock would be enough.
MS. GOLLHOFER-We were informed by Dickinson that, when he went in with waders on, that if we
had 40 foot, you would not be able to get, you'd only be able to get maybe a 15, 16 foot boat, the
way, because of the concrete abutment in that corner where you see the neighbor has the 60 foot
dock that's floating,that creates a shallow wash in there, and he was the one that suggested that we
go with the 60,in order to get a boat.
MR. JAC KOSKI-Unfortunately I don't have any of that, if I had that certified data that it was that
shallow there and a boat wouldn't fit on a 45 dock, that would be different, but I don't have that
data.
MR. REICHENBACH-Table it to next month?
MS. GOLLHOFER-I think we've got to.
MR. JACKOSKI-You could always get the variance as it sits now, if the Board was inclined to do four
feet by forty-five, and then if you had to come back to us because it was shallow, at least you'd have
something in place. That's your call.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Pontoon boats.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm not sure the Didio's want a great big pontoon boat there, either, but you're
correct. That's exactly. I mean, I know,but I think that's a lot of boats,but I'd be glad to hear from
other Board members.
MR. GARRAND-I agree with you. I think you're right on the money.
MR.JACKOSKI-Is four feet by forty-five feet acceptable to this Board at this time?
MR. KUHL-Yes.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR.JACKOSKI-It's up to you. I mean, I've got to tell you, my other condition would be that there be
no more than two boats stored on that property. I'm not even excited about two boats with kids
swimming that close, and enforcement becomes the issue. We have precedent of building docks
on much smaller lots.
MR. REICHENBACH-Mr. Jackoski, would the Board entertain a variance as we requested with the
condition that there be no more than two boats there?
MR.URRICO-No.
MR. GARRAND-We'd never be able to enforce it.
MR. URRICO-I'm totally against the project at this point. So you could do whatever you want with
it. I'm still opposed.
MR.JACKOSKI-So we have to move forward.
MR. REICHENBACH-What we'd like to do, Mr. Jackoski, if the Board would entertain it, is to get the
four by forty-forty foot variance this evening.
MS. GOLLHOFER-They said 45.
MR. GARRAND-Forty-five.
MR. REICH ENBACH-Forty-five, I apologize. Four by forty-five, and then have an opportunity, after
that, to speak with our engineer, decide whether the water is deep enough on that condition to be
able to dock at least two boats,one boat,and then if we need to come back for additional.
MR. JACKOSKI-So here's my question for Staff. How would a motion be written so, because of
course if you look at the angles of this lot line projections, I can't tell how far the lot lines, the
shorter dock will be, unless we write the motion in such that it suggests that.
MR. GARRAND-(lost words) 11.4 feet.
MR.JACKOSKI-How do you know that?
MR. GARRAND-I just did the math.
MR.JACKOSKI-How did you know the angle?
MR. GARRAND-The angle, if it's completely straight, it looks like it's perpendicular, it's going to be
11.4 and six by six.
MR.JACKOSKI-I think the only thing we can do is suggest that the dock is no longer than 45 feet and
it is determined,the variance is determined based on if the dock were 60 feet long it's only 12.4 and
14.4 feet off the line. Does that make sense to Staff?
MR. BROWN-It does. I'm guessing the goal is to keep it at the same orientation.
MR.JACKOSKI-Exact same orientation.
MR. BROWN-If they'd care to pick a side, that we're going to hold it to the northern side of the six
feet or the southern side of the six feet, probably the northern side, would center it more, then you
at least kind of have one line to go by, but realizing that the relief you grant tonight is going to be
more, or less relief than what they're asking for.
MR.JACKOSKI-Correct.
MR. BROWN-Right.
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, I don't know how to write the motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. GARRAND-We could just make a motion that.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR.JACKOSKI-Could we make the motion that the dock would be no closer than 20 feet to the,well,
of course we don't know if the Didio dock has moved with ice and all that other stuff, either. We
could make the.
MR. GARRAND-Make a motion that we grant relief for a four by forty-five foot dock, centered on the
property. Would that do?
MR.JACKOSKI-Evenly spaced side to side?
MR. GARRAND-Evenly spaced side to side. Would that do?
MR. BROWN-Yes, I think it's just a reduction in the length of the dock and the width of the dock
from what's proposed.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2013 ALFRED &ALICE SCHUMAN, Introduced
by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel:
85 Hanneford Road. The applicant proposes removal of an existing 228 square foot U shaped dock
and the construction of a 45 foot long by 4 foot wide stake dock in its place with the same
orientation as proposed in the drawing submitted by the applicant. On the balancing tests,
whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant has
chosen another feasible means. Will it produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or
character to nearby properties? None. Is the request substantial? No, it is not substantial. Will
the request have adverse physical or environmental effects? None. Is the request self-created?
No, it is not. The old dock broke up in the ice. I move we approve Area Variance No. 18-2013.
With a condition that there be no more than two boats, watercraft, stored on that property in the
water at all times.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 2013, by the following vote:
MR.JACKOSKI-I'm going to go for discussion. Does this go in front of the Planning Board?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR.JACKOSKI-So do we want to talk about shoreline buffering?
MR. BROWN-No. There's really no impacts or no development proposed on the shore.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, but we always pay attention to buffering of shoreline when we have projects in
front of us, or in front of the Planning Board. I mean, we do have a requirement in our Code that
the first 30 feet, and as far as I know, this is pretty strict. Correct? Is there any significant
plantings on this parcel at all?
MR. GARRAND-It's just beach on that side of the road. It goes from the road to the beach.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's what I'm saying. If there's no interest,there's no interest, but, I mean, it's not
going in front of the Planning Board,which would normally address that. Okay. We have a motion.
We have a second. Do we have any further conditions? The condition would be that there would
be no more than two boats stored on that property in the water at all times. Correct? Well, at least
we put it in.
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-I guess by boats we mean watercraft. Be careful with that term.
MS. HEMINGWAY-And you closed the public hearing?
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, I think I did. It's closed.
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR. JACKOSKI-And I apologize to everyone in this audience. This is a very long meeting for this
Board. We don't normally go this long,but I'm going to call Keith and Kelly Harris.
MR.URRICO-They're not on the schedule anymore.
MR.JACKOSKI-Sorry. So we go to Robin finally.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2013 SEQRA TYPE II ROBIN BENAK AGENT(S) MATT CIFONE,
CIFONE CONSTRUCTION OWNER(S) ROBIN BENAK ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 40 ALEXY
LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,720 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
WITH AN 864 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE TO REPLACE HOME WHICH WAS DESTROYED BY
FIRE IN JUNE 2012. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS
AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2012-397 DEMOLITION DUE TO FIRE
DAMAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT
SIZE 0.36 AND 0.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 252.00-1-71 & 72 SECTION 179-3-040
MATT CIFONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2013, Robin Benak, Meeting Date: May 22, 2013 "Project
Location: 40 Alexy Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a
1,720 sq. ft.single family dwelling with an 864 sq. ft.attached garage which was destroyed by fire in
June 2012.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Front setback: Required 100 ft; Proposed 30 ft; Relief 70 ft
Side setback(north): Required 75 ft; Proposed 25 ft;Relief is 50 ft
Rear yard setback: Required 100 ft; Proposed 56 ft; Relief is 32 ft
Rural residential lot width: Required 400 ft; Proposed 200 ft; Relief is 200 ft
Rural residential road frontage: Required 400 ft; Proposed 200 ft; Relief is 200 ft
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 are not
available due to lot size of 0.72 acres within the RR3A zone and requirements of the zone.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The applicant requests relief for the
development of a residential home in an approved subdivision would be considered minimal.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty to present a compliant project
may be considered not self-created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
BP 2012-397: Demolition due to fire
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct 2,584 sq.ft footprint home on a 0.72 acre parcel. The applicant
has indicated the previous home on the site was destroyed due to a fire. The project involves
merging two lots of an approved subdivision creating the 0.72 acre parcel. The proposed home is to
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
be constructed in the RR3A zone where setbacks are meant for parcels 3 acres or greater and as
described by the application materials relief requested for the zoning requirements of RR3A. The
rear setback is 68 ft from the house and there is a 12 ft deck at the rear of the house the request is
for a 56 ft as the rear deck is the closest to the rear property line. The information submitted shows
the location of the home on the site and elevations. The applicant has completed a permit
application for a Minor Stormwater Permit in the Lake George Park.
SEQR Status: Type II -no further review needed"
MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, welcome. Roy read an awful lot of data into the record. So it's a pretty
straightforward project,but do you have anything else you'd like to add to the project?
MR. CIFONE-No, just pretty much combining the lots to make it work, and couldn't build a house
there unless we came here.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So everybody's had this application. They've probably visited the site. Is
there any questions at this time for the applicant before I open the public hearing?
MR. GARRAND-Do you wish you were first on the agenda?
MR. JACKOSKI-It looks straightforward. Okay. So I am going to open up the public hearing
because I don't hear any other comments from anyone. Is there any written comment, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. JACKOSKI-There is no written comment. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to
address this Board concerning this particular project?
CESAR COLUMBO
MR. COLUMBO-Let her have her house back. She's been living on the street for a year now. So,you
know,there's other houses on the block(lost words) put up with variances and everything else.
MR.JACKOSKI-All right. And your name was,sir?
MR. COLUMBO-Cesar Columbo.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Columbo. Mr. Salvador?
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. I heard the intent to consolidate the two lots. That should be done
before you grant the variances. Otherwise you need side yard setback variances.
MR. GARRAND-Make it a condition on approval.
MR. SALVADOR-It should be done before you approve the variances before you tonight. Otherwise
you'd need variances from side yard, and the difficulty of this whole thing is this subdivision goes
back to 1960, okay, 1960, and the Town, in their infinite wisdom, has zoned this area three acre,
okay,that's the difficulty that the applicants have.
MR. GARRAND-Planning wasn't then what it is today.
MR. KUHL-Do you have three acres, Mr.Salvador, on your house? Is your house on three acres?
MR. SALVADOR-Absolutely not.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So I am going to, is there anyone else here in the audience?
Okay. There isn't anyone. There is no written comment. I am going to leave the public hearing
open. I'm going to defer to Staff to ask about Mr. Salvador's point that we technically can't grant
any relief because the lots have not yet been combined.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR. BROWN-You can make that a condition of your approval that they combine the lots. That's
fine.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Mr. Cifone,you have nothing else to add?
MR. CIFONE-That's fine. No,that's what we planned on doing anyway.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Joyce.
MRS. HUNT-I have no problem with this. It's very straightforward. I would be in favor.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy?
MR.URRICO-I have no objections.
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-This doesn't seem significant,and I think it'll fit well in the neighborhood.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Also no problem with it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-No,it's a good use of the area.
MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-It looks like a nice beautiful home.
MR.JACKOSKI-I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion?
MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2013 ROBIN BENAK, Introduced by Richard
Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
40 Alexy Lane. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,720 square foot single family dwelling
with an 864 square foot attached garage which was destroyed by fire in June of 2012, and as a
condition of approval, the owner must combine the two parcels. The relief requested: required
100 foot road frontage, proposed 30, relief of 70. Side setback requires 75, proposed 25, relief of
50. Relief for the rear yard setback is 32 feet; required is 100 feet, proposed is 56 feet. On the
balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, no not
really, not the benefits they're looking for. They're looking to combine the two lots onto a larger
sized parcel. I don't see how they could really gain any other way. Will it produce an undesirable
change in the neighborhood? No, I think it'll be a nice addition. Is the request substantial? It
would be moderate. Will the request have adverse physical or environmental effects? None
whatsoever. Is it self-created? Unless they started the fire,it's not self-created.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 2013, by the following vote:
MR. BROWN-Just to be clear, you didn't mention the rear yard setback relief. We're granting that
as well.
MR. GARRAND-It only said road frontage and side setback on the Staff Notes.
MR. BROWN-Well,my Staff Notes says a rear setback relief.
MR. GARRAND-What's the rear setback supposed to be?
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR. BROWN-Required is 100, proposed is 56, that's 32 feet of relief. It should show on the plot
plan. I'm not sure why it wasn't in your Staff Notes.
MR. GARRAND-Yes,it's not in my Staff Notes anyway.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR.JACKOSKI-So the relief for the backyard setback (lost words).
MR. BROWN-Thirty-two feet,yes,it's on the survey.
MR. GARRAND-And I'd like to add that to the approval.
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Thank you,sir.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2013 SEQRA TYPE II PAUL AND DENISE PRZYBYLO AGENT(S)
MATT STEVES, VANDUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) PAUL AND DENISE PRZYBYLO ZONING
MDR LOCATION 11 BUTTERNUT HILL DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT AFFECTING LOTS 23 AND 24 IN EXISTING PLANNING BOARD APPROVED
SUBDIVISION OF BUTTERNUT HILL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
AND ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR TAX MAP NO. 290.18-1-12 IN THE MDR ZONING
DISTRICT. CROSS REF SB MOD. 18-1972; BP 91-472 SFD; BP 98-203 POOL WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.18-1-12 SECTION 179-3-
040
DENISE PRZYBYLO, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2013, Paul and Denise Przybylo, Meeting Date: May 29,
2013 "Project Location: 11 Butternut Hill Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes a lot line adjustment affecting Lot 24 (290.18-1-13) and Lot 23 (290.18-1-11) in an
approved subdivision to address driveway encroachments on associated parcels. Parcel 290.18-1-
12 road frontage will be reduced from 100 ft to 57 ft where relieved is required for not having 100
ft road frontage in the MDR zone.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Road frontage: Required 100 ft; Proposed 57.00 ft; Relief requested 43 ft
The applicant has included relief from lot width in the variance request where the request for lot width
is not necessary as the average based on the submission exceeds the required 100 ft-estimated at 400
+/-ft width
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 are limited as
the boundary line corrects deficiency's on two adjacent properties;
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief of 43 ft may be considered
minor to moderate due to the lot size where the MDR zone requires a minimum of 100 ft
frontage the zoning code requires principle buildings to have 50 ft access onto a public right of
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
way and be a physical access to and from; other regulations apply if principle buildings are to be
located on a private drive and access the public right of way.
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,
Subdiv. 18-1972 (Modification): Pending
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment that affects three parcels where one parcel will
become less conforming with a road front of 57 ft and 100 ft is required. The other two parcels will
each receive additional square footage to address driveway encroachments. Lot 24 (290.18-1-13)
will gain 35.33 sq. ft and Lot 23 (290.18-1-11) will gain 134.13 sq. ft. The applicant has indicated
the proposed adjustment is to address the driveway encroachments and no development on the
vacant lot is proposed at this time. The plans show the existing and proposed adjustments.
SEQR Status: Type II -no further review needed"
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board made a recommendation based on its limited review has not
identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project
proposal,and that was adopted May 21, 2013, and it was approved unanimously.
MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome.
MRS. PRZYBYLO-Thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-It's a lot of data. We all have the maps. It's pretty self-explanatory. Do you want to
add anything at this time?
MRS. PRZYBYLO-No.
MR.JACKOSKI-Does anyone want to ask any questions at this time?
MR. HENKEL-I was at the meeting last night and I heard your presentation about giving some
property up to help the situation out,that the driveway was on your property.
MRS. PRZYBYLO-Correct.
MR. HENKEL-So it's nice of you to do that.
MRS. PRZYBYLO-I'm going to get an award from the Town of Queensbury.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions on the other end of the table? No? Okay. There is a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience wanting to address this Board
concerning this particular application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.JACKOSKI- Seeing no one,is there any written comment?
MR.URRICO-None.
MR.JACKOSKI-Having none, I'm going to poll the Board. Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of this.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I'm in favor.
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-It doesn't appear to be significant,so I'd be in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-No problem also.
MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I'm in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR.URRICO-I'm good with it.
MR.JACKOSKI-After polling the Board, I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion?
MR. KUHL-Do you want me to make a motion?
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron.
MR. KUHL-You're welcome.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2013 PAUL AND DENISE PRZYBYLO,
Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico:
11 Butternut Hill Drive. The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment affecting Lot 24 and Lot 23 in
an approved subdivision to address driveway encroachments on associated parcels. Parcel
290.18-1-12 road frontage will be reduced by 100 feet to 57, where the relief is required for not
having 100 foot of road frontage in an MDR zone. The relief requested, the road frontage
requirement of 100 foot, proposed is 57, relief is 43 feet, and in making this determination, is there
an undesirable change to the neighborhood? Minor impacts. Is there a benefit that could be
sought by other methods? Feasible alternatives are limited as the boundary line corrects
deficiencies in the two parcels, and whether the required area variance is substantial? The relief is
really not that substantial. And this is self-created. I recommend we approve Area Variance No.
15-2013.
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt,Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations.
MRS.PRZYBYLO-Thank you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. For the Board members still here, I want to apologize for this meeting
taking so long. I know at times I give the public speakers a little bit too much time, but I think it's
important for the process,and Craig has some comments.
MR. BROWN-Just one quick comment. Mike McCabe, new Zoning Board alternate. I don't know if
you guys have met him before the meeting. He sat through the whole meeting. So nice job, and the
meetings aren't usually this long.
MR.JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion to adjourn?
MR. KUHL-I'll make that motion.
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2013)
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 22,
2013, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
56