07-17-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 17,2013
INDEX
Area Variance No. 35-2012 Blue Moose Tavern/Daniel&Ellen Nichols 2.
Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18 and 19
Area Variance No. 61-2011 Queensbury Partners 2.
Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23-35
Area Variance No. 28-2013 Jason Sankey 9.
Tax Map No. 300.00-1-40.2
Area Variance No. 24-2013 Norma Baertschi 11.
Tax Map No. 239.12-2-39
Area Variance No. 29-2013 Alfred&Alice Schuman 16.
Tax Map No. 227.18-1-30
Area Variance No. 35-2013 Patrick Burke 23.
Tax Map No. 316.13-1-7
Area Variance No. 31-2013 Neil Lajeunesse 26.
Tax Map No. 308.18-1-30
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 07/17/2013)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 17,2013
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
ROY URRICO,ACTING CHAIRMAN
JOYCE HUNT
RONALD KUHL
JOHN HENKEL
KYLE NOONAN
HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE
MICHAEL MC CABE,ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR.URRICO-Good evening,everybody. Welcome to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The date
is July 17th. Before I get into reading about the specifics, let me explain that the Chairperson is not
here tonight, and the Vice Chairperson won't be here for a while. So I'll be doing double duty as the
Chairman and the Secretary, at least until our Vice Chairman arrives. For those of you who haven't
attended a meeting in the past, it's actually pretty simple. There's 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, then 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, and after we do the
approval of meeting minutes,we'll get into the actual approval process. First we have the approval
of ZBA meeting minutes for May 22nd. Those of us present were I, Roy Urrico, Joyce Hunt, Henkel,
Kuhl, Garrand, Noonan, and Jackoski. Would somebody like to approve the meeting minutes?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 22, 2013
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
OF MAY 22,2013, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico
NOES: NONE
MR. URRICO-The second meeting is May 29th. Those present were Urrico, Henkel, Kuhl, Garrand,
Hunt, Noonan,and Jackoski.
MR. KUHL-I'll make the motion.
MRS. HUNT-Second.
May 29, 2013
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
OF MAY 29, 2013, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce
Hunt:
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico
NOES: NONE
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
MR.URRICO-Now we have some old business to attend to,an administrative,further tabling.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM (FURTHER TABLING)-
AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED BLUE MOOSE TAVERN/DANIEL &
ELLEN NICHOLS AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ. & S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) DANIEL &
ELLEN NICHOLS ZONING CI LOCATION 8 GLEN LAKE ROAD & 1300 STATE ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 400 SQ. FT. DINING ROOM EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING 3,465 SQ.
FT. RESTAURANT AS WELL AS 2,500 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO EXISTING DECK TO INCLUDE
NEW BATHROOMS AND BAR. FURTHER, CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,500 SQ. FT. RETAIL
BUILDING AND 10,770 SQ. FT. BANQUET FACILITY WITH 4 GUEST SUITES ON SECOND FLOOR
IS PROPOSED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK, TRAVEL
CORRIDOR OVERLAY AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS REQUIREMENTS OF THE CI
ZONE. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 42-2012; BP 2000-246 DEMO MOBILE HOME ON PARCEL 288.20-
1-18. BP 92-789 SEPTIC ALT ON PARCEL 19. BP 2009-580 C/O BLUE MOOSE WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 4.6 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-18 AND 19 SECTION
179-3-040
MR. URRICO-They would like a tabling action. When would the next available date be? Do we
know? We need a motion to move the meeting,table it.
MR. MC CABE-I have the 21St as the August meeting.
MR.URRICO-We need a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 BLUE MOOSE TAVERN DANIEL & ELLEN
NICHOLS, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Tabled to the August 21St ZBA meeting.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr.Urrico
NOES: NONE
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 SEQRA TYPE I QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC AGENT(S)
MATTHEW F. FULLER, ESQ. MEYER & FULLER OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC
ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BLIND ROCK ROAD AND BAY ROAD
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
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE ZONE ALONG BLIND ROCK
ROAD. CROSS REF SP 62-2011; FWW 6-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2013
LOT SIZE 34.05 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23-35 SECTION 179-3-040
MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR.URRICO-They have some new information.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2011, Queensbury Partners, LLC, Meeting Date: July 17,
2013 "Project Location: Corner of Bay and Blind Rock Rds Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq. ft. on a 34.05 acre parcel. Bldg.
1 is to include businesses such as convenience store, coffee shop, personal service, food service or
small office; Bldg. 2 is to include businesses similar to Bldg. 1 including bank service and will
include 70 apartment units on the 2nd and 3rd floor; Bldg. 3-11 are to be 2 story, 7,500 sq. ft.
footprint with 8 units each for multi-family residential apartments.
Relief Required:
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1.
Residential Use Bay Road Front Setback Blind Rock Road
Required 300 ft. Required 75 ft.
Proposed 75 ft. Proposed 53 ft.
Relief requested 225 ft. Relief requested 22 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.
Impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated as this area has not seen this type of development
for greater than 10 years. The comprehensive plan did consider the land uses in this area as
what is being proposed.
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. The applicant's proposal has
changed significantly based on the discussion with the Planning Board and Zoning Board during
the joint meeting held in December 2012 and subsequent meetings with the Zoning Board. The
number of variances requested has now been reduced to 2 as a response to discussion at the
May Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Residential units to be located 75 ft.
from Bay Road where 300 ft. is required; Buildings on Blind Rock Road proposed to be located
53 ft. from front property line where 75 ft. is required. The setback requested variance for
residential may be considered substantial and the building setback on Blind Rock may be
considered minimal, however the location of the buildings and work activity takes into account
the topography and typology on the site.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The Planning Board has
completed the SEQR review for this project and issued a negative declaration. The Planning
Board has also provided a recommendation to the Zoning Board that there are no adverse
impacts related to the variance request for the project.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
SB 13-1999: 35.12 acre parcel- 14 commercial lots Approved 8/15/2000
SP 62-2011: Pending
Staff comments:
The applicant has provided revised information for the development of the project that reduces the
number of variances.
Previously noted during 2011 and 2012 the applicant has attended joint meetings of the Planning
and Zoning Board to obtain guidance to project development for this area. In summary of those
minutes-the public and board members provided several comments to the applicant that included
confirming there is a market for the use of residential over business; appearances to address the
view from the road i.e. relocating garages and parking to the interior of the site; to provide
amenities on the site to encourage pedestrian or village feel; utilizing the site to having buildings
and activities occur away from the wetlands; and to review traffic flow in the area particular to left
hand turns from Blind Rock onto Bay Road (N).
SEQR Status:
Type I"
MR.URRICO-Mr. Fuller,you have the floor.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
MR. FULLER-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Matt Fuller from Meyer & Fuller, for Queensbury Partners. As
Mr. Urrico pointed out, we did cut back the variances along Blind Rock Road. There is one, now, at
22 feet, or request of 22 feet, and the 300 foot setback variance remains. We reduced the height of
the building and the one additional along Blind Rock and also the pergolas and improvements that
were located along the building at the corner of Bay and Blind Rock. The only switch that could be
made, really, along Blind Rock would be to flip the road from behind the buildings, which I think is
preferred, behind the apartments, to out in front right along Blind Rock, and from a planning
standpoint,we don't think that that makes much sense at all, and I think that's been kind of a driver
from a lot of projects along Blind Rock, or Bay Road, is keeping the parking and the roads behind
the buildings. The 300 foot is for the apartments above the buildings. There's no additional density
here. I think that's critical. There was a big discussion, and personally I think it was a bit of a red
herring. It's a Planning Board issue, not a variance issue, but there's no density variance here.
We're not using any more or less sewer capacity with this project. The sewer district and the map
plan and report, I talked to Chris Harrington last week myself, and the capacity that is built is there
for the district, and there was discussion and a lot of complaint last meeting about out of district
users complaining that we were using the capacity in the district. They are correct. We are in the
district and therefore we are allowed to use that sewer capacity. If somebody outside of a district,
and that means, I said that purposely, a district, that's any district, if somebody is outside of a
district and wants to connect to an existing district, then it is incumbent upon them to either
increase capacity or show that they don't have an impact capacity,but the Town, and I mean this in
all sincerity, would be on a significant slippery slope if it was preferring potentially out of district
development over in district users, because you have years of payments, taxes that have been paid,
on district fees, and if you're going to reserve capacity for people outside of a district,the Town has
a problem. With that said, even with this project,there is capacity in that district. I talked to Chris
Harrington. Will the capacity for the district be used? Yes. The build out of the district is
approaching its build out design with this project, no question, but again, you're comparing out of
district request, and also to be clear, people to the north out of the district were asked if they
wanted to be in the district, and they opted out when that district was formed. That's a critical
difference, and it was a cost thing, I get it, but you can't, now, certainly with regards to an area
variance, not a density variance, an area variance,you know,you can't use that as a means to deny
it I guess would be our standpoint, but getting to the variances that we've got here, along Blind
Rock, if you look at the buildings that are along Blind Rock Road to the north, those are all set at a
50 foot setback. We discussed that last time, and with the variance that we're requesting now,
we're going to be over that. So when you talk about the character of the neighborhood,you have to
look at the properties that are in the neighborhood, that is those properties along Blind Rock, and
as I pointed out in my letter, when the Town zoned, it included Blind Rock as an arterial, it actually
made those buildings that are over there nonconforming uses. So the apartments, the orthopedic,
the building right here on the corner, they're all nonconforming uses now because Blind Rock was
included as an arterial. Those buildings are all within 75 feet. So if you tried to put an awning off
the front of the building,on those buildings that are right along that corridor,they all would be back
here for area variances,that that makes sense. I mean,if there was an error, 50 foot is what most of
the side arterials are and were,even under the old zoning,but Blind Rock ended up,and there was a
couple of them, a couple of Town highways that ended up,that's a County,but a couple of highways
ended up in an arterial designation that probably shouldn't have. So it really brings us to the 300
foot setback, and that's been discussed ad naseum. We did pull the height off. We showed
rendering. They were under the request that went to the Planning Board before, so we don't have
to go back to the Planning Board for another recommendation, but, you know, I think it's an
aesthetic issue. There was a lot made, pointed out last time, too, about, you know, the
Schermerhorn. There's a building down the road that got a height variance for these same issues,to
hide the mechanicals, create a sloped roof so that you don't have to look at them. That's what we
had proposed before,but I think, as it got caught up in the discussion,you know,the 40 feet seemed
to be an issue. It wasn't at the end of last year. It was the last time we were here. So we removed it,
and I think you're going to not be as happy with the buildings and up there at 40 feet. As for
interior use, again, a lot has been made about the 300 foot setback, that it allows more apartments.
It does not. The density that we're using is the max density on the property. There is no increased
density. We've got the flex space we talked about to the south. There's no increased density down
there for residential apartments. We're using it. We're using the density that's allowed and not a
unit more. So there's no density requirement being asked for. The buildings would look the same,
be they two stories of offices or two stories of apartments or three stories. They're going to look
the same. So it's an interior use question within a setback, and it's completely appropriate and
allowed for us to ask for a variance for that. I've heard some comments even from some Board
members and from the public in the past that, you know, the zoning says what it says and we
shouldn't be allowed to have a variance from the zoning. That's unconstitutional. If you have
zoning with no relief, the zoning gets thrown out. You have to have a relief valve that allows for
particular projects and for particular properties to be considered. That's what we're doing. We're
asking for appropriate relief. I think it fits into the design. We've been years working on the design
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
with both this Board and the Planning Board. We've had a joint meeting. There weren't any issues
at that time expressed, and we went off and fixed the four things that we thought that both Boards
wanted and that turned out not to be the case, so we remove two more and I think,again, I think the
height one, for the minor amount of relief that it was, I think that's the one that would be
regrettable if not granted on that corner. I just don't think the buildings look,you have the sketches
there, and you've got the plans. I don't think they look like what you want out there, if the height's
not granted, but, is there a feasible alternative? We showed it to you. So that's what we did with
the plans. Now in terms of what you want to do tonight, I know, you know two alternates here. I
don't know how familiar you are with the project. It's been a lot of meetings. We've been on it for
years. So,you know,we can talk about the Boards,do you want to do it tonight? We're sitting here.
MR.URRICO-That's up to you.
MR. FULLER-Yes,if it's fine with the Board.
MR.URRICO-That's not up to the Board members. They're here because they're ready to.
MR. FULLER-Well, if somebody expressed the concern about how much, I mean, this project's been
going on for a long time. My file is boxes now.
MR.URRICO-Yes. I've been here a long time,too.
MR. FULLER-You have,as has Mrs. Hunt and a couple of others. So,no,if, I understand that it's been
controversial. There's been a lot of talk about it, and we are certainly okay if you want to table it
until next week. We can come back,when the two other members are here. I don't want to put any
Board members on the spot. I mean,we're fine with that.
MR.URRICO-Are we ready to vote? Are we ready to take it? What do you guys feel?
MR. MC CABE-I have no problem.
MR.URRICO-Okay. We're going to proceed.
MR. FULLER-So if we request to table it,that's a no?
MR.URRICO-Are you requesting to table it?
MR. FULLER-I would.
MR.URRICO-You are requesting to table it.
MR. FULLER-You don't have to. I'm asking.
MR.URRICO-I'm asking if you're requesting us to table it. We're not going to request.
MRS.MOORE-I guess do the Board members have questions of the applicant?
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR.URRICO-I guess we need to first find out if we're tabling this or not.
MRS.MOORE-All right.
MR.URRICO-Are you requesting that we table this?
MR. FULLER-Yes.
MR.URRICO-You are?
MR. FULLER-Sure.
MR.URRICO-Okay. I need a motion.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by
Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer:
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
Tabled until the July 24th ZBA meeting.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2013, by the following vote:
MRS.MOORE-Do you want to table this application until next week's meeting?
MR.URRICO-Until next week's meeting.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Does that close the public hearing?
MR.URRICO-No,we can still keep the public hearing open.
MR. FULLER-Don't close the public hearing.
AYES: Mr. Freer, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico
NOES: NONE
MR. FULLER-Thanks.
MR.URRICO-You folks have the option of speaking tonight or speaking next week.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes,or both.
MR. URRICO-Or both., The rules are you have five minutes to present your argument, present your
case. Keep in mind that we have two variances on the floor. One is relief of 225 feet from the 300
foot required for Bay Road. So 75 feet is the proposed setback, and for Blind Rock Road there's also
a setback relief that's required. 75 feet is what's required. What is proposed 53 feet. So the relief
requested is 22 feet. So those are the two variances on the floor,and I'll open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
KATHYSONNABEND
MS. SONNABEND-Kathy Sonnabend, 55 Cedar Court. I had prepared comments, but I have to
respond to what Matt Fuller had to say, because I have some specific information, and this
developer has a tendency to give you an incomplete picture when they present in front of you. First
of all, when he talks about out of district users, the 2002 Map Plan Report that was done and
accepted by the Town at the time that Schermerhorn built the pump station down at Willow Brook,
laid out all of the properties, the multi-user properties, up and down Bay Road, existing as well as
future potential development based on the 1,000 foot setback for residences, and it was those
properties that the Town paid Schermerhorn for the excess capacity. We're not in the district yet
because we're not in the sewer system yet. When we hook up we will be part of that district, and
when my board of directors, Cedar Court, told the Town they did not want to hook up at that time,
the Board made the decision, they didn't ask the membership, and they made the decision, because
at the time, and it still is the case, our septic system is working fine, and the cost that we were
quoted was in excess of what the State Comptroller allows a board to take on as an increased cost
without the membership's vote. So they decided at that time that they would not hook up, but in
the letter, and I saw the letter, I've got it at home, from our board president,at the very end she said
we appreciate the fact that this sewer system is there for us when we need to hook up, and we've
been told by the DEC that as soon as our system fails, as it already has at Surrey Fields and
Baybridge,that they will require us to hook up,that we cannot try to just replace our septic system.
They don't like these multi-user septic systems along Bay Road where the soil conditions are so
bad. So he's painting you a very different picture. He's manipulating the information, and if you
need proof, I can give you the letter from the board president. I can back up everything I've said to
you today. I can give you a copy of the 2002 Map Plan Report. This whole project disturbs me on so
many different levels. The variance that they're requesting, putting apartments within the 300 foot
setback, is a very significant variance, and if you say yes to them, what's to stop any developer
anywhere in Town to decide they're not going to pay attention either and they're going to do
whatever they want? You could end up with apartments all the way to Bay Road up and down,
which will add enormously to the congestion and to the sewer problems. Now with respect to the
sewer problems, they have not been completely honest with you, either. The study that they refer
to that they have is out of date and incomplete. They talked to you; I was at the meeting when they
talked about how their pipe was big enough in front of them along Bay Road. That may be correct,
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
but further down the road, they didn't talk about how pipe is almost flat because they had to go
under a stream, and flat is not good for sewage that's supposed to be going down by gravity. So
when they add their sewage to it,there could be a problem and the biggest problem they didn't talk
about was the limitations of the pump station. Yes, there is enough capacity right now to let them
do what they want to do, but the next Cedar Court or any other user along Bay Road needs to hook
up, guess what, there's going to be a big problem, and it's going to require a substantial
improvement or upgrade to the pump station which is going to be very expensive, because now it's
the Town doing it, not a developer doing it without prevailing wage and doing it on the cheap. So
every user in that sewer district is going to see an increase in their taxes. That includes Bay bridge,
Surrey Field, the Town, everybody, as well as the people trying to hook up are probably going to
look at a pretty hefty hookup fee. So this is a real issue, and it's been known. I handed, personally,
to those of you on this Board that were on the Zoning Board last December at that joint meeting. I
handed you a letter. I handed the same letter to the Planning Board and to Mr. Montesi and Mr.
Strough, talking about what was in that 2002 Map Plan Report, and the problem that we have, and
two of your Board members spoke up and said this is something we need to look into. Apparently
nothing happened,because in April when my neighbor,who's a retired engineer,went to personally
see Mr. Montesi about it, Mr. Montesi said, well, how come nobody's raised this issue before? He
completely apparently forgot about my letter or about that meeting, and then in May, May 6th, I
went to the Town Board meeting and I raised the issue again. Chris Harrington happened to be in
the audience. He wasn't at the mic, so his words weren't recorded in the minutes, which are not
verbatim minutes anyway, but he acknowledged that this project will use up what's left of the
excess capacity, and after the meeting, I said to Chris, what are you going to do about the pump
station, what's your plan, and he said I'm not doing anything until I get direction from the Town.
Well, apparently nobody ever gave him direction because the developer said the Town never told
him there was any kind of a problem with sewer capacity on Bay Road. So it,like I said, everything
I've said to you I can back up with documentation. So, please, do the right thing. If you let these
guys get away with this, how can you possibly say no to any other developer that comes along and
wants a significant variance. By the way,there are a lot of people here who normally don't go out at
night. It's a big effort to have them come, and to have this continually tabled and rescheduled, it
makes it really hard for the public to keep track of it, and it's an enormous effort for us, and we're
not getting compensated. We're just normal citizens. We get compensated when you guys do the
right thing and you uphold the Code. Minor variances is understand, but this is a very significant
variance and it sets a terrible precedent for the Town. Thank you.
MR.URRICO-Anybody else? Doug?
DOUG AUER
MR.AUER-Doug Auer, 16 Oakwood Drive. I was around when the sewer district was designed and
done. For those of you that are on the ZBA that weren't here last time I went through this, I won't
go through it again, but I'll just simply say everything that Kathleen just said is absolutely correct.
Okay. I don't have a dog in this fight. I was Rich Schermerhorn's staff engineer. Previous to that I
worked for Baybridge. I was their business manager, and I was brought in there to help alleviate a
problem that existed at Baybridge. I don't want to talk anymore about sewers, but the fact of the
matter is the Town spent $190,000 to bank extra capacity for everybody on Bay Road, including
these guys sitting behind me, okay, but the problem was, in their own words, we can't make any
money with an approved 22 lot subdivision, which is what those guys had, okay. We took that into
consideration, a 22 lot subdivision, and the amount of sewer capacity that they would need. We
took that into consider. Then along, in the infinite wisdom of someone, I still can't quite figure out
who it is that decided to change the Code from 1,000 to 600 down to 300, now all of a sudden they
see an opening that they can make some real money on this, okay. This stinks to high heaven, I've
got to tell you, and I'm annoyed as hell because what is right, what we did, we did really good
engineering on that. We put a sewer in on Bay Road that was necessary and folks are receiving the
benefit of that right now. Joyce Hunt does because she's in Baybridge and they had real problems
over there, and there's a number of people also that have taken advantage of it. How can you say to
people, you can't hook up to this because now somebody else, the promise that was made, we've
given that capacity away, all right. I'm sick over talking about this. This is prima fascia basic
commonsense decency. Now, here's another problem. As she mentioned, Kathleen mentioned,
other developers on Bay Road, there is one. Mannix now owns the old Hughes property, and I
talked to his son. I don't know Hughes senior's name, unfortunately, I forgot,but I spoke to him this
past weekend,and he said,my dad had no idea that this kind of thing would happen. He always had
a vision for professional office on the front of Bay Road. He never had a problem with what the
Code came through with a 1,000 foot setback. If you look at everyone else on Bay Road, they've
adhered to that,with the exception, now, of Rich Schermerhorn. Rich is a very smart businessman.
As soon as the 300 foot setback changed, and went to 300 feet, he built a three story apartment
building. Good businessman. He's taking advantage of the Code. You can go down there and take a
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
look at it yourself. He's got a bunch of other apartments he's putting in also. Don't think for one
second that these guys are going to, they're not going to pack everything they can in this because,
quote, they can make money on it now whereas they couldn't before. Where is it written that a
Planning Board or a Zoning Board is obligated to maximize the profits for a developer? I'm at a loss
for this, I really am. This stinks. I can't put it in any other words. They're look dogs in heat, I use
that analogy, because they don't get it. They don't get it, and lawyers would have you believe that
the moon is made out of green cheese; they're so clever at it. Have a good evening.
MR.URRICO-Anybody else?
TOM MAINWARING
MR. MAINWARING-My name is Tom Mainwaring and I live off of Haviland Road, on Beekman Place.
We moved here about three and a half years ago. We lived in northern Virginia for about 20 years,
and we got tired of all of the commotion and all of the over zoning and the over building and the
town's caving in to the developers to be able to put in more stores without really doing anything
about the roads at all. We came up here and found a really nice spot where the zoning was good
and where it was a really nice community, and it's very distressing to hear that this is being
considered. I think this is the third meeting that I've attended. The last one that I attended, it
appeared that the Zoning Board was telling the developers to go back and really cut the thing down
from what they were proposing. The thing that I liked about this area was that the zoning was
good, and from here down to Aviation Boulevard, all of the developments are set back. They're not
sitting right up on the road and it really was a nice job of zoning. I think that this corner will be
permanently ruined by allowing the builder to do what he wants to do. It's unfortunate that he
doesn't have a large enough piece of property to build what he would like to build,but the property
is what it is, and it only will accommodate too much. If the zoning is changed and all of his requests
are allowed, it's going to be a disaster for traffic and congestion, and I certainly urge you to not do
that. Thank you.
MR.URRICO-Thank you. Anybody else?
KEN MATTSON
MR. MATTSON-Good evening. My name is Ken Mattson. I live with my wife at the corner of Blind
Rock and Country Club Roads. We've been there since the 70's when we bought the house, and I
just want to make two points. Earlier in my career I was involved with land use planning as a
landscape architect. I actually worked on a Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Queensbury back
in the 70's, and I think there's been a few since then, but I just want to make a point that a
Comprehensive Plan is a blueprint for the Town, and that it's quite important, and it takes a lot of
effort to come up with a plan and involves a lot of volunteers, a lot of meetings with the different
wards within the community and I feel it's a reflection of what the Town really wants as far as
development in the future. So I understand the,you know, that zoning has to be flexible. I've been
through that process, but looking at these requests, I find them rather drastic and would really
affect the aim of the Comprehensive Plan as it was written originally. So that's my feeling on that
point, and the other point is, we live on Blind Rock Road, and the traffic has gotten very bad in the
last five,ten years. When we first bought the house there was a car every ten minutes, and now it's,
you know, we have to wait five minutes to get out of our driveway sometimes. So, we feel the
impact on that,from that perspective,would be fairly great,given the residential addition and also a
road coming out onto Blind Rock,because people are going to not go down Bay Road. They're going
to take Blind Rock to Country Club to get to the rest of the Town, and there's bike trails as you well
know on that road, pedestrians, so we're concerned about that as well. So those are my two
concerns,but I hope you'll consider them when you're making your decision. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-Thank you. Anybody else who'd like to speak? Going once, going twice, three times.
Would you like to make some comments?
MR. FULLER-Just two quick follow ups. One,this issue with the sewer keeps coming up, and I don't
pretend to have been there when people were told what they were told, but one comment that I
think was meant to try to sway you is that there will be an increase to in district, to the district for
the pump station if Cedar Court or some of the users to the north want to tie in. That's patently
false. In fact, it would be unlawful. The Town Board cannot borrow and charge in district users for
the benefit of out of district users. Any one of you that are in a district would have the potential to
challenge that. I can't be in a district and be charged to benefit somebody out of a district.
MS. SONNABEND-But we wouldn't be out of district.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
MR. FULLER-So I just wanted to offer you that. In district users right now, the Town Board, you
can't borrow for out of district users. That's the difference, and as far as, this setback thing, the
1,000 feet keeps coming up. The zoning was not 1,000 feet. In '06 there was an election, and the
election flipped the Town Board, and within two months,three Town Board members increased the
zoning from what it was to 1,000 feet to kill the project, and in the process, I did a map, years ago,
go down Bay Road and look at all of the residential units that were immediately deemed
nonconforming uses, and that was not a setback. That was a zone. Those were not allowed uses
anymore. When the new zoning came back up, there were numbers that were thrown about, 100,
750, 800, 500. There were a lot of numbers that were thrown about. Three hundred was a number
that was put as a setback, not a district, a setback. So to say 1,000 foot was the number, it was a
number, it was an illegal number. It was jacked up in two months to stop a project. That's not
zoning. That was political payback. So those that weren't on the Board then don't have that kind of
history,that's exactly what that was. It's 300 and it is a setback. It's not a zone. It's a setback.
MR. URRICO-We really can't get into the politics of decisions. We can take every single item that's
in the Zoning Code and probably tear it apart that way.
MR. FULLER-I would agree.
MR.URRICO-Okay.
MR. FULLER-Both sides. Yes,thank you.
MR. URRICO-Thanks. I'll leave the public meeting open, and go on to the next case. I'm sorry that
you came out.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2013 SEQRA TYPE II JASON SANKEY AGENT(S) JEFF ROLLESTON -
NORTHERN POOLSCAPES, LLC OWNER(S) JASON SANKEY ZONING LC-10A/RR-5A
LOCATION 48 INGLEE MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A
SWIMMING POOL IN THE FRONT YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED TO INSTALL A POOL IN A YARD
OTHER THAN THE REAR YARD. CROSS REFERENCE BP 2013-248 POOL; BP 2003-680 SFD
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 13.95
ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 300.00-1-40.2 SECTION 179-5-020 C
JASON SANKEY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-2013, Jason Sankey, Meeting Date: July 17, 2013 "Project
Location: 48 Inglee Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a swimming pool in the front yard. Pools are required to be in the rear yard per the
zoning ordinance.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variance as follows:
Pool location
Required: rear yard
Proposed: front and
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.
Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible
for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear to be
limited due to orientation of the home and the topography surrounding the home.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered minimal as the lot is an odd configuration due to the portion of the property for the
driveway.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
BP 2013-248: Pool Pending
BP 203-680: SFD
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a pool in the front yard of the property where pools are
required to be placed in the rear yard. The applicant has indicated the pool location is due to the
orientation of the house where the back yard is a mountain side and the location of the existing
propane tanks. The applicant has provided a photo showing the area of the pool is to be located is
the front yard and the side yard. The drawing sketch indicates the pool is to be over 80 ft. from the
property line on the south side. The applicant has requested a waiver from a stamped survey as the
project is for location only.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR.URRICO-Could you introduce yourself.
MR. SANKEY-I'm Jason Sankey,48 Inglee Mountain Road, Queensbury.
MR.URRICO-Okay. Anything you'd like to add to what was just brought in?
MR. SANKEY-No. That was about it.
MR. URRICO-Are there any questions for the applicant? Nobody? Any public comment? No. All
right. I do have a letter from Jeff Inglee. Actually it was sent directly to my house. I don't even
think it's in the record here. So I'll read it in. It's, "Roy, please be advised and let it be known in the
minutes of the meeting on July 17th that I, or any of my children that are holding life estates on any
of the Inglee's properties have any problem or issues with the Sankey family installing a swimming
pool in the front of the structure. I do feel that the location is in fact the most ideal location to be
able to enjoy the breathtaking views along with enjoying their new pool. Given the location of the
lot and the privacy that is offered on that lot, I cannot see any reason any one would have an issue
with this request for a variance to install the pool in the front yard. Myself and my children wish
the Sankey family great luck and wish them well with all their improvement ideas, and welcome
them to our mountain. Sincerely,Jeff Inglee, Sr. 2 Inglee's Mtn. Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804" And I
believe that's the Jeff Inglee that the road is named after.
MR. HENKEL-I'll make a motion.
MR.URRICO-Go ahead.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2013 JASON SANKEY, Introduced by John
Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt:
48 Inglee Mountain Road. Applicant proposes to construct a swimming pool in the front yard.
Pools are required to be in the rear yard per the Zoning Ordinance. Relief required, required rear
yard proposed front yard. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of
Town Law. One, undesirable change to the neighborhood character or nearby properties. No, to
me there is no neighborhood in that proposed project. Two, whether benefit can be achieved by
other means feasible to the applicant. Limited due to the lay of the land. Three,whether request is
substantial. No, due to the acreage and the shape of the property. Four, whether request will have
adverse physical or environmental effects. Minor to no impact. Whether the alleged difficulty is
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
self-created. Difficulty might be considered self-created. I recommend Area Variance No. 28-2013
be approved.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico
NOES: NONE
MR.URRICO-You're all set.
MR. SANKEY-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2013 SEQRA TYPE II NORMA BAERTSCHI AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC
ELROY, PE OWNER(S) NORMA BAERTSCHI ZONING WR LOCATION 90 ASSEMBLY POINT
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS
REF BP 2002-507 ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2013 ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.44 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-39 SECTION 179-3-
040 A5b
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2013, Norma Baertschi, Meeting Date: July 17, 2013
"Project Location: 90 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. detached garage where the garage does not meet the required
setbacks. Relief is also requested for permeability due to the increase of impermeability for the
proposed garage.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Setback North Setback West Permeability
Required 20 ft. Required 20 ft. Required 75%
Proposed 3 ft.. Proposed 15.6 ft. Proposed 72.4%
Relief requested 17 ft. Relief requested 4.4 ft. Relief requested 2.6%
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.
Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible
for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear to be
limited due to the location of the existing driveway and existing utilities on the site.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested for the north
setback may be considered substantial relevant to the code however the location placement
minimizes the view from the neighboring properties. The remaining setback and permeability
relief requested might 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 to no impact to the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
BP 2002-507: Addition
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes the construction of a 24 X 24 two car garage where setback relief is
required for north and west side and requires permeability relief. The applicant's submission
includes the location and elevation of the garage. The applicant has indicated the location is the
most feasible garage location due to the existing site conditions. The plans show plantings along
the west side of the property near the garage. The Zoning Board may consider confirming the
plantings are to remain as part of the garage construction.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR. NOONAN-Mr. Urrico, real quick. I just want to add to the public record. I went out for a site
visit yesterday. I ran into Mr. MacElroy who was driving by. He stopped. I introduced myself. We
didn't talk about the project.
MR.URRICO-Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Norma
Baertschi on this application. Norma is with us tonight in the second row. This, as indicated,this is
an application that requires two variances for setback and a permeability variance. If you've seen
the site,you can see that it is the logical place for the garage structure,the existing paved surface. It
is a detached garage. There is currently not a garage on the property. Norma would like to be able
to have that benefit of having a garage to park her car in in the winter months, and we've had
discussions with the neighboring property, the Hogans to the north, which are really the most
affected property. I think we'll hear, for the record, a letter of support from them in the public
comment. Again, the permeability issue is, we're close to the 75% when all this other construction
on the site was, had taken place, when the house was built, when pavement was placed, whatever
permeability was 65%. So that increase has put us into a little bit of a twist here with just being
over slightly of that, and we would hope for that relief from that standard. Setbacks, again, are
based just simply on,this is the most feasible location, and one that probably would cause the least
disturbance to the site. Elsewhere on the site there are other factors, utilities,vegetation what not,
that any just even logistics of where the driveway is right now, and how it would serve the vehicles.
So that's where we are.
MR.URRICO-Any questions?
MR. FREER-Yes. Who owns the red Corvette that was there the other day?
MR. MAC ELROY-That's Norma's niece.
MR. KUHL-How about the lands, the property in front, the Weiman land, will that ever be
developed? I mean,that seems like a strip?
MR. MAC ELROY-No, and my understanding of the history of that is that the Baertschi's sold that
little nook of the property to the Weiman's at some point. The road in that area, and this goes back
to the 60's,Assembly Point Road used to pass in front of the houses that are on the lake, and came
in back into alignment just north of this area, and I think that was somewhat a residue of that
process, and is an odd shaped. While I believe it exists as a separate parcel, it's, they have adjacent
property across the road,the Weiman's.
MR. KUHL-Across the road there's lands of Weiman.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. FREER-My real question was the permeability. It seems like you have a fairly large blacktop
parking lot there and then you're going to add another section of permeability. It seems to me that
we keep, especially in the water area up there, everyone gets all worried about permeability, and
we keep giving variances for it. Was there any design about putting, taking some of that parking,
black top,and putting it under the garage?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, that, there are other ways of placing the structure on this site. This was felt
to be the most feasible and as that permeability overage is slight, we felt that that's the way the
application wanted to be proposed. Is there a way of lessening that? You could slice a section of
asphalt out for the sake of getting closer to the 75%. I can't deny that.
MR. HENKEL-Now you said something about problems with the utilities, that's why you couldn't
put that anywhere else. I was up there looking at it. Where are the utilities you're talking about?
MR. MAC ELROY-By that I mean a well. There's a drilled well and then a manhole that houses the
mechanicals for that.
MR. HENKEL-Yes,but you have,the drilled well is actually to the south of the driveway?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, and that's why that wouldn't be a suitable location off of the pavement to
the south.
MR. HENKEL-But you couldn't bring the garage a few more feet to the, you know, off that line and
bring it to the south a little bit more, and that would actually cut down the driveway and that would
make it more,you know.
MR. MAC ELROY-That's certainly a possibility.
MR. HENKEL-That would increase the permeability, too, if you decreased a little bit of the driveway
and brought that to,right,and that would bring your permeability.
MR. MAC ELROY-It's a matter of the alignment of,you know,where that garage would be in relation
to the house.
MR. HENKEL-I mean, the garage is needed, there's no doubt. I'd be in favor of it if you brought it a
few more feet to the south,you know,that's kind of a big relief there, 17 feet.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, if it was brought in three feet or so, it might line up with the paver block
walk that's to the north of the house.
MR. HENKEL-Right,but that wouldn't affect the garage. Right?
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. No, I'm just saying in perspective here.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, if you could bring it in even two more feet that would help you with your
permeability,and then you've got no problem there.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes,three times, 24, 72 feet less of.
MR. HENKEL-That would take care of that. So you wouldn't be asking for a variance for there.
MR. MAC ELROY-It would be less relief. I don't know how we can address changes sort of on the fly.
I think that Norma would be agreeable to. I think that what we're talking about is two to three feet.
MR. HENKEL-So how many feet, do you know what you have there to play with, I mean, from the
edge of the house and the edge of the garage, I mean,how many feet can you bring that and still not
ruin her view? You could probably do at least two feet,couldn't you?
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-So that would give you five feet, a five foot setback now from the north, which would
be okay with me,but I think 17's too much. The other setback's not a problem to me.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes,okay. That's agreeable to the owner that we.
MR. HENKEL-The wood shed's staying there?
MR. MAC ELROY-Again,that's the hopes. It provides a function.
MR. HENKEL-I didn't know if she was going to incorporate that into, I know a 24 by 24 garage is not
a lot of space to put two cars in and wood,but I just didn't know if that was going to stay there.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
MR. MAC ELROY-That's the intent is to let that remain.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, I have no problems with the way it's stated. I don't know, you made a
suggestion. Shouldn't we poll the Board?
MR.URRICO-We haven't even started polling the Board yet.
MR. NOONAN-I was just giving my opinion.
MR.URRICO-Any other questions for the applicant? Anybody from the public like to speak?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is one letter here. "We received a copy of the public hearing notice 24-2013 for
the construction of a detached garage for Norma Baertschi at 90 Assembly Point Road. Norma has
spoken to me about the project and the relief required relative to the setback in the rear of our
property. My wife and I would like to express our full support of the project. We would, however,
like to make a request that during construction, that the debris and yard waste that has been
disposed of on our property over the years be cleaned up and removed, and that the drainage be
maintained so as to eliminate as much standing water as possible. We would also ask that Norma
make other arrangements relative to waste disposal in the future. Please feel free to contact me
with questions. Sincerely, Brian and Meredith Hogan" And I don't see an address here, but where
are they in relation?
MR. MAC ELROY-Their address is actually Holly Lane, but they back up to this property on the
north.
MR.URRICO-Yes, Holly Lane. Okay. I'd like to poll the Board now. I'll start with Ron.
MR. KUHL-I have no problem with the project the way it's laid out. I think with the Weiman lands
it's always going to be,you know, forever wild between the garage and the road. It looks like it has
more than it should. The three feet to the property line to the Hogans, I have no issue with that. I
think it's a good place. I mean, the whole property is all wide open. There's a lot of greenery, and I
understand the permeability. That three percent, I think it's a good three percent to grant and I
think the garage as they've laid it out blends well with the house and the whole structure, and of
course we don't want to mess up your view. So I have no problem with it as submitted, Mr.
Chairman.
MR.URRICO-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-I also have no problem with the way it was submitted. I think the three percent
permeability piece is certainly minimal. I don't have an issue with that. I'm in favor of it as is.
MR.URRICO-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have no problem with it as it was submitted, especially the neighbors have no
problems. So I'm in favor of it.
MR.URRICO-Harrison?
MR. FREER-I'd like to see the permeability variance by, however they do it, at your discretion. The
setbacks seem reasonable. I just don't want to continue to grant variances that are not compelling
for permeability up in the water area.
MR.URRICO-Okay. Michael?
MR. MC CABE-I have no problem with the project as designed.
MR.URRICO-John,anything you want to add to your previous comments?
MR. HENKEL-No.
MR.URRICO-And I'm in favor of the project as presented as well. So you have the votes. Would you
like to make any changes to the?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
MR. MAC ELROY-No, I think we presented the application as we did, and we would like to stay with
that.
MR.URRICO-Okay.
MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion.
MR.URRICO-I'll officially close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2013 NORMA BAERTSCHI, Introduced by Kyle
Noonan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
90 Assembly Point Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 576 square foot detached garage
where the garage does not meet the required setbacks. Relief is also requested for permeability
due to the increase of impermeability for the proposed garage. Relief required, the parcel will
require Area Variances as follows: The setback to the north, 20 feet is required, they're proposing
3, so they're requesting 17 feet of relief. The west, required is 20, proposed is 15.6. They're
requesting 4.4 feet of relief, and permeability, required, 75%, proposed 72.4%. So they're
requesting 2.6% of relief. In making the determination, the Board shall consider whether an
undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties will be created by granting of this Area Variance. It's been determined that minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Two,whether the benefit sought by the applicant
can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance.
Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. Number Three, whether the requested Area Variance is
substantial. The relief requested for the north setback may be considered substantial relative to
Code, however the location and placement minimizes the view from the neighboring properties.
The remaining setback and permeability relief requested might be considered minimal. Four,
whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated, and, Number Five, whether the
alleged difficulty was self-created. This difficulty may be considered self-created. I recommend
that we approve Area Variance No. 24-2013.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Urrico
NOES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2013 SEQRA TYPE II ALFRED &ALICE SCHUMAN AGENT(S) LYNN
GOLLHOFER,ASSOC. BROKER&STAFFORD, CARR&MC NALLY OWNER(S) ALFRED &ALICE
SCHUMAN ZONING WR LOCATION 85 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 FT. BY 60 FT. DOCK. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS LESS THAN 20 FT. CROSS REF AV 18-2013 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
JULY 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRE(S) SECTION 179-5-060
JON LAPPER&LYNN GOLLHOFER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 29-2013,Alfred &Alice Schuman, Meeting Date: July 24, 2013
"Project Location: 85 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 6 ft. by 60 ft. dock. Relief is requested for the dock being less than 20 ft. setback
from each side and relief is requested for the length of shoreline required for 1 straight pier dock.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Side setback North Side setback South Shoreline frontage for 1
straight pier
Required: 20 feet Required: 20 feet Required: 45 ft.to 65 ft.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
Proposed: 12.4 ft. Proposed: 14.1 ft. Proposed: 40.09 ft.(tie line)
Relief requested 7.6 ft. Relief requested 5.9 ft. Relief: 4.91 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 appear to be
limited as the projected property lines indicate any proposed dock would require a variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered moderate to minimal. The applicant has indicated the dock is towards the middle of
the shore and the previous dock on the shore was a u-shape dock where proposed is a single
pier 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 to no impact to the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
AV 18-2013: Approved with amendments for a 4 ft.wide 45 ft.in length single pier dock
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a 6 ft. wide by 60 ft. in length single pier dock. The dock as
proposed only extends 38 ft from the mean low watermark where docks can extend no more than
40 ft. from the mean low water mark. The applicant has indicated the length of the dock will allow
for boats to safely be placed on the proposed dock and will not interfere with boats dock at
neighboring docks. The applicant has also indicated the Lake George Park Commission granted a 6
ft. wide by 60 ft. in length single pier dock resolution is included with the application -staff notes
the previous variance request and park commission request were at the same time so both
applications were submitted with the same information and both were reviewed in May 2013. The
applicant has indicated the previous u shaped dock was destroyed by the weather several years ago
and was removed; the drawing shows the dock as permitted in 2011 by the LGPC. The drawings
show the location of the proposed dock, neighboring docks, water depth at certain distances and
the mean low water mark.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Lynn Gollhofer. I wasn't
here. I was brought in after the May 22nd meeting,but I have reviewed the minutes of your meeting,
and it's probably not clear from the application because Lynn just resubmitted it, but this is a
request for a modification, really just because of that depth issue. In the minutes of your meeting in
May, the Board left it open that if there was really a problem when you granted the 45 feet, that if
there was really an issue with whether or not it was possible to use that 45 feet for slips for two
boats, they could come back, and that's why we're back, and the Park Commission did grant the
approval, and you have that, and we have a letter that we provided from Devin Dickenson. I don't
know if that made it into your packet. Yes,to verify.
MR.URRICO-She just hand it to me beforehand. I don't know if everybody else has it.
MR. LAPPER-And I think the Board was very gracious in leaving that open, and I know that a couple
of you weren't here in May, to say that if there's really a problem with the depth, come back, and
that's why we're back. The map that was submitted shows the mean low water mark, which it's
pretty clear that it's not deep enough, and that's what I asked Devin to prepare this letter to verify
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
that, and Lynn also submitted photos that it's really just about at a foot or so up to the mean low
water mark. So we're asking you to consider modifying that just, it's not to get four boats. It's just
to get two boats. Certainly we'd stipulate to that. It's just to get them to where it's deep enough,
and even there's it's only about three feet towards the 60 foot end of the dock, and in Devin's letter,
he mentions that that's why, it's deeper to the south and that's why it's a shorter dock,but the dock
to the north is exactly what we're requesting,that 60 feet for just the same reason, and that's borne
out by the mean low water on the map that cuts through the northern dock as well as this dock. So
they're just seeking to be able to use what you granted them and really just to have what the other
neighbors have. I know that there was discussion at the meeting about someone's going to come
and park on Pilot Knob Road and they have no rights to park, and certainly we would stipulate
that's not what this is about. There's no room to park on Pilot Knob Road. It's just about having the
ability to have two slips which requires the dock to be longer just because it's so shallow in that
area of the lake and that's why we're here.
MR.URRICO-Any questions? Anybody from the audience who'd like to speak?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DENISE DIDIO BUHER
MRS. BUHER-I'm Denise Didio Buher. This is my brother Mike Didio. Just to let you know,we don't
believe that this low line water mark, whatever it's called, is inaccurate. I don't know if you guys
saw the picture of my brother standing at the end of 40 feet. He is five foot seven and there are,
there's over five feet at the end of forty feet of lakefront. Okay. So we do have an appeal in with the
Lake George Park Commission. I didn't get to see Mr. Dickenson's letter. It probably came. Would
you mind reading that, Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'll be reading it in afterwards. Did you want me to read it in now? I can read it in
now.
MRS. BUHER-Well, I just wanted to be able to comment on it if there's something that I.
MR. URRICO-It says, Dear Mr. Jackoski: On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Schuman regarding their
requested dock length, due to a shallow water depth, as shown on a plan entitled map of the
proposed dock plan for Alfred and Alice Schuman dated April 9, 2013, and last revised June 6, 2013,
it is physically impossible to dock an average size water boat within the first 25 feet of water
measured from the mean high water line. The water depth increases to the south of the Schuman
parcel and therefore a shorter dock is sufficient for berthing an average size boat. However, the
depth decreases to the north and requires a longer dock for berthing a boat. This is evident by the
60 foot dock length on the parcel immediately to the north on the Schuman property. For this
reason we have proposed a 60 foot dock length on our plan as submitted. If you have any questions
or would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Devin T.
Dickenson.
MRS. BUHER-Okay thanks. I'm just going to read what I wrote here to the Lake George Park
Commission, but what I wrote is a 6 by 60 foot dock is not consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood. The only 60 foot dock on the entire Pilot Knob Road is the property north of the
applicant, simply because that dock is basically along an extremely shallow area. It's almost like a
beach area there to the north. A 60 foot dock, as I said in the last meeting when I spoke, will
completely obstruct out view of the lake from our terrace or dock. More boats in this constricted
area will adversely affect the quality of the water for swimming and recreation. The safety of our
children swimming in this area with more boats coming in and out will be jeopardized. A 60 foot
dock could accommodate two to four boats in only 40 foot of lakefront. We are not saying they
can't have a dock, but we, a 60 foot dock is too much for that area. It is not necessary. The depth is
fine. My boat is a 25 foot boat that would be in the same area as theirs is, and there is plenty, as you
can see from this photo, there is plenty of depth there. Our family has owned this property for
almost 60 years and the quality of enjoyment of our property has never been threatened by anyone
to this degree. We have five siblings that own this property with 12 children and 5 grandchildren
who plan on enjoying this property for the rest of their lives hopefully, and this really does impact
our swimming area, and just the enjoyment of the lake. We are questioning the mean low water
line and believe this is not an accurate depiction. Through our ownership of our property,we have
never noted the water line to be reduced beyond our concrete patio, and from the drawings from
Mr. Dickenson,it appears that they didn't even start measuring until 10 feet from our terrace,which
I don't understand that because the water line goes right to our terrace, first of all. The proposed
dock drawing depicts the mean low water line to be approximately 10 feet from the edge of our
patio. The proposed dock drawing provides a notation on the mean low water line of April 2013.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
There is no definitive reference for the low water line location. A note is present on the drawing
simply as per Lake George Park Commission regulations. However,this does not reference a map, a
survey or data reference to how this line location was determined. The appropriate method
accurately determined the mean low water line is to have a survey conducted of the underwater
topography in this area of the shoreline in question. This is not above and beyond the scope of the
project, particularly in the event of a variance request. This is the only definitive method of
determining the mean low water line via the mean low lake elevation. Our family was not allowed
over a 40 foot dock. The U Shaped dock was not allowed to be over 40 feet. How can a 60 foot dock
application be considered now? Additionally, Lynn has said that the other owners have agreed to
this dock, when in actuality I have two letters from the neighbor to the north and the neighbor to
the south of us who are opposing this dock, and complaining that when she called she did not
mention a 6 by 60 foot dock. She only mentioned a dock, and as we feel the same way. We are not
denying a dock. We are not happy with a 6 by 60 foot dock,but your first decision was okay by us. I
thought that was a fair compromise, and that's all we're asking now. Do you want me to read the
letters from the neighbors?
MR. URRICO-I can read those in. I was just wondering in lieu of, you wrote several letters in. Do
you want me to read those in as well?
MRS. BUHER-Well, that was the old letter. If you want to, because there are some new members
here.
MR.URRICO-Only if there's any new information that wasn't in the old letter.
MRS. BUHER-The new information was the mean low water. I mean,that is more technical because
we had an environmental specialist actually review those plans, and that paragraph was mostly
from him, but the other things were, but we argued that the first meeting, that that dock has not
existed for 20 to 25 years, and they're kind of making it sound like it was there recently. It has not
been there. There has not been any dock there for at least 20 years.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Thank you. Laura, what do we use for documentation as far as the mean low
water mark?
MRS. MOORE-I'll just look this up. In our Zoning Code we actually have a reference that says mean
low water mark of Lake George. The water elevation of 317.74 feet above the sea level, and then
actually, so that references the mean low water mark, and then for mean high water mark of Lake
George, the fixed annual mean high water elevation of 320.2 feet above the mean sea level. This
information is taken directly from the Park Commission. It's in our Code. The level, I believe, is
marked, is indicated as 39.6. There is a note on this plan. I don't know if this is on everyone's plan,
the lake elevation was taken on 4/1/13.
MR.URRICO-So we're comfortable with the submission and the figures that are being used?
MRS.MOORE-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Okay, and would anybody else like to speak? Opposed or in favor of the project? I will
read in the rest of the public comment. Okay. "The purpose of this communication is not to object
to a dock on this property but to question the proposal to build a 60 foot pier of 6 foot in width. I
have been an owner at the above location since October 1982. I know there was a dock there at one
time but I do not recall when it ceased to exist. Unquestionably, there has not been a dock there in
present memory. I am not in favor of a dock which will encumber the adjoining properties
including mine. More boats will mean more parking issues along Pilot Knob Road. On busy
weekends this is already an issue with people parking on other people's property. Thank you.
Robert J. Zimmer" 77 Hanneford Road. "I am the property owner of Tax Map parcel #227.18-1-29
directly north of the Schuman's parcel. My family has owned this property for over 50 years. It has
always been used for private enjoyment. I am writing with concerns over the application for a 6 by
60 foot dock. A dock this size would be a potential rental area and would change the character of
our beaches. When I was contacted by Lynn Gollhofer their real estate agent I was asked by phone
if I would be against the Schuman's rebuilding a dock to replace their former dock at that time size
was not mentioned. I was told on July 6th by Lynn Gollhofer that the new dock would be only 4 ' x
40'. I believe a dock should be permitted but feel the size dock they are requesting is too large for
the area. When we built our floating dock, we were required to prove the size of the original dock
with cribbing and could build no longer than the existing dock. The cribbing from the original dock
is still present and underneath the floating dock. Since our property is extremely shallow we can
only moor our single boat on the south side of the dock. As you go towards the north side of the
water it becomes more shallow as it approached the border of the neighbors land. Twenty-five
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
years ago, the Schuman were able to moor a boat on their original dock that was 40 feet. I feel a
similar length dock would allow a boat and yet preserve the integrity of the area. Sincerely
Kathleen M. Tateo" And she's on 21 Oldox Road, that's Delmar. I'm not sure of the property
location compared to this one because it's a tax ID number.
MRS.MOORE-Tax ID number.
MR. URRICO-"My name is Alice Schuman and my husband Alfred and I have owned 85 Hanneford
Road for over forty years. It is with deepest regret that we must now sell our beloved seasonal
home located at 85 Hanneford Road, Queensbury, NY. Through our past neglect of replacing our
dock when it was destroyed, we understand the process we must follow now. We have personally
canvassed several of our neighbors to gain their personal support of our variance request. On
Sunday, July 7, my husband and I personally spoke with Kathleen (Kathy) and her husband Paul
Tateo. They are our neighbors directly north of our property at 87 Hanneford Road. Their dock is
also located north of our lake front property and is 5 foot in width and 60 foot in length. They
expressed verbally to my husband, our realtor and myself their complete acceptance and approval
of our request for a variance to construct a 60 foot long dock alongside of their existing dock. On
Tuesday, July 16, a direct conversation with Robert (Bob) Zimmer about our variance request
resulted in the same response. Robert had no objections to us receiving the permission to construct
a 6 foot by 60 foot dock. Robert and Janet Zimmer's home is once removed south of our home at 77
Hanneford Road. Our realtor, Lynn Gollhofer previously canvassed all neighbors in April by
telephone. Below is a list of the neighbors contacted and who responded with no objections to the
requested variance: In addition to the Tateos and Zimmers the following agreed with us: 75
Hanneford Road: Rose Ann &Jeffrey Weissel & Carolyn Adenaike Keys 63 Hanneford Road: Ann
K. Storandt 51 Hanneford Road: Francis & Marilyn Koenig 52 Hanneford Road: Paul& Kathleen
Dotzler The only concern some of our neighbors raised was the parking situation down at the dock
locations. I believe you have addressed this concern with the limiting of two boats to the dock
deterring any complications with multiple rentals. Our dock will be in keeping with the character of
the neighborhood and will not create any undesirable change to the nearby property. Almost all of
our neighbors except one are in agreement with us receiving approval. We implore the Board to
consider our request so that we may proceed with marketing our property. Sincerely yours, Alice
Schuman" And I believe that's all of them. Any comments by the Board? Mr. Lapper?
MR. LAPPER-If I could just briefly respond to Denise's comments. The photograph of the neighbor
in the lake, if you just look at the survey with the mean low, it makes sense, and that's why the dock
to the south, the Didio dock, is shallower, because mean low gets really close to the shoreline or to
their concrete slab. So I don't think that we're seeing anything different than them. That's why it
gets shallower to the north and deeper to the south. So the south dock is shorter, the north dock is
longer,than 60 feet,and that's all that's going on here is just about the depth of the lack.
MR. URRICO-We seem to have contradictions in the letters that were submitted, and the ones that
are directly signed by several of the neighbors seem to indicate that their docks were 40 feet,not 60
feet, and the letter from Mrs. Schuman says it was 60 feet, and who are we to believe, the ones that
are signed,or the ones that are paraphrased?
MS. GOLLHOFER-I was personally there on that Sunday, and spoke with the Schumans and with the
Tateos, and I also spoke with Mr. Zimmer, and I got a frantic call, after a letter was sent to you, that
he did not want to upset his neighbors that have been friends for a long time, the Didio's, and
they're very upset about this, and he wants to remain friends, so he has to support the Didio's
because they are located right next to him, and the Tateos, I don't know what to say. Their dock is
shallow. This property is shallow. They said they had no objections. They killed another deal from
us. I don't know what the neighbors problems are. These are old people. They need to sell. We
need to have a dock that a boat can be on. They're not, we're not selling this property for rentals.
We're trying to sell it to a private owner. So I don't understand all this rental aspect. Most of these,
except the property to the north, who can barely get one boat on that dock. It's straight now. It's
not crooked, and so if you're going to put a dock right in the middle,you're going to have the same
issue of shallowness. You have already granted the fact that only two boats could be on it, and only
two boats, if we're lucky enough, can be on it. There's no space for four boats because it's too
shallow.
MR.URRICO-But there are docks nearby that are 40 feet.
MS. GOLLHOFER-Quite a bit south. It's deeper, but I mean, we're not talking deep, deep. We're
talking four feet,once you go all the way south.
MR.URRICO-Anybody else have any questions?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
MR. HENKEL-I have a comment. Is there a natural current that kind of goes to,you know,to where
that dock is crooked,that's kind of pushing that dock in that direction?
MS. GOLLHOFER-No, that was in the wintertime that I think they moor it that way when it's
straight. Do you see where the L is at, what happens is because of that barrier that's to the north,
the seawall,it creates a shallow silting area.
MR. HENKEL-Sediment, it slows down, sediment drops there, so that's why you have that natural
curve, why there's, why that mean low water mark looks the way it does as a result of settling as a
result of that abrupt L corner. That probably wasn't natural at one point in time.
MR. KUHL-When you went to the Lake George Park Commission,did you say you were approved for
4 by 45?
MS. GOLLHOFER-No, we went to the, it was actually right before we came to you first. They looked
at what.
MR. KUHL-That's fine. That's okay. Now tell me about the gray boat that sits on the 40 foot dock. It
looks to me like a 26, 28 foot Cobalt that actually sits on your property. Now if that boat can sit at
the end of a 40 foot dock, and nobody's got a 6 foot wide dock along there. I don't know what
you're trying to build. I think you're ending up spending a lot of money for your seller and you're
spending a lot of money for the Town back,looking for 6 by 60.
MS. GOLLHOFER-Well, I think that the.
MR. LAPPER-I don't think it has to be six feet wide. That was in the original application.
MR. KUHL-Mr. Lapper,you've come for 6 by 60. It's either yes or no.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I don't think it needs to be six feet wide. Because it's 60 feet long, it would be
nice to have 5 feet just because it would be more comfortable.
MR. KUHL-It would be nice to have 17 feet, too. With the gray boat on that dock, he's on your
property, and if you look at the 20 foot of width, I mean, you've got, if you put a boat on that 6
footer,and you put an 8 and a half foot beam boat,you know,you're almost smacking.
MR. LAPPER-Well,we certainly would agree to modify it to five feet in width,if that would work.
MR. KUHL-No,you already got approved for four,that's what you've got.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. KUHL-I'm just giving you my comments. I'm not negotiating.
MR. LAPPER-Okay.
MR. KUHL-I'm not negotiating.
MR. LAPPER-Not to negotiate, but to grant the minimum variance, Lynn has discussed with the
Schumans and they could live with four foot width that was granted last time,but the 60 feet to get
them so they could fit the two boats,if that would be acceptable to this Board.
MR.URRICO-Any other questions? Comments?
MR. FREER-I just want to comment. We went through quite a bit the last time to get to the 45 by 4,
and I still haven't heard a good reason why it ought to go back to the 60.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Let's survey the rest of the panel and see what we come up with. Let's start
with Harrison.
MR. FREER-So, I went there. I've read all the minutes. I wasn't at the last Board, and I don't see any
reason why a 60 foot length would be required, and so I wouldn't favor changing the currently
approved.
MR.URRICO-John?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
MR. HENKEL-Yes. Same here. I've been there and looked at the depth of the water from both docks,
the Didios and also the one that's north of them, and there's no doubt the water does, you know, I
mean, on the north side it does decrease the depth there. I'd be willing to go for a change to a five
by forty-five,but I think what they've got there is fair,four by forty-five.
MR.URRICO-So you'd be willing to change to that?
MR. HENKEL-I would be willing to change it to a little wider. I mean, I've been boating all my life
and I know that's kind of narrow,the four feet,but I'd go for five to forty five by five.
MR.URRICO-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I would like to go back to the four by forty-five that we had voted on before.
MR.URRICO-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-I mean, I (lost words) because they're saying 45 doesn't work, and, I mean, I'm okay
with the four, the four foot width. Just going by the numbers on the map, I mean, if the map, if the
dock to the north can only get one boat on the south side, and that's 60 feet, as a result of where the
mean low water mark is, they're not gaining much space, more than one boat. There would be one
boat on the north side and south side,or both on?
MR. LAPPER-No,one north and south?
MS. GOLLHOFER-I don't know, I mean, I'm just saying.
MR. LAPPER-Yes,that's just based upon where the mean low is.
MR. NOONAN-I mean, I think it's important to pay attention to the mean low water line. I would be
in favor of going to the request of maybe keep the width where it is.
MR.URRICO-Ron?
MR. KUHL-No, I'm in favor of what we granted before,nothing more,nothing less.
MR.URRICO-And Michael?
MR. MC CABE-I would stick with the 45 by 4.
MR. URRICO-I'm afraid I have to agree with most of my Board members. I think that what we
granted last time was fair. We deliberated pretty long on it. In looking at the test, and I see there
are not going to be minor impacts to the neighborhood based on some of the comments that the
neighbors have made. I think the feasible alternative is what granted, and the relief requested may
be considered moderate to minimal, but nobody seems to be quite sure about what was there
before, but one of the comments by one of the neighbors that's been there a long time has said that
it was 40 feet, and so I would not be in favor of granting a new variance. I would be in fair of
keeping what we granted before.
MR. LAPPER-And I guess the only question I have is, is it worth having somebody do an underwater
survey or should we just let it go?
MRS.MOORE-The Board can have the,the applicant and the Board can come to an agreement if they
want to table it, and if the applicant wishes to get additional information on the mean low water
mark as an underwater survey,if the Board would think that would substantiate.
MR. LAPPER-I'm only asking if it would matter to the Board.
MR. URRICO-Let's poll the Board. If we can find out more information about the mean low water
mark,would that be a game changer to anybody? Let's go through the Board again. Kyle? You're in
favor of changing it as it is. Ron?
MR. KUHL-I mean, next door, the four by forty's, got a 26, 28 foot boat. I mean,you know, doing all
the survey with what's underneath,you don't need to six foot to put a boat on a dock. I mean,you
know,what's your draft,three feet,two and a half feet,and if this dock,if you're using this to sell the
property, that's fine. You could move the dock over and there'd be plenty,you know, if you're only
putting one boat, that's fine. If you're looking to sell it to where they're going to be renting, I don't
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
like that. I mean, I don't think that's right. I don't think that's fair to ask, but I look at what's there
today, and what's there today is a pretty hefty boat, south of your dock, and it's only 20 foot away.
So, I mean, I think you could put a 28 foot boat on a 45 foot long dock.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, I just think, Ron, that this map shows that that 20 feet makes a big difference
because the mean low does go.
MR. KUHL-I have no problem with that. I have no problem with that.
MR. URRICO-Jon, if you don't mind, I think we're just going to go through and ask the question and
then decide whether we're going to vote or not. Michael,would that change your opinion?
MR. MC CABE-It's not going to change my opinion.
MR.URRICO-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, I would consider a more detailed mean low water argument to influence and
reconsider.
MR.URRICO-Okay. John?
MR. HENKEL-I would also reconsider,too.
MR.URRICO-Okay,and I would not change my.
MR. LAPPER-And Joyce?
MR. URRICO-Joyce says no, she would not change. So I don't think you have the votes, even if you
go to that.
MR. LAPPER-It was worth asking.
MR.URRICO-Okay. Would you like us to vote on it,withdraw it or table it?
MRS.MOORE-Are you tabling or withdrawing the application?
MR. LAPPER-Well,if we withdraw it,we can just live with what we've got.
MRS.MOORE-Correct,and then if something else comes up,then you can re-address the Board.
MR. LAPPER-So you want to just withdraw it? Okay.
MR.URRICO-Okay. Thank you.
MRS.MOORE-So that's a verbal that you're withdrawing the application?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS.MOORE-Okay. You can close the public hearing.
MR.URRICO-We'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. MOORE-I guess, for the Board's information, when an applicant withdraws an application,
they would have to submit a whole new application.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2013 SEQRA TYPE II PATRICK BURKE AGENT(S) PATRICK BURKE
OWNER(S) CHRIS &TERI JUCKETT ZONING MDR LOCATION 11 BARDIN ROAD APPLICANT
HAS CONSTRUCTED THE FOUNDATION FOR A 1,760 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH
A 576 SQ. FT. ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2013-200 LOT SIZE 0.79 ACRE(S) TAX
MAP NO. 316.13-1-7 SECTION 179-3-040
PATRICK BURKE, PRESENT
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 35-2013, Patrick Burke, Meeting Date: July 17, 2013 "Project
Location: 11 Bardin Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant requests relief from
an already constructed foundation for a single family home 1,760 sq. ft. with a 576 sq. ft. attached
garage that does not meet the required front yard setback.
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Front Yard Setback
Required: 30 ft.
Proposed: 23.4 ft.
Relief: 6.6 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 appear to be
limited due to the lot configuration and the existing homes on the adjacent lots.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested for the front yard
setback may be considered minimal relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
BP 2013-200: Pending
Staff comments:
The applicant requests relief for the existing construction of a single family home foundation that
does not meet the front setback. The applicant has indicated the location of the house was altered
from the original plan so the adjacent neighbors would not be able to view the proposed house
interior. The foundation was installed and the survey was completed at that time the applicant
stopped work to complete the variance materials. The plans show the building setbacks and the
location of the house foundation.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR.URRICO-Do you have any comments to make?
MR. BURKE-Not too much, other than the fact that it's pretty straightforward here, what has taken
place, which was,you know,just an oversight on my part, which is self-induced, but I'm looking for
an approval from you guys based on merely a mistake and we're just looking to rectify it before we
go forward. We're trying to take the time; we go through these steps rather than go rushing out and
keep on constructing. So we've taken into account doing the right thing here.
MR.URRICO-Can you identify yourself for the record.
MR. BURKE-I'm Patrick Burke. I'm the builder for the owners.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
MR.URRICO-Okay. Any questions?
MR. KUHL-I have a question. I'd just like you to explain the Staff comments. The adjacent neighbors
will not be able to view the proposed house interior. What does that mean?
MR. BURKE-There's a neighbor to the back left of that property there, the reason why we keep the
house, which may look a little extreme on the survey, is so that they're back, the direction of the
house wasn't looking into their backyard to the house behind them. They didn't want to look into
the living room/bedroom area. So we were just trying to kick it some more, and that caused us to
go.
MR. KUHL-And what is that, Lot 18?
MRS.MOORE-That's this one.
MR. BURKE-Yes,that house.
MRS.MOORE-Would be able to see into the bedroom. So it's this house.
MR. BURKE-Yes,so we just kicked it clockwise.
MR. KUHL-So you kicked it,but you didn't re-stake?
MR. BURKE-We didn't re-stake. We had initially staked, and then we twisted it and that caused he
to go off.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. BURKE-I mean, there's a curvature to the road that's there, which the road is pretty straight,
relatively straight at that point, but the curvature of the setback and the lot line is actually curved
more than the road seems to be curved. So that didn't help us out there, either. It appears that,you
know,it appears, I don't know,you guys must do drive bys,but it appears it's a lot further back than
it is according to the, it's just the corners, though, so it doesn't appear forward versus any of the
other houses there.
MR.URRICO-Okay. Any other questions? Any comments from the public?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's no public comment in the application itself. Shall we poll the Board? I'll start
with Joyce.
MRS. HUNT-It's kind of a strange shaped lot. The request is rather minimal. I have no problem with
it.
MR.URRICO-Thank you. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I mean, the house,the foundation is way off the road,but it's not,you know, doesn't
meet the property line. I have no problem. I think it's minimal.
MR.URRICO-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think also it's very minor, and I think what he's trying to do is correct, trying to
keep the neighbors happy. So I have no problem with it. It's very minimal.
MR.URRICO-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-No problem with it.
MR.URRICO-Harrison?
MR. FREER-My only problem is the notion that it's already done so that we should do it instead of
fixing it. So this is a precedent. I'm glad you, you know, you're coming with your mea culpa on
because my concern is the next guy who says,well,you approved his and it was just because he did
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
it already. That's a bad precedent for this Board, and so while I will vote yes for it, I think we've got
to be very careful setting a precedent that if it's already done we'll just approve it.
MR. URRICO-I agree, and I in the past what we've done,what one of the first Chairman when I came
on board said was we should approach it as if they came with clean hands, like this was the first
time they were approaching us, and I understand what you're saying also. I have concern about
that as well,because the next application has a similar situation. I'll bring it up at that point as well,
but I'm not going to tell you how to vote. Just act as if they're approaching the Board for the first
time.
MR. FREER-Right,and I support it.
MR.URRICO-And, Michael?
MR. MC CABE-I took a look at it. I was surprised there was a problem, especially looking at the
other houses in the neighborhood. It is a little bit of a problem coming after the foundation is in,
but in this particular case, I have no problem with it.
MR.URRICO-Let's close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.URRICO-And I need somebody to make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2013 PATRICK BURKE, Introduced by Michael
McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
11 Bardin Road. The applicant requests relief from an already constructed foundation for a single
family home, 1760 square feet, with a 576 square foot attached garage that does not meet the
required front yard setback. Our required setback is 30 feet. The proposed setback is 23.4 feet.
The relief requested is 6.6 feet. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to be nearby properties will be created by granting this variance.
Minor impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant
can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the Area
Variance. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to the lot configuration and the existing
homes on adjacent lots. Whether the requested relief is substantial. The relief requested for the
front yard setback may be considered minimal relative to the Code. Whether the proposed variance
will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the
neighborhood or district. Minor or no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood may be anticipated. The difficulty was self-created.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Urrico
NOES: NONE
MR.URRICO-Good luck.
MR. BURKE-Thank you,sir.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2013 SEQRA TYPE II NEIL LAJEUNESSE AGENT(S) MARK C. REHM,
NEWELL&KLINGEBIEL OWNER(S) NEIL LAJEUNESSE ZONING MDR LOCATION 20 HONEY
HOLLOW ROAD APPLICANT HAS BEGUN TO REPLACE A PREVIOUSLY EXISTING IN GROUND
SWIMMING POOL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS
REF BP 88-399 SFD; BP 98-366 IN GROUND POOL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT
SIZE 0.79 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-30 SECTION 179-5-020
MARK REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2013, Neil Lajeunesse, Meeting Date: July 17, 2013
"Project Location: 20 Honey Hollow Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to replace an existing in ground swimming pool where construction was started on a
portion of the pool; the pool does not meet the rear setback requirement.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
Relief Required:
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Pool Rear setback
Required: 20 ft.
Proposed: 11.5 ft.
Relief: 8.5 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 may be
limited as the applicant has indicated the previous pool was located at the same location as the
proposed.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be
considered minimal to moderate relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
BP 88-399: Single family dwelling
BP 98-366: Inground Pool
Staff comments:
The applicant has indicated the previous pool was under repair when it was determined a
replacement pool was needed. A portion of the pool was under construction when the Code
Compliance officer requested work to stop at the end of May requiring the applicant to apply for a
variance and obtain a pool permit. The applicant has complied with completing the variance
application and submission with a survey showing the location of the new pool. The applicant has
indicated the original pool was installed in 1998 and plans show a similar location to the proposed.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR.URRICO-Would you like to make any comments?
MR. REHM-Sure. Mark Rehm representing the applicant. Neil Lejeune's is here to my right, and
Rich from Concord Pools is also here to answer any questions if need be. This is a situation, as we
put forth in our letter that really wasn't what was intended. I mean,we didn't want to have to put a
new pool in. Given the hot streak this summer, it's probably not ideal for us not to have a pool. Of
course we would want one in there. The unfortunate part of it is when this pool was approved in
1998, there was no survey requirement. So the pool was in. It had a valid permit, and we simply
went in to repair what was there, determined that something new needed to go in, and we're here
just trying to comply with what the Town is requiring. We didn't want to have to get a survey or
any of these items,but we felt,if that's what the Town wanted us to do,we would. Furthermore,we
have a letter which we had forwarded on from the neighbors, Andrew Fidel and Lisa Fidel, who, if
you look on the survey map, are the only ones that would perhaps we impacted by that setback
requirement,and they're in full support of this project as it stands.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
MR.URRICO-What is your role with the project?
MR. REHM-I'm an attorney.
MR.URRICO-Okay. You understand the Board's concern about after the fact?
MR. REHM-Absolutely.
MR. URRICO-And I'm assuming that whoever was doing the construction or reconstruction has
done this for a while?
RICH FENWICH
MR. FENWICH-Yes.
MR. URRICO-And you understand the implications of putting a pool in and setbacks and so on and
so forth. So why wasn't the project stopped when you knew you had to do some new work to it?
MR. FENWICH-We, in other municipalities, have come across this situation (lost words) require a
permit because it's still considered a renovation. That was a mistake on our part.
MR. URRICO-You didn't think that you might want to call the Town and ask them? Okay. Any other
questions?
MR. NOONAN-I just need to make public comment. I went on a site visit. I'm assuming it was Mrs.
Lajeunesse was there. Showed me the work site. We didn't talk about the project.
MR.URRICO-Okay.
MR. KUHL-Was this a like for like swap?
MR. REHM-I think that there's a slight change because of the need for the construction. I'll let Rich
from Concord Pools.
MR. FENWICH-The only change that really happened, one was made slightly larger because we had
to work within the void that was there of the existing pool. So the existing pool was a 17 by 43. The
pool that is there now is an 18 by 35.
MR. KUHL-So it's basically shame on you that you didn't go and get a permit. So it wasn't a like for
like. Once you expand it,you (lost words).
MR. NOONAN-Now are you saying that this pool is in the same exact spot, or is it like what they
show on this? It's definitely in a different location than the old pool.
MR. FENWICH-It's in the same location. The only thing that changed is the steps were moved to the
side.
MR. REHM-If you look at, there was no survey done when the initial pool was put in. What they
used at the time was a landscaping plan back in '98 which shows on, we overlapped on it. Where
you see the pool was proposed,the actual location that the pool was put in in 1998 by predecessors
is located where we have drawn our pool. I think that shows the importance of surveys when you
do have the pools located. I think that probably a part of the creation of this problem is in '98 they
didn't require a survey. It probably was never checked on some level as to where the pool was put.
DISCUSSION FROM AUDIENCE MEMBER INAUDIBLE
MR. FENWICH-We worked with the existing void that was there (lost words).
MR.URRICO-Any other questions? None? Comments from the public?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-As previously mentioned,there is a letter. "We are writing in order to inform you that
our property located at 24 Honey Hollow Road, Queensbury, New York 12804 abuts Mr.
Lajeunesse's property along the border from which he is seeking relief. We are not opposed to the
installation of the pool that Mr. Lajeunesse is replacing. It is our wish that this letter is read into the
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
minutes of the meeting that Mr. Lajeunesse will attend. If you have any questions,please contact us.
Very Truly Yours, Andrew Fedele and Lisa Fedele" Any other comments? Let's close the public
hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.URRICO-And let's survey the Board. Let's start with Ron.
MR. KUHL-Yes. It's an oversight by the pool company. I have no problem with that. I think it's not a
big deal.
MR.URRICO-Kyle?
MR. NOONAN-No, I have no issues with it. I think it's a fine project.
MR.URRICO-John?
MR. HENKEL-I also have no problem with it.
MR.URRICO-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-No problem.
MR.URRICO-Harrison?
MR. FREER-No problem.
MR.URRICO-And, Michael?
MR. MC CABE-I have no problem with variance.
MR. URRICO-Okay, and I'm also in favor of the project. I just needed to go on record about my
concerns. Okay. I need somebody to make a motion.
MR. KUHL-I'll make that motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2013 NEIL LAIEUNESSE, Introduced by Ronald
Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt:
20 Honey Hollow Road. The applicant proposes to replace an existing in-ground swimming pool
when construction was started on a portion of the pool. The rear setback, requirements is 20 foot,
proposed 11.5,the relief is 8.5. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of
the neighborhood,very minor impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated. Whether benefit can be
sought by the applicant could be achieved by some other method feasible, the pool was there.
They're just re-constructing the pool. Whether requested Area Variance is substantial. No, it's
minimal at best. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood, minor to none, and,yes, the difficulty is
self-created,but I recommend we approve Area Variance No. 31-2013.
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Urrico
NOES: NONE
MR. REHM-Thank you.
MR. URRICO-Any new business for the Board? Laura,we had two cases tonight where people came
before us and it was after the fact. Is there anything that we can do to let them know that we're
here?
MRS.MOORE-Alleviate that,minimize that?
MR.URRICO-Yes.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2013)
MRS. MOORE-Other than, when information is submitted to the Building and Codes Department,
they move forward with it, and that's pretty much the only time that someone enters the building.
Our Code Compliance Officer is on the road 24/7, basically. So that's ongoing and he sees quite a
bit, and if he sees something that's non-compliant, he meets with that individual on site and
describes what the incident is and goes through the entire process. So there's quite a few that
you'll,not quite a few,but you'll see more of that.
MR.URRICO-Okay. I need somebody to make a motion to adjourn the meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 17,
2013, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 17th day of July, 2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Roy Urrico,Acting Chairman
29