04-16-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 16,2014
7:00 P.M.
Area Variance No.9-2014 Matthew&Samantha Ball 1.
Tax Map No. 308.6-1-16.2
Area Variance No. 23-2014 David&Lisa Doster 8.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-5
Area Variance No. 24-2014 Aftab Bhatti d/b/a Econo Lodge 19.
Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51
Area Variance No. 25-2014 William&Pamela Roberts 23.
Tax Map No. 239.12-2-64
Area Variance No. 26-2014 Linda M. Hart(Harvest Restaurant) 31.
Tax Map No. 296.20-1-40
Area Variance No. 28-2014 Raymond&Patricia Soresino 37.
Tax Map No. 290.5-1-23
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 04/16/2014)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 16,2014
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
RICHARD GARRAND
JOHN HENKEL
MICHAEL MC CABE
RONALD KUHL
HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. JACKOSKI-I'll call to order the meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals on this
Wednesday April 16th at 7 p.m. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's actually an
easy process, but on the back table you'll find an outline of how things proceed here. We will call
each application to the table here. We'll have Roy read the application into the record. We'll ask
the applicant to add anything if they feel they need to. We'll poll the Board with some questions to
the applicants. When a public hearing is scheduled,we'll open the public hearing. We may or may
not close the public hearing depending on the polling of the Board and how they'd like to move
forward, and if we get a resolution, so be it,we move on. So we do have a little bit of housekeeping
to do this evening, and that is the first item of business, the approval of the meeting minutes of
March 26th, and I'm hoping to get a motion to do so.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 26, 2014
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES
OF MARCH 26, 2014, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard
Garrand:
Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-And thank you,everyone.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2014 SEQRA TYPE II MATTHEW & SAMMANTHA BALL AGENT(S)
TOM CENTER, NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) MATTHEW & SAMANTHA BALL ZONING
MDR LOCATION BALL BLVD., LOT 2 END OF MICHAELS DRIVE (SHERMAN ACRES
SUBDIVISION) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,900 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING ON LOT 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACRES SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED 39 FT. FROM
DESIGNATED WETLAND. PROJECT IS ASSOCIATED WITH A SITE PLAN WITHIN AN
APPROVED SUBDIVISION WHERE DEVELOPMENT OF 4 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND
DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FT. OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND (REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD
REVIEW). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
SHORELINE/WETLAND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF AV 10-2014 LOT 5; SP 14-
2014; FWW 1-2014; SUB. 4-1990 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.27 ACRE(S)
TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-16.2 SECTION 179-4-040
TOM MACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2014, Matthew & Samantha Ball, Meeting Date: April 16,
2014 "Project Location: Ball Blvd., Lot 2 end of Michaels Drive (Sherman Acres Subdivision)
Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,900 sq. ft. single family
dwelling on Lot 2 of the Sherman Acres subdivision to be located 39 feet from designated wetland.
Project is associated with a Site Plan within an approved subdivision where development of 4 single
family homes and the construction activities include hard surfacing within 50 feet of shoreline and
disturbance within 100 feet of a designated wetland requires PB review.
Relief Required:
The project as proposed will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum
setback requirements for the shoreline / wetland buffer requirements. Section 179-4-040
Shoreline
Shoreline Setback-wetland
Required 75 ft.
Proposed 3944.-Amended to 60 ft.to be further from the wetland
Relief -364.Amended to 15 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 house to be developed is located entirely within the wetland buffer as well as the
significant portion of the parcel is wetlands.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request 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,
AV 10-14: Lot 5-lack of access to a public highway.
SP 14-14: Filling&creation of hard surfaced areas (driveways) within 50 feet of a shoreline.
FW 1-14: Disturbance of land within 100 feet of a regulated wetland.
SB 4-90: Modification to the Sherman Acres subdivision for a proposed cul-de-sac on Amy Lane to
add 50 feet of road frontage to each lot, creating a private driveway. Modifications to approved
subdivisions require Planning Board review and approval. 12-16-08
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a home within 60 ft. of a wetland where a 75 ft. setback is
required. The information on the plans shows the location of the wetlands and the home. The
applicant relocated the house as requested by the zoning board to be further from the wetland. The
plans now show the location of the home to be 60 ft. from the wetland. The septic system is
changed as well to have a different configuration being further from the home. The applicant also
explained the parcel was created under previous approved subdivision prior to wetland delineation
requirements.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome,Tom.
MR. MACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering. Sammantha Ball is also
here in the audience if you need any questions answered by her.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Do you think you'd like to add anything to the application or should we just
go ahead and have questions from the Board?
MR. MACE-You can go ahead and have questions.
MR. JACKOSKI-No problem. Board members, under Old Business here of course, is there any
additional questioning that you'd like to ask of the applicant or its agent?
MR. HENKEL-Originally when they got the approval to subdivide these lots, there wasn't any
wetlands there. That came after. Is that what happened?
MR. MACE-They weren't delineated on the original subdivision. That was quite awhile ago.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR.JACKOSKI-Shall I re-open the public hearing?
MR. GARRAND-You left it open,right?
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. Okay. So is there anyone here this evening in the audience who'd like to
address this Board concerning this particular application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any additional written comment?
MR.URRICO-I do not see any written comment.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR.URRICO-There is one.
MR.JACKOSKI-Was it read in before?
MR.URRICO-This is dated March 2nd. Did I read this in already? I'll read it in again. "On February
19, 2014 there was a public hearing for a variance in the Michaels Dr. /Amy Lane area by Matthew
& Samantha Ball. (I was unable to attend due to a company meeting in Saratoga) I have several
concerns with the development of these areas. When I built my home in 1986 this same Board
assured me that the lands at the end of the street would remain forever wild due to protection of
the federal wetlands act. This effected my decision to buy this property and not the properties in
question. A few years after building my house I started to development wetness in my basement.
This grew continuously as time went on. Myself along with others in the area, such as Ferris Dr.
homeowners, spoke on this subject with the Queensbury engineer at that time. The ground water,
being fed by homes all having town water, was rising to the point where I needed to dig up the
foundation of my house to install piping and a sump pump that would then run 24/7 for more than
a decade. The drainage system the Town put in a few years ago helped this situation greatly,
however standing water and drainage are still an issue. Several days ago we had a rain and thaw
the same day producing 2 inches of water in my garage. This lead to me considering placing a
sump hole there also. Looking at the prints for the plans they would raise the grade of these lots.
Then where will that runoff go? Would 23 Michaels Dr. give competition to the Gurney Lane pool?
That brings me to another concern, the wetlands that were to be protected. I see retention ponds
on the plans that would require the removal of many trees and the habitat of the deer, turkeys,
rabbits and other creatures that live in these woodlands. The hearing was about two of the five
houses in the plans,and it seems all of them encroach on these wetlands. My thoughts would be to
question these plans with the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Army Corps of
Engineers to make sure we are doing the right thing in effort to keep Queensbury the "Home of
Natural Beauty...."it claims to be. Brian J. Berkery 23 Michaels Dr. Queensbury, NY 12804"
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. So, Staff, I want to make sure I understand clearly, this property,
this particular build out, they are not building, or making any improvements within the wetland
itself?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MRS.MOORE-Correct.
MR. JACKOSKI-And the only thing that we are talking about here is disturbance of the quote
unquote buffer between the wetlands and a Queensbury designated delineation of 75 feet? And
there is no restriction whatsoever about building in that area. It's simply that you have to come in
front of this Board to get a variance to do so.
MRS. MOORE-You need a variance, and I'll just add that the DEC is aware of this project and is
waiting for the decisions between the Zoning Board and the Planning Board for them to further
what information they need for the work near the wetlands.
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, and the current request for relief is 16 feet, is that what I heard? Fifteen, sorry,
fifteen feet.
MRS.MOORE-Fifteen feet of relief.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Board members,do you have any other questions or comments before I
poll the Board?
MR. KUHL-Yes. Tom, the driveway, is it going to be that gravel drive on the print? Because I
understand it to be to the left of that gravel drive. Correct?
MR. MACE-No, the access to the road, the deeded access to the road is to the left. The gravel
driveway will be used as a common drive for the two properties.
MR. KUHL-All right. So you're going to have a shared drive and the property with the 50 foot of
frontage on Michaels is just that?
MR. MACE-It is a required 50 foot frontage.
MR. KUHL-Why is that driveway not on their own property?
MR. MACE-It could be,but the decision was why have two drives side by side if we don't need them.
MR. KUHL-Well,doesn't that change the variance request?
MR.JACKOSKI-I don't think so because they do have the 50 feet if they wanted it.
MR. KUHL-They don't need a variance for a shared drive?
MR. MACE-No.
MRS. MOORE-Actually I thought that was a requirement of the previous one and I think she may be
able to address it.
SAMMANTHA BALL
MRS. BALL-Hi, Sammantha Ball. Originally when we built our house where it's located now, you
know, it's adjacent to the lot that we're speaking about, we decided to go for a shared driveway so
we would reduce the number of trees we took down, because if I put that, and it has the 50 feet
required, but the Board gave us, you all gave us the approval for our lot, based on the fact that we
would share the driveway, and that would, of course, stop anymore tree cutting. Because, I mean,
that's what we're trying to do. We're not trying to cut down trees. We're trying to preserve
everything we can. So that's why we decided to do that and you all actually approved that. That
was like five years ago or so.
MR. HENKEL-Is that going to stay a gravel driveway?
MRS. BALL-Yes. I mean, I think that's,you know,the least aggressive move. Because right now as
you see it, the neighbor's shed is on our property, which is, you know, fine because, you know, we
don't care, but there's trees all along that 50 foot of road frontage that would have to come down,
and it's easily accessed. You can have two cars go in and out, not lightning fast, but it's doable. I
can't see it being, I think it's going to aesthetically look better having a shared driveway.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR. JACKOSKI-Again, we do not have in front of us a determination by Craig Brown that another
variance would be required. So we're just looking at what he's got in front of us at this time.
MR. URRICO-Another variance would be required for a shared driveway or just another one being
considered?
MR. JACKOSKI-Right now that's not up to us. That's Craig's determination if he so makes it. Right
now what we have in front of us is just this particular variance application. I mean,we could make
it contingent that they share that driveway and they don't blacktop that driveway. I mean, that's
certainly something that we could do as a condition of the approval that we give this evening,which
would affect permeability and all that other stuff.
MR. GARRAND-Yes. One thing that homeowners tend to do is put in sheds, pools and things like
that, and almost anything in this lot might encroach on that 75 foot wetland buffer in the future.
My concern is what homeowners might want to do on their own later on.
MR.JACKOSKI-We can certainly put some conditions in.
MR. KUHL-Yes, but you're comfortable, Mr. Chairman, that it's just what's written on the paper and
they don't need a variance for a shared driveway?
MR. JACKOSKI-I can't make that determination. That's up to Craig Brown, our Zoning
Administrator, and then we can determine whether or not we're going to grant the appeal by the
applicant.
MRS. BALL-I'm 99% sure, well, when I met with Craig it was his idea to have the shared driveway,
and that's how I actually, you know, the question was who owned the driveway. So I actually,you
know,we got that settled, and I don't even remember why we needed a variance to build on the lot,
because we weren't in the buffer zone and there's no wetlands on that particular lot,located where
we fell,but Craig actually said why don't we do a shared driveway. So I would suggest it's probably
already a variance that we have to share the driveway.
MR.JACKOSKI-That may have been a condition for the other lot,but do you have a legal description
or a legal easement between the two properties?
MRS. BALL-No,because all of these are actually, all these lots are on one deed,with the exception of
my house. So they're all on one deed. So when I build that house and I live across from where I
live now, that's what will happen. Before I do that I will write an easement for that house. So I'm
well aware of,but I mean, I plan to live across the street from me now,as odd as that sounds.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Harrison.
MR. FREER-So, I appreciate you guys taking a look at what was suggested last time around, and I
can support this variance.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree. I think this is minimal compared to what it was, and considering the
location is not necessarily the wetlands itself, but the wetland, the area surrounding the wetlands
really. So I would be in favor of it, but I would want to keep a close eye on that driveway. The
Area Variance that was granted doesn't mention anything about a shared driveway. It only
mentions access to public highway, which means that the lot did not have a driveway. So maybe
that's what the condition was.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-When I looked at this originally, I was concerned, because that's a wet area, but I
think that the owner was pretty responsible in making the change in the setback, and so I'll go with
the project as described.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I think the way they moved the house and the absorption field was done well, and
other than the driveway, the question of the driveway, which, and we're not being asked to, no, I
think it was good.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I kind of like the idea of a shared driveway and less curb cuts, less paving, less
impermeability in that neighborhood which is subject to flooding.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with it, but I think we should definitely put the conditions of not
putting, you know, pools or sheds over in that wetland area or, you know, any closer to the buffer
there. I agree with the yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I am going to close the public hearing and, Rick, I'm going to seek a
motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. GARRAND-Certainly.
RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 9-2014, Matthew & Samantha Ball, Ball Blvd,
Lot 2 -end of Michaels Drive,Tax Map No. 308.6-1-16.2;
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Matthew
& Samantha Ball for a variance from Section(s): 179-4-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of
Queensbury. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,900 sq. ft. single-family dwelling on
Lot 2 of the Sherman Acres Subdivision to be located 60 ft. from designated wetland where
the required is 75 feet. Project is associated with a Site Plan within an approved Subdivision
where development of 4 single-family homes and the construction activities include
hardsurfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline and disturbance within 100 ft. of a designated
wetland (requires Planning Board review). Relief requested from the minimum setback
requirements for the shoreline/wetland buffer requirements.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,February 26,2014 and April 16,2014;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and
Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a
detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area
variance? I don't think it'll produce any undesirable change in the neighborhood or
character of the properties.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Given the recent delineation of these
wetlands,very few designs could be compliant. Moving this house closer to the road
will trigger setback requirements from the road. So this is the most feasible way of
doing it.
3. Is the requested area variance substantial? 15 feet of relief from the designated
wetlands is not substantial. It would be minor.
4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? I don't think it's going to produce any
adverse impacts on the neighborhood. Subsequent to this resolution, we're going to
ask for a couple of conditions on this for approval. I don't think it's going to have any
adverse environmental effects,though. It's far enough away from the wetlands that I
don't think it's going to make too much of a difference.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The original plot plan did not have these wetlands
delineated. If they'd have built back then, this relief would not be required. So I
don't believe it's self created.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 9-2014,Matthew
& Samantha Ball, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Michael McCabe:
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. No pool be included on this property within the wetland buffer.
B. No sheds be placed within this wetland buffer.
C. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request
an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires;
D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building&Codes personnel;
E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on
receipt of these final plans;
F. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed
project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the
Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or
department.
Duly adopted this 16th day of April 2014,by the following vote:
MR.JACKOSKI-So let me just make sure that we understand. Are we going to condition this that no
hard surfacing driveways should be, additional driveway should be put on that, given permeability
issues? Or is it just sufficient to suggest that it's always going to have a shared driveway in its
current location? Okay. So shared driveway in its current location.
MRS. BALL-And can I comment on the gentleman's, you know, statement that you read? I gave an
easement, years ago, to help mitigate, you know, the lawsuit that you had mentioned about these
wetlands, and so I forfeited 30 feet of our property down at the end of Michaels Drive to help give
relief to these folks. Now that gentleman has a culvert out in front of his house that he can attach
to,to help him with any drainage problems or water in his basement,which I readily talked to most
of the neighbors on the street because they're friendly, and everyone is elated that they do not get
water in their basement, and we know from, well, last year we had a drought and this year clearly,
you know, we've maxed out on the amount of rain. Now I was out on that property because we
love our property, and we walked it, and it's no more wet now than it's, you know, ever been
regardless of that, but that gentleman certainly has an avenue to alleviate his water problems or if
his property has some wetlands, because when you do get down towards Michaels, like we didn't
speak about that 10 acre lot because it's extremely wet and we want to maintain it, you know, as
wetlands and not build on it,but he does have an option. So I don't know if you all want to remind
him of that, because we spent a lot of money in the Town to put a culvert in front of everyone's
house and not one person on that street connected to it, and that's sort of disappointing if you ask
me. I mean, it's obviously helped the problem, but, you know, if there's problems going forward, I
think the homeowner now needs to maybe toe the line a little bit.
MR. GARRAND-Now is that culvert a drywell, or does it tie into any stormwater system?
MRS. BALL-It does,it ties into the system that runs down the street.
MR. MC CABE-We talked about that the first time this was.
MRS. BALL-Yes,well, I'm just saying so if,you know, maybe he doesn't know because he just bought
the house, I don't know,but he said'86.
MR. GARRAND-Yes,he said he built it in'86.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MRS. BALL-Okay. Well, this subdivision was approved in the 70's. So how he didn't know this
was the third leg to the subdivision, I don't,whatever,but anyhow.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, we do have a motion. We have had a second. We have had additional
discussion. Is there any more discussion? Please call the vote.
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-Good luck.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2014 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID &LISA DOSTER OWNER(S) DAVID &
LISA DOSTER ZONING WR LOCATION 94 ASH DRIVE APPLICANT HAS BEGUN
CONVERSION OF EXISTING ATTIC SPACE TO LIVING SPACE OF 686 SQ. FT. OF FLOOR AREA.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
PARCEL. ADDITIONALLY, VARIANCE RELIEF IS NEEDED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 21-2014; BP 2014-052 RES. & SEPTIC ALT.;
BP 98-364 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 98-256 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 7835 YR. 1983 CASINO CONVERTED TO
2-FAMILY DWELLING; BP 7308 YR. 1982 CONVERTED BAR TO APARTMENTS CASINO; BP
1196 YR. 1971 ADDITION; BP 959 YR. 1970 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT
SIZE 0.95 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-5 SECTION 179-13-010
LISA&DAVID DOSTER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2014, David & Lisa Doster, Meeting Date: April 16, 2014
"Project Location: 94 Ash Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has begun
conversion of existing attic space to living space of 686 sq.ft.of floor area.
Relief Required:
The project as proposed will require area variances as follows: Section 179-3-040 establishments
of districts -FAR relief and Section 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure
FAR
Required 22%
Proposed 23.5%
Relief +1.5%
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
considered limited as any new construction on the site with the existing buildings would trigger
relief from the Floor area ratio.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The proposed relief may 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.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
SP 21-14: Pending
BP 14-052: Residential&septic alteration
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to continue a residential renovation that would increase the living space
area within the attic of the home. The applicant intends to use the new space for recreation and
study area. The information submitted shows the portion of the building that is to be renovated,
the existing site conditions and the new septic system that is to be installed on the site. The project
with the new septic system reduces the impermeability on the site at a small percentage. The
applicant has indicated there are existing plantings on the site and additional plantings will be
added overtime. The project primarily involves the internal house renovation and no other site
improvements at this time.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board made a recommendation on behalf of itself to the Zoning
Board for this variance, and based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted
unanimously April 15, 2014.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Hello, welcome, could you identify yourself for the record, and if
there's anything you would like to add or we'll simply open it up to questions from Board members.
MR. DOSTER-Good evening, David Doster on behalf of myself and my wife Lisa Doster. If you don't
mind, I'd like to make a couple of comments, and thanks for the opportunity. This project is for 94
Ash Drive, and a lot of you that are over 50 years, or any of you that are over 50 years old and lived
here a long time may have some memories of that place or some stories to tell, as most people do,
but it's now residential and it is our home. So I just wanted to add a couple of things to the
narrative that you have there, or reinforce them. This process of renovating this space, and
specifically what we're looking for this attic is crucial to the overall design of the remodel that we're
doing. This home has been previously owned, and at least the last 30 years, has been owned by
someone that has run it like, pardon my phrase, like a slum lord. So we are the first occupants in
over 30 years that have moved into the property and it's our home and we're taking care of it. The
design that we have on the interior, we have nine foot ceilings that are there, and this attic space is
an additional 20 plus feet. So when we opened it up and saw how expansive that was when we
have the skylights in there with the new roof, it adds a tremendous amount of light into the space,
and also affords us room for storage and for our children,two young children to play around in that
area. Most homes that aren't on the lake have a basement to mitigate these issues. We have a
furnace up there and different things. So that's why it's important that we be able to use this space,
and the variance is just for that added space as it does increase the FAR,which is,but we mentioned
earlier is all interior. So there'll be no exterior changes to the building at all. So thank you for that.
We are additionally looking at putting in a new septic system. We are active members of the Glen
Lake Protective Association. It is our home. We hold the lake in high regard, and we want to do
everything we can as good stewards to make sure that we're doing the right things for that. The
building's been there for a long time. Septic system was upgraded in 1998, but we think the right
thing to do is put a new septic system in there with an Elgin leach field. So we'll have a 2,000 gallon
tank septic system that was engineered by D.L. Dickenson and approved by your staff for the
building permit for that project. We additionally have almost a dozen neighbors, including the
president, Paul Derby, President of the GLP, who have endorsed the work we're doing there and
support the work we're doing there., and I thank you for your time and your consideration for this
approval.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay, sir,thank you. Board members have any questions at this time before I open
the public hearing?
MR. GARRAND-Yes. Are there still apartments there?
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR. DOSTER-There's one,yes,there's an in-law, it was a large apartment which we're living in now,
and the space,the remodeling will just leave in a small in-law apartment. So we're reducing.
MR. GARRAND-For the whole building?
MR. DOSTER-Yes,it'll be our main unit and a one bedroom in-law apartment.
MR. GARRAND-Okay,because I know it was subdivided up into multiple apartments previously.
MR. DOSTER-Correct,and this remodeling will reduce that significantly.
MR. GARRAND-Now the other two buildings on the lot.
MR. DOSTER-Yes,there's a one bedroom house and a two bedroom house on the back side.
MR. GARRAND-Okay,and you own those,too?
MR. DOSTER-Yes,they're on our property.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. Do you think there's room for improvement as far as permeability on this
property? Because it seems like there's an awful lot of parking for, there's a lot of impermeable
area there that can be eliminated.
MR. DOSTER-Yes, I mean,we are restricted in,as far as parking,but I think the septic system,where
that's going in, is going to open that all up and that's going to be green space. That's going to take
out a large amount of the macadam area that's there, and I think as we get through the construction
project and the blacktop that's there hasn't been resurfaced or done in a long time. I think you'll
see in the colored map that we have there, we're intending to try to push the water over towards
the grass space and over towards the property line to get it away from going down into the lake.
MR. GARRAND-Yes,it's always run downhill there. It's run straight down the hill.
MR. DOSTER-Yes,right.
MR. GARRAND-I've been there during rainstorms and it's a mess.
MR. DOSTER-Right. So we've got to, at the end, right now at the end where it does turn into lawn
area, we have it pitched away. We need to continue to do that. We're going to pull out, there's
some broken blacktop and concrete that's there, towards the foot of the driveway as you get closer
to the lake. That's coming out. I couldn't tell you exactly how much, but at least 10 feet of that is
going to be coming out, not as part of this project, but when we're ready to do some re-surfacing
and clean that up, that'll be grass area. We've covered up some of the concrete that's there now,
just with dirt and had grass growing over it. Additionally, I'm not sure the last time you were there.
We've done some sloping of the retaining wall that's there. So a lot of the homes on the lake don't
have a retaining wall. We have a retaining wall and we've actually mounded the dirt, if you will, as
the lawn goes up towards that retaining wall. So it pitches upward. So it can't run, and there's a
lip on that wall. So it's not like water can run into that. So the only access would be through that
boat ramp area.
MR. GARRAND-If you're looking at the house from the lake, on the right hand side there used to be
stormwater issues, down by where the crawl space is. You know the crawl space I'm talking
about? It's not really a basement. It's like you've got to duck down to get in there.
MR. DOSTER-I'm not familiar with that. I'm sorry,what house is this now?
MR. GARRAND-The main house.
MR. DOSTER-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-There used to be a crawl space on the right hand side of the main house years ago.
MR. DOSTER-No, I'm not familiar with it.
MR. GARRAND-When it was apartments. They had, I'm not sure how many apartments they had
there at one time,but it seemed like they had at least four.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR. DOSTER-Yes,that's no longer the case it's all opened up now.
MR. GARRAND-Okay. So there's no longer any stormwater issues as you're facing the house from
the lake on the right hand side?
MR. DOSTER-No.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MR. DOSTER-I'm not sure what was there before when you saw it.
MR. GARRAND-It was apartments. It was a mess.
MR. DOSTER-It's been a fun couple of years.
MR. GARRAND-I'm thinking back to 2000,right around 2000.
MR. DOSTER-It's been challenging. Yes, I think it was changing hands from owners,from slumlord
to slum lord at that point and, I think it's, you know, we've done a tremendous amount of changes
since then. There was some changes done before we purchased the property two and a half years
ago, but there is literally it'll be one, that whole front of the building will be our living space, our
house, and then there'll just be a little one bedroom, which is attached, a one bedroom in-law
apartment if you will.
MR. JACKOSKI-What designates, in your mind, what an in-law apartment is? You keep using that
phrase,but what does it mean? Because only your in-laws are going to live in it or are you going to
rent it out?
MR. DOSTER-Well, actually a family member is living in it now.
MR.JACKOSKI-But is that what your intent is that you won't be renting it out to anyone but family?
MR. DOSTER-No. I think it potentially could rent out to someone else, but it has the ability to
connect, I'm sorry,to the main unit.
MR. JACKOSKI-And you just made a comment that you weren't going to be doing some of the site
work as part of this project? Could you kind of expand on that a little?
MR. DOSTER-Yes, I'm not,the resurfacing of the blacktop or doing any of that right away, isn't done
until we know we're done with all the construction. We wouldn't want to replace blacktop and
then have to tear it back up to do some more work.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are you aware of the re-buffering requirements in the Town of Queensbury
or along the shoreline?
MR. DOSTER-Not specifically,some of them,but not specifically the shoreline.
MR. JACKOSKI-Do you have any intention of implementing any of those at all? I noticed that that
must have come up in your Planning Board discussion the other night?
MR. DOSTER-Yes, they didn't, when we talked about how we have the wall there and making sure
that we're not doing anything to the water and we're keeping,making sure that the.
MR. JACKOSKI-I just heard you say that you re-graded the surface at the retaining wall. So that's
well within 30 feet of the shoreline that you did.
MR. DOSTER-It was just re-seeding of grass and.
MR.JACKOSKI-I thought I heard you say you sloped up that terrain.
MR. DOSTER-When we added in topsoil to make sure the grass could grow.
MR.JACKOSKI-But that's what I'm saying,you added fill that close to the lake.
MR. DOSTER-Yes.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-Now you're saying that the new septic system is not going to be part of this,or it is?
MR. DOSTER-It's not part of this variance, but it is part of the approval, it would absolutely have to
happen.
MR. KUHL-David, how many bathrooms are going to be fed off this septic system, all three
buildings,or just the big one?
MR. DOSTER-The big one and the one bedroom.
MR. KUHL-Which is the one to the south of the big one,or the one behind it?
MR. DOSTER-To the south of it.
MR. KUHL-How come your main building is over the property line on that right of way? Shouldn't
you kind of like make that adjustment so your building is on your property?
MR. DOSTER-We got an easement for that. Before we could close on our loan we did get an
easement from the neighbors on that.
MR. KUHL-And what you're saying is the two apartments and the main building and the one
bedroom apartment and the building to the south of it are going on to the septic?
MR. DOSTER-Correct.
MR. KUHL-And what is the other building behind the main building? Where is that septic field?
MR. DOSTER-Right in front of it.
MR. KUHL-And that's?
MR. DOSTER-That's the current septic system.
MR. KUHL-That everybody's using?
MR. DOSTER-Correct.
MR. KUHL-Okay,and that's the 1998 system you were talking about?
MR. DOSTER-Yes.
MR. KUHL-And you're hoping it's going to hold up for that one apartment?
MR. DOSTER-It has been looked at by the engineer and by the Town and approved for that,yes.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. DOSTER-It's got two 1500 gallon,it's got a 1500 gallon tank there and a 1500 gallon drywell.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-So with this project you're not looking to put any more like rain gardens in or
anything like that to take up that permeability a little bit?
MR. DOSTER-We're going to be very careful about where we put rain gardens on that right now,the
rain is spread across the front. If you look at the house from the aerial view, you can see it's a
multi-peak. So we are going to be conscious of trying to get the rain away from the building and
then away from the lake at the same time. Any recommendations you'd have we'd be happy to
listen to them.
MR. HENKEL-That looks like an awful lot of pavement. I was,you know, do you really need all that
pavement there?
MR. DOSTER-From where to where?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR. HENKEL-Well,that whole parking lot, I mean.
MR. DOSTER-Yes,it's got a pretty severe slope. So anything else would.
MR. HENKEL-Wouldn't grass help? Wouldn't grass help instead of pavement?
MR. DOSTER-Yes. I just think from, when you look at this winter we had tenants that had trouble
getting up and down that,just getting in and out of there. So keeping the snow cleared off it.
MR. KUHL-I have a question for Staff. Shouldn't this have been presented as a nonconforming
building because it's 40 foot high? Or once we give him a variance for the height then it becomes
conforming?
MRS.MOORE-The variance hasn't been proposed for the height. It's for the Floor Area.
MR. KUHL-No,no, I know,but it's an existing nonconforming building.
MRS.MOORE-And that's part of the variance.
MR.JACKOSKI-The expansion of a nonconforming.
MRS.MOORE-A nonconforming.
MR.JACKOSKI-Additional variance relief is needed for the expansion of a nonconforming structure.
MR. KUHL-Okay. I've got it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'd like to open
the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this
Board concerning this particular application? We do have some folks here. So, Mr. and Mrs.
Doster,if you could give up the table for a moment,we'll ask them to come up. Hello and welcome,
and if you could state your name for the record,we'd appreciate it.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARY HILLIARD
MRS. HILLIARD-Hello. Sure. My name's Mary Hilliard.
MR.JACKOSKI-And, Mary,where do you live?
MRS. HILLIARD-And I live on 79 Ash Drive.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MRS. HILLIARD-I guess if it's okay, I'll begin. Thank you for taking my comments. Boy,just off the
record, I guess I'd like to say how much I object to the slum lord comment by these property
owners. Marion Ledford and Charles Ledford and Jan Ledford would be turning over in their
graves, not slum lords. I disagree greatly with that, and I hope you dismiss that comment by the
property owners. I'm here representing well three family members, one of who's here. There are
three families and four deeded properties that are affected by the changes this property is asking
for, and I don't know if you're all aware of that, so I want to make a couple of things clear. I, along
with two other families, have a deeded right to use the beach, to park a car, to dock a boat, and to
swim there. Those rights have been instituted since I owned the property, myself, my husband,
since 1990. I think Kim will talk about her own deeded rights,which were much sooner than mine.
I do have pictures and maps and proof, if you need it. I also want to let the Board know that there
is a litigation currently here because these property owners bought this property in 2011 and now
have been making changes to the property over the last two years. They have taken out a dock
that was there that was ours. They've made it very difficult to get down there to use this deeded
right, and as a result of their behavior, specifically, especially taking out a dock, we had to institute
this litigation to reclaim these rights. We had no prior issues with any of the slum lords, by the
way, or property owners in the past. We had very good relationships with everybody prior to
2011, until these folks moved in. So how will this affect us? I guess that's the question I want the
Board to hear. We have rights, according to our deed,to not only dock a boat,but park a car, every
one of us. We have a total of four deeded properties, which means there should be four cars
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
allowed to park there. If they're going to make these changes,how is that going to affect, I want the
Board to consider how that's going to affect us. We have not been able to park there because we've
basically been,you know, harassed and threatened of towing and all kinds of other stuff that's,you
know, causing this litigation and problem, but I don't feel like that's the Board's concern. My
concern is how does it adversely affect the neighborhood? So we will lose, essentially, when they
put in this septic system, by the way, that availability to park. When we win this lawsuit, which I
believe we will,where are we going to park if they have to take out all this parking to put in a septic
system which, by the way, I guess I have a question? Will the fact that, will you grant a variance
without them forcing somebody to put in, you know, a septic system? Because currently their
septic system isn't adequate for five families who live there, and there are five. There were two
renters in the front houses. There's a brother-in-law living also in the main house and then there's
two other apartments. So there's a total of five families on these septic systems they currently
have. Great that they're proposing a new septic system, but think about that fact that if it's taking
out, and I did see that taking out there's no parking. There's not adequate parking,you know, even
if we didn't use our four parking spaces. So,that's a question I want the Board to consider. I'd also
like the Board to consider that all of this work, by the way, was done, halfway done, without a
permit. They started this work and halfway through, I don't know where they are in that,but there
was no permit. So it's kind of like the old axiom, it's better to get forgiveness than permission. So
I have a concern about that. We also want to preserve the status quo until the matter is resolved
by the Warren County Supreme Court. Until Warren County decides whether we have, we have
rights there. We've used rights, that we have prescriptive and deeded rights there, but Warren
County, unfortunately Supreme Court has to rule on that and unfortunately it's taking a long time.
The signatures of approval they got, you know, I don't know, I can't speak to that, other than they
certainly didn't get everybody's signature of approval, and finally I wonder why we need more
living space there? If they want there an in-law and one family, they already have. There's, what,
2,000 square feet, 3,000 square feet of building there already? So,you know, they're proposing an
upstairs which,by the way, does exceed the building to land ratio,by not a lot, but it does exceed it.
I guess my question would be,why do they need more space? You know,you drill a hole in the wall
and you open it up and you've got all the space you need. So it seems to me there's, you know, I
don't want to tag it as a greed level,but certainly a physical environmental impact here to be looked
at, and I can't really, I'm not asking for, I'm asking for consideration of these factors, and I'm asking
and I'm sharing that,you know, even, I mean, if you find your way to grant this variance, certainly a
septic system has to be included. I am asking, and on behalf of the three families, one of whom
could not be here tonight,that you really preserve the status quo until the matter is resolved in the
Warren County Supreme Court as I feel like these folks have not only overstepped their bounds,but
impacted negatively on the neighborhood and on the neighbors. Thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-Hi,welcome.
KIMBERLY LYON
MS. LYON-Hi. Thank you. My name is Kimberly Lyon and I represent the Tyrer family in this.
Like she said, there's three of us. The Tyrer's, the Hilliard's and the Cerney's. I think what Mary
said is just right. Is it all right if I summarize it a bit?
MR.JACKOSKI-Of course.
MS. LYON-That our concern is that their construction, while it's interior with the septic, is going to
impede on our deeded rights down to access the lake. Currently, like she said, the Doster family's
contesting our deeded right to the lake. It's under litigation in the Warren County Supreme Court.
While that litigation proceeds, and in the event that the court rules in our favor, we want to make
sure that we can still utilize our rights as we have for nearly 30 years. And as she said,we want to
maintain the status quo until the court has decided on, until the Court's made the decision. I guess
that's essentially what I have,just a bit shorter.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So can I ask some questions,if you don't mind? The applicant had mentioned
earlier that they had gotten an easement for some of the building that may have been on somebody
else's parcel. Was that,by chance, anything that you folks granted as easements?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. And when you mentioned parking, do you know if it had specified areas of
where the parking was supposed to be? Just on the lot?
MS. LYON-I don't live there,so I need to park there,in order to, I live in Glens Falls.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-I understand,and the Tyrer family is the Bob Tyrer family?
MS. LYON-Bob Tyrer, Herbert Tyrer,yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and did you say you had access for boating as well? In other words, do you
have the, do you believe you have the rights to actually drive a boat down to the shore there, or
carry a boat down to the shore?
MS. LYON-That's being decided,or,yes,we always have.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Until these property owners moved in in 2011.
MR.JACKOSKI-And you're stating that you've done that for at least 30 years?
MS. LYON-Yes.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-30 years for her, 24,well.
MR.JACKOSKI-And you believe that was in writing?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I have the deed with me. I have everything with me if you're interested.
MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, would we be able to accept a copy of that? My concern is if I'm looking at
removing permeable surface, but then I'm impacting these families who may have the need for the
permeable surface in order to get down to the lake.
MR.URRICO-What was the question?
MR.JACKOSKI-Would it be reasonable for us to accept a copy of that deed?
MR.URRICO-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-If you would provide our secretary with that, I'd appreciate it.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Do you want it right now?
MR.JACKOSKI-If you could.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions from the applicant, Board members at this time,
maybe, for these two public commenters? I know it's a little odd for us,but we do have the right to
explore ourselves,written comment?
MR. URRICO-There was a petition submitted. I don't know, are we finished with the public
comment?
MR. JACKOSKI-They're going to look for the deed. I'd like, if you could make note of that, Roy, that
would be great.
MR. URRICO-The letter and signed petition of the support serves as submittal of public comment to
the Board. This is regarding the proposed variance for interior renovation of an unused attic space
into added living space,to the 94 Ash Drive waterfront property. It will have no negative impact on
the surrounding area as it is within the inside of the existing building and poses no exterior changes
or increase of sign. The letter and signed petition is to serve as support to the property
renovations and further future improvements to be made to the property including the installation
of a new septic system. This is a positive note as Queensbury does not have a municipal sewer in
the Glen Lake area and the quality of the lake and lakefront properties is a major concern. Second,
the property has been in neglect for some time now. It is nice to see that steps are being initiated
to clean up, repair and bring the property up to Code with today's standards. As a neighboring
property, we are in support of the positive changes to the above listed property and ask the Board
to approve the variance requested, and it's just signed neighbors to the 94 Ash Drive property, and
it's signed by 11 neighbors.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Let the record show, these are your originals? Can we keep
these,for the record?
1s
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to pass these six pages, I believe it is, five pages, to our secretary and for
the record,and we may utilize those going forward.
MS. LYON-I did not bring my easement.
MR. JACKOSKI-That's okay. We don't need to get into a legal battle here. We're just looking to
have something to understand what it is that you just made public comment to. Are there any
other questions from Board members before I move on, of the applicant or of us or of the public
commenters?
MR. MC CABE-I'm just a little confused. We're not making any judgment as to the septic system.
MR. JACKOSKI-But we can make it conditional. We can make our FAR decision conditioned upon
the demand for a brand new septic system which could impede the accessibility of the lot,
depending on its placement. We could be taking out permeability because of the FAR that could
affect what we're now learning is going on with this lot. So, there are conditions that I would be
concerned with attaching that could complicate this matter.
MR. URRICO-Well, if they're required to have parking spaces for the neighbors, it could affect
permeability in that regard also.
MR.JACKOSKI-Right. Of course it would be at the risk of the applicant to go ahead and continue to
work based on our approval, and then they'd have to fight it out in court, but this seems like it's a
little bit more complicated than we were first lead to believe, but again, I guess, Staff, you're
chomping at the bit.
MRS. MOORE-With applications in the WR zone, if they're improving the site in any capacity, then
you are required to prove that your system is up to date. So,in this case,it's a requirement.
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,we understand that,but we also have had the engineers come to us and say they
really don't know how to tell us that it's up to date. So they don't have any real true test to confirm
that it is up to date.
MRS.MOORE-So installing a new septic system,that's part of the process.
MR. JACKOSKI-Certainly, but we also heard that there's been activity at the shoreline, within the
setback of the shoreline,that's not necessarily allowed without a permit.
MRS.MOORE-Okay.
MR.JACKOSKI-Lots of site conditions going on here and we're being asked to increase FAR,which is
a site condition factor. Any other questions? Thank you for your comments. We do appreciate
them. Is there anyone else here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board
concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I am going to leave the public hearing open.
If the applicant could re-join the table,and Roy,was there any other written comment?
MR.URRICO-That was it?
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So at this time, is there anything you'd like to add before I poll
the Board,or do you want me to just poll the Board?
MR. DOSTER-I'd like to make a couple of comments if I may. I'd like to first thank our neighbors for
the love of the property. It is quite is quite nice, and I do think there was some misconceptions that
were made. It's not five families. It's the two rental homes that are there, my family and my
brother. So that's three family and one person, currently. So that's false. The deed,you can read
it right now, says nothing in that about parking or launching a boat. Additionally, our deed doesn't
have any of that information in it. I don't think it's the position, or this is not the venue for that
argument. This is being handled by attorneys and by courts. That doesn't stop this here.
Additionally they failed to mention that they own all of,both of the parties that were here own all of
that property on the other side of that road. They can park on the street. The one lady has 15 feet
of property along the whole length of the street, and the other folks own the field on the other side
of that. So they can park on the other side of the driveway and will be able to follow through in
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
getting the septic system done and improving the property and the health of the overall lake.
Thank you.
MR.URRICO-Can I ask a question? The application,or at least the Staff Notes indicate that you have
begun conversion.
MR. DOSTER-Correct.
MR.URRICO-So you were stopped during conversion to apply for the variance?
MR. DOSTER-Yes, we have a building permit for the lower half and all the improvements we're
making on the lower half, and we have the building permit for the septic system. So that is already
approved,and that work is going on right now. We didn't realize by adding that attic space in there
that it changed the FAR and you're staff let us know that we had to, that's when we had to come in
here and get a variance for adding in that, even though it's interior space, I didn't understand it at
first,but now I'm well, after doing the application.
MR.URRICO-How did you find out about having to put the septic system in?
MR. DOSTER-It was part of the permit.
MR.URRICO-Okay.
MR. DOSTER-Before they would grant us a permit.
MR.URRICO-And they didn't mention that you needed a variance as well at that point?
MR. DOSTER-They did.
MR.URRICO-But you went ahead with the project anyway.
MR. DOSTER-Because we have a building permit for the project.
MR.URRICO-Okay. I'm having difficulty figuring out when you figured out you needed a variance.
MR. DOSTER-When we started the addition, the second floor, when the Town saw that we were
doing the second floor and we were going to put living space up there is when they said we would
need a variance for that.
MR.URRICO-And that was after you applied for the permit?
MR. DOSTER-Yes,well,it all happened at the same time.
MR.URRICO-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So now I'm even more puzzled. Is there anything that we're doing that affects the
approval of the septic system?
MRS. MOORE-He's required by making application for,the building permit triggered the new septic
system.
MR. MC CABE-Which building permit? It sounds like there were two of them.
MRS. MOORE-In general a building permit triggered it. I'm saying, at this point, one of the building
permits they applied for,whether it be one or two,triggered the new septic system being installed.
MR. DOSTER-Just one other piece of information. There was summary judgments made for the
neighbors that claim that they had a right of way, and that summary judgment has been denied. So
if you wanted to add that to this, we could talk about it, but I don't think this is a venue. We're
looking for a variance for increasing internal living space right now.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? I am going to leave the public hearing
open at this time. I would like to poll the Board if I could, and I'm going to start with Rick.
MR. GARRAND-I do have some questions about actually how many people are living there. It
seems like a lot of people on this one small plot of land. A lot of traffic in there. A lot of
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
impermeable area. I mean, they're lot almost 25%, and they are 25% below the required
permeability on this, and they've definitely got to do something about the permeability here. It's
just ridiculously low, and I've seen the water cascading down there before.
MR. DOSTER-We could do the water garden in the front of the shoreline if you think that would.
MR. GARRAND-I think it stems from the parking lot, and that whole parking area. The variance
itself, it's relatively minor. The septic system is a necessity. That's pretty much out of our hands.
That's going with the building permit. So that's got to be done. As far as the variance, I think it's
minor.
MR.JACKOSKI-So would you be in favor or opposed?
MR. GARRAND-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? I'm going to go on the other side. I think, because it is a small
piece of property, I think 1.5 still represents a significant amount of relief in the Floor Area Ratio. I
think there's a chance that it will have some impact on the physical and environmental conditions
in the neighborhood, and I think there are methods to reduce that Floor Area Ratio so it would not
need a variance. So I would be against it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes, I walked that today to see what was going on there. I think they discovered some
kind of a jumbo room opportunity and I don't see it as significant, what they're doing and what
they're asking for. So I would support it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it's a minimal request and I like especially that you're updating the septic. I
think you could cut your asphalt up and put permeable pavers in there. That's an issue, but you're
asking for a Floor Area Ratio. I would be in favor of it, but if I could say outside that box, I would
look at permeable pavers in replacing that asphalt. No, I'm not putting it in as a condition.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also think that there's a lot going on there, too, and a lot of hard surfaces that
could be producing a water problem, but what they're asking for is not going to really change that.
So I think it's very minimal,so I'd be in favor of this project,too.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I feel that what they're asking for, in terms of the Floor Area Ratio relief, is minimal
and I would support it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm going to seek a motion,
please.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. KUHL-Could I make that motion?
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,sir,thank you.
RESOLUTION TO Approve Area Variance No. 23-2014, David & Lisa Doster ,, 94 Ash Drive,
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-5;
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David&
Lisa Doster for a variance from Section(s): 179-13-010 of the Zoning Code of The Town of
Queensbury. The applicant has begun conversion of existing attic space to living space of 686
sq. ft of floor area. Relief requested the Floor Area required is 22%. The proposal is 23,and
they're asking for a relief of 11/2 %.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,April 16,2014;
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and
Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a
detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area
variance? Minor impacts on the neighborhood is anticipated.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Feasible alternatives may be
considered,but being as how we're doing it in the existing building.
3. Is the requested area variance substantial? I believe the proposed request is minimal.
4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? Minor to no impact is anticipated.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is self-created.
6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 23-2014, David&
Lisa Doster, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel:
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request
an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires;
B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building&Codes personnel;
C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on
receipt of these final plans;
D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed
project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the
Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or
department.
Duly adopted this 16th day of April 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: Mr.Urrico
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2014 SEQRA TYPE II AFTAB BHATTI d/b/a ECONO LODGE
AGENT(S) GARY HUGHES ZONING Cl AND MDR LOCATION 543 AVIATION ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT EXISTING 3 SUITES INTO 6 SEPARATE ROOMS. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ADDITIONAL
MOTEL ROOMS WHERE ONE SPACE PER ROOM IS REQUIRED. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
APRIL 2014 LOT SIZE 2.19 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-51 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-
4-090
GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 24-2014,Aftab Bhatti d/b/a Econo Lodge, Meeting Date: April
16, 2014 "Project Location: 543 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to convert existing 3 suites into 6 separate rooms.
Relief Required:
The project as proposed will require area variances as follows: Section 170-4-090 Relief from
required parking for motel use.
Parking space relief-1 space per room
Required 90
Proposed 86
Relief 4
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
considered limited as the changes to the rooms are all interior.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The proposed relief may 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.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
Area Variance No. 3-2011 Aftab (Sam) Bhatti 1/19/2011
After the fact for a 10 ft. by 12 ft. canopy constructed adjacent to motel office. Front and travel
corridor setback requirements and Floor Area Ratio requirements
Site Plan Review No. 2-2011111012011
After the fact for the construction of a 120 square foot canopy at main office location.
SP 12-2004 AFTAB BHATTI-MODIFICATION
Removal from the plan of the approved landscaped island at main entrance and a change to the
parking lot layout.
AV 29-2005 Sam Bhatti-Quality Inn 412012005
Constructed a 38 room motel and associated parking, stormwater controls, lighting, landscaping,
and utilities. Relief from the Floor Area Ratio, access driveway width, parking, and setback
requirements and Travel Corridor Overlay District setback requirements.
Area Variance No. 19-2004 A. Bhatti for Econo Lodge Motel 311712004
Demolition of the 2,002 sq. ft. office/apartment portion of the existing motel and construction of a
new 2,188 sq. ft. office/apartment portion. The applicant also proposes to enclose the open
walkways of the existing motel with glass. Relief from the front and side setback and Floor Area
Ratio requirements.
SP 12-2004,Aftab Bhatti 312412004
Reconstruct the hotel office associated with the Econo Lodge on Aviation Road, as well as
alterations to the building exterior and lighting associated with the existing hotel building at this
location
SP 20-2003,A. Bhatti-Modification: 11/18/2003
Modifying the building exterior.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
SP 20-2003,Aftab Bhatti 6/24/2003
To construct an 8,000 sf freestanding hotel building.
AV 85-2002,A. Bhatti 11/20/2002
36 unit two-story motel bldg. seeks relief from the front setback and floor area ratio requirements.
AV 85-2002,Aftab Bhatti 10/16/2002
Also tax map nos. 302.05-1-52.12, 53.13
Determination requested is whether this current proposal is significantly different from the
previously denied variance application. Construction of a 36 unit,two-story motel building.
AV 55-2002,Aftab Bhatti 6/26/2002
Addition to existing motel, proposes construction of a new motel onto the adjoining property.
Applicant seeks relief from the min. setback requirements, parking regulations, buffer zone
requirements, density requirements, and min. road frontage requirements. Also tax map no. 302-5-
1-52.13
Area Variance No. 25-2002 Franchise Motel 4/17/2002
Applicant proposes construction of a 48 unit motel building and additions to the existing Econo
Lodge facility. Applicant seeks relief from the setback and density requirements of the HC-1A zone.
Also, the applicant seeks relief from the off-street parking and loading requirements as well as the
minimum road frontage requirements.
3 parcels total: 302.05-1-51; 302.05-1-52.12; 302.05-1-52.13
Sign Variance No. 16-1999
Off Premises Sign No. 1-99
Area Variance No. 136-1989
11/15/1989 for PELAK,WAYNE
Area Variance No. 86-1989
07/26/1989 for PELAK,WAYNE
Sign Variance No. 22-1990
SP 66-89
12/19/1989 for PELAK,WAYNE
BP 2013-201 ECONO LODGE
Comm Alt.bathrooms Rms #219, #125 á
BP 2013-186 ECONO LODGE Rm. 119
Comm.alteration of 715 sq.ft.
BP 2011-102
120 sq.ft. canopy
BP 2008-632 (Sign Permit)
74.37 SQ FT SIGN TO READ "ECONO LODGE"-change of copy
ACTUAL SIZE OF SIGN MODIFIED TO 70 SQ FT AS PER ORIGINAL SIGN
BP 2008-631 (Sign Permit)
12.85 sq ft.sign to read "Econo Lodge" change of copy
BP 2006-414
800 SQ FT OFFICE SPACE
BP 2005-253
1094 sq ft. MOTEL LOBBY AND 1035 SQ FT 2ND FLR MANAGER'S APARTMENT
BP 2005-225
DEMOLITION OF LOBBY(30 ft.by 24 ft.)
BP 1990-009
6/25/1990 MOTEL/ Imperial Motel (Sam Bhatti)
BP 1990-010
DEMOLITION OF BUSINESS/1/23/1990
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to convert three existing suites to six rooms. The information submitted
shows each of the rooms to be converted involving first and second floor rooms. The request is to
maintain the parking at 86 spaces versus the required 90 spaces. The applicant has indicated there
is no site or exterior changes as all alterations are internal.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Pretty straightforward, but if there's anything you want to add at this
time, please feel free to identify yourself. Otherwise we'll ask Board member questions and go
from there.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR. HUGHES-Yes. For the record my name is Gary Hughes representing Aftab Bhatti, the owner,
and we're here to answer any potential questions the Board might have.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Gary. Are there any questions at this time from Board members
concerning this application?
MR. GARRAND-Sam,that's going to be for the Econo Lodge?
SAM BHATTI
MR. BHATTI-Yes.
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'd like to open the public
hearing, or comment period, I should say. I don't want to have a hearing. Is there anyone here in
the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment?
MR.URRICO-None.
MR.JACKOSKI-No written comment. I'll poll the Board. We'll start with John.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's a minimal request. I have no problem with it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I have no problem.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-No, I have no problem.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR.URRICO-I don't have any issues with this.
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-It's a very minor project. I have no problem with it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-I don't have any problems with it.
MR.JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. GARRAND-I'll make it.
RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 24-2014, Aftab (Sam) Bhatti d/b/a Econo
Lodge, 543 Aviation Road,Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51;
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Aftab
(Sam) Bhatti d/b/a Econo Lodge for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 and 179-4-090 of
the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to convert existing 3 suites into 6
separate rooms. He's required to have 90 parking spaces, proposed is 86. He's seeking
relief for four parking spaces.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,April 16,2014;
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and
Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a
detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area
variance? There'll be no noticeable change whatsoever.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Benefits cannot be achieved by other
means feasible to the applicant. We would not want to see him increase the
impermeable area here. There's no sense in paving to get those four extra parking
spaces.
3. Is the requested area variance substantial? This request is not substantial. It's very
minimal.
4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? None whatsoever that we can tell. All the
renovations are going to be done interior, and we support the idea of less parking
spaces because they're simply not needed.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It maybe deemed self-created.
6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 24-2014,Aftab
Bhatti d/b/a Econo Lodge, Introduced by Richard Garrand,who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Harrison Freer:
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request
an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires;
B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building&Codes personnel;
C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on
receipt of these final plans;
D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed
project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the
Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or
department.
Duly adopted this 16th day of April 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-I hope Gary's charging you by the minute,because you got out of this one fast.
MR. HUGHES-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2014 SEQRA TYPE II WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS AGENT(S)
DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) WILLIAM & PAMELA ROBERTS ZONING WR LOCATION
4 HOLLY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF TWO COTTAGES. THESE
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
STRUCTURES WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR REPLACEMENT WITHIN THE EXISTING
FOOTPRINT AREA VIA AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2014. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM
FRONT YARD AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONING DISTRICT.
RELIEF REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR TWO RESIDENCES ON THE SAME PARCEL. CROSS REF SP
24-2014; A V 36-2013; BP 98-652 SEPTIC; BP 98-070 RES.ALT.; BP 98-071 RES.ALT.; 98-069
DOCK REPAIR WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
ALD LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.12-1-64 SECTION 179-3-040 A
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2014, William & Pamela Roberts, Meeting Date: April 16,
2014 "Project Location: 4 Holly Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
demolition of two structures construction of two cottages. These structures were previously
approved for replacement within the existing footprint area via Area Variance 2-2014.
Relief Required:
The project as proposed will require area variances as follows: Section 179-3-040 Establishments
of Districts
Front setback-Guest Cottage Shoreline-Main House Density
Required 30 ft. 50 ft. 1 home per parcel
Proposed 17 ft. 25 ft. 2 home
Relief 13 ft. 25 ft. 1 additional home
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 include
reducing the homes on the site to one compliant one versus two homes on the site.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested for setback may
be considered minimal to moderate. The request to construct two dwelling may be considered
substantial.
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 13-513: Residential alteration 420 sq.ft.with Balcony 96 sq.ft.
BP 13-512: Residential Addition 126 sq.ft.with Porch&Deck 206 sq.ft.
SP 24-14: Pending
SP 8-14: Tear down/rebuild in approved footprints. Hardsurfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline
requires Planning Board review and approval. 1-28-14
AV 2-14: Relief from shoreline setback (main cottage),front setback(guest cottage) and 2 acre per
dwelling density requirements of the WR zone. 1-22-14
SP 33-13: Improvements to 2 existing residential structures. Main house will increase footprint by
128 sq.ft. Expansion of non-conforming structure in a WR zone. 7-16-13
AV 36-13: Relief from minimum 100 ft. shoreline setback & well setback for a stormwater
management device. 7-24-13
BP 98-070: Residential interior alterations, 1363 sq.ft. 1 story,4-19-00
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
BP 98-652: Septic alteration, 11-17-98
BP 98-071: 2 story interior alterations-2 story, 720 sq.ft... 6-22-99
BP 98-069: Dock repair, 6-22-99
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to demolish a guest cottage and the main home to reconstruct them within
the same footprint. The board reviewed a similar proposal where the new proposal adjusts the
exterior rooflines for both homes. The new construction still maintains the same footprint in the
same locations. The guest cottage changes with additional floor area of 48 sq. ft. and a new roof
height of 20.7. The applicant has indicated due to construction / building standards the proposed
compliant rafters will raise the roof and increase the floor area in the guest cottage. The
information submitted shows the previously approved and the proposed for each dwelling. The
relief requested is the same in regards to setbacks only no other relief is requested.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR. URRICO-And Planning Board reviewed this and based on its limited review did not identify any
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that
was approved unanimously 6- 0 on April 15, 2014.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome, Dennis.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy of Environmental Design representing Pam
and Bill Roberts on this application again. Pam is with me here tonight. You may be feeling a little
dejavu as I am, back again with this, and let me give a little explanation. I apologize, first of all, for
whatever involvement I had in requiring this to be back, but I'll explain. Within the application
there's a little narrative that explains again, but when we left here in January with approvals from
both ZBA and the Planning Board, the construction plans were created by the architect and we
came to understand that there were a few changes related to the rooflines and the nature of the
roof construction. Some of that is related to Code compliance. We were tearing down and
rebuilding. So some of those things that were deficient in the existing structure had to be brought
up to Code, and that's somewhat related to structural member sizes, the rafters a little deeper, the
floor system a little higher in terms of the floor joists, and ceiling height. So if I can just run you
through a little explanation of the two different structures and how they change, and we'll start
with the main cottage, and if you refer to the two elevation tacks there,the colored rendering is the
proposed, and the black and white is the same that you had in your January proposal, and I'd
reiterate, as the Staff Notes commented, all the variances that you previously acted on and
approved are the same this time. Any of these changes that I'm describing don't, in any way,
require additional variances or changes. It's just that when we became aware of those changes,we
discussed with Craig Brown those changes and he felt that it probably would be best to come back
to the Board so that you were aware of these changes and could base your decisions on that, on
these changes. So, the main house, if you compare elevation views of the main house, you'll see
we're changing what I refer to as a two sloped roof and perhaps that's a result of how the structure
was originally constructed. Maybe additions. I don't even know that for sure, but it has two
slopes. If you look at the black and white renderings, you can see that. The new proposed
structure is one continuous roofline. The peak is the same. The eaves is the same. It's just one
continuous roofline. The height of the main house will be the same as it was. We've got, again,
structural members that are a little bit higher, but the ceiling height could be adjusted and still be
compliant. We had a generous ceiling height before. We brought that down so that the peak
height is the same as it was previously. Another one of the changes, and this was more of a
personal preference,you'll see in the right front elevation, as previously approved,there's a smaller
gable section on the right hand side of the structure. That gable has just been extended to go over
to the entry. So, again, a relatively minor change,but a change, nonetheless,that added in with the
others Craig felt that it was important to identify those. The guest cottage, again, colored version
is the proposed,black and white is the one approved in January. Same roofline situation where we
had a double sloped roof. Now that will be one continuous roofline from peak to eaves on both
sides. This structure, because it had a less than compliant ceiling height, the ceiling height in that
structure actually was less than seven feet on the first floor. That's being brought to the industry
standard of eight feet. That, in addition to structural member increases of the floor system and the
rafters actually increases the peak height of that structure by 17 inches. So that's one maybe more
significant difference, but it's still well within any of the standards of the Town. So it was
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
mentioned, and I'll just briefly explain, the guest cottage has a lofted area, a second level, and
because of the increase at that height, if you can picture the five foot building height or room height
increases in Floor Area slightly, 48 square feet, but again, we're only, I think we're less than 15%
Floor Area Ratio anyway. So it makes no regulatory difference.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, and just for confirmation,the building's footprints are exactly the
same as the original building's footprints.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. KUHL-So you're saying if we don't approve this Area Variance you're not going to be able to
build these buildings?
MR. MAC ELROY-No,we'd have the same approvals that we had in January.
MR. KUHL-Right,but you're stating in here that you're bringing them up to some kind of a code.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I guess that would come into play. We'd still have to comply with Building
Code standards.
MR. KUHL-So you would be able to build them the old way or you wouldn't?
MR. MAC ELROY-No,because it's a teardown and rebuild.
MR. KUHL-So if you don't get the Area Variance, then you can't build the buildings is what you're
saying. Am I understanding you correctly?
MR. MAC ELROY-Not as proposed like this.
MR. KUHL-No, I understand,but you have an approval for the non-colored ones.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. KUHL-Can you build these buildings this way?
MR. GARRAND-Yes, what in the Queensbury Town Code says you can't build it the way you
originally proposed it to us?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, State Building Code in terms of, regarding the ceiling height on the guest
cottage and some of the structural members would have to be increased in depth.
MR. GARRAND-Couldn't you simply remove the second floor and have a one story cottage?
MR. MAC ELROY-Re-building it what you're suggesting is getting rid of the second level, or that
lofted area. That is a possibility.
MR. KUHL-I guess I don't remember from the first time you came why do you need the second
building?
MR. MAC ELROY-The second cottage? Because there's two now.
MR. KUHL-You have amain house. I got that,but they're not compliant.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. KUHL-And we could have moved it into compliance,but we didn't, and now you're back asking
for another adjustment.
MR. MAC ELROY-A correction to be compliant with Building Code,yes.
MR. KUHL-But still,too close to the water,because you're doing a completely new re-build anyway.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, same as in January, and I understand, I remember that you had issues
with that at that time.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-So maybe could you just re-state why it is you just won't combine those into a larger
structure that could be compliant?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I think that the nature of the existing structures, that was the owner's
preference in terms of keeping that, the character of the area. It is certainly possible to build one
larger structure with greater floor area,greater capacity, and that's not a threat in any way. That's
just the reality of what the regulations are,but the owners liked the two cottage situation.
MR. JACKOSKI-But it does lend itself to the potential for commercial enterprise, because you could
just rent the other house out, or a new buyer could then consider themselves having a fully rentable
house. So you'd end up with a commercial enterprise.
PAM ROBERTS
MRS. ROBERTS-Couldn't I also just rent out if I only had one,though?
MR.JACKOSKI-That's up to you,to share your house. I mean, I suppose if you ran a boardinghouse
you'd still have to get a permit. You'd still have to go through a variance.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the point Pam is making, I think is if there was a single house there, that
could be rented as well.
MR.JACKOSKI-As a single home,but not as two homes.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I think that, you know, again, the way they've, having gone through this
process with the owners, I know that they gave great consideration to the variety of options that
there might have been, and it was always their preference to maintain that appearance of the two
cottages that were on the property. There's some history of their ownership. There's a history in
the neighborhood of that, and it's,you know, in keeping, I guess,with the character that came out at
the last meeting. That was an important thing, instead of building a larger single structure, this
was what was preferred and I think was acceptable at the last meeting.
MR. FREER-I have a question about the windows. It looks like you made a bigger window in the
front. Is that facing the lake on the main structure on the right hand side?
MR. MAC ELROY-Main house,right side. It's.
MRS. ROBERTS-A screened in porch,like where the deck is.
MR. FREER-No,right front elevation. Is that facing,is the front the lake,or the road?
MR. MAC ELROY-The road.
MR. FREER-I'm used to the front being the lake. Sorry.
MR.JACKOSKI-A lake person. Harrison,on your property everything's the front.
MR. MAC ELROY-I think there's a, there's just a very slight change, from the perspective, one
drawing versus the next. I tried to get the architect to give me the exact same thing,but it's slightly
different. That might give you a little different perspective, but I don't think it's significant in that
case.
MRS. ROBERTS-The roofs right now, I think the smaller camp was added on to years ago, and
they're just all kind of mish mashed,sort of like caving in. It cleans them up.
MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time before I open the public hearing. We do have a
public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience as I open that public
hearing to address this Board concerning this application? We do have someone, if you wouldn't
mind giving up the table. Sir, if you could come to the table, please, and state your name and
address for the record,that would be great. Welcome.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
WILLIAM CROWELL
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR. CROWELL-Thank you. My name is William Crowell. I live on 20 Holly Lane, and I'm here
tonight to raise some issues with this request from the Roberts. First of all, the character of the
neighborhood. I'm concerned, as a resident of the neighborhood. It is a single family
neighborhood, with the exception of the Roberts property, which does currently, as you all know,
have two homes on that property. I have had no problem with the Roberts' use of the property,
and I'm sure that, you know, they've been good neighbors, but my problem is, what happens at
some point if the Roberts' sell the property? Once you've allowed the construction of two new
homes, it, as someone mentioned, really does open itself up to commercial enterprise, and if you
look at the history of the property, in the 1980's, both those properties were rental properties.
Nobody was living there on a full time basis. They were rented. They were rented to a number of
people. The Roberts apparently, according to the last hearing, don't have that intention,but again,
as pure as their intentions are, at some point the property is going to either be sold or passed
through an estate, and, at that point in time, if the use changes, and somebody doesn't buy the
property because they want two homes on the property, they buy it for rental, and in fact I think
that the highest and best use of this property, once you have two new cottages or homes on it, is
going to be for rental, and that does change the character of the neighborhood. There's going to be
more traffic. There's going to be people in and out, and again, it is zoned for single family. I also
would be particularly concerned, I wouldn't be concerned if they would construct a single family
home. Very supportive. However they want, whatever variances they want, fine. I don't have a
problem with it,but again, it's the construction of two homes, especially,you know,when you look
back at this project, it started out as, well, we're just going to build on the footprint, and, oh, well,
we have to come in for some variances because the foundations don't work, and you really have a
self-created situation, and it's gone from building it on its current foundation to essentially, as
someone said, a tear down, it's a demolition, and once you have a situation where you're allowing
somebody to demolish these two homes and the zoning is single family, I think there's certainly an
issue in terms of this is beyond an Area Variance. You're really allowing a continuation of, you
know, a use that no longer should be viable. Once they made the decision to demolish it, I think
that they, you know, at that point, should be surrendering their rights, in terms of, to have two
homes. Again, I have no problem with them constructing one home. It's a single family. The
street is all single family homes, and I'm not concerned about the Roberts', per se, but I am
concerned about what potentially could happen to the property down the line, and I just don't think
that, if you step back for a minute and think about it, from the perspective of somebody owning
property on the street, I don't think it's a good situation. It's not a good situation for the Board to
be in, when you're basically a hardship that's self-created. You're allowing somebody to demolish
it, and, you know, again, you're allowing the creation of two new homes. Not one home, but two
new homes, and everything has to be, I understand they're probably making a very conscious and a
good effort to try to make these homes somewhat in line with what they were, but we have new
Zoning Codes. These have been around for how long, and again, if they want to construct one new
home, I don't have a problem with that, but to allow this nonconforming use to continue, again,
after, we're now at a point where it's going to be demolished, and I just, I don't understand the
thinking on this, and I would say to you that this thinking would have other implications. I mean, I
think the Board has to look at this from the perspective of,what other situations might come before
you where you do have a lot with two homes on it. Are you going to allow the people to tear those
homes down and put up new homes in other situations similar in other neighborhoods? I don't
think it's a good precedent and I do think, you know, unfortunately it would potentially, in the
future, change the character of the neighborhood and again, I think the economics of these two
properties, these two homes on this type of property, 100% lends it to being rental property.
There's nothing wrong with rental property except we're in a single family district and this is a
nonconforming use. So, I think that pretty much summarizes it. So I appreciate your time. Thank
you.
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to address this Board
concerning this application? Seeing no one, Dennis,if you could join us again, and, Roy,is there any
written comment?
MR. URRICO-Yes. There's a letter in support of the variance 25-2014. "I am the owner of 6 Holly
Lane which is adjacent to number 4 Holly Lane. I have requested that my previous letter of
support which was read at the Roberts' initial request some months ago, be resubmitted by the
Queensbury Zoning office, for this hearing. After having the above letter read, this needs to be
added: I have no concerns regarding the proposed roof lines and/or heights. The proposed plan
will enhance the new structures and will not compromise the character of the neighborhood. I am
in favor of the Roberts' complete application. Sincerely yours, Florence E. Connor 6 Holly Lane
Lake George, NY 12845"
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any other comments?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR.URRICO-No.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Dennis,if you'd like to maybe address anything in particular.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, well, first of all, the character of the neighborhood. These houses have been
here like this and like they'll be re-built since the 30's. So that is the character of the neighborhood,
that lot with those two lots, with those two houses on it. So a single house, those two properties,
two structures, are a total floor area of 2700 feet. A single structure could be built there with
building heights to 28 feet, it would be over 4,000 square feet. So a significantly different structure
that occupies that. Now that's what fits with this Zoning Code that exists. Now we run into this
regularly. It's a pre-existing,nonconforming use. So these houses were there,and then the Zoning
Code came along to say that that's not an allowable standard at this point. That's what the owners
are faced with. Now they haven't owned it in the duration of time since it's been built, but they've
owned it since.
MRS. ROBERTS-Seventeen years.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, 17 years. So in the time since the previous zoning change.
MRS. ROBERTS-We put our septic in as soon as we got it. Back the way it was. We don't want to
change the bedrooms amounts. Or grant a 4,000 square foot house,we'd have more bedrooms, and
I could add on to my septic.
MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, I think,you know,certainly the Roberts'have considered the different options
that they have. They've been, you know, responsible owners of the property. When they first
bought it the first thing that they did was to build a new wastewater system for the properties.
MRS. ROBERTS-We have rentals in our Town of Argyle, about eight of them. We make every one
keep it clean,no junk around,lawns mowed. We like things kept nice.
MR. JACKOSKI-So, Dennis, could you tell us, since they're going to be teardowns and one of the
things before was keep them in the footprint because they were being re-used, so to speak, isn't
there any way that the buildings could then be re-located in order to minimize the setback
variances that are being requested? I mean, could they go side by side and be more compliant with
the center of the lot? I mean, I think we're getting caught up with not only being two buildings but
is there an opportunity here to get them away from the lake and reduce the amount of variance that
you actually need?
MRS. ROBERTS-I lose my view. That's my big thing.
MR.JACKOSKI-Well, I don't know how you'd lose a view on two buildings that are side by side with
each other.
MRS. ROBERTS-Our neighbor, if I have to move back, our neighbor, there's a lot of trees that are in
that little tiny bay,and that's.
MR. MAC ELROY-There's a shallow view shed directly.
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, I drove in there with the boat, I know,with the prop up. It's very shallow.
MR. MAC ELROY-It's the northern view shed that benefits from that house location and that was
important. One of the reasons of maintaining that location.
MRS. ROBERTS-I think a 4,000 square foot home would look funny there. I didn't want another
large house to clean. I'll bet people stayed in the guest cottage maybe three times this year, one or
two nights. My guests. We've never rented it out.
MR. MAC ELROY-Your guests.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there other questions from Board members? The public hearing is still
open. I'm going to poll the Board at this time. John?
MR. HENKEL-Well, I was for the project the first time when there was a renovation involved, and
then the second time when you came up and said you were going to demolish the buildings and
start over, I was not really happy with the, you know, being 25 feet from the lake, and I'm still not
happy with that. So I'm against the project as is.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I agree with Mr. Henkel. Originally, they could take the second floor off the guest
cottage. There's no reason to build two behemoths on this piece of property. I'm not in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I wasn't in favor of it before, and I'm still not in favor of it. I think we have an
opportunity to make it compliant, and we're missing that opportunity, and we may be setting a
precedence. I'm not for it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes. I guess I have to go with the precedence argument as well. So I would not be in
favor of it as currently modified.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I was for the project before. I'm still for it. I think putting a single house in that area
is the wrong way to go. I think the two houses that are there, I should say the character of the
neighborhood. I think you're kind of trapped here because you chose demolition as opposed to
trying to re-build, and as far as I'm concerned, the demolition is a much easier way to reconstruct
these two houses on the site. So I'm in favor of the project as is.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Well, my feeling was that they had an approval of the project, and now they come back
and you're re-opening the case again and changing some of the details,but it's giving me a chance to
re-look at the project and as I look at the project, I think that we can't grant relief for two different
areas. This would require a second home on a piece of property that's not zoned for it, even if it's
already there. Now we have the opportunity to change it, and plus we have, we're too close to the
shoreline. We have an opportunity to move it back. We're not doing that either. So I'm just not in
favor anymore. I can't remember if I was or not before,but I'm certainly not in favor of it now. We
re-opened this project,so I think at this point it's time to re-look at the project again.
MR. JACKOSKI-And before I comment, Dennis, you could go forward right now with the variances
that you have in place,with the lower ceilings in the guest cottage.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct,yes,we have an approval from January.
MR.JACKOSKI-Right. You could renovate this thing as is,improve it in ways.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right.
MR.JACKOSKI-So the differential here is building new.
MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it still could be built new. In compliance and with compliance with the
Building Code. Maybe we can't get rid of the two slopes. I don't know if that becomes an issue. It
sounds like it might be because that's the net result, but I would suggest that we table this
application and we fall back to.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I was going to try to go a little further, but okay. I'm struggling myself with
saying something's going to happen there without the new construction,because I don't think I was
part of the Board that night that the previous application was approved, but something's going to
happen there. You're going to renovate,you're going to modify with the previous approval. So
MR. FREER-I thought the Building Codes precluded that and that's why you're here?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well,we'd have to adjust some other.
MR. FREER-Yes,so you'd have to make the cottage smaller,is one way to solve that problem.
MR. MAC ELROY-Perhaps I'll defer to the architect,but,yes, I'm sure that there's, or I would assume
that there's a way that we can proceed. It was just an oversight in January that I wasn't aware that
some of the structural issues. So we felt that it was appropriate that we, Craig felt it was
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
appropriate to comeback. Evidently so. We're getting a different reaction tonight, but we have
the January approval to work from, and if that's.
MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm kind of struggling that,you know, two houses are going to be there, two year
round houses are going to be there based on what's already been approved. Okay. Well,we have a
request for a tabling. I've got to ask the Board, is there any guidance that we can provide the
applicant, or are we against doing that, we're just going to let them come back with what they
request? Okay. So Board members are going to ask Staff for the next available date for our tabling
of this matter.
MRS.MOORE-It would be the June applications would be a May 15th deadline.
MR. JACKOSKI-So we're out to June, right, because April 15th has passed. Can I have a motion,
please?
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2014 WILLIAM &PAMELA ROBERTS, Introduced
by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Until the June meeting with an application deadline of the 15th of May.
Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 2014, by the following vote:
MRS.MOORE-With your discussion,you're asking the applicant to present alternatives?
MR.JACKOSKI-No,the applicant has asked us for a tabling,so we're going to let them table.
MRS.MOORE-All right.
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you.
MR.JACKOSKI-You're welcome, Dennis.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2014 SEQRA TYPE II LINDA M. HART (THE HARVEST
RESTAURANT) AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. - LITTLE & O'CONNOR OWNER(S)
LINDA M. HART ZONING CI LOCATION 4 CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITION
TO EXISTING RESTAURANT. THIS INCLUDES A 385 SQ. FT. NEW ENTRY FOR TAKEOUT AND
EXPANDED KITCHEN. ALSO PROPOSED IS A NEW EXIT ONTO CRONIN ROAD. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM FRONT YARD SETBACKS AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE. SP 27-2014; SP 51-2009; AV 226 OF YR. 1972; BP 2010-371; BP 2009-362; BP
2007-348; BP 2002-943; BP 89-221; BP 86-405; BP 1700 OF YR. 1972 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING APRIL 2014 LOT SIZE 2 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-40 SECTION 179-3-
040; 179-13-010
MICHAEL O'CONNOR&MATT CIFONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 26-2014, Linda M. Hart, Meeting Date: April 16, 2014 "Project
Location: 4 Cronin Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes addition to
existing restaurant. This includes a 385 sq. ft. new entry for takeout and expanded kitchen. Also
proposed is a new exit onto Cronin Road.
Relief Required:
The project as proposed will require area variances as follows: Section 179-3-040 Establishment of
Districts -Front yard setback. Section 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure
Front yard setback
Required 75 ft. 43.8 existing)
Proposed 49.8 ft.
Relief 25.2 ft.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
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 area to be renovated is already in use for an entryway and the addition to the
kitchen is adjacent to the existing kitchen area.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested is moderate
compared 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,
SP 27-14: Pending
BP 10-371: Commercial alteration, 8-2-10
SP51-2009: 575 sq.ft.addition south side new restrooms and office area
BP 09-362: Commercial addition,9-18-09
BP 07-348: Sign, 6-18-07
BP 02-943: Storage building, 1-1-03
BP 89-221: Extend loading dock,4-27-89
BP 86-405: New roof, 7-14-86
BP 7992: Alteration to restaurant roof, 7-83
BP 1700: Addition&septic alteration,4-21-72
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct 385 sq. ft. area of additions to the existing restaurant. The
additions include a renovation to the existing entryway to create a hallway to the building. The
other portion of the addition will be an expansion of the existing kitchen. Also included in the
application is a proposal to add a new exit only on the Cronin Rd side of the property. The plans
show the floor plan of the additions and a conceptual view of the building. The applicant proposes
no other exterior or site alterations. The final plans are to be revised to represent plantings that
were installed as part of an agreement for clearing a portion of the property where as the current
plans do not represent the existing site conditions on the south side of the property. The
applicant's previous project site plan required combination of parcel as this time the parcels area
combined for assessment and have yet to be combined by deed as required. Relief is being
requested for the front setback along Cronin Road and the expansion of a non-conforming
structure.
Staff would suggest conditions as part of the application review to include submission of a revised
plan showing the existing conditions and submission of the deed showing the lots are combined.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board met and based on its limited review has not identified any
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that
was adopted unanimously 6-0 on April 15, 2014.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Just to clarify, so the only thing we're here for is just the relief
requested from the front yard setback off of Cronin Road. Correct?
MR. HENKEL-Two fronts,aren't we?
MR.URRICO-It's also the expansion of a nonconforming use.
MR. JACKOSKI-Of a nonconforming use, of course. Okay. So pretty straightforward, but welcome.
If you could identify yourselves for the record and if you would like to address the Board, great.
Otherwise we'll just ask questions.
MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor, attorney for the applicant,
and with me is Matt Cifone who is the contractor for the project. It is a simple project. I always tell
people I don't know whether you go into one of these meetings ready for bear or ready for
chipmunk. I think up until Monday morning when I saw some other comments from the Planning
Board review, I was ready to come in looking for chipmunk. We've answered all the questions,
though, that I think the Planning Board had. We've answered all the questions that Staff has, and
miraculously between last night's meeting and today's meeting, I have a new site plan map which
actually shows the changes that we made from the map that you have in front of you. The County
recommended disapproval, and I guess I should have touched on that first. We saw that comment
was based on County highway engineering comments. They were concerned about the 100 foot
wide open driveway on Bay Road. I explained to them that this, you know, has been there since
1972. We've had this discussion before. We had this discussion when we came in for the last,
when we added the handicap ramp. We offered to add an additional 20 feet to the little planter
that's at the corner, and that satisfied County engineering. We have an e-mail from them saying
that they are then satisfied. They also asked us to line up the driveway that's at the back of the
property, which is exit only, more with the driveway across the street, which is the Social Security
office building. We've done that and we've shown that on the map. We can't line up with it
directly, except we line up pretty much with their exit on their side of the road,but we don't line up
fully because our property line doesn't go that far. I actually kind of preferred the other one, even
though it was offset,because it puts us awful close to the neighbor,but that's kind of like a site plan
issue that we'll offer to do what they ask us to do. So we've satisfied the County engineer. The
County engineer sent an e-mail, which we submitted last night. I've got a copy of all that
communication, which I can give you for your file, so that you can have proof of it in your file. The
County Planning Department then withdrew its objection to the application and said that if the
application was conditioned upon us doing those two things, they would take a position, and they
did in their e-mail, that there was No County Impact, as long as we agreed to the additional 20 feet
of planter, and that we attempted to line up the driveway. The Staff comment was that they
thought that the maps that we had submitted in connection with this didn't show the actual trees
that were on the property, and Matt Steves had just copied the background information from what
he had before. He didn't actually change that. Since then he has gone out and actually located the
trees on the map, and they are now correctly shown on the map. So I think we've answered Staff's
question on that. The sewer department. This property is served by a sewer. You don't have
these notes, I don't think in your file, raised and issue whether or not this expansion of the building
would increase or be serviced by the existing 1250 gallon grease trap. So we talked to Chris
Harrington, the head of the sewer department, and explained to him that this addition is more for
convenience of customers. It really isn't going to change the seating in the restaurant. It gives a
little bit separate room so that the takeout food can be prepared in an area not in the midst of all
the dinners that are being served on premises. It'll be like a separate area, and actually it covers or
provides a covered walkway to that side entrance that already exists, and it bumps out at the top of
the walkway an area for people to stand. Probably half of you or more have probably been in there
to pick up a pizza, and on a Friday night everybody crowds around that end of the bar and picks up
their pizza. This will give you about an eight foot room, or eight foot area that you can stand now
and pick up your pizza. It doesn't mean we're going to have more people picking up pizza, but it's
going to be more convenient for the wait staff, more convenient for the customers, and what not.
So he wrote a letter, Chris Harrington wrote a letter saying that he did not want the project to be
held up for that issue. He was satisfied with my explanation. He asked me to get Tom Hutchins to
verify that when Mr. Hutchins got back from Italy,but he did not want to hold up the application for
that purpose. Just as a safety thing, we did go and get a letter from Queensbury Sanitary, George
Drellos. This is a restaurant that they pump the grease trap monthly he said. Most restaurants
pump it every two months, every three months, but the Harts have elected on their own to pump it
monthly, and I've given that documentation. So I think we covered the issues that Staff raised. We
covered the issues that Chris Harrington raised for the sanitary sewer, and we covered the issues
that the County had raised as to access, and other than that, it is still a very minor application.
We're going to have, I think, 195 feet of additional kitchen space, and we're going to have 195 or
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
190 feet of additional restaurant area, none of which is dedicated to seating. Most of it is the
walkway. If you have questions,we'd be glad to answer them.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions from Board members at this time, before I open the
public hearing?
MR. KUHL-According to the documentation, you have 74 parking spaces and you're not going to
take any away? What's the required, Staff,because there's nothing under required. I mean,you're
not taking any parking spaces is what I'm saying.
MR. O'CONNOR-You need one for every two employees and one for every four seats.
MRS.MOORE-Yes. I believe that's correct. I'd have to look it up.
MR. KUHL-Was this the bear or the beaver that presented this month?
MR. O'CONNOR-I thought this was a bear. When I opened my e-mails yesterday, I thought it was
the bear that was coming.
MR. KUHL-My question,directly,is you're not taking any of the 74 parking spaces.
MR. O'CONNOR-In honesty,probably,let me think.
MR. URRICO-Aren't there some spaces by where the takeout waiting area is going to be situated,
aren't there some spaces there?
MR. O'CONNOR-No,that is built over an existing planter.
MR.URRICO-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-So there's no parking spaces there that could be compromised.
MR.URRICO-And what about going towards the back,then?
MR. O'CONNOR-We may lose, okay,we may lose a parking spot at the very east end of the property,
when we line up that driveway, that new driveway going out onto Cronin Road, and we may lose a
parking spot at the Bay Road/Cronin Road corner,because when we lengthen the planter, it's going
to make it difficult to get into that angled parking space, and we acknowledge that.
MR.URRICO-What about for pickup? Are there going to be separate spaces for pickup area?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, I don't think they are. I think there's just, you find a parking spot and go into
the restaurant. It's not a drive through.
MR. URRICO-I know. People usually park and then they go inside and pick up their pizza. So there
are no spots.
MR. O'CONNOR-There are no spots.
MR. HENKEL-But actually it's going to speed it up because you're adding another pizza oven. So
you're going to speed it up. There won't be people parked as long as they used to be. Right?
MR.JACKOSKI-Speed it up or sell more.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's part of the convenience to the customers.
MR. HENKEL-So it should be better.
MR. O'CONNOR-Somebody volunteered last night I think that on a busy night they might put 300
takeout pizzas.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. FREER-Yes,when are we going to put a light on Cronin and Bay?
MR.JACKOSKI-Oh dear,we're not getting into that. Okay.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR. O'CONNOR-Apparently, the County is going to re-stripe Bay, from the comments that the
County engineer made. There's a lot of issues there, and he actually, in fairness,he was very fair in
his comments to the County Planner. There's been a study of that intersection, and he says the
engineers who studied it did not attribute any of the problems there to the existing restaurant or
the traffic from the restaurant. I'm paraphrasing it, but a big part of the problem is you go from
two lanes to three lanes, and you do it by striping, and people ignore the striping, and they get to
the intersection,and all of a sudden they've got to do something.
MR. FREER-Well, when we do complete streets, which we should have been at tonight, but we can
go tomorrow,we'll work on that as well.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to open the public hearing, before we get sidetracked here. Is
there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience,is there any written comment?
MR.URRICO-No.
MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'm going to poll the Board. I'm going to start with
Mike.
MR. MC CABE-The Harvest has been a staple in Queensbury since 1972. I'll certainly support this
construction. I see no problem.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, in going through the test, I see minor impacts to the neighborhood. I see no
feasible alternatives, other than not expanding, but I think they need to. The relief requested may
be moderate relative to the Code, but I think it's acceptable. I think minor to no impact to the
physical or environmental conditions may be anticipated, and the difficulty is self-created, but it's
self-created for a good reason. So I think we should support it. I'd be in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Well, I addressed traffic, but, you know, that's business. So you guys are doing well
and it's nice to see business thriving up here, and certainly I think you worked to make sure you
didn't expand beyond what was needed. So, in terms of whether it's substantial or not, I think it's
moderate at best,and so I would support it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-I don't think it'll produce any undesirable change in the neighborhood. I'll be in
favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also in favor of it. It definitely makes it definitely better for the new exit
there and it's going to be a good project.
MR.JACKOSKI-I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.JACKOSKI-And I'm going to seek a motion.
MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion.
MR.JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Mike.
RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 26-2014, Linda M. Hart (Harvest Restaurant),
4 Cronin Road,Tax Map No. 296.20-1-40;
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Linda M.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
Hart d/b/a Harvest Restaurant for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 and 179-13-010 of
the Zoning Code of the Town of Queensbury. The applicant proposes an addition to existing
restaurant. This includes a 385 sq. ft. new entry for takeout and expanded kitchen. Also
proposed is a new exit onto Cronin Road. Relief requested from front yard setbacks and
expansion of nonconforming structure.
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,April 16,2014;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and
Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a
detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area
variance? No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue,other than an area variance? Not really.
3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It's not a substantial request.
4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? It will not.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is.
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested
variance would outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 26-2014, Linda
M. Hart (Harvest Restaurant), Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Henkel:
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request
an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires;
B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building&Codes personnel;
C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on
receipt of these final plans;
D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed
project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the
Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or
department.
Duly adopted this 16th day of April 16,2014,by the following vote:
MR. O'CONNOR-I think as you recited that you said the entranceway was 385 feet.
MR. MC CABE-Did I say square feet?
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, the 385 feet is a combination of the 195 kitchen area and 190 is the
entranceway.
MR. MC CABE-Yes, I said and expanded kitchen,new takeout area and expanded kitchen.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We'll clarify, new entrance area and expanded kitchen to equal 385 square
feet.
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-Good luck.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2014 SEQRA TYPE II RAYMOND&PATRICIA SORESINO OWNER(S)
RAYMOND & PATRICIA SORESINO ZONING WR LOCATION 16 SNUG HARBOR LANE
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 912 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WHICH
INCLUDES AN ADDITIONAL 545 SQ. FT. OF LIVING SPACE IN THE BASEMENT FOR A TOTAL
FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 1,457 SQ. FT. FOR THE LOT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM
REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. BP 2014-028 SFD; BP 2009-107 DEMOLITION SFD
BP 88-216 SEPTIC ALT.; BOH 29,2013 SEWAGE DISPOSAL VARIANCE WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING APRIL 2014 LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-23 SECTION 179-4-
030
RAYMOND&PATRICIA SORESINO, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 28-2014, Raymond & Patricia Soresino, Meeting Date: April 16,
2014 "Project Location: 16 Snug Harbor Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 912 sq. ft. single family dwelling which includes an additional 545 sq. ft.
of living space in the basement for a total floor area ratio of 1,457 sq.ft.for the lot.
Relief Required:
The project as proposed will require area variances as follows: Section 179-3-040 Establishment of
districts.
Rearsetback
Required 30 ft.
Proposed 28.9 ft.
Relief 1.1 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
considered limited due to the size of the parcel and to build a compliant home on the site.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may 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.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance,
BP 14-28: SFD,pending
BOH 29-13: Sewage disposal variance, 10-21-13
BP 09-107: Demo, 11-30-10
BP 88-216: septic alteration
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a 912 sq. ft. home on a vacant parcel. The information
submitted shows the location of the home and floor plan. The floor plans show the first and
basement layout. The applicant has received a BOH septic variance in October of 2013. The relief is
being requested for the rear setback.
SEQR Status:
Type II"
MR. JACKOSKI-Hello. Welcome. It's a very simple, straightforward application, but if you could
identify yourself for the record,and then the Board will ask you some questions.
MR. SORESINO-Raymond Soresino, Snug Harbor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, sir. Welcome. Do Board members have any questions at this time for this
applicant?
MR. GARRAND-Yes. Was topographic information provided to Staff regarding the height?
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MRS.MOORE-It should be in the variance. I'd have to look it up in the application.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. While Staff is looking that up.
MR. GARRAND-Well,it's something that Craig had asked for.
MR. SORESINO-Yes.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Again, Craig hasn't made the determination that there's a height issue here.
Correct?
MR. GARRAND-No, but he needed it to figure out how high the height was, and I didn't know if that
had gotten taken care of or not.
MR. JACKOSKI-No, I think it's good that we follow up. Any other questions at this time from Board
members, while Staff is looking that up? Straightforward it is. I do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. I'm going to open the public hearing. Roy,is there any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.URRICO-Yes.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Could you read the written comment?
MR. URRICO-To the Queensbury Town Clerk and members of the Zoning Board of Appeals,Town of
Queensbury. "I'm requesting this be read into the record. I own two parcels (290.5-1-27, 290.5-1-
16) located adjacent to the property owned by Patricia and Raymond Soresino. I have spoken to
Patricia via phone and have reviewed their request for the"rear yard setback". I am in favor of the
Raymond & Patricia Soresino's request for relief to the rear yard setback. Thank you. And this is
Dianne Barber Kansas.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-Any additional written comment?
MR.URRICO-That's it.
MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board
concerning this application? Seeing no one, I'm going to poll the Board on this matter.
Everybody's reviewed the packet of details and information. Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I think it's a good project, and the 1.1 he's asking for, I think it's a good project and
I'd be in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. It's very minimal relief so,yes, I'd be in favor of it also.
MR.JACKOSKI-Rick?
MR. GARRAND-The relief is minor. The nature of the lot, almost anything he does here is going to
require relief.
MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison?
MR. FREER-Yes. I don't think it's going to change, negatively, the neighborhood, the complexity or
it's substantial. So I would support it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Roy?
MR.URRICO-Yes. In my opinion it satisfies the relief test. I would be in favor of it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Mike?
MR. MC CABE-The relief is minimal. I'd be in favor.
MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So before I close the public hearing, was Staff able to find anything
concerning the height information?
MRS.MOORE-There was nothing in the file.
MR. GARRAND-As long as it's not back after it's built for a height variance because you say it was
provided to Craig and he's okay with the proposal.
MR. SORESINO-Yes, I was talking to Craig in the office and he said he found the height.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So what I would recommend is that if we make a motion that we simply make
it conditional that there would be no height variance required once Staff can verify that. Is that
reasonable? Is it going to change our mind any of, I mean, he'd have to come back for a height
variance anyway. Right? There won't be a reason to worry about it on this. Okay. So,based on
just this particular setback matter, if there's a height issue later they'd have to come back. So could
I please, I'm going to close the public hearing. Could I please get a motion?
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you.
RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 28-2014,Patricia&Raymond Soresino,
16 Snug Harbor Lane,Tax Map No. 290.5-1-23;
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Patricia
&Raymond Soresino for a variance from Section(s): 179-4-030 of the Zoning Code of The Town
of Queensbury for construction of a 912 sq. ft. single-family dwelling which includes an
additional 545 sq. ft. of living space in the basement for a total square footage of 1,457 sq. ft.
The project will require an Area Variance as follows from Section 179-3-040. Rear setback
required is 30 feet. Proposed is 28.9 feet. Relief requested is 1.1 feet.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,April 16,2014;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and
Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a
detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area
variance? I don't see any change in the neighborhood by placing a house here. I
don't think it'll change the character at all. The size of the house is in character for
this neighborhood.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Given the nature of this lot and how
small it is,I don't think feasible alternatives are possible here.
3. Is the requested area variance substantial? No. It's only 1.1 feet of relief on the rear
setback.
4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district? This Board cannot find that this proposal
will cause any undesirable effects on the environment.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It might be deemed self-created, but I presume
this is the size of the house they want. So,yes,it would be self-created.
6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum
necessary;
Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 28-2014,
Raymond & Patricia Soresino, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request
an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires;
B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building&Codes personnel;
C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on
receipt of these final plans;
D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed
project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the
Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or
department.
Duly adopted this 16th day of April 2014,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
MR.JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you very much.
MR. SORESINO-Thank you. Do I talk to Craig,now, about this?
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,to Staff.
MR. SORESINO-Okay.
MR.JACKOSKI-Absolutely. Well,the Board thought we were done. I see someone approaching the
small table for two minute. Mr. O'Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR-I have a client. I have filed an application. I'm not asking you to make any
judgment with regard to the application. It's a Use Variance. It's for two small vacant lots across
from the cement company down on Lower Warren Street. The fellow, you can have on there an
automobile service business, but you cannot have on there an automobile sales and service
business. This guy fixes cars and sells them. He does fix cars for the public. I can't conceive any
environmental neighborhood issue of somebody having cars for sale as opposed to cars for repair.
I've applied for a Use Variance. This is a low budget type thing. It's a mom and pop type of thing,
and I don't mean that in a derogatory way. It's not Della Bella or Nemer or something like that.
When I filed the application, I filed a plot plan, not by a surveyor, using scaled drawing to the tax
map, and I talked to Craig about that and Craig says it's within the discretion of the Chairman and
the Board whether or not to require a survey at this point. Really the question that you're going to
have before you is whether or not he can get a Use Variance. We are saying that the application,
when it is submitted to the Planning Board, which requires Site Plan, it will meet all the
requirements of setbacks, permeability,height, all those dimensional type things, and the issue that
I have is for us to get a survey and do the site plan engineering that you would normally see, which
the Planning Board would see,you're probably talking $6500. A typical survey is $1500. A typical
site plan with drainage layout is probably$5,000.
MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. O'Connor, I think I can put a simple answer to this. If the variance request is
simply a Use Variance request and there is no dimensional relief required, I believe I have been
given the authority by this Board to waive the survey requirement because there's no dimensional
relief, but I must warn you that if we get into that project and there are details concerning the
layout and whatever else could come about, if it's dimensional relief, we are going to require a
survey.
MR. O'CONNOR-We intend to have a survey.
MR. JACKOSKI-But that's for the Planning Board at that point. Right? As far as Use Variance is
concerned, I'd be willing to waive it,unless the Board disagrees.
MR. O'CONNOR-That's my issue.
MR. HENKEL-If there's no dimensional relief.
MR. JACKOSKI-Right, and that's up to me. So what I'll say to Staff is that once the letter comes in
from the applicant to,and if there is a letter, I'd be more than happy to approve it as waived.
MR. O'CONNOR-It's there. It's been there for a couple of months.
MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion to, I couldn't find the property to begin with. I had no idea
where the heck it was.
MR. GARRAND-Make a motion we adjourn.
MR. HENKEL-I second it.
MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can I make one other suggestion to you, unrelated to this. When we did the Hart
transaction before you conditioned it upon us combining the various tax map lots into one lot. I did
that through the Assessor. I can do that through the Assessor by the applicant, the Assessor, and
the County tax map people all signing a one page form. No expense. For me to do a deed from Hart
to Hart,combining the three parcels,the recording costs on that alone is $365.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, Mr. O'Connor, it was my understanding that we were going to require those
deeds to be one parcel so that in the future they could not, because you could simply remove that
combining with the Assessor and actually have three separate parcels there, and they are
subdivided.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/16/2014)
MR. O'CONNOR-I've been told, well this is where my recommendation. Make it clear in your, I've
been told in the past that once they were combined they were, if you were going to subdivide them
again, or change them again, you need a new subdivision approval. That was the standing rule
here, and now I'm told that that's not the standing rule. I think you've run into it before. Once they
were combined, even for Assessment purposes, they were then together and you would need
subdivision approval to change them. We've just got to, it's gone one way now it's gone the other
way.
MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it's my understanding that they were going to be combined through the deed
and restricted in that regard.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. On the hard deal, I sent the deed to Florida to be signed, but I object to
spending$365 of somebody else's money when it's not a necessity.
MR.JACKOSKI-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-I'm getting to sound like John Salvador.
MR.JACKOSKI-And I might tell you to sell some more pizzas. Okay. So,please, call the vote,we are
adjourned.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL
16,2014, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 16th day of April, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr.Jackoski
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
42