2005-12-21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2005
INDEX
Area Variance No. 71-2005 Chris Germain & Diane Beatrice 1.
Tax Map No. 279.17-2-7
Area Variance No. 81-2005 Steve & Debbie Seaboyer 7.
Tax Map No. 227.13-2-36
Area Variance No. 85-2005 Martin J. Barrington & Mary P. Devine
22.
Tax Map No. 226.15-1-21
Sign Variance No. 70-2005 Great Escape Theme Park, LLC
32.
Tax Map No. 295.8-1-5 and 4
Area Variance No. 92-2005 Peter King & David Monsour 43.
Tax Map No. 295.14-1-36
Area Variance No. 89-2005 David & Gertrude Sperry 47.
Tax Map No. 289.7-1-58, 59, 60, 61
Area Variance No. 91-2005 RPS Property Holdings, LLC 51.
Tax Map No. 309.11-2-11
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 12/21/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 21, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
ALLAN BRYANT
LEWIS STONE
JOYCE HUNT
CHARLES MC NULTY
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2005 SEQRA TYPE II CHRIS GERMAINE & DIANE BEATRICE
OWNER(S): CHRIS GERMAIN & DIANE BEATRICE ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 128
LAKE SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 240 SQ. FT.
DECK ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2002-476 DECK, BP 89-050 ADDITION WARREN CO.
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.17-2-7 SECTION 179-4-030;
179-4-070
ED EPPICH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DIANE BEATRICE,
PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-We previously heard this, and this is coming back for the second time.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-2005, Chris Germaine & Diane Beatrice, Meeting
Date: December 21, 2005 “Project Location: 128 Lake Sunnyside North Description of
Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 240 sq. ft. addition to the existing 215 sq. ft.
deck, totaling 455 sq. ft. of deck area on the lakeside of the property.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 29.5-feet of shoreline setback relief, where the minimum is 50-feet, and
13-feet of relief from the side yard setback, where the minimum is 20-feet. Setback relief is
per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone.
Additional relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure is required, per §179-13-010.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2002-476: Issued 6/11/02, for a 214 sq. ft. deck.
AV 19-2002: Denied 4/22/02, for a 441.5 sq. ft. deck.
Staff comments:
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
As you will recall, the application was tabled on October 26, 2005 (see resolution and
minutes), for more precise dimensions of the proposed deck and the distance to the shoreline
and side yard from the proposed. The applicant has submitted a revised plot plan and
elevation drawings.
The existing deck is located 5.7-feet from the side property line, and is an existing condition,
the new portion is proposed at 7.2-feet from same.
The existing shoreline setback is 32-feet, and the proposed is 20.5-feet. The proposal is for the
deck to be open construction (wood slats), earth toned, and landscaped.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 71-2005 please approach
the table, speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself and your place of
residence please.
MS. BEATRICE-Hi. I’m Diane Beatrice. My residence is 514 Glen Street and I’m proposing
for 128 North Sunnyside in Queensbury. I brought along my building designer, Ed Eppich,
and he will answer any questions that you have.
MR. EPPICH-Well, you have the layouts in front of you, and hopefully we’ve provided the
information you required last time. That’s about all I can say except any questions.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Have you basically concluded, you will have an opportunity, any time
during this hearing, if you come up with something else you feel that may support your case,
please raise your hand and I’ll acknowledge you and you can enter that into the record. All
right. Since you indicated to me that temporarily you have presented your case, I’m going to
move to the members of this Board and ask the members if they have any particular
questions. I’ll start with Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-With questions? I have no questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Your application in October requested 28 feet of relief, shoreline setback
relief, and now you’re looking for 29 and a half feet, and you indicate in your application that
there are no feasible alternatives, and my question to you is wouldn’t not extending the dock
be a feasible alternative? You’ve already got a 215 square foot deck there. Why extend it?
MS. BEATRICE-It’s only five feet long, and when people are sitting, you have to line them
up this way you can’t sit across from one another.
MR. EPPICH-Yes. The existing deck, as she mentioned, is really by actual measurements six
feet wide, and for the area and the view and so forth, it’s just not wide enough to get a table
and chairs or lounges around. It’s very restrictive. You can hardly use it. So we’re proposing
to extend it and remove the handrail that’s in place now and move it out to the 10 foot mark
and have a deck that’s sizeable to use, to enjoy the scenery.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re going to build into an environmentally sensitive area so that you
can have more foot room?
MR. EPPICH-That’s essentially it.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t have any questions. I just have a couple of comments on the
project. In 2002 it was presented to us in essentially the same form, and I think at that time
our primary concern was with the hard patio that’s build down below closer to the
waterfront, and I think the suggestion was made at that time to possibly remove, you know,
make that smaller, more conforming, so you didn’t have as much impermeable area on the
property, and then we might consider an extension of the deck up there. So I don’t know if
that’s something you’d be willing to trade off for, you know, removing the patio, putting
some vegetation down by the waterfront. It’s an either/or type thing as far as I’m concerned,
at this point.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I kind of agree. I mean, I do see the restrictions of the six foot deck, but
when you have that large patio down below. As I was saying, I see the reasoning for wanting
to add the 10 feet, but I have to agree with Mr. Underwood that, with that large patio below
there, you can’t be saying you don’t have any place to sit. I kind of agree it would be
either/or for me, too.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I just want to recall that the reason we’re back this time is because last time
we didn’t have precise measurements, is that the case?
MS. BEATRICE-Correct.
MR. EPPICH-Yes.
MR. URRICO-So now we’re being presented with the, are these precise or are these from the
survey?
MR. EPPICH-I took them myself, by survey, and added to the plot plan that was already
drawn, and interpolated the figures, and they’re accurate.
MR. URRICO-So then make sure I understand that the closest point it’s 20.5 feet and at the
longest point it’s 27 feet?
MR. EPPICH-Yes. Unfortunately the whole shoreline isn’t straight across where we can say
the whole thing is 27 feet, but an average of 24 feet. That one 20 foot 5 is a little inlet there,
which is part of the property.
MR. URRICO-You say that you need more room. How much more room do you need?
What’s the minimum you would be satisfied with?
MR. EPPICH-It’s hard to say. We figure 10 feet would be of a minimum amount to get
proper furnishings at that elevation, to be able to enjoy the view, which is the reason for
everything along the shoreline of course. Ten feet plus the six feet gives only sixteen feet
which is, again, not an awful lot of space for activities, for tables and chairs, lounges,
whatever. We feel the patio is down at ground level. It can’t be seen, so it’s not really a
detriment. It’s not an eyesore or anything like that. It’s practically built in to the slope.
You can’t see it very well. So the deck elevates the view. We’re at about nine feet above lake
level at that point, which is a better viewing area.
MR. URRICO-And you feel this is the minimum that you can live with?
MR. EPPICH-Well, it depends on what the consensus is of the Board. If there’s a tradeoff,
then we have to consider what else to do. That, to us, is the minimum right now.
MR. URRICO-We’re charged with providing the least amount of relief.
MR. EPPICH-Yes.
MR. URRICO-So that’s why we’re asking these questions.
MR. EPPICH-Well, do you feel anything less would be a compromise?
MS. BEATRICE-Well, after the last Board meeting, this is the first time I’ve heard anything
about the cement patio. We never even discussed that at the last meeting. So I was a little
caught off guard here. As far as the relief on the deck, it’s the measurements that we came up
with to make it come out to where the other, not retaining wall.
MR. EPPICH-Yes, the back wall of the patio, the landscape timbers stacked up, and we
didn’t want to exceed that, and make it any bigger than we had to.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MS. BEATRICE-So we were trying to make it all jive with what was there, without
disturbing anything.
MR. URRICO-Thank you.
MRS. HUNT-I have two other questions, may I?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-What will be underneath or below the deck?
MR. EPPICH-There’s about a six foot, six and a half foot area between the ground at that
bottom of the deck.
MRS. HUNT-And what will be on the ground? Just ground?
MR. EPPICH-Yes, it’s just open for storage.
MRS. HUNT-And what is the size of the patio, the concrete patio, the dimensions?
MR. EPPICH-The patio is, I believe it’s 12 by, I’m not sure. That’s one question I don’t
have an answer for. Twelve by probably forty-two.
MRS. HUNT-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-No questions at this time.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-Let me just ask, you bought this three years ago.
MS. BEATRICE-Yes.
MR. STONE-And it was in the condition that it is now?
MS. BEATRICE-Correct.
MR. STONE-You knew that there was a six foot deck on the front of the building.
MS. BEATRICE-When we bought it, yes.
MR. STONE-Were you told that that itself was in violation?
MS. BEATRICE-No.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MS. BEATRICE-And we didn’t know anything about the previous deck until after we had
already submitted for the first deck.
MR. STONE-This concrete patio, basically this is at ground level?
MR. EPPICH-Yes.
MR. STONE-And it’s just a covering of the soil, more or less?
MS. BEATRICE-Yes.
MR. EPPICH-Yes.
MS. BEATRICE-And it has tree roots in it. So it’s a lot like this.
MR. STONE-Well, we can’t do much about that. Okay. Thank you.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-All right. I’m going to open the public hearing, at this time, for Area
Variance No. 71-2005, and would those wishing to be heard, please approach the table, speak
into the microphone and for the record identify yourself and place of residence, please. Do we
have anyone in the audience who would like to comment on Area Variance No. 71-2005?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. ABBATE-I don’t see any hands raised, so would you folks mind please coming back to
the table.
MR. MC NULTY-I have one piece of correspondence.
MR. ABBATE-Please read that into the record, Mr. Secretary.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This is in addition to previous letters submitted, and it was from Larry
King at 112 Sunnyside North. No objections.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MS. BEATRICE-I believe you have a few of those letters.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we read those in before.
MR. ABBATE-They were read into the record previously. I’m going to now move to the
Board and ask Board members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 71-2005,
and again, I respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates we concern ourselves
with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions. Of course this is
necessary for an intelligent judicial review, and any kind of position we take must be based on
regulatory review criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective preferences or not liking a
project. If I may, I’d like to start with Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a situation, a similar deck was rejected
in 2002. The existing deck that you have now already goes into the setback area. You’ve
already got relief for that deck. You’ve got a patio with sufficient space that’s near the water,
or relatively near the water to put any kind of chairs or whatever you want. I can’t go along
with additional encroachment into the setback area when you’ve got all those things going for
the property now. So I’d be opposed to the application.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I think I have to agree with Mr. Bryant. I can understand the desire of the
applicant to enlarge this deck. It’s certainly, some addition to it would make it a lot more
practical to use, but at the same time, we are into the setback area of the lake, and just as
with setbacks from wetlands, setbacks from lakes are there because it’s been shown that
human activity in that kind of a buffer area does affect the water body. So that there’s
reasons for the setbacks being in place. Regrettably, on some lakes, this being one, in a lot of
situations that means that you just can’t put stuff on the lake side unless there’s really strong
reason to supersede the Ordinance, and in this case certainly there’s benefit to the applicant,
but I think at least collectively this kind of an approval would have a change in the character
of the neighborhood, and I think the request, compared to the Ordinance, is substantial, and
for those reasons, I’m going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I think the two gentlemen ahead of me have done a very good job of describing
the situation. We do have a 50 foot setbacks from our water bodies, whether it’s the Lake
George, Glen Lake or the Hudson River. They were done because the Town Board, in its
wisdom, said that that was good for the water body, and while we have made some slight
deviations, we have seldom allowed a brand new construction this close to the lake. We’re
averaging, if I look at the three numbers that you’ve provided, let’s say 25 feet from the lake.
That’s 50% of the required setback, and when you couple that with, that the applicants
bought the house with the six foot deck in place, three years ago, I’m just reluctant to make
any changes to provide the variance that is sought.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-As I mentioned before, I think that we need to be careful on these small
lots. Again, this is a .20 acre lot, I believe, and in essence I would support your project if you
were willing to, you know, significantly alter the amount of space that you have down below
where the patio is down below. I think it’s 42 feet wide, and I think you could easily remove
the wings on that that stick out to the side outside of the pattern of the house and the deck as
you have proposed it. I think that would somewhat mitigate some of the non permeable
surfaces that you have on site there. I can understand why you would want a 10 foot deck. I
think that 10 foot’s probably about the minimum width that a deck should be if you really
want to use it, and I understand that, but, you know, I would make the suggestion that you
maybe consider pulling this application and going back to the drawing board and thinking
about what you might do down below and put some vegetation, and I think Sunnyside’s one
of those lakes that’s severely at risk, and I think it’s one that we need to be careful with, and
we don’t want to add to the problem.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m afraid I’m in agreement with the other Board members. We’re
already encroaching on the setback, even without putting a deck up there, and I think
making it even worse is not something we want to do. So I’d be against it at this point.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with my fellow Board members, especially considering
that an Area Variance was denied for a smaller deck three years ago. I would be against it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Well, it would appear that, up to this time, prior to my vote,
there are six individuals which appears at least without some other alternatives not to
support your application, and I fall, I’m afraid, in with the majority of those folks. So it
appears, at this time, that you’re not going to have support for your appeal. Now, to provide
you with every opportunity for a fair and impartial hearing, I’m going to suggest, only
suggest, you consider one of three options. One, you can request this Board to table for the
next available date. Two, you can withdraw your appeal, or, Three, you can request that we
hear your appeal. Now, you understand now in order to have an appeal approved we’d need
the majority of the members of the Board, which will be four, and at the present time based
upon what I have heard, support for your appeal is not there, application, is not there. So
what I need from you, and also recognize that this is only for you to decide. You have the
right to reject any kind of suggestions that I make or the Board members make without
prejudice. So you have a decision to make. You can request this Board to table your appeal.
You can withdraw your appeal, or you can request we continue to hear your appeal.
MS. BEATRICE-Can I just go back for a minute here?
MR. ABBATE-You may do whatever you wish.
MS. BEATRICE-So we’re talking about the cement patio. If the cement patio was taken
away?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Part of it.
MS. BEATRICE-Well, we can’t use it any way, so I don’t see the problem with that.
MR. STONE-Well, technically the cement patio is not in violation.
MR. ABBATE-No, it’s not.
MR. STONE-If it’s just at ground level. It’s allowed, even though it’s within 50 feet of the
lake. If it sticks up four or five feet, or three feet, maybe, but not.
MS. BEATRICE-Well, that’s what I’m, I feel that three people on the Board are saying that
the patio is an issue. If we get rid of the patio, then the deck wouldn’t be an issue. Is that
correct?
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that would be my suggestion, because then I think you could do
some vegetation, you could have a garden down there or something like that, you know, some
trees and some plantings down on the fort.
MS. BEATRICE-There are trees and plantings down there now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I’m just saying that, you know, the addition of more
impermeable area, and even though the deck is going to have to be slotted so that water can
pass through it, it’s still a concern. I think that I wouldn’t have a problem with it if it was an
either/or type thing.
MR. ABBATE-I would recommend that you request this Board to table your appeal, and I’ll
give you a date.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to, I know you’re addressing what Mr.
Underwood said about the patio. I don’t, the patio is not even an issue as far as I’m
concerned. Mr. Stone already pointed out that it’s not in violation. You can have the patio
as close to the lake as you want. Okay. I’m concerned, primarily, about, you’ve already got a
deck that, regardless of how deep it is, you’ve got a deck that already goes into the setback,
okay. I’m not going to approve any deck that goes any further than that deck is now, okay.
So I don’t know how my other Board members are. Maybe you interpret it that three other
Board members, or you might have a majority if you demolish the patio, I don’t want to, you
know, give you false hopes and leave this thing open to come back to a situation where you
have a Board that rejects the application anyway. So, Mr. Chairman, my suggestion is, Mr.
Underwood has made a statement about the patio. The patio doesn’t really come into play,
as far as I’m concerned, so if you want to quickly poll the Board, is that an issue for the other
Board members, and this way the applicant knows how to react.
MS. BEATRICE-And I’ll, I brought pictures the last time of other decks that are further out
than ours, too. I don’t, I mean, if the patio’s only an issue with three people and not with the
three others, I mean, I don’t want to do something or.
MR. ABBATE-Well, let’s be fair and we’ll do, I don’t mind taking a poll. Let’s start with Mr.
Bryant. Is the patio an issue with you?
MR. BRYANT-No.
MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt?
MRS. HUNT-It’s not the whole issue.
MR. ABBATE-But it is an issue?
MRS. HUNT-It is an issue.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. McNulty?
MR. MC NULTY-The patio would make no difference in my decision.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Stone?
MR. STONE-I agree with Mr. McNulty.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d be willing to grant the variance if the patio were removed.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Urrico?
MR. URRICO-The patio is not an issue for me. The size of the deck is an issue for me.
MR. ABBATE-All right. So we have several issues here. It appears that three individuals,
and myself, are concerned with the patio, and there is an issue concerning the size. I would
suggest that you request we table this and reconsider, you don’t have to come back, but
reconsider the size and reconsider the patio. You heard what the Board members had to say
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
this evening, and you will be furnished, if you wish, a copy of the minutes of the meeting. I
want to provide you with a very fair and unbiased opportunity to present your case. At the
present time, you do not have support. So I’m offering you an opportunity to ask us to table
it and go back and talk to your engineer, if you wish. That’s up to you.
MS. BEATRICE-We’ll table it again.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2005 CHRIS GERMAIN & DIANE
BEATRICE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan
Bryant:
128 Lake Sunnyside North. Until the 15 of February, submit by no later than the 15 of
thth
January any modifications to the Community Development Department.
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. McNulty
MS. BEATRICE-Thank you.
MR. EPPICH-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 71-2005 is six yes, one no. The motion is
carried. Area Variance No. 71-2005 is tabled for 15 February 2006.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-2005 SEQRA TYPE II STEVE & DEBBIE SEABOYER
AGENT(S): DEAN HOWLAND, JR. OWNER(S): STEVE & DEBBIE SEABOYER ZONING
WR-1A LOCATION 83 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PATIAL
DEMOLITION AND REBUILD OF THE EXISTING 2,299 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING, TOTALLING APPROX. 2,370 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT,
SIDE, AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION
OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. BOH 1,2005 SEPTIC VARIANCE; SPR
61-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING NOVEMBER 9, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
YES LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-36 SECTION 179-4-030; 179-4-070
DEAN HOWLAND & MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,
PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 81-2005, Steve & Debbie Seaboyer, Meeting Date:
December 21, 2005 “Project Location: 83 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project:
The applicant proposes a 2,930 sq. ft. single-family residence with attached garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief:
Front setback relief of 6.7-feet, where 30-feet is the minimum.
Shoreline setback relief of 16.1-feet, where 50-feet is the minimum.
Side setback relief of 12.4-feet for the S. side, where 20-feet is the minimum.
Side setback relief of .7-feet for the N. side, where 20-feet is the minimum.
Floor Area Ratio relief of 11%, where 22% is the maximum.
All area and dimensional relief, per §179-4-030 for the WR zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 61-2005: Pending (1/06), development within 50-feet of the shoreline.
BOH 1-2005: Approved 1/24/05, septic variance.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
Staff comments:
This proposal is for redevelopment of an existing 2,829 sq. ft. structure, with an additional
101 sq. ft. (30 sq. ft. enclosed porch addition and 71 sq. ft. interior space). The redevelopment
will be built on the existing footprint at a higher elevation, with existing and proposed
setbacks being the same.
This is a very similar plan to the one that the applicants submitted and presented at the
November 16 meeting (see ZBA minutes). As requested, the applicant did recheck the
th
permeability calculation. The applicant has removed some hard surfaced area, “blacktop and
concrete to be removed”; however this doesn’t change the permeability calculation, because
this area was not previously identified. The applicant’s agent stated that a retaining wall
would be constructed around the new septic system. This does not appear on the map, is it
included in the total impervious area?
The Board concluded, upon hearing this application, that the request was substantial and
suggested that the applicant return with a more compliant plan. The number of areas of
relief, and the amount of each, has not changed from the last submittal.”
MR. ABBATE-The petitioners and Counsel, I see, are at the table. Would you please speak
into the microphone and for the record identify yourselves and your place of residence, please.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of
Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant. With me is Steve Seaboyer, the applicant, and
also Dean Howland, the builder for the project. I was not here at your last meeting. I did go
over the minutes from the last meeting, and there appeared to be a great deal of confusion.
Partially on our fault, or partially due to what was submitted, and maybe some
understanding of, I believe that this is an application to remodel an existing structure, and
I’ll show you by percentages where I think we would meet any tests that there are, although
I’ve not found any particular test within the Ordinance, except for the one test that says that
you can’t expand a non-existing building greater than 50%, and we certainly aren’t anyplace
near that. For other type applications that I can think of that’s been before this Board,
where we got into the same circumstance, the place next door, the Morse residence, we
retained a portion of that residence and remodeled around it. In other communities I’ve done
it. John Costas’s property up in Bolton, which has an Ordinance that’s very similar to ours,
and I think even if you look on Rockhurst you will find other places that have done the same
thing. I’ll get into that a little bit, just so that I’m sure that you understand what we’re
talking about. We’re talking about a two level home here, and I refer to one level as being the
basement level or the lakeside level, and the other being the first floor level, which is the
roadside level. On the basement level, or lakeside level, we now have 1204 square feet. What
we propose, and this is without any external addition. This is if you look at all the maps that
have been submitted to you, there is a void in the middle of this house, that was never
completed as far as construction, and we are proposing to construct a hallway with a little
offset for a washer and dryer, and we would then have 1275 square feet on that level. We
would have an increase of 71 square feet. On the first floor, on the road level, right now, there
is 1557 feet, and we propose to keep it at 1557 feet. In your calculation for Floor Area Ratio,
you also include covered porches. Presently there is a 50 foot, or 50 square foot porch, and we
propose an 80 square foot porch. That’s an increase, external on this building, by 30 feet.
That’s the only external deviation, if you will, as far as the footprint of the structure, and, to
be honest with you, if that’s a make or break issue, that 30 feet, we can put a walkway in
instead of having a porch. It’s kind of, because we’re putting eaves, they would call it a
porch, but we can put a walkway in. The non-permeable area right now is 42.9%. When we
remove some of the hard surfacing, it will go to 33.1%, and we have a survey from Van Dusen
and Steves who made the calculations as to what that is and what that is not. The Floor Area
Ratio right now is 32%, and what we’re proposing is 33%, and we rounded them off to the
full numbers. That 33% or that one percent increase is because of the 71 feet internally, in
the building, and the additional 30 feet of covered porch. Those are the only additions to
Floor Area Ratio or what would be counted Floor Area Ratio. They are not very significant.
The height of the structure will be compliant. The height of the structure will be a little
different than what it is now, but it will not be any higher than the adjoining structures. On
the garage end of the property, we’re changing the peak of the roof, and it will go up two feet.
I think it will be 24 feet in height at that point. On the south side of the house, the peak will
be up seven feet, I’m sorry, it will be up five feet, and that’ll be a total of 27 feet. In the
center of the house, the peak actually goes up seven feet, but if you take a look at the pictures
that we have and the grading, that actually, on the roadside, won’t be much more than 20
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
feet, maybe at that much, and on the lakeside, it’s even less because of the way that the lot’s
graded. So height, the additions that we’re talking about here, are not going to impose or
create any impacts. My bible in looking at this thing is the five standards, and I use the same
standards to determine or to argue whether something is substantial or not substantial, and
the first standard that we look at is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the
character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the
granting of the Area Variance. You don’t grant this variance, you still have principally the
same structure. It hasn’t been updated. The structure that will be there will be 2811 square
feet, as opposed to 2912 feet. The 30 feet of additional covered porch and the fact that they
are building a hallway inside really has no impact. I just don’t know how it would have any
impact. This structure was built in 1955. It’s been part of the character of the neighborhood
since 1955. We’re not changing the structure in any significant manner that would say that
we’re changing the character of the neighborhood. I did a look at the tax map for the
property, and almost every property on Rockhurst has been bought or conveyed after this
structure was there. People did not object to the structure when it came to Rockhurst. The
structure didn’t come to Rockhurst after they came. It was already there. I think in the past
meeting you had letters from two of the adjoining neighbors as part of your record saying
that they had no objection to it. I’ve colored a map, just for your, this is a map of the first
section of Rockhurst. At the very top of the map, as I hand it to you, is where it passes
through land. I got very confused. If you’ll notice I started writing on it upside down
thinking that I was looking at the end of Rockhurst and I was not looking at the end of
Rockhurst. It was the land attachment. The property in orange is the applicant’s property.
He has talked to probably four people or eight people, all together, and he’s written to four
people or eight people. He’s talked to twelve people in the immediate neighborhood, and to
this point no one has had any objection. My understanding, the property immediately to the
north of him, McLloyd has no objection, which is tax map parcel number 37. The parcel to
the south of him, William Clark, which I think is one of the letters that you have, has no
objection, and those two houses, they are actually probably taller than the end product of
what we’re proposing here. The houses across the street, if you will, Tony DiBella, which is
on Tax Map Parcel 40, I understand, has no objection. Linda Kurston, 41, has no objection,
and John Sheehan. I put John Sheehan in different color because I’m not sure whether or not
he was going to write a letter or make an appearance. Additionally, down the way a little bit,
if you look at the Stewart property, they’ve indicated they have no objection, and the
Heckman people at Lot 48 have no objection, and I think here tonight Mrs. Reynolds is here
who owns Lot 33. Lot 33 by coincidence, is one of the largest lots on Rockhurst, and she has
no objection. Next to the properties, I put down the year that I could see of the most recent
transfer, to give you an indication that the people who live on Rockhurst have bought
knowing that this structure is here and bought without an objection to the structure. If you
want, just to complete your record, this is the rest of Rockhurst, to make an analysis of that.
These are public records, which I’m sure you have available to you. The point that I would
make, cumulatively, when you look at both of these two maps, or the question I would raise,
is how did this property ever get zoned WR-1A? I don’t think there’s a piece on that whole
point that comes close to that. If you take a look at the sizes, and these are the ones that are
closest, .21 acres, .25, .27, .22, .2, .27, .13, .22, .09, .07, .06, .06, .08, .11. It’s very difficult for
anybody to do anything on any of these lots without coming in and looking for a variance
probably to all exposures, on all four sides. They’re not going to comply with the lake
setback . They’re not going to comply with the road setback, and probably they’re not going
to comply with the two side setbacks. They can comply, and I think if Mr. Underwood, in the
minutes of the last meeting, probably had the most inventive suggestion, that maybe when
this is looked at, you’ve got to be laxer looking at height restrictions if you want to create
green space. If people are going to be able to fairly use the property, that’s the only way that
you’re going to be able to accomplish it, if you’re going to be stringent with their particular
setbacks. If you look at the tax records, and I’ve got them here, I’m not going to bother you
with a copy of them all, it’s curious that the applicant’s property is assessed for land at
$620,000, and the other properties in the immediate neighborhood are all assessed for that.
So you would think that he would be able to get like usage out of his property that they get
out of their property. You get into the smaller, where it’s less than .10, those assessments do
go down, and some of those structures are smaller. There’s a structure down the road. It’s 58
Rockhurst. It’s tax map number 53, and it looks like somebody is doing exactly what the
applicant is doing here. I don’t know if it was before your Board or not. These are existing
walls. What they did is they’re raising the height of the walls, and they’re putting a new roof
on it, and that’s basically what the applicant is doing here. He is trying to, also on the one
end of the house he is trying to alleviate a water problem, so he’s going to raise that floor in
that area, and raise the floor above it, but on the garage end of the property, the whole
basement, the whole basement stays. All of the outside foundation walls of the basement
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
stay. On the garage end of the structure, that is an engineered floor. That is staying, and the
walls above that are staying, but this is one that’s tax map 53, I think, you can actually see
the difference in the color of the walls. These people just (lost word) the walls, and you’re
probably more familiar with that than I am. I said before I would speak to the issue of what
is being torn down and rebuilt, if you will, as opposed to what’s being added on to. If you
look at it conservatively, 35% of the structure, the walls the sub floor on the north end are
going to be removed. On the south end where the garage is, the lower part stays, the floor
stays, and the walls stay. If you look at it without the center section in the calculation in the
basement, it actually is 29% that is going to be taken out and built over again. This is a
sketch, this shows you the basement area. If you take a look at that, besides, apparently the
word “vertical” being misspelled, we see that that the figure of 1557 was transposed and it
was shown as 1575. My calculations are based upon the correct footage, though. This first
map is the lower level, the lake level that I talked about in the beginning. I’m sorry. Just the
reverse. The one that shows the double area of hatching shows the basement area. The entire
wall will be retained around that. What will be done is that on the end that’s not part of the
basement, an addition will be put on top of that of two feet, and then the sub floor will be put
back on, and then the living space above that will be constructed.
MR. BRYANT-Are any of these walls above the ground now at this point?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. This is a picture from the lake that shows the living end of the house.
When you look at those two, take a look at the landscaping. When you take a look at the
photos, take a look at the landscaping. It’s extensive, particularly on the lakeside of the
property. That will remain in place. I think that’s a significant addition. The actual ground
disturbance will be very little for this project.
MR. BRYANT-So these glass doors are the only thing that we’re talking about that’s on the
first level, what you consider the basement level? That’s the only exposed area of the
basement? Because what you’re doing is you’re describing a basement and you’re making it
seem like that’s the building, and in reality what you’re doing is you’re taking the building
down to the foundation level and you want to include the, do you understand what I’m
asking? Those doors are the only thing that are exposed from the basement, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-On both ends. You have a picture of one end. On the north and south end
of the structure. If you’re saying that that’s not living space, we would not be here. We’re
charged with that being existing living space and with being intent to maintain it as living
space. That’s what gets the Floor Area Ratio so high is because we have that space as living
space.
MR. BRYANT-I’m talking about what you’re tearing down. We got into this whole
discussion of semantics last time, as to, you know, this is a remodeling versus a new
construction and my point, in the minutes that I made, I mean, according to my notes, it’s
only one of the walls near the garage that are going to remain and my question was, since we
are demolishing the building above, you’re not raising the building. The walls are not going
to be raised. You’re building new walls, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. Dean, answer that question.
MR. HOWLAND-Are we talking the basement level?
MR. BRYANT-We’re talking about the whole structure.
MR. HOWLAND-In the basement level, well, you have the existing as compared to what’s
new. The exterior walls in the basement remain. Where you see, in those pictures you see
sliding glass doors on the south side, you see sliding glass doors on the north side. Will they
be re-done with a door and a window? Yes, they will be. That’s the lakeside wood wall that
they have there. The foundation wall’s (lost words).
MR. BRYANT-I’m talking about what’s above on the second floor.
MR. HOWLAND-Right, we’re taking down the.
MR. BRYANT-You’re taking down the second floor. You’re demolishing the whole second
floor, okay, and you’re going to build all new walls, right?
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. HOWLAND-Except for the garage end.
MR. STONE-Let’s go back to the minutes. Mr. Bryant is correct. We asked the question,
both Mr. Bryant and myself, I said, the whole house is coming down, Mr. Howland, here to
the top of the foundation wall. Mr. Bryant, so you’re demolishing the structure. Mr.
Howland, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. As I started my presentation, when I went through the minutes, it
goes back and forth. Our presentation this evening, and the way that we will build this
structure, is that the entire first floor, which is what we’re charged with, the exterior walls
will remain in place. On the end away from the garage, we will add two feet to the top of
those walls. We will put a new sub floor on them, and we will build a section of the building
above that, which will be brand new. On the garage end of the building, which is 480 square
feet, the garage will stay in place. The walls will stay in place. What will change there is the
roof on the garage.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’m going to ask the same question I asked at the last meeting. Since
we’re demolishing down to the foundation, or what you call the basement, okay, why aren’t
we trying to build a more compliant structure?
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think we have to build a more compliant structure. I think we’re
entitled to build this. We are not having, why, what is the negative impact of keeping it the
same as it presently is?
MR. BRYANT-Well, if you’re going to keep it the same, there’s no discussion, okay, but the
reality is, the positive impact would be to build a more compliant structure in the location.
You’re demolishing down to the foundation. I know you count it as living space. We count it
as living space, but in reality that’s a foundation, okay, and so therefore you’re starting from
scratch. So why not build a more compliant structure. What was the harm in that?
MR. O'CONNOR-This is basically as it is being reconstructed.
MR. BRYANT-This is not a reconstruction, Mr. O’Connor, by any stretch of the imagination.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, take 480 square feet out of the figures that we’ve given you. Take the
covered porch out of what we’ve given you. It’s a very modest home to have as a year round
home. It’s not a mansion. It’s a two bedroom home. They’ve looked at the space and tried
to determine what they need for reasonable use of the property. When they bought the
property three years ago they bought it as a 2900, or whatever the change is, square foot
building. They fully anticipated that they would be able to utilize that. What they want to
do is bring it up to Code for heating, energy use, make it more accessible from the road. Right
now the house is built with a lot of different levels in it that they’re trying to avoid. They’ve
got no connection between the two living areas that they have in the basement, and they’re
trying to put a connection between those two living areas. I don’t think, if you look at it
from a square footage basis, and use our figures and use our Ordinance, you’re talking
probably 35%, at most, that is coming down and is being re-built new. You have to give us
credit both for the basement area, as part of the Floor Area Ratio, and you have to give us
credit for the garage. Between the two of them, we’re at 65%. That’s what’s going to remain
there. We’re going to refurbish things in there, but that’s what’s going to remain, the 65%.
It actually goes up to 71% if you don’t use all of that space that’s in between the two ends of
the basement area, if you use just the walkway. The other element that you have is can the
benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to
pursue. To remove what you’re talking about is a waste of approximately $100,000. That’s
what would be saved in construction cost by utilizing the existing walls, utilizing the existing
garage, and Mr. Howland is the builder, can verify that if you want that as part of your
record, and beyond that you’d lose the landscaping and you’d have a much more significant
project. Is the relief substantial? There are a number of variances, and I admit that there are
a number of variances, but I think that when you look at the impact on the neighborhood, it
is not substantial. I think that any building up there is going to have four sided variances,
almost four sided variances. Will it have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood? I don’t know how you would argue that. This comes with a
brand new septic system. It comes with stormwater management for the entire lot, that is
not presently there. We do have to go through site plan. Those are benefits. Environmental
impacts as to the quality of the water, the quality of the lake. If this is turned down and
nothing is built, you have no stormwater, and you do not have the new septic system, or you
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
may not have the new septic system. Is this self-created? Probably arguably, yes, it is. We
want to upgrade the property, but I think the support that the neighbors have given us
indicate that they also want us to upgrade the property, and they have no objection to this. I
think that’s who you really have to look at to see the impact. If you look at the yellow coded
tax map, I raised the question with the applicant, is this going to block anybody’s view,
bringing up the house seven feet or two feet on one end or seven feet on the other end. That
was a concern I had. The people that are impacted by that have indicated that they have no
objection to it. That’s the only negative impact that I saw that was possible. The other
positive impact, again, is there’s much less site disturbance by the manner in which they’ve
chosen to do the construction. They are not going to go in and excavate for a full basement,
for a full cellar, whatever.
MR. HOWLAND-I thought there was a question earlier when you were reading the minutes
for the paid employees about the retaining wall, that that came into the permeability item.
We had many discussions with the paid employees prior to turning in this application, made a
lot of changes, and during the, when the septic system was approved last year, it was
approved with a retaining wall. When I looked at it as a builder of how do I stop the water
problem in the existing house, I came up with the idea, let’s move the retaining wall and put
it smack dab against the foundation wall. That would let us elevate the property there. It
would let me waterproof the foundation and stuff. The porch became part of this application
as, because there was a retaining wall, we were just going to move it over. That’s how the
porch initiated during many discussions with the paid employees. So as far as the retaining
wall, since we have to excavate out back for the new, you’ve got the septic system that’s
going in at the driveway. You’re going to have stormwater management, the road side of the
house will be excavated. So rather than having a retaining wall that’s seven feet off the
building or eleven feet off the building, why not just take it over and put it against the
building, raise the elevation of the rear property which you’ve seen in the picture where it’s
just a hole, and I solved the water problem, and that’s how the house got designed, but the
retaining wall is flat against the building, and actually it won’t be above the surface of the
ground when it’s all done. It’s just so we can change the grade in the rear and isolate the
leach field from the house, and whatever causes the water problem that comes into the house,
now we can solve it.
MR. ABBATE-Are you referring to, on another subject, are you referring to the variance that
you received from the Town Board in 2005 for the sewage disposal?
MR. HOWLAND-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-That’s correct. Help me out on this one thing. Am I correct that when this
was proposed at one time or another that a representative, I think that maybe it was the
Water Keeper, I’m not quite sure, that when he was discussing this variance of the absorption
field, it was close to the road, and that he indicated that based on traffic, I think he said
something to the effect that this is going to be designed for failure. Is this correct, is my
memory correct on that?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, not that I’m aware of. I think that Roger Boor was very concerned
about the separation between the road and the septic absorption field, and for that reason the
field was changed and he signed off on it. In fact I’ve got the minutes of the final meeting for
this approval, and, Councilman Boor, I’m also very happy with what I see. It looks good.
I’m pleased. I’ve brought these minutes for another reason, because I think you currently
have a letter from the Water Keeper saying that we show two bedrooms and we show a den
with a full bath, and he was questioning whether or not the septic system was sufficient, or
would be sufficient, for that. As part of those minutes, and as part of that presentation, my
comment to the Board was I think we’ve improved what we’ve offered. We basically now
have a system that is sized for three bedrooms which will have the effluent going to it that is
95% purer than what is typical of any other type of system. This is because after talking
with the Water Keeper and with the engineers that were the consultants, we put an aerobic
system together with the Eljen system, and the Town Board signed off on it, in fact if you go
through their minutes, they spoke to our engineering consultants and said that perhaps this
was an example that they should follow or suggested that everybody follow if they’re building
close to the lake is to try to combine the two systems. I can give you a copy of those minutes.
MR. ABBATE-I think we have the minutes from the Town Board.
MR. O'CONNOR-Town Board meeting.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-January 24.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, 24 January 05.
MR. STONE-That’s the resolution.
MR. ABBATE-The resolution. No, we don’t have the minutes, no.
MR. STONE-It would be handy, because I didn’t know we approved an aerobic system.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, that was approved by the Town Board. That’s why I raised that issue.
MR. STONE-That’s good, that part.
MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe Mr. Bryant is keying in on the issue, but I have not seen anything in
the Ordinance that talks about any specific definition as to when we’re talking about a re-
modeling or we’re talking about re-construction. I know that, and acknowledge that if you
were talking about total new construction you’re not grandfathered as to your setbacks. In
this instance, though, I do not think that this is new construction. I think it will be held
otherwise, and I think we are entitled to those setbacks. So the impact here is very
insignificant.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I think my interpretation is quite different, in that once you go down to
the ground, regardless of what you have underneath, that is now a re-construction. It’s been
demolished. The building is demolished. Whether you have footings, foundation, a
basement, a mechanical room, whatever, that’s the foundation, and the building is
demolished.
MR. O'CONNOR-If it didn’t count as living space I think you may have more of an
argument, but where it counts as living space, I don’t think you do. We are preserving that.
It’s the same thing as the picture I showed you of the house across the street where they’re
lifting the roof up. Whether it’s built into the ground or built above the ground, it is living
space.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t think the Code, correct me if I’m wrong, specifies it in terms of living
space. It talks about the foundation. I mean, once you get down to the footprint, you’re
done. Regardless of what’s below.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. This is not a flat lot. This is lot where you have what you would
probably call a raised ranch. The entire back of the building is exposed. It meets the State
Building Code requirements for light and ventilation. It’s living space.
MR. STONE-You’ve been using the word rear and front.
MR. O'CONNOR-Lakeside.
MR. STONE-That’s the front
MR. O'CONNOR-Is the rear. I call it.
MR. STONE-I’ve grown up thinking it’s the front.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. STONE-You’re talking about the lakeside. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Lakeside.
MR. ABBATE-Why don’t we continue. I’m sure if it’s necessary we could address some of
these other issues.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Do you have any other questions of us?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other questions from members of the Board at this time?
MR. URRICO-Well, is there any way we can determine whether it’s re-construction or not?
That makes a difference.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Urrico has raised an issue. Can we determine, well, let me turn to Staff.
Staff?
MRS. BARDEN-I think initially when the Director of Building and Codes, Dave Hatin, and
the Zoning Administrator looked at this application, they decided that it was re-development
and they called Mr. Howland and said, we’re looking at this as new construction.
MR. HOWLAND-I never had a call from Dave Hatin.
MR. ABBATE-Just a moment. Let me follow up with Staff. So you’re stating, so that I
understand this, that someone in the Community Development indicated that they
considered this to be reconstruction? Is that what you just said?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fine. Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Wait a minute, Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify, because in the last
meeting when we had this discussion, we had this big discussion about whether or not this
was re-construction or whether this was, you know, removal and re-building or whatever.
Okay, and at that time correct me if I’m wrong, it was your belief that this would be new
construction, and that’s why this thing was tabled and everybody was going to look at it. So
now you’re saying that Staff has looked at it and determined that this is not.
MR. ABBATE-That’s not what she said.
MRS. BARDEN-I think we always determined that it was new construction.
MR. ABBATE-Correct. She says it is reconstruction.
MR. BRYANT-It’s all new construction?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Because this thing of reconstruction, redevelopment. Let’s call a
spade a spade. This is new construction.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s how we’re looking at it.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. This is the way Staff has determined.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would beg to differ with that. We’ve never been given written notice that
that’s their interpretation, and we would probably be applying for other variances if that
were their actual interpretation. I also don’t think, and part of the discussion was last month,
get an analysis of exactly what you’re going to rebuild and what you’re going to save of the
old building, and that’s why this two page exhibit was part of the application. It showed you
that on the upper level we were going to save 480 feet, and on the lower level we were going to
save 1203 square feet of walls and space, and if you add the two of those and make a
comparison as to the total of the whole structure, that’s where we get up with the percentages
that I spoke of before.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Your objection is duly noted in the record, and I’m going to continue.
I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 81-2005, and would those in
the public wishing to be heard please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for
the record identify yourself and place of residence. Do we have folks in the audience who
would like to respond to Area Variance No. 81-2005? Anyone? Yes, sir. Would you please
come forward, speak into the microphone, and for the record please identify yourself.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. My name is Chris Navitsky and I am the Lake George
Water Keeper, and I did submit a letter and I’d like to briefly comment on that. Again, my
concern about this application is the reconstruction of the home and its relationship to the
previous variance that was granted back in January for the wastewater treatment system for
a two bedroom home. I sit on a committee for the Department of Health, the On-site
Wastewater Strategy Committee, and one of the things that they focus on is the potential of
additional bedrooms, and that is what my concern is about the size of the site, the ability of
the site to handle the wastewater, and basically we have an additional bedroom is what I see.
You’ve got a den with a full bath and I cited the Section of the 75A regulations regarding
that, and also in the Department of Health design handbook, it also states here that
expansion attics, basements, sleeping porches, dens, and recreation rooms which may be
converted to additional permanent bedrooms in the future should be considered in calculating
design flow. My point is, again, that this is a very tight site, very limited room. You’ve
basically got an additional room that will, very easily can be converted into a bedroom. That
should be considered in that, and right now I do not think that this site can handle that, and
right now it’s not sized for that. So that is my concern about the variance requested, and that
right now it does not appear that the site can handle the impact on that. There is an impact
to the site regarding the, it will be a higher quality effluent, but still your absorption rates are
based on your soils, not on the quality of your effluent, but based on your soils’ ability to
accept the volume of effluent. So that is my concern with this site. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other members of the public who
would like to address Area Variance No. 81-2005? Yes, sir, would you please come to the
table, speak into the microphone, and for the record, identify yourself.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident of North
Queensbury. I feel it’s necessary to properly characterize this project. I’ve heard the term
here tonight re-development. Re-development has no meaning in our Code. It has no
meaning in State Codes. It has no definition. It should not be a term to describe this project.
The schedule for this evening does, however, talk about relief requested from front, side and
shoreline setback requirements as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, and
that’s what we’re talking about here. Now Mr. O’Connor has pointed out that the expansion
is really minimal, but let’s see where we’re starting from. The Staff notes talk about the front
yard relief, 6.7 feet where 30 feet is the minimum. That’s 20%. You’re already 20% out of
spec. Shoreline setback relief is 16.1 feet where 50 feet is the minimum. We’re already 33%
beyond the requirement. The side yard setback of 12 feet on the south side where 20 feet is
the minimum, that’s 60% . The Floor Area Ratio relief of 11% where 22% is the minimum.
That’s 50%. Fifty percent above what’s required is the degree of nonconformance that we
have before we start. Mr. O’Connor has talked about this being a re-modeling, renovation,
terms like that have absolutely no meaning in the Code. They have no definition. Now the
New York State Building Code does define the difference between new construction and
renovation and those are the only two terms that are used, and it’s very, very difficult to
undertake any kind of construction today without it being new construction by the definition
of the Code. All you have to do is replace one structural member and you’ve got new
construction. All you’ve got to do is address the drainage system and you’ve got new
construction. So no way does this qualify for anything but new construction, and Mr. Hatin
is exactly right. Talking about the impact on the neighborhood, the neighborhood includes
Lake George, and that’s where the serious impacts are. One thing that’s been overlooked
tonight is the fact that this project is in a Critical Environmental Area, and as such, Town
Code Section 179-2-010 says Projects undertaken in a Critical Environmental Area may be
subject to a more detailed environmental review as determined by the reviewing entity, in
order to evaluate the project’s potential negative impacts on the designated area. The
reviewing entity will consider the impacts of such actions on the specific environmental
characteristics contained in the designation of the CEA. That CEA was established in 1988
by the Lake George Park Commission and our Town Supervisor was put on notice of that, at
that time, and the CEA is defined as, the Commission hereby designates the waters of Lake
George, all land lying under such waters and within 500 feet of the mean high water mark of
such waters and wetlands located adjacent to the waters of Lake George and all the land
within 500 feet of such wetlands to be a Critical Environmental area pursuant to Paragraph
H of Section 617.4 of this title. Nowhere is that mentioned in this project. The other thing it
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
says here, the applicant’s agent stated that a retaining wall be constructed around the new
septic system. That’s a change in design.
MR. ABBATE-Your five minutes are up, Mr. Salvador.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. May I continue, sir?
MR. ABBATE-For how long?
MR. SALVADOR-Two minutes.
MR. ABBATE-Sixty seconds.
MR. SALVADOR-You’ve got it. The applicant’s agent stated that a retaining wall would be
constructed around the new septic system. The retaining wall wasn’t before that Town Board
when they approved this, and tell me, how does that work? A retaining wall is a dam. I just
don’t know what purpose it is or how it’s going to work or if it’s even going to work. It’s not
on the map, and is it included in the total impervious area? My recommendation is that this
project be tabled by your Board and be sent to the Planning Board for site plan review.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Do we have any other members of the public who
would like to address Area Variance No. 81-2005? Yes, ma’am. Would you please come to
the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself.
KATHY BOZONY
MS. BOZONY-Hello. I’m Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association and I did submit
a comment letter as well and a couple of the things that I addressed, the fact that this single
family dwelling currently is 50% greater than Floor Area Ratio, and they’re looking to
increase it to 55% greater than the ratio. I look at the Town of Queensbury having created
this calculation with Floor Area Ratio, and the only one in the municipalities that I know of
around the lake that use it on small parcels of land, and I think it’s a really good way to
calculate what size structure should be on these very small pieces of land. I think that the
construction within 31 feet of the lake is very close, and this nonconforming structure to be
torn down and rebuilt at this size and even greater is a detriment to the lake and I don’t see
appropriate stormwater calculations and septic that will adequately handle this new large
home on this piece of land. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any members of the public still wishing to
address? Yes, ma’am. Please come forward to the table, speak into the microphone, and
identify yourself.
KATHLEEN SALVADOR
MRS. SALVADOR-Kathleen Salvador, North Queensbury. I just have one comment to
make. I had number down here, but the experts have done that. The question was asked,
when these buildings were built, why didn’t, how were they built on such a small lot? Why
didn’t they go before someone, some Board? There was no one. There was no some board.
We did not have zoning until 1968. These buildings, probably most of them were built in the
1950. So that’s how they got built. No zoning. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, ma’am. Any other members of the public wishing to comment on
Area Variance No. 81-2005? If not, okay, then I will move on.
MR. STONE-Any correspondence?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, he’s going to read it into the record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have numerous correspondence. I’ll read them in the order that they
were received. The first one was on December 6. Most of these are addressed to the Zoning
th
Board of Appeals. RE: The Seaboyer property at 83 Rockhurst Road, “Dear Board
Members: We strongly feel that approving the house renovations proposed by our neighbors,
Steve and Debbie Seaboyer, is the correct action to take. The proposed renovations will
enhance the looks of the neighborhood and Lake. The Lake will also benefit from the
environmental improvements of a state of the art septic and stormwater management systems
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
which the Seaboyer’s are proposing. These changes once approved and implemented will
benefit Lake George and the Queensbury community. Sincerely, Firm and Joan Weaver 94
Rockhurst Rd.” “I’m writing in support of the application submitted by Steve and Debbie
Seaboyer concerning the proposed remodeling of their residence located at 83 Rockhurst
Road, Cleverdale, New York. I own the property directly across the street located at 84
Rockhurst Road. I have reviewed the plans and I am familiar with the Seaboyer property. I
understand that they are requesting relief from the front, side and shoreline setback
requirements as well as for the expansion of the structure. Knowing both the applicants as
well as their builder, Dean Howland, I am certain that the improvements they envision will
be beneficial to the neighborhood and Town as well as to themselves. I urge you to approve
their application. Sincerely, Stephen A Kirshon” “We are writing to encourage you to
approve the house renovation proposed by our neighbors, Steve and Debby Seaboyer. We
feel that the improved house structure will fit well on their property and will enhance the
surrounding properties. In addition, the neighborhood and the lake will benefit from the
environmental improvements the Seaboyers are proposing. Sincerely, Tony DiBella 88
Rockhurst Road Lake George, NY” “I am writing to voice my approval of the house
renovations proposed by our neighbor, Steve and Debby Seaboyer at the 83 Rockhurst Road
address. I feel that the improvements to the structure are enhancements that will help not
hinder our neighborhood. The information I was given on the improvements the Seaboyers
are proposing seem to benefit the environmental aspects of the property, therefore are a
benefit to the lake. Thanking you in advance for your consideration of these renovations.
Sincerely, Deborah Stewart Owner 74 Rockhurst Road Lake George (Cleverdale) NY” “We
are writing to ask that you approve the improvements the Seaboyer’s would like to do to their
home at 83 Rockhurst Rd. We feel the proposed renovation will be an asset to our
neighborhood and the lake will benefit from the environmental improvements the Seaboyer’s
are proposing. Sincerely, Roger & Lynn Howard 95 Rockhurst Rd.” “We are writing to
encourage you to approve the house renovation proposed by our neighbors, Steve and Debby
Seaboyer. Their house is directly across the street from ours and their proposal should not
affect our view at all. The modifications to the house will improve the look of the
neighborhood without being “out of place” and the neighborhood and the lake will benefit
from the environmental improvements the Seaboyers are proposing. Sincerely, John Sheehan
Mary Sheehan #80 Rockhurst Road Lake George, NY” “To Whom It May Concern: Please
accept this letter as confirmation of our full support in regards to the work that Steve and
Debby Seaboyer are requesting for approval for. We are immediate neighbors to the north of
the Seaboyers and are confident that the plans they have for their home will be an
improvement to the neighborhood both aesthetically and environmentally. Respectfully,
Mark and Heather McLeod 91 Rockhurst Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804” I have the letter
from the Water Keeper received on December 21. “I’ve reviewed the application and plans
st
for the above referenced variance application. I would like to offer the following comments
for the record: 1. The applicant received a variance from the Town of Queensbury Board of
Health on January 24, 2005 for the construction of an on-site wastewater treatment system
designed for a two bedroom residence. The proposed building plans contain two bedrooms as
well as a den with a full bathroom. According to the New York State Department of Health
On-Site Wastewater Design Standards, rooms such as expansion attics (§75-A.6.a.1) shall be
considered as an additional bedroom. The Board should take the conservative approach,
consider the additional room as a bedroom and require the wastewater treatment system to be
sized accordingly. Based on this information, as well as other site requirements for the proper
management of stormwater, it appears the variance for expansion of a non-conforming
structure is excessive for the available land required for proper site design and should be
modified to better fit the site conditions. I look forward to working with the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals in defending the natural resources of Lake George and
its basin. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Christopher
Navitsky, PE Lake George Water Keeper” This one was received from the Lake George
Association. “Dear Mr. Abbate and Members of the Board: The reconstruction of an existing
non-conforming single-family dwelling on approximately 0.2 acres is an ideal opportunity to
redefine what is appropriate construction on land amidst this densely populated bungalow
community. Presently, the existing home is 50% greater than allowable per the Town of
Queensbury’s floor area ratio (FAR) calculation and certainly is much larger than most of its
neighbors. Requesting a 12% relief from the FAR calculations based on the 22% maximum
allowable FAR is more specifically defined by stating that the proposed building will be 55%
larger than the calculation allows, and larger than its current size. Some individuals may not
agree that the FAR calculation might be important, but density of land use so close to the
shoreline does cumulatively impact Lake George’s drinking water. In conclusion, this
application does not meet the criteria used by the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant an area
variance: - The project is self-created - The proposed new construction will continue to create an
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
undesirable change in the neighborhood character and to nearby properties - The 34% FAR
requires a very substantial variance - Construction only 31 feet from the lake will have adverse
environmental effects to Lake George - The redesign of this home should have offered a better
balance between the size of the lot and the size of the proposed new house Thank you for your
thoughtful discussion when reviewing this reconstruction application only 31 feet from Lake
George. Sincerely, Kathleen S. Lindberg Bozony Land Use Management Coordinator” And
this one is, “We reside at 59 Rockhurst Road in the Town of Queensbury and have the
following comments with regard to the above variance scheduled for review at your December
21 meeting. Our neighbors, Steve and Debby Seaboyer, have shared with us their plans for
st
the rehabilitation of their residence at 83 Rockhurst Road. Their project will result in a home
that will have greatly increased functionality and addresses problems that exist with the
current structure. It appears that the project will result in a very minimal increase in living
space and that the new construction will be within the current footprint. We believe that just
makes sense to rebuild this home rather than remodel it in a piecemeal fashion. We think the
benefits to the neighborhood and the environment are the following: 1. This project will
allow the Seaboyers to proceed with an upgrade of their septic system to a system that was
recommended and approved by the Queensbury Town Board. 2. The rebuilding plans
include a stormwater management system where none now exists. 3. The end result will be a
home with greatly increased energy efficiency. In summary, we believe this variance request
will not change the character of the neighborhood and strikes a reasonable balance between
the desire of the Seaboyers to upgrade their home and current zoning regulations. We urge
the Zoning Board of Appeals to approve Area Variance request 81-2005. Sincerely, Tom
Sargent Sue Sargent”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. I’m going to now turn to the Board members
and ask them to please offer their comments.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, may I comment on some of the comments?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, Counselor, please.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. As to the Water Keeper’s comments, I think he is incorrect. I spoke
at the Town Board meeting, that system was designed for a three bedroom home. I have not
chosen to challenge his understanding. We’re showing two bedrooms and a den that could
eventually be converted. Presuming it’s converted, this system is adequate, and I think he’s
checking, right now, his own calculations as to the flows. I’m sure that I’m correct, from an
engineering point of view. They spoke about the impact on the neighborhood. I think you
have to really listen to the letters of the various neighbors. It’s not a form letter. It’s not a
petition that somebody signed. It’s letters that were written with a lot of thought,
considering the impacts that you are talking about, or that you might be talking about. Mr.
Salvador talked about impacts to the lake. The impacts to the lake that I’m aware of is the
septic and the stormwater. I have no problem, we have the approval from the Town Board.
We went over the line in designing this septic system. I think we were the first one that
presented to them the aerobic system, and they were very satisfied with it, and they’re going
to use it as a model for future places on the lake. As to stormwater, I have no problem with
you conditioning your approval upon us submitting a stormwater plan as part of the site plan
review, which we also have to undergo, that is approved by the Town Engineer, and which
will be reviewed by the Town Engineer. As to the issue that we’ve modified the septic system
because we have a retaining wall, there was a retaining wall when we submitted it to the
Town, as part of the submittal to the Town. That’s basically how I would comment as to the
comments that are of record.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, could I ask some questions?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I just want to review where we are with this application. We have five
setbacks. There’s five variances requested. Front setback relief of 6.7 feet is what you have
currently, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-Correct.
MR. URRICO-Shoreline setback relief of 16.1 feet is what you have currently.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. O'CONNOR-Correct, and that’s to the deck. That’s not to the house. The house is back,
the main part of the house is back eight feet further and the garage part of the house is 10 feet
further back than that.
MR. URRICO-Side setback relief of 12.4 feet is what you currently have.
MR. O'CONNOR-Right.
MR. URRICO-And the other side setback, .7 feet, is what you currently have, .7?
MR. O'CONNOR-We need .7 of a foot to be in compliance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So they have 19.
MR. URRICO-So that’s wrong here on the Staff notes.
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. URRICO-It should be 19.1, so .7 feet of relief.
MR. STONE-It’s correct, .7 of relief.
MR. URRICO-All right. Then the Floor Area Ratio, currently you’re in compliance, what
you have?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. We’re now at 32.
MR. URRICO-Not the new plan.
MR. O'CONNOR-The old plan is at 32.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And the new plan is at 33. Okay. The existing house is 32. We will be
increasing it by one percent to 33. That includes the internal addition of 71 feet for the
hallway that connects the two ends of the house, and the additional 30 feet of covered porch,
and if the 30 feet of covered porch is heart ache because it’s an exterior expansion, we can
give that up.
MR. ABBATE-Well, the Floor Area Ratio relief of 11%, where 22% is the maximum. Am I
correct?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that’s the relief asked.
MR. STONE-Twenty-two percent is the requirement. They want to be at 33.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-But 32 exists now.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me continue if I may. I’m going to ask the members of the Board
to comment on this variance, and if I may, I’d like to start with Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Well, I guess I’m going to start where the questions ended last time, and
that’s why this can’t be more in compliance. Since it’s being considered new construction by
Staff, that’s where I’m going to be coming from on this, I think we have the opportunity to
make this more compliant that the original structure, and whereas there may be a desire to
make this a different zone than it is, the fact of the matter is we have to consider what it
currently is zoned at. When we consider the five criteria, whether the benefit can be achieved
by other means feasible to the applicant, I’m not sure that I cannot be, at least what I’ve seen
so far. When you say undesirable change in neighborhood, desirable change in the
neighborhood is to make it more compliant with the zoning, and I don’t think that’s taking
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
place here. I think the request is substantial. I think there’ve been some good cases made,
but I still see the request being substantial. I’m not sure if it’s not going to have an adverse
environmental or physical effects. We’ve heard the Water Keeper here tonight say that it
may have a negative impact. I know it’s been approved by the Town, the septic system, but
I’m not sure about the other possibilities that may come about, and I think it’s self-created.
So at this point, I would be against this.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Well, we left here a month ago with a whole bunch of questions, and quite
frankly I don’t think we’ve answered many of them. I think we need a clarification of what
this project is. We have tossed words around, I think Mr. Salvador made a very cogent
argument that we’re tossing words around that have no bearing in the Code. Is this new
construction? Is this a remodeling? I don’t know, quite frankly. I am so confused by Mr.
O’Connor’s very impassionate presentation. However, I think it’s short on facts. I need more
facts to consider approving. I hear comments that the Zoning Administrator and the housing
inspector said that this is something. I think they said it was new construction, but that was
not the words used. I need more clarification. I also keep in mind, as I look at this whole
thing, and something that we sometimes fail to consider, that no variance is sometimes a
feasible alternative. I mean, there is a house that exists on the lake. It is nonconforming, and
the only way to get what Mr. Seaboyer wants is to make it more nonconforming, and I have
difficulties with that. So I would much rather see a more written presentation arguing all of
the points that were made in the minutes of the last meeting. I think there was an awful lot
of thought, a great deal of good thought that went into our discussions the last time, and I
don’t think we have answered most of those concerns. So I guess I would be in favor of
tabling this again. Otherwise I would have to vote no.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also agree with Mr. Stone and Mr. Urrico. We
have an opportunity, since this is new construction, to create a structure that’s more
compliant, grant you it’s not going to be totally compliant because of the size of the lot, and
that’s understandable, but there is a possibility to make it more compliant and I think that’s
what we should look for, and so I would have a tendency to also vote against it, but I would
prefer to see this thing tabled.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with my fellow Board members who’ve spoken. I
think the amount of relief is really excessive. It runs from 20 to 60% on setback relief and
50% on Floor Area Ratio, and we were starting with a nonconforming structure and then
going to make it larger. At this point I have more questions than answers, and I would be
against it at this point.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Regardless of what we do, I think what’s looming over the horizon is
something even greater for us, and that is that, you know, the cumulative impact of all of
these projects up on the lake, you know, if we could all go back, I think, and create zoning at
an earlier date and time, it would be a wonderful thing, but it’s not possible. We are stuck
with dealing with things as they are, and not as we wish they were, and in this instance here,
I think that it is a balancing act on our part here, and I think if you go out on Rockhurst, if
you drove down that road, anyone who’s looking at the realities of what exists there at the
present time would be appalled at what’s there, and in this day and age, nothing would be
existing, nothing would be built on Rockhurst. It would probably be parkland, which is
probably should have been, but no one was wise enough in the past to deal with that, but,
you know, the Seaboyers are here. They bought a piece of property. They have a home. It’s
a relatively nice home. I’m trying to think of logical conclusions to draw from this project.
As it exists, it doesn’t appear that the Board is even in any way, shape or form going to buy
into what’s being proposed here in its present form, and I think the Number One thing we
need to think about is the Floor Area Ratio. If we have an opportunity to create something
that’s more conforming, and that is something that actually is sustainable, that’s something
that we should consider, and I think that what we’re proposing here tonight is just
maintaining the status quo, and I think that that’s something that we should consider very
adequately, and it is being addressed by the members of this Board. Certainly if every house
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
on Rockhurst upgrades and does exactly what they already have out there, the cumulative
impact of that is going to be that they’re all going to be year round residences out there.
They’re all going to have State of the Art aerobic septic systems which is the most practicable
thing to do at the present time. So I would echo the comments that that is a success story if
we accomplish that. We can’t make Rockhurst go away. We can’t make these housing
projects go away on these small undersized lots. They exist. The values of those properties
are extraordinary in this day and age for anyone to purchase or to maintain, and I think that
what’s being proposed here is likely to occur on almost every lot out there as the future
unfolds before us. So we have to make a decision as to what is reasonable, and I think that
you can design a beautiful looking home, but it’s not going to make things better out there on
the Point. It’s only going to exacerbate the problems out there. It’s something that needs a
greater sense of values attributable to the community, and that is you need to have, you
know, on-site wastewater treatment is not adequate. It never will be out there. It’s just
wishful thinking to envision that doing it on every single property would make a difference.
It might for a short period of time, but as the Water Keeper alluded to, the big problem is
that when you exceed the volume and the capacity of the soils out there, and they’re not that
thick. They’re not that adequate as they exist, eventually even those State of the Art
systems won’t make it. So I think that, you know, as I said the last time, we need to re-
invent the whole process, you know, we need to think what could we do. What if we bought
everybody out and moved everybody inland and built one big hotel for everybody that lives
up on Assembly Point. Maybe that’s the answer. It might take a lot of money to do it and
probably would piss off a lot of people that live out there, but that’s something that needs to
be considered for the future, and this project, as it exists is not what we need to do. I’m sorry.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-To some degree, I’m going to echo the thoughts that Mr. Underwood had.
I can end up looking at this project two different ways. One, Counsel made a remark earlier
that the one acre zoning seems kind of funny for this area, given what’s there, and certainly
that’s true, you know, it seems ridiculous if you look at it just on the basis of what size lots
exist and what was zoned. My presumption would be that whoever did the zoning at the time
looked at it and said, boy, it really should, as far as the impact on the lake, be one acre zoned,
but that’s all we’ve done, and this bothers me a lot. If, indeed, that should be one acre zoned,
there should be lots of reinforcement. If this Board is going to start enforcing that general
idea and saying this existing house, which is nonconforming, is way too large for the lot, and
if they do anything to it it should be shrunk, then we need some kind of back up for us that
would assure that we’re going to do the same thing with all the other applications that come
along henceforth. Otherwise, it’s grossly unfair to one applicant to say you’ve got to conform
or come closer to conforming to one acre zoning when nobody else on that piece of land has.
It raises the question, too, as Mr. Underwood said, maybe that whole strip of land shouldn’t
have any buildings on it, and there needs to be some policy decisions made by the Town now,
because we’re working on working on our rezoning, and we’re not hearing anybody come in
and talk about this. We’re talking about comprehensive zones. We’re talking about some
nice things with what people want to see in neighborhoods, whatever, but the people that are
concerned about this are not showing up at the Planning Ordinance Review Committee and
making comments, and now is the time to do it. It’s better to do it now before they start
writing the Zoning Ordinance, than after they get halfway through it, because it’s going to be
harder to get people to change once they start writing. So I guess one message that kind of
doesn’t pertain to this application but does, is if you’ve got concerns about this kind of thing,
show up or write something and send it in, but do something now, don’t wait until next
Spring when the Ordinance is half written to try to make changes. That’s the one view that I
can look at, to say, okay, yes, we should be forcing anybody that’s doing anything to come
further into compliance. Looking at it from the other side, well, I guess one thought on that,
too, is if we do that kind of thing, if at some point we say, okay, we really want to enforce one
acre zoning, that has a lot of implications, including land value. Because that’s going to
certainly decrease the value of anybody’s property there if we’re basically saying if you do
anything to your house you can’t rebuild it, unless you have an acre. That leads to taxes and
tax assessments. Looking at from the other side, on the practical side, what is there now is a
whole bunch of little tiny lots with lots of buildings on each comparatively. This applicant
has got a place that is certainly nonconforming, but one of the steps that I think it’s Mr.
Urrico went through here was establishing that most of the relief requested is the same relief
that’s there now, or what exists now. They’re not expanding this building, and that’s not
what’s causing this relief, except for the floor area ratio which is going up one notch, but as
far as the side setback, for the most part, what’s being requested is what exists and they’re
basically asking to just repair, replace what is there now. I can agree if you look at the
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
structure from the roadside that taking it down to the foundation, or what appears to be the
foundation on the front side, certainly sounds like a rebuild, but if you go over to the
shoreline and turn around and look back, then they’re taking the second story off, and the
foundation for at least the wood wall on the lake side is at ground level. So, you know, I can
look at it that way and say, I don’t care what the definitions say, in a sense it’s not a new
construction, it’s a repair as the applicant is arguing. From the environmental point of view,
I would like to say no, make it compliant. I didn’t do all the calculations, but I would hate to
think they would have a pretty tiny little box there if they made it compliant, if the place
just met the side setbacks and front and rear setbacks, it’s going to be a pretty small
structure. I think, being practical about it right now, given that they’re not really asking to
expand the structure much, I would be inclined to be in favor, at least until we have some
better guidelines that we can be sure that we’re going to lean on everybody the same way.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I agree with my fellow Board members, but in particular I
support the positions of Mr. Underwood and Mr. McNulty, and I believe, and I will strive, as
long as I am Chairman, to ensure that we have consistency, because I agree totally, we must
have consistency. Counselor, let me go through a couple of things here for you, some options,
if I may. Hear me out and then certainly you can reply to them. Obviously it appears that
you’re not going to have support for your appeal, and to provide you and every other
individual an opportunity for a fair and impartial hearing, I’m going to suggest that you
consider one of three options. You can request this Board to table your appeal for the next
available date. You can withdraw your appeal, or you can request we continue to hear your
appeal, but unfortunately, and I think you’re astute enough to know that there’s not going to
be support for your appeal, as it’s presented this evening, and recognize that the choice is
yours and your client’s, and only yours to decide. You have every right to reject any
suggestions without prejudice. Now, may I have your decision, please.
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me just ask, and maybe I’ve not presented it the way that you need to
present it, but if I understand it correctly, the side on the garage, the side that we are trying
to preserve, the side that would probably cost the most to replace, is where we’re asking for
the side line setback, we’d need the 12.4. On the other side of the house, we’re only asking for
.7 of one foot. If we throw out the garage structure, throw out the floor, throw out the walls
of the garage, we’re talking about a significant expense without any return, and of no
environmental benefit. The setback from the road or the front, we’re looking for relief of 6.7,
because that’s what’s there now. I don’t think we would be able to locate this closer to the
lake because we need the room in, the same thing for the lake thing. It’s not a big, it’s not a
wide house. If you’re going to have a septic system that’s going to work on this lot, you’re
going to need some space behind it. That was the presentation that we made to the Town
Board when we got the variances for the septic system. I think the variances for the septic
system were set back from the road, because we didn’t have the separation distance, and
separation from the house, because we didn’t have the separation distance. This house exists
on a holding tank of some nature. It was not put in, as far as we know, because there was a
failure of a system. That’s the way the house was built, apparently, or very close to when it
was built.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, you’re re-arguing your case. I’m looking for a decision from you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’d like to have you re-vote.
MR. ABBATE-You’d like have a re-vote, is that what you said?
MR. O'CONNOR-I just don’t know, you speak about alternatives. I would suggest we
adjourn it and we ask the Zoning Administrator to make a determination as to whether this is
new construction or a remodeling. Now, I understand that part of it is new construction, and
I’m not going to ask him to make a decision without presenting something to him in writing
because I think we still need the variances because we’re coming up two feet. If you add two
feet, you need a variance if you expand a nonconformity in a vertical way, and that’s why
we’re here for the variances. It’s not because it’s new construction, but I would ask that you
table it and we’ll get a written opinion, and that might make you more comfortable. It might
give you a basis in dealing with other like cases. This is not going to be the only case you’re
going to get.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Counselor.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 81-2005 STEVE & DEBBIE SEABOYER,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
83 Rockhurst Road. Until February 15, 2006.
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 81-2005 is seven to zero. The motion is
carried. Area Variance No. 81-2005 is tabled to the 15 of February 2006. Staff please take
th
note. Thank you, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-2005 SEQRA TYPE II MARTIN J. BARRINGTON & MARY P.
DEVINE AGENT(S): THOMAS R. FROST, JR., FROST ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S):
MARTIN J. BARRINGTON & MARY P. DEVINE ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 84 BAY
PARKWAY, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANTS PROPOSE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,977 SQ.
FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING INCLUDING ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR-1A ZONE. CROSS REF. BP 85-715, SPR 66-2005
WARREN CO. PLANNING NOVEMBER 9, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT
SIZE 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-21 SECTION 179-4-030
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & DENISE FROST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-We previously heard this last month.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 85-2003, Martin J. Barrington & Mary P. Devine,
Meeting Date: December 12, 2005 “Project Location: 84 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point
Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 3,977 sq. ft. single-family dwelling
with attached garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief:
Front setback relief of 10-feet, where 30-feet is the minimum.
Side setback relief of 10-feet for the N. side, where 20-feet is the minimum.
Floor Area Ratio relief of 5%, where 22% is the maximum.
All area and dimensional relief, per §179-4-030 for the WR zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 66-2005: Pending (1/06), development within 50-feet of the shoreline.
BP 1985-715: Issued 6/1/85, for addition and interior renovations to existing SFD.
Staff comments:
This proposal is to remove an existing 2,622 sq. ft. single-family residence with 352 sq. ft.
detached garage, and rebuild a 3,977 sq. ft. residence, including attached garage. A new
septic system is also proposed.
This is the same plan that was presented at the November meeting. The amount of relief
required is considerably less than previously requested. The Board indicated at the last
meeting that the relief sought from the required minimum front and side setbacks were
reasonable (see minutes, ZBA 11/23/05). The proposed FAR of 27%, is 5% over the
maximum 22%, which could be considered substantial, especially for new construction.”
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
December 14, 2005 Project Name: Barrington, Martin J. and Devine, Mary P. Owners:
Martin J. Barrington & Mary P. Devine ID Number: QBY-05-AV-85a County Project#:
Dec05-26 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description:
Applicant proposes to tear down existing 1,490 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and 440 sq. ft.
detached garage and construct a new home. Relief is requested from a side setback and floor
area requirements. Site Location: 84 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point Tax Map Number(s):
226.15-1-21 Staff notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to demolish a single family
dwelling footprint of 1,490 sq. ft. to construct a footprint of 2,136 sq. ft. The information
submitted indicates the existing FAR 2974 sq. ft. floor area and the proposed is 3,977 sq. ft.
that is 27% FRA where 22% is the maximum allowed. The County Planning Board reviewed
a similar application in Nov05 and recommended no county impact with the condition the
applicant attempt to meet the Floor area ratio and explore shoreline setback. Staff does not
identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff
recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve”
Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 12/22/05.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I see that the petitioner and his client are at the
table. Please speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm
of little and O’Connor, on behalf of the applicant, and with me is Denise from Frost
Architecture. My client apologized at the last meeting saying that she would be out of the
Country for work requirements and would not be able to be here tonight. I’m hopeful that
the Board members that weren’t here at the last meeting had an opportunity to review the
presentation that was made at that meeting and maybe I won’t go through the whole thing
unless somebody has some specific questions.
MR. ABBATE-I have spoken to a Board member this evening, and if you are uncomfortable
with the fact that he was not here at the last meeting, he indicated he would be more than
willing to recuse himself, but that would be up to you.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, does he want me to make the full presentation?
MR. STONE-No.
MR. ABBATE-No, I don’t think that’s necessary.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. Okay.
MR. STONE-There were two of us, according to the minutes. Of course I’m not listed as
being absent.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Stone and Mrs. Hunt were not here.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Basically at the last meeting we presented a lot of new information
and I think Mr. Bryant and others wanted an opportunity to look at it and I don’t know if
you have questions based upon what was presented. We indicated to you that we would go
back out to some of the people who had made comments on the application and see if we
could have their comments modified. We did go to the Warren County Planning Board.
They had recommended No County Impact before, and asked that the applicant attempt to
be more compliant with the Floor Area Ratio. We made a presentation to them, and their
action, which is a little bit unusual, and I’m very happy to report was No County Impact
with an approval of the application, after we presented to them exactly what had happened,
how we had reduced the Floor Area Ratio to 27%, how we had increased the setbacks on the
side, how we had increased the setback on the shoreline, and how we were trying to preserve,
if we could, the green space which is on the south side of this property, in conjunction with
the property that’s to the south of us. We did, Mary Devine did leave a note in Phil Morse’s
mailbox and Tom Frost did send him a complete application, as it’s been modified. We have
not heard anything from him, and I honestly didn’t expect to. You have a new letter from
the Lake George Association, representative. They’re here tonight. So I’m not necessarily
going to try to address that. I am pleased that they recognized the efforts that have been
made to try and make this compliant, and I had comments I thought from the Water Keeper,
and part of those comments were, could we, or maybe it was the Lake George Association,
they’re talking about the patio that’s in front of the property. That was the Lake George
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
Association, can we make that out of permeable material, and we have no objection to doing
that. They also raised an issue in their letter whether or not the full frontage of the house was
in compliance with the 52 feet that we set forth on the map. It is. I think what they’ve
confused is the lines of the planner, that’s outside of the foundation. That’s not part of the
house, that would be in that first couple of feet. The house itself is 52 feet set back from the
lake, and, other than that, unless you have specific questions, one other thing. In speaking
with the representative from the Lake George Association, they were concerned with the
space above the garage, and what was the potential use of that, and it looked like it was being
set up for a room, as opposed to storage. As part of the discussions, what we did was change
the roof system on that, and we took the windows out that faced the roadway, and we made it
a hip roof. So that it’s a much smaller space up there than what we had before, and we still
have an intention of using it for storage, but we took, it would be on the west side of the
building, the west exposure. Your drawing may show a double mullion window there. That
window is gone, and it is simply going to be a sloped roof down. We can show that to you.
Above the garage doors, you show two windows, and what we’ve done is eliminate that and
brought the roof into more architectural semblance with the rest of the property, right here.
It looked like there were going to be two windows above that, and it was a peak that came
right out to the edge of the garage, and I think that’s the only thing that we’ve done since last
meeting.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Then I’m going to ask members of the Board if they have
any questions. I’d like to start with Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-None right now.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-None right now.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Mr. Urrico?
MR. URRICO-I’m okay. Thanks.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Stone?
MR. STONE-My only question on the patio that’s there, that’s, again, a ground level patio?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-I mean, like we saw earlier this evening. It’s not figured in any calculations.
MR. O'CONNOR-That does trigger the requirement for site plan, because it’s considered hard
surfacing within the shoreline setback. So we’ll have to go for site plan review for that.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Right. I understand that the Planning Board rescheduled you folks.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, okay. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m sorry for the distraction, however, it would
have been appropriate to have the minutes of the November communication in our packets,
and I wouldn’t have had to distract the meeting, but anyway, I have no questions, Mr.
O’Connor.
MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-No questions at this time.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to open the public hearing for Area Variance No. 85-2005
and ask that if any folks in the audience this evening would like to address this issue, please
come to the table, speak into the microphone, and identify yourself. Do we have anyone in
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
the audience who would like to address Area Variance No. 85-2005? Speak into the
microphone and identify yourself, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
LORRAINE RUFFING
MS. RUFFING-My name is Lorraine Ruffing. I live at 66 Bay Parkway, and I’ve lived there
since 1953, and we’re four houses down from the Devines and the Barringtons. Over that
time, I have seen the water quality in our bay decline, and as a result we have had to install a
very expensive water filtration system. So therefore during the last meeting, when you
discussed this application, we were very impressed that you had adopted this Floor Area
Ratio because I think if you use it and if you enforce it, it can protect the lake. We also heard
from the Counsel that they were only asking for a five percent increase in this Floor Area
Ratio, from 22 to 27%, but actually in relative terms that’s a 23% increase. It’s not a five
percent increase, and we feel that the Board should really strictly enforce this Ratio, and one
of you said in the last meeting, when you were summing up, the fact that this Floor Area
Ratio has not been complied with in other cases on Assembly Point doesn’t make it right, and
in our opinion, it should not be the rational for making yet another exception. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I believe we had another young lady who wished to
be heard, in the back of the room. Yes, please ma’am.
MAGGIE STEWART
MS. STEWART-Good evening. I’m Maggie Stewart, also from Assembly Point, and a lot of
us feel up there that building is going rampant. So we do come and complain to you folks and
hope that you do the right thing. I think Mary Devine and her architect and attorney have
done a good job in downsizing since the last meeting, but I think more needs to be done to fit
the house to the property, and to do that, the way to do it with this Floor Area Ratio, and I
think that this is what you should definitely enforce. If that is complied with, I think it takes
away a lot of our concerns. I think that’s about it, except unless some kind of hardship can
be established, it seems to me that the Board should not grant so many variances, not just
this project, but all through the Town of Queensbury, and this includes that project on
Rockhurst, by the way. So I’m fighting for my home and a way of life that’s been
disappearing for these last five or six years, and I hope that the Board will stick to their guns
and don’t grant so many variances. Thanks.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else in the audience who’d like to
speak? Yes, sir, please. Approach the table, speak into the microphone, and please identify
yourself. Thank you.
GEORGE LANGFORD
MR. LANGFORD-George Langford, I’m also from Assembly Point, and I wrote a letter to
the Board which I’d like to read at this point. You don’t have it yet, but I have a copy for
you. It says, “Dear Board Members: We strongly object to allowing variances for either
lakefront setback or floor area ratio. Variances should only be allowed for special
circumstances and hardships, not to build another trophy home on a lakefront lot which was
sized for a seasonal camp. In recent years, Queensbury wisely implemented zoning
restrictions to help protect Lake George as well as to maintain the character of the
neighborhood. The building code was developed based on years of experience and allows
significant latitude in building structure size while affording a measure of protection to the
Lake and the surrounding neighborhood. Apparently, buyers of Lakefront property have
come to believe that they can obtain variances to build large trophy homes with little regard
for the Town’s building code. This has led to artificially inflated sales prices for properties,
which have the caused skyrocketing assessments. Families who have owned lake property for
decades are losing their homes because they cannot afford taxes. The reference application
requests approval to exceed the 22% floor area ratio requirement and possibly lake setback
restrictions. These requests should not be approved. George and Connie Langford, Assembly
Point.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Do we have any other members of the public who would like
to address Area Variance No. 85-2005? Speak into the microphone and identify yourself,
please.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
KATHY BOZONY
MS. BOZONY-Kathy Bozony from the Lake George Association. I did look at the revised
plans. I did make comments in a letter, and there are quite a few improvements.
Nevertheless, it’s still a four bedroom home on a third of an acre, and Mike O’Connor was
correct in saying that I looked at the planter and thought that that was the outside wall. If
the planter is over a certain height, that may be influenced as well. That’s not the critical
piece. It is a 23% increase over the Floor Area Ratio of what is zoned for that area, and I
think that a four bedroom home on this lot might be a little bit too much. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, ma’am. Do we have any other folks in the audience who would
like to address Area Variance No. 85-2005? Yes, sir.
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador, and, yes, I’d just like to second your motion,
you should be very, very attentive to the Floor Area Ratio parameter. In addition, they have
indicated that they’re going to make application for a septic variance, and they included in
their package a design of that facility, and I know this doesn’t directly impact you, but
they’re going to utilize this Eljen system, and I think some of you Board members are aware
of the fact that this Eljen system has serious limitations on its guarantee, and these are
limitations that have been put on by the manufacturer of the in drain system, and in any
case, this layout is for a four bedroom facility, but it has a footnote here that for hot tubs and
spas and garbage grinders add 250 gallons per day of flow. These sort of things are not
allowed by the manufacturer. The guarantee is void, and so the use doesn’t match the design,
and this, someday this will have to come before the Town Board as the public Board of
Health, but it does have an impact on the project, and maybe you should condition your
approval or anything you do on the Town’s Engineer taking a look at this design. Thank
you.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other members of the public wishing to address
Area Variance No. 85-2005? It does not appear that we do. Counselor, would you and the
architect please come to the table. I’m going to now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have several letters.
MR. ABBATE-Please read them into the record, Mr. Secretary.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a letter from the Lake George Association received on 12/20/05.
“The revised application to replace an existing single-family dwelling on 0.33 acres has been
submitted to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) with a reduced floor area ratio
(FAR) relief request and no requested variance for shoreline setback or building height. In
addition, the revised house plans have been drawn to more appropriately fit this lot. New
architectural drawings state that the home is 52 feet from the shoreline. This is true of the
enclosed porch on the south side of the home, but the paved patio and a portion of the living
room do not satisfy the required 50-foot setback. An additional positive outcome from
changes to this application is the reduction of the total non-permeable surfaces on this lot,
from 29% to less than 23%. To continue increasing the total percentage of permeable
surfaces, the Board should recommend replacing the proposed paved patio and possibly the
paved driveway with environmental Eco-Stone (pavers) that could increase the site’s total
permeability. Properly installed and maintained, use of pavers might be a good choice here.
With all of the positive architectural changes that have been made, the FAR for this
proposed home still totals 27% compared to the maximum allowable of 22% for this zone. A
5% requested relief equates to a home that is 23% larger than allowed per the FAR
calculation, and although considerable effort has been made to comply with zoning
regulations, the FAR relief request continues to be an issue. Based on the Town of
Queensbury’s zoning, the total acreage simply does not support the size of this proposed four-
bedroom home. Your time and attention given to this application is a reflection of your
understanding of the importance to make good decisions regarding the health of Lake
George’s future. Thank you. Sincerely, Kathleen S. Lindberg Bozony Land Use
Management Coordinator” I have a letter from John Salvador, Jr. That was received on
November 30. “During the Queensbury ZBA hearing of November 23, 2005 related to AV
th
85-2005 I listened intently as the Secretary read your letter of November 21, 2005. The
secretary’s handling of your late submission, although meeting the procedural requirements of
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
the Town, was without effect even though your conclusion that “The proposed new single
family dwelling is too large for this site” is directly on point! You should know that absence
personal appearance your well thought-out arguments are often lost as they are rapidly
entered while the Secretary speaks in a rather low monotone into a microphone that does not
serve to amplify. At the same time some of the Board members even seem inattentive
showing a lack of concern and an ability to properly frame what actually is going on. An
impetuous and passionate personal appearance would have been more effective. Fortunately,
the Board tabled the application because of the confusion resulting from the applicant’s
introduction of last minute changes. The application is now scheduled to be re-heard in
December. The applicant has caused the FAR to be somewhat reduced after submitting a
new calculation at the hearing on 11/23/05 which results in a FAR of 27% as compared with
the original 32%. The new FAR calculation of 27% has yet to be checked for accuracy and
completeness by the Town’s Planning Staff. This process deserves watching! Frequently, the
mistake is made (as you have done) in equating the degree of relief to simply the difference
between the code allowable FAR and the proposed FAR; i.e., 0.32 – 0.22 = 0.10 = 10%. You
called this 10% very substantial. Actually, the degree of relief requested originally was a
measure of the deviation from 22% and is measured as the ratio of 0.32 – 0.22/ or 45.5% - a
very, very, very substantial relief request. Likewise, the new FAR of 27% still requires the
ZBA to address a relief request of 22.7% (0.27 – 0.22/0.22) which can be determined to be at
least substantial under normal conditions and very substantial in a Critical Environmental
Area. The importance of your continued interest and participation in protecting the environs
of Assembly Point where infrastructure facilities necessary to support unrestrained ever
increasing urban development densities are purposely lacking, cannot be overstated. Hope to
see you in December. Yours truly, John Salvador, Jr.” There’s two more here. This one was
received on December 21. Subject of Area Variance No. 85-2005 “Dear Sirs: We have lived
st
at 66 Bay Parkway on Assembly Point since 1953. In 1982-83 we were forced to rebuild the
family home as both the roof and foundation were in danger of collapse. We complied with
side/road setbacks. The required lake setback then was 75 feet and while we were given a
variance, we were able to improve the setback to 52 feet so that today we are in compliance.
Our ability to meet the 75 foot requirement was limited by our septic/drainage system which
had to be on the road side in order to be as far from the lake as possible. Therefore, we are
sympathetic to the applicants’ request for relief from the required setbacks in order to situate
their septic system in the best possible way. In 1982-83 there was no area ratio requirement.
We think it is an excellent requirement because it would help to preserve this critical
environmental area from overbuilding if it were enforced. In our case the setback and height
requirements determined the size of house we could build and we ended up with an area ratio
of 18 percent vs. the now allowable 22 percent. We noted that during the last hearing, the
applicant’s lawyer stated that they were asking a 5% increase in the area ratio from 22 to 27
percent. Actually, in relative terms this is a 23 percent increase in house size since 5 divided
by 22 is about 23 percent. We feel that is important that the Board strictly enforce this ratio
which has been so wisely set. We believe that is possibly to comply with it and still meet the
needs of immediate and extended family and friends. At the last meeting the Board was
tending not to grant a variance for the area ratio and we request that you do not grant a
variance that would increase the house size 23 percent beyond the limit. As one of you said at
the last meeting, the fact that this area ratio has not been complied with in other cases on
Assembly Point doesn’t make it right or in our opinion give a rationale for making yet
another exception. Respectfully submitted, Lorraine Ruffing Beverly Pozzi 66 Bay
Parkway Lake George, NY 12845” And I have one more letter that was received tonight.
This is dated 12/15/05. Dear Madam/Sir: The information I am presenting to you is from a
taxpayer’s perspective and as a waterfront resident on Assembly Point. I am opposed to this
application due to the financial impact it will have for assessments and taxes on neighboring
properties. It also sets a bad precedent for other people who might for example only have 1/5
of an acre and want to build the same size dwelling. The way the real property system in New
York works is a property owner makes improvements and depending on how major the
project is, neighbors are forced to subsidize the improvements. A glaring example is the
property next door where this parcel has set the standard for how other shorefront properties
on Lake George are assessed and I appreciate the town having been diligent by working to
adhere to its own guidelines regarding the Floor Area Ratio. If this shorefront property is
assessed at less than half the full value, other parcels on the lake most of which are older
homes should have this reflected in their valuation instead of being assessed at full value as a
result of the revaluation. The “Grandiose McMansions” on the shore are forcing neighbors to
do the same thing in order to enjoy the same property tax benefit or get out. When a
prospective buyer is shown a property in this area and wants to make changes to the
structure such as tearing down the building(s) and have the new structure be 2-3 times the
size, the realtor will refer the purchaser to a well-connected real estate lawyer who has a
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
successful record for getting most projects approved regardless of neighbor concerns. People
are often loath to challenge such a person for fear of retaliation and/or retribution, which
often results in a project’s approval with resident concerns being ignored. These same
individuals are often treated as radicals for raising legitimate concerns. (This is what led to
the demise of Adelphia, Enron & Worldcom.) Specifically speaking, the issue people in our
group have is that the act of one person can artificially inflate the price of property for people
around them. In other words, approval of projects like the one before your board drives
property values across the board for similar parcels. I am not here to tell someone what they
can and cannot do with their land, but I do not want parcel owners to subsidize their
neighbor’s property improvements through higher taxes. Also, who pays for road
improvements because of frequent travel by heavy trucks? It is obvious that the applicant
team knowingly and willfully misrepresented the facts before your board and the citizens of
the community. Originally, the proposed project called for a roughly 2400 square foot
dwelling according to the agenda for the last meeting and sensing the number of people in the
audience attending to voice concern, they quickly pulled the application and submitted plans
for what was believed to be a 2100 square foot structure without requesting setback relief
from the shoreline. It turns out the proposed project was going to be roughly 4500 square feet
with a floor area ratio of approximately 33% scaled back to nearly 3900 square feet with 27%
floor area ratio. Also, is there a deck that is allowed because it is not “interior living space?”
If there are 3 proposed bedrooms, I wonder if the library in the plans might in reality be
converted to a fourth bedroom. If the applicant is not required to disclose the type of
basement and it is believed that there will be a retaining wall in the back of the house going
below the ground, this seems to suggest the total square footage of the structure might be
closer to 5000 square feet on a 1/3 acre lot. An additional bedroom might be planned. I
propose limiting the Floor Area Ratio at or below the limit set by the town and require the
applicant to limit the building size to 2100 square feet. It was stated by the applicant’s agent
that no other communities have the FAR requirement. The agent for this applicant also
represented the family for the dwelling next door. Individuals have come before you in the
past suggesting that they are going to live there for the rest of their lives only to learn next
year that the property is on the market because of the potential financial windfall which
longtime property owners pay for through higher assessments & taxes. Someone needs to do
something about misrepresenting facts before your board where the longtime residents
ultimately pay the price. It is almost as if the people buying these parcels have no respect for
keeping the character of the community and/or the law. This kind of development is also a
detriment to water quality, which can hurt property values you depend on to levy taxes to
help pay for local government services. Sincerely, Peter Brothers”
MR. ABBATE-Thanks, Mr. Secretary. I’m going to ask members to offer their comments on
Area Variance No. 85-2005, and I’m going to respectfully remind the members that precedent
mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record. And the
evidence relied upon should be specifically stated. Additionally, any position you may take
must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective
preferences or not liking a project.
MR. BRYANT-After the applicant responds to the public hearing, I still have some questions
before we go through the.
MR. ABBATE-Sure, by all means.
MR. O'CONNOR-I would also like to respond to the comments that have been read into the
record.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Let’s do this in two phases, then. Counselor, you would like to
respond to the correspondence.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Basically, and somebody said this before, an application for an Area
Variance is a balancing function. It is not a function where someone needs to show hardship.
They need to show compliance with the five standards that are set forth, actually in statutes
now that were set forth by the courts. In this particular case, what we are offering is a few
different things. We are improving every setback. The rear setback is now 6.7 feet to the
attached garage that’s at the back of the property. This new garage will be 20 feet from the
back of the property or the roadside of the property as I call, or as Mr. Stone calls it the
roadside. On the front side of the property right now the structure is 41.2 feet from the lake.
The new structure will be 52 feet. On the side yard to the north, to the Morse property, the
single car garage is 4.46 feet, and the nearest that the new structure will be will be 10 feet. It
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
will vary as it comes back. From the roadside to the lakeside, it’ll be 10 feet to the first 25
feet, and then it cuts in to 12 feet, and then it cuts in to 16 feet and goes back out to 10 feet
and then back in to 12 feet. So we ask for relief there on the closest point, which we asked for
relief of 10 feet. So we’ve improved the setbacks on the roadside. We’ve improved the
setbacks on the north side, which is the Morse property, and we’ve improved the setbacks
which is on the shoreline side. On the south side we are in compliance both before and after,
and I went through this before. We placed the house where we placed it trying to maximize,
if you will, the side yard of the property which is green space, which is open which is in
conjunction with the green space and open space of the property that’s to the south of us.
You have a letter of support, or you had a letter of support, from the neighbor immediately to
the south of the project saying that she had reviewed our plans and supported our
application. It gives the appearance of more open space. If you center the house directly in
the middle of the lot, you don’t accomplish anything except you clear a lot more area and
you’d make them look more like mechanical toys that are set up. The other give, if you will,
is that although the only thing that will trigger site plan review is the patio which is in the
front, we will present to the Planning Board stormwater management for the entire lot, for
the entire house. It’s an improvement over what’s there now. There is no stormwater
management that was constructed, except for what nature provided, on the existing site. We
will improve the septic system for what is there now. We will size the septic system in
accordance with what the Town requires for the, I think we’ve said four bedrooms, and we
can actually size it, we’ve looked at it, I think for five bedrooms, if that’s a requirement,
because we had this den. We will ask for one variance on the septic, and that will simply be a
separation from the back wall of the house toward the road. We won’t have the required 20
foot separation, and to accommodate that, under that portion of the house, we will have a
crawl space instead of a full basement, and I think that’s the concern, that you keep your
separation from any area that you might have people in. It won’t be used area underneath
that portion. It will be in excess of the 20 feet when you actually consider where the crawl
space is going to be. Those are all improvements. We do ask for relief on the Floor Area
Ratio, and I’m not disputing the fact it wasn’t intentional or it wasn’t, I think we’ve all said
we understand it’s 22%. We’re requesting 27%. That’s a five percent differential. Now,
percentage wise, it is what has been suggested, a 23% request for relief, but I think with that
dimension, the same as any other dimension, you say, what are the impacts of it. Now, my
understanding of Floor Area Ratio, at best, is to make sure in the lake properties that we
protect the quality of the water. I think we take care of that with the stormwater. We take
care of that with the upgraded septic system. The other thing that might be is Floor Area
Ratio would help with the scenic views and by placing the house where we have, I think
we’ve maximized that. So, from a balancing point of view, we really are not negatively
impacting the character of the neighborhood. We’re not negatively impacting the
environment of the neighborhood or community. I think that we’ve done as much as we can
do to try to come up with a house that’s agreeable to these people. If, you know, the Board
doesn’t approve it, this house won’t be built. That’s as simple as it is. You’re going to have
the existing house there that’s going to be 42 feet from the lake. It’s not going to have
stormwater management, and it’s going to have its existing septic system. The next owner
that comes along may come back and ask for something else down the line but I’ve been told
that this is what they think that they need for their home that will accommodate their family
needs. We’ve been very up front. We’ve tried to work with the Board the best that I can
persuade the clients to work with the Board, and I think it’s a reasonable application, given
all the circumstances. I did point out, and not necessarily saying that prior construction
means that you’re going to approve everything along the line, but I did point out that the
house immediately to the north of it, the Morse house, has a 29% Floor Area Ratio. The
house two up from it has a 27% and two houses immediately below have 25 and 26, I believe,
if you go back and look at the minutes. I think it’s on Page 26 of your minutes. I just said
that and pointed that out to say what we’re presenting is not something that’s out of
character. We’re not creating something that’s not there, and I think that’s an essential
element of part of your balancing act, part of your review. As to the comments as to whether
this is a trophy house or what not, Mrs. Devine spoke and said that their intention is to live
here year round. I don’t know where you go beyond that. They’ve lived on the lake all her
adult life, at least during the summers. She, during her childhood, has been on the lake, and I
guess her comment was, if I recall, she’s probably rented every place on Assembly Point that
is rentable, and it’s their intention to retire there, and as they near retirement, they want to
plan for the home that they can live in with their family, and that’s why they’re making the
application. I don’t know what effect this will have on other people’s assessments. I don’t
think that’s really germane, but I really don’t even understand that comment, and if I’ve
missed anything.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-I think Mr. Bryant had wanted to ask a question.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. Well, Mr. O’Connor, you took the wind out of my sails because I was
going to compliment you on the fact that the house is back from the lake further and, you
know, makes for a nicer situation, but anyway, I do have a question, relative to this shoreline
setback.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-I know you indicate that 52 feet, as you look at the site plan, that’s measured
to the enclosed porch, and yet the primary house appears to project two, four, six feet beyond
that, and I’m just wondering if that is an accurate 52 feet?
MR. O'CONNOR-It is accurate at 52 feet.
MR. BRYANT-Is that to the primary structure or is that to the?
MR. O'CONNOR-This is the best way of showing it. You’re looking at this 18 inch retaining
wall, which is a planter that is in front of the house.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So this is actually the front of the house?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-And that coincides with the 52 feet?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it does.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. That’s perfect.
MR. STONE-Well, that was my question earlier, too.
MR. BRYANT-I think you should have some palm trees there.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’m always careful about using models, because sometimes, I think it shows
what the house is going to be, but it can be taken out of context as well as anything else. I
mean, if you want to look at it closer, I’d be glad to have you look at it.
MR. STONE-I think the problem is the proposed site plan, these walls on there which are not
identified as.
MR. O'CONNOR-As separate walls, landscaping.
MR. STONE-Separate walls, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. STONE-I mean, I finally realized that those indentations, those bay windows, are the
actual part of the house.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay.
MR. STONE-That’s the part that’s facing the lake.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. URRICO-I have just one comment. You made a point of comparing the existing home
to the proposed home, but the Floor Area Ratio is going, from the existing home, to 27%
proposed, a seven percent difference between the older home and the new construction.
MR. O'CONNOR-The home that’s on the site right now?
MR. URRICO-The home that’s on the site now.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. O'CONNOR-I truthfully don’t know. I’ll have to go back in my notes to see what the
existing is. My comments as to other homes with Floor Area Ratio were adjoining properties.
MR. URRICO-Okay, but you also mentioned that you had made improvements on the site in
terms of what the variances requested are, but there was no need for a variance prior to this
with the older home because it was 20%.
MR. O'CONNOR-Correct. The request for a variance on Floor Area Ratio is five points
above what is permitted.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And somebody has calculated it as 23%, mathematically, and I think that’s
correct.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me continue, then, and ask members to now offer their
commentary, and I’d like to start with Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I think, as before, I have no great problem with any of the setback
requests here. I think Counsel, the last time we met, had explained the reason for those, and I
think they’re good reasons, make a lot of sense. I’m still hung up with the Floor Area Ratio
in this particular instance. This is new construction, genuine new construction. We aren’t
talking about really anything remaining. So we’re starting over. We’re also in an area on the
lake now that is not necessarily totally wall to wall homes. So I think, in this case, there’s a
lot of justification for insisting on adherence to the Floor Area Ratio. As someone made a
comment I think on the last application, in some sense the neighborhood or community in
this instance could be considered the entire lake, but certainly more than just the houses right
next door. So I guess that’s where I come down on this. I understand the need for a
balancing test and what not, but I think, considering the entire lake neighborhood if you will,
I’ve got to come down saying, as it’s presently presented, I’m going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m going to do a reversal from last time. I was the first one to go last
time, and I didn’t consider all aspects of the application. At the time I felt that the front and
side setbacks were reasonable, but I didn’t consider the Floor Area Ratio, and I’ve had a
chance to review that since that time, and I just feel the request of a Floor Area Ratio is
unreasonable and I would not be in favor of it at this time. I’d like to see something more
compliant.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, please. I don’t have any problems,
as Mr. McNulty suggested, with the side setback relief. I think that’s reasonable to assume
that most places are going to require that as you pointed out to us in the previous application,
too. The Floor Area Ratio relief, I think the last time that we met I made the suggestion that
I thought the library could be incorporated in the area over the garage, and I think that’s
something that still could be suggested to Mrs. Devine. I really think that that’s the way to
go. I think it would lower down the house, and I think it would bring you into compliance
with the 22% Floor Area Ratio. Even if it was a combination of a bedroom and library over
the garage, that’s a pretty substantial garage. I believe it’s 24 by whatever. I can’t think of
what the numbers are, but that would lower you down in your actual footprint of the house
which I think is what we’re trying to achieve with the Floor Area Ratio. So, barring that, I
guess I can’t approve it at this time.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I find it kind of excessive to increase an existing home by 35% on
this size lot, and I do have a problem with the setbacks. I mean, they range from 33 and a
third percent to 50% increase in relief, and I have a great problem with the Floor Area Ratio,
and the fact that neighboring homes have exceeded it really does not have an effect on this
decision. We have to look at each one individually, and I think a 23% increase in the Floor
Area Ratio is too great. I would not be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Stone, please.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. STONE-I basically agree with everything I’ve heard so far, particularly Mr. McNulty. I
have a few notes that I just want to share. I just think that that the five percent, twenty-
three percent, however we express it, and we’ve got to figure out a better way to express, we
can lie with percentages any way we want, it seems, or make comments, I don’t mean lie. I
wasn’t suggesting that there was lying here, but I, for one, heard a lot of the public say it’s
too much, particularly Mr. Langford made a very cogent argument about it’s just too much,
and as Mr. McNulty said, this is new construction. This is not a re-model, a re-construction of
this or that. It’s a new house on a small lot, albeit a very attractive lot, and I just think that
the applicant has done a good job in modifying the application from its original state, but I
think there could even be more green space if you made the Floor Area Ratio conforming.
Counsel did talk a little bit about the fact that we might get a new septic system out of this
thing. Well, I read in the newspapers that the Town is considering a septic management
district, something I’ve been talking about for a long time. If we got a septic management
district, maybe we would end up improving most of our septic systems anyway, before they
get turned over to the Town. So, on balance, I think the other things are no problem. I don’t
have any problem with the setbacks. The current house sits very close to the north boundary.
Being closer to the street, as Mr. O’Connor said, it’s better than it was, and I really applaud
keeping the space to the south. I think it’s a beautiful lot and I would like to see it stay that
way, but I think the house is too big.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Well, actually I agree with my other Board members. Relative to the side
setbacks, I really have no problem with the side setbacks. I think this particular application
is considerably different than the previous application, in that in this particular area, when
you consider all the houses that are directly adjacent to it, particularly the Morse house, that
five percent doesn’t seem like too much of a big difference. I would prefer to see a Floor Area
Ratio within the guidelines. However, under the circumstances, and in that particular area, I
would actually vote in favor of this.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell Mr. Bryant, that it’s not a guideline. It’s a
requirement.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you for that, Mr. Stone, I really appreciate that.
MR. STONE-You’re welcome.
MR. ABBATE-I will, too, have to echo what my Board members said. Setbacks aren’t
bothering me, but I am concerned with the Floor Area Ratio, and I’m also concerned with the
comments that were made by the public. After all, while we don’t base our decisions on the
comments made by the public, the public certainly has a right to offer their opinion and how
they feel their property will be impacted. So I’m going to suggest to Counsel that he not
attempt to reargue his case again, but I’m going to offer you, if you will, three options. One,
you can request this Board to table.
MR. O'CONNOR-I’ll short cut you. I’d like to have you table it for 90 days and basically
they will decide whether or not there is further compromise within that period, and if they
don’t, you won’t hear from them again.
MR. ABBATE-How about 29 March? That gives you approximately.
MR. O'CONNOR-Is there another meeting in March?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, we have a meeting the 15 and the 22. That’s the meeting date.
thnd
MR. O'CONNOR-The 15 would be fine of March.
th
MR. ABBATE-The 15 of March, if that’s okay, if that fits into your schedule.
th
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it does.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Staff, would you note that for me please. All right.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-2005 MARTIN J. BARRINGTON & MARY P.
DEVINE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis
Stone:
84 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point. Until March 15, 2006.
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr.
Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The motion is carried, seven to zero. Area Variance No. 85-2005 is tabled
until 15 March 2006.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, a point of personal privilege.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. STONE-I have a six o’clock plane out of Albany in the morning. I’m going to leave.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK,
LLC AGENT(S): LYNN SCHWARTZ, ESQ. & JOHN C. LEMERY, ESQ. OWNER(S): HWP
DEVELOPMENT, LLC ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1221 AND 1213 STATE ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 163.72 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN
ALONG WITH A 30 SQ. FT. DIRECTIONAL SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE
MAXIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT
PROPOSES TWO OVERSIZED WALL SIGNS AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM
SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SAME. CROSS REF. BP 2004-898
HOTEL/WATERPARK; BP 99-3337 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 12, 2005
LOT SIZE 6.76 ACRES, 3.9 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-5 AND 4 SECTION 140-6
JOHN LEMERY, ERIC TULIOUS & SCOTT MAUPHIN, REPRESENTING APP.,
PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-We went over this last month, and there are a few slight changes this
month which I’m sure they will give us a good explanation for. Regarding the porte cochere
roof signs, I will read this letter because there was a typo last month on there, and I think
that will clarify why there’s a change on that. This was a letter received from Lynn
Schwartz, and it was addressed to Craig Brown. “As I begin to get materials ready for next
week’s ZBA meeting, there were two items I just noticed and wanted to bring to your
attention just in case – 1. On Page 3 of our narrative, I found a typo – it says the porte
cochere signs are 64 square feet each – it should read 164 square feet, as it does later in the
narrative, and as indicated in the attached sign package. 2. Also, I believe in our first or
original narrative, I believe we referred to what we are now calling the “southern” porte
cochere sign as the “western”. I wasn’t sure whether or not you needed to correct or clarify
any notes/pre-meeting documentation for the Board, but I figured I would just pass this on.
Sorry for any inconvenience or confusion. Thanks, Lynn”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 70-2005, Great Escape Theme Park, LLC, Meeting Date:
December 21, 2005 “Project Location: 1221 and 1213 State Route 9 Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a free standing sign as well as two wall
signs on the Hotel/Waterpark.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief for oversized signs to be located at the proposed freestanding sign
location along Route 9 as well as relief for an oversized directional “Parking Entrance” sign at
the same location. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for both size and number of wall
signs for the Hotel/Waterpark.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
Free standing sign
Proposed signage:
Free standing sign: 163.72 sf at a 25 foot setback
Relief required: 99.72 sf above the 64 square foot maximum
Directional sign: 30 sf
Relief required: 26 sf above the allowable 4 sf for this type of sign
Wall signage
Porte Cochere roof sign: 164 sf
Relief required: 34 sf above the 130 sf allowed at this setback
Also, relief for second wall sign
Waterpark wall sign 297 sf
Relief required: 103 sf above the 194 sf allowed at this setback
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
Several approvals and permits have been granted for the Great Escape, most notably, Area
Variance 23-2004, which granted 27 feet of height relief from the 40 foot maximum. This
facade is the proposed location for the 297 sf sign.
Staff comments:
The proposed freestanding sign size offered by the applicant appears to be accurately
measured in this submission.
The applicant states, (page 7, item III, DOT…) that the DOT can erect a green directional
sign for “Six Flags Drive.” What size and where will this sign be located? What is the status
of the Northway signage?
The previously proposed westerly facing wall sign has been removed from the scope of this
proposal.
The southern facing wall sign is the same size and in the same location as previously offered.
The porte cochere sign has increased in size from the previous proposal and therefore requires
a variance as it will be visible from off site. The original proposal called for a 168 sf sign,
however, this size was inaccurately calculated. The actual sign square footage was only 100
sf. The current proposal calls for a 164 sf sign which is accurate as the “new” sign is longer
than the original. ( 42 feet versus 24 feet)
While the applicant has offered a sign inventory for all signs associated with this project, no
complete inventory for all Great Escape signs has been submitted.
The applicant offers that the Hotel/Waterpark needs the oversized wall signs for
identification. It seems as though the building itself, with the external waterslide tubes, and
the “look” of a hotel/lodge, might be serving as a sign already.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I see that Counselor and his clients are at
the table. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone, and for the record
identify yourself, please.
MR. LEMERY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my name is John Lemery, Counsel to The Great
Escape Theme Park, LLC and also to HWP Development, LLC. With me is Eric Tulious who
runs the sign department at The Great Escape, and Scott Mauphin, the General Manager of
The Great Escape Theme Park, LLC.
MR. ABBATE-Do you want to add anything to this, what you’ve already submitted?
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. LEMERY-Yes. We have one more correction to make. The porte cochere sign is
compliant. Is it 100 square feet. It is not oversized. The relief that we’re requesting there is
for one additional sign over and above what the Ordinance would authorize, but the sign
itself, the porte cochere signs, are not oversized, but we’re asking for one more sign than is
authorized.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Counselor. Is there anything else you’d like to add before
we start asking questions? You certainly can add anything at any time during the hearing.
MR. LEMERY-I wasn’t sure whether we were supposed to, this was a continuation, whether
we were allowed to provide comments.
MR. ABBATE-You are allowed to present, at this time, any information that you feel would
help support your case. If you prefer to wait, you can. The next phase will be that I will be
asking Board members to ask questions of you folks.
MR. LEMERY-Sure. I think probably we might want to just clarify a few of the things that
occurred from the last meeting, if that would be all right.
MR. ABBATE-Please do.
MR. LEMERY-The monument sign is a request of 99 square feet, and once again the reason
for that request is that the Town of Queensbury, the Planning Board, the Town in its
determination and its findings, required that the Theme Park and the Hotel has its entrance
at the ring road into the Park. So that the monument sign becomes, in effect, the main
entrance to the entire destination complex, not only the Theme Park itself where all the
traffic will enter at the point, but also the Hotel and Indoor Waterpark. So the reason for the
monument sign at that location at that size is because at this point in time, no one, none of
the patrons coming into the Park, will understand where the new entrance is going to be.
There will be a pedestrian bridge which will be there next season, and so the reason for the
requested relief, particularly as to the parking, is to let the patrons coming into the Theme
Park and the Hotel understand that that’s where they’re going to come in and that’s where
they will be all entering and the traffic will then come off of Route 9, which was what
intended originally with the whole design for the ring road. The other comment I wanted to
make, with regard to, we’ve deleted from this application or this continued the application,
we’ve deleted the western elevation sign, which appeared to trouble some members of the
Board the last time regarding the sign that would, in effect, on the Hotel, face the Northway.
The southern elevation sign is, in effect, 103 square feet over and above what would otherwise
be allowed. Now interestingly enough, the Coach House sign is between 90 and 100 square
feet now, the big neon Coach House sign, which we would intend to remove. If you are kind
enough to grant us this Area Variance in order to put that southerly sign on the Waterpark
building, we will remove the Coach House sign which would, in effect, take 90 to 200 square
feet away from that signage. So what we’re asking is, if we could, even though it’s a variance,
if you would approve that sign, we’ll take the Coach House sign, which is a big, red, neon
sign, we’ll remove it. So that’s where we are with this. We have basically three requests,
then. For the monument sign, which is somewhat oversized, for the two porte cochere signs,
which are not oversized, but which are compliant, and are both interior signs, but one more
than we would ordinarily be allowed, and for the 103 square feet southerly sign, which would
be in place of the sign that we’ll take off. So that’s basically where we are.
MR. ABBATE-I think Mr. Bryant wanted to start this off, please.
MR. LEMERY-Sure.
MR. BRYANT-I actually have a couple of questions.
MR. LEMERY-Sure.
MR. BRYANT-In your rendition here, you’re drawings or pictures, you’ve got the Samoset
Motel sign, is that going to come down, the freestanding sign?
MR. LEMERY-It’s already down.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. It’s shown in one of the pictures. That’s why I asked.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. LEMERY-Yes, that’s an earlier picture.
MR. BRYANT-The porte cochere signs, that’s not visible from any road, is that correct?
MR. LEMERY-Only from the ring road, sir.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, that’s what I thought. When you talked about, and one of the
questions I had was about the Coach House signs. You’ve got not only the neon sign but you
also have another freestanding sign that belongs to the Coach House. Is that going to stay
there?
MR. LEMERY-You mean the big log sign? Yes, that would stay.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, but then the sign off the roof.
MR. LEMERY-Would come down.
MR. BRYANT-Would come down. It’s a neon sign. Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Gentlemen, ladies of the Board, do you have any
questions? Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-As a visitor is traveling north on Route 9, they will be able to still see a sign on
the right side, in front of ticket booths? There’s one in the parking lot there that says Great
Escape there right now. That will remain?
MR. LEMERY-You’re referring to The Great Escape monument sign on the right side? Yes,
that has nothing to do with what this application encompasses.
MR. URRICO-Well, I’m asking, what about the sign on the wall where the log flume is?
MR. LEMERY-Those are Great Escape Theme Park signs. They would remain.
MR. URRICO-They’re staying, but you said this was going to be the main sign.
MR. LEMERY-This is the main sign to the entrance to the parking lots because there won’t
be any parking except in those parking lots, and the only way you can get to those parking
lots, the driveways and curb cuts on Route 9 are being removed, and there will be a fence
there that basically prohibits cars from going in those parking lots as they are now familiar
with.
MR. URRICO-How will visitors be directed up to the new entrance? How will they know
where it is? Will there be signs for that?
MR. LEMERY-A sign telling you to go north up to the ring road. There will be a sign on 87
that will be prepared by DOT. We haven’t prepared for a sign, to my knowledge.
MR. URRICO-What about the sign on Route 9? Because I mean most people are not going
to be familiar with it, especially when the Park opens. They’re going to look for an entrance
where one used to exist. So how will they be directed to the new entrance?
MR. LEMERY-Eighty percent of the traffic comes in off 87, and we’re assuming that based
on the fact that the fence is there, and there will be signage in the Theme Park at some point
that directs them north, I’m assuming.
MR. TULIOUS-Yes, in the best interest of the Park, and also the Town, we’ll probably
evaluate that as it happens and if we do have a problem, we’ll do everything in our power to
correct it.
MR. URRICO-So there’s a possibility there’ll be another sign, then, at some point?
MR. LEMERY-Well, the only sign, yes, would be a DOT type sign, if there was a sign that
was created. The Great Escape Theme Park, in its entire history, to my understanding, has
never gone in before the Zoning Board and asked for a nonconforming sign, or a variance
with the exception of this brand new facility.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. URRICO-That’s why I’m asking these questions.
MR. LEMERY-Yes, I understand.
MR. BRYANT-To respond a little bit to that. They’ve already got a billboard up
announcing the opening of the what do you call it, it’s right there, if you travel north. So, I
mean, you know where the place is. The only thing that bothers me about the whole thing,
and, frankly, I like the way you toned down the signs considerably. The only thing that
bothers me is that in my understanding of the process, these signs should have been included
in your site plan review, as part of your entire project plan. I mean, it’s very clear in our
books that signs are included in site plan review.
MR. UNDERWOOD-There is a letter addressing that, which I can read to you, that
addresses that point, it’s very short.
MR. ABBATE-Why don’t we read it, Mr. Secretary.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This was a note from Lynn Schwartz, and it says, “From a quick glance
back at the draft EIS, I found the following Section 21.11, Signage, provides a brief overview
of anticipated signage, both external entry and internal directional and parking lot, and notes
the potential need to apply for a variance for appropriate signage necessary to efficiently
direct visitors to the various destination points within the project site. It anticipates an
external entry monument sign and directional signage. I did not see any comments related to
signage in the Final EIS index.” So that was addressed to Craig Brown.
MR. LEMERY-Those were comments we made at the time to the Planning Board, so the
Planning Board understood that we might reach a point where we had to come here and ask
for some variances, given where we were in the process.
MR. BRYANT-Understandably, but now as the process, do they have to go back to the
Planning Board at this point?
MR. LEMERY-We do not.
MR. BROWN-No, the need for a Sign Variance doesn’t trigger a return trip to the Planning
Board. If you guys choose to do that, that’s a different story. It’s not automatically required
for them to go back for the signs.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the fact is that the signs should have been included in the site plan
review.
MR. BROWN-That’s not being argued here, I agree with you.
MR. LEMERY-Well, the whole purpose of a variance, frankly, is to be able to come before
the Board and ask for a variance of the sign. This is a very large project, and at the time that
it all started, nobody knew exactly what size the sign might be required to take. It basically
represents three venues here, the Theme Park entrance, the Hotel entrance, the Samoset
cabin entrance. So we didn’t believe that we’d have a problem coming in to the Board for an
Area Variance on signs, which are far from offensive, and which, you know, in the history of
the signs up and down Route 9, is far less of an issue than some others here that have been
approved.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I am, for everyone’s knowledge, I am spearheading a change of policy. I
believe that signs, in the future, should be addressed by the Planning Board and their
recommendation then be submitted to us. So whether I’m successful or not, I’ll find out.
We’re having a workshop on the 11 and I’ll be screaming at that time. Any other members
th
of the Board, ladies, gentlemen, have any questions?
MRS. HUNT-I do have a question.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MRS. HUNT-On the porte cochere signs, what are the dimensions? You said they’re not
oversized now, the wall signage.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. TULIOUS-The accurate dimensions are 24 foot long and six foot seven inches high,
which comes out to be roughly about 100 square feet.
MRS. HUNT-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-So the drawing says 42 feet long.
MR. TULIOUS-Yes, I apologize for that. That was actually a flaw on my part in the design
of this. If you noticed the southern elevation sign in your package, what I did, when I did
this, I accidentally brought that sign down into this category. I do have copies of what it
actually is, if you’d like them.
MR. BRYANT-That’s okay.
MR. ABBATE-Not necessary. Any other members? I have a comment. Mr. McNulty, do
you have anything?
MR. MC NULTY-Not right now, no.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. How do you respond to a statement like this? No complete inventory
of all Great Escape signs have been submitted. The applicant offers that the Hotel
Waterpark needs the oversized wall signs for identification. It seems as though the building
itself, with the external water slide tubes and the look of a Hotel Lodge, might be serving as a
sign already. Inventory, we can start with that one first. Let’s address, we have not received
an inventory of proposed, all proposed signs.
MR. LEMERY-That’s impossible, and it’s really not before the Board. There’s an
application before the Board for a variance for some signs relative to a new entrance which
has been mandated by the Town Planning Board, and a $45 million dollar Hotel and Indoor
Waterpark that is being built over there. So, in terms of what The Great Escape, over the
next several years, might envision for signs, it wouldn’t be fair to you and it wouldn’t be fair
to us to try to figure out, well, what are you going to do where. I mean, right now there’s a
monument sign on the east side, which identifies the Theme Park, you know, and that’s well
known and has been there for several years, and there’s the billboard signs that the company
pays for up and down 9 and 87, and I’ll defer this to the General Manager, but our position
was, we just simply can’t do that. This is not, for example a strip mall, strip center. So it’s
not as though, you know, what kind of signs might you want in the future. The Theme Park
is well defined and well known by everybody. So I can’t envision that there would be some
significant sign that would come in here and require a variance, but I’ll defer to the General
Manager.
MR. MAUPIN-As mentioned earlier, we obviously have two signs, and we have no
intentions, right now, of increasing beyond the two signs that are at the Theme Park itself.
The one that’s right next to Route 9 and the obviously the one that’s painted on the log ride
building. So those are the two. The primary concern here, obviously, is getting people to a
new entrance that, for 50 years, everyone has parked or generally gone to the same place to
park their vehicle to come into the Park. That is significantly different now. So that’s why,
you know, in designing this sign, along with the parking entrance portion of that sign, it’s
very important to us to make sure that incoming traffic, tourists in the summertime, know
exactly where to go, and that they don’t turn around in area businesses or clog up the road in
other ways because they can’t figure out where the entrance to our Theme Park or our Lodge
is located, but to answer the original question, we don’t have any intention, right now, of
increasing beyond the two signs at The Great Escape that are currently on site.
MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting that if an individual was looking for The Great Escape
and was driving north on Route 9, they would not be able to identify The Great Escape when
you look to the right and see these huge water slides?
MR. MAUPHIN-No, no. Recognizing the size and scope of the Theme Park isn’t in question
here. I think that the reality is that our entrance is a quarter of a mile north on the road, and
it’s not easy to see. So, again, for half a century people have come right to the Park, parked
right in the Park. In a roundabout that way, that’s still the case, but you access it in a
significantly different way.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question for Staff. Keeping in mind that there are certain Federal
statutes regarding signs on buildings that can be seen from an Interstate highway, how does
that affect our situation?
MR. BROWN-The Town Code doesn’t include any provisions for sign regulations of other
agencies. So I think if you’re looking for an answer, what does the State think of the signs on
the Hotel, I think that’s an answer that you have to have the applicant get for you. It’s not
addressed in our Town Code at all.
MR. ABBATE-Well, there is Federal legislation, and someone correct me, I think it’s called
Lady Bird Johnson, I do believe.
MR. BRYANT-No, there’s one that comes after that during the Clinton administration that
any sign that’s visible from an Interstate Highway is subject to these regulations. Now, it
does fall under the guidelines, I think they allow something like 800 feet or something, square
feet. So it does fall within the guidelines of the sign and everything, but is there anything else
that might affect it, State DOT, any of that? Did you have to apply for a DOT permit?
MR. LEMERY-No.
MR. URRICO-I may be wrong on this, but I think that what you’re referring to is in regards
to billboard signs. I don’t think it refers to business signs.
MR. BRYANT-No, it does refer to signage on buildings and unfortunately, I did not bring it,
but I did all the research on it. There are actually four different Federal guidelines.
MR. LEMERY-Well, to my knowledge, this Zoning Board has never asked any other
applicant up and down Route 9 to look at this. To my knowledge, that’s never happened
before. So is this something new?
MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m just asking Staff if there’s anything that we should be considering.
MR. BROWN-Well, to answer both questions, I’m not sure any other applicants appeared
before the Zoning Board who had a sign that was visible from the Northway. So that
question may not come up.
MR. LEMERY-All over the place they’re visible from the Northway, all up and down Route
9.
MR. BRYANT-I’ve been here, this is my sixth year, and I haven’t ruled on any of these.
MR. BROWN-But again, to answer your question, if it’s a State or Federal regulation, it’s
not under our jurisdiction to enforce it. So if you’re looking for those answers, you need to
have, probably, the applicant do that research and get you those answers, if you need them.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other Board members have any questions at this time? No?
Then I’m going to open the public hearing for Sign Variance No. 70-2005.
MR. LEMERY-Is this a continuance of the public hearing, is that what we’re doing?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, I’m going to open it again. I didn’t close it last time. Anyone in the
public wishing to be heard, please come to the table, speak into the microphone, and identify
yourself please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JOHN SALVADOR
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. With regard to questions
concerning the regulation of signage within 660 feet of an Interstate highway, and along New
York State Scenic By-ways, there are regulations in place that govern the erection of such
signs, and I refer you to sub Chapter C, Highway Use and Maintenance, Part 150, refers to
advertising signs adjacent to the Interstate and Primary Highway Systems. Now these are
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
New York State Department of Transportation promulgated regulations and I believe The
Great Escape is required to make application and get a permit for what they want to do from
the New York State DOT. They’ve put out a brochure talking about what you can and can’t
do, how you do it, size of sign, colors, all that sort of thing, and it’s required of them to obtain
a permit.
MR. ABBATE-What is that citation again, please?
MR. SALVADOR-Sub Chapter C of it would be Title 17.
MR. ABBATE-That Title, is that Federal or State?
MR. SALVADOR-State.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. SALVADOR-This is Title 17. It would be New York State Codes, Rules and
Regulations, that’s NYCRR Part 150.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SALVADOR-And although we don’t enforce it, it is a requirement that an applicant
conform to the State’s requirements, and this is the subject of, you know, the State has pre-
empted, has pre-empted the subject of advertising signs adjacent to Interstate highways, and
what they call Scenic By-ways, and we can’t allow anything any less than what they would
allow. We just can’t do it. So I think anything you permit should be conditioned on them
getting the applicable permits under this program.
MR. ABBATE-I would seek Counsel on this before making a decision on that. I would. I
will.
MR. BRYANT-Just a clarification, okay. The 660 feet that you refer to in the 1966 law is no
longer applicable. The law that was signed into effect in the 90’s, under the Clinton
administration, specifically states that any sign that’s visible from an Interstate highway falls
under that category. It’s no longer 660 feet. Even though this place falls under both of those,
but, and I think the only sign that really pertains, it’s only the southerly sign.
MR. SALVADOR-Let me, if I may, take a minute to find the correct reference here.
MR. MC NULTY-While he’s looking, let me suggest that this question, I think, is kind of like
the question of the Town’s not enforcing or being concerned about covenants in a
neighborhood. The covenant may be more restrictive than what the Town allows, likewise
State or Federal government may be more restrictive than what the Town allows, but that
doesn’t mean we enforce the State law or the Federal law.
MR. ABBATE-You’re absolutely correct. Our venue is strictly the Town of Queensbury.
MR. SALVADOR-And I understand, but the applicant has the responsibility to conform to
all requirements of the law.
MR. ABBATE-That’s a question more appropriately.
MR. SALVADOR-That’s not a question, Mr. Abbate. That’s a statement of fact. With
regard to the 660 feet, these regulations pertain to that 660 feet, and they speak to, there’s a
section in here that talks about signs, prohibited. The following signs are prohibited, and
Number Nine are signs that are not subject to a valid, current permit, if one is required, under
the provisions of this Part. So you’re not allowed to have a sign that doesn’t have a permit, if
it’s required under this Part, and it’s up to the applicant to make a jurisdictional inquiry to
the Department of Transportation and they will answer whether or not they feel they have
jurisdiction.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Your time is up, Mr. Salvador.
MR. SALVADOR-Sixty seconds, again?
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Number Ten says signs that are not consistent with the rules and
regulations of this Part, and Number Eleven says signs beyond 660 feet outside urban areas
and erected with the purpose of their message being read from the Interstate highways. Such
signs are prohibited. That’s in these regulations. So, although we don’t enforce it, okay, we
can require that the applicant get all necessary permits before he proceeds.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Salvador.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to address Sign
Variance No. 70-2005? If so, would you raise your hand, please. I see no others. Gentlemen,
would you please come back to the table. I’m going to move to another area and ask that
Board members, after hearing your conversation this evening, address their concerns with
Sign Variance No. 70-2005.
MR. LEMERY-You had two issues, you wanted me to answer the question about the?
MR. ABBATE-Please do.
MR. LEMERY-Well, it seems to us that that’s a non-responsive answer to the fact that if
someone’s driving up Route 87, why do you need any sign anyway because you’ve got three
tubes sticking out of a wall. I mean, you know, we’re entitled to signs, so it didn’t seem to
me, from the Staff, and we understand that, but that, you know, unless you know it’s there,
you don’t know what those tubes are, and those and no one would know what that building is
unless they know or have had familiarity with what’s going on up here. So, we don’t think
that that necessarily represents that everybody going up 87 would know what that
represents, sir. So that’s why we did that. With respect to Mr. Salvador’s remarks, we’ve
looked at that very carefully and we don’t think we apply, but I just wanted him to
understand, the Board to understand that we understand the law and we looked at those
issues that he raises. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Counselor. I’m going to now continue on and ask if Mrs. Hunt
would like to comment.
MRS. HUNT-I do have a question. You’re just going to have one sign on the porte cochere,
one on the east side, or are you also going to have one on the west side?
MR. LEMERY-There’s one on each side of the, you know, as you drive in, on each side of the
porte cochere.
MRS. HUNT-Right. So you can drive in on both sides, is that it?
MR. TULIOUS-No, you’ll actually enter on one side, and then the other sign will be visible
from the parking lot, mainly that only.
MRS. HUNT-Well, I think there’s been a big improvement since the last time and I don’t
have any problem with the freestanding sign or the directional sign. I think they’re
necessary. I like the idea of the Coach House restaurant sign coming down. I guess I would
be in favor of the variance. Thank you.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, could I just follow up on the porte cochere signs?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MR. BROWN-The applicant made a comment in his earlier presentation about the size.
Originally when the Staff notes were prepared, the applicant’s application did call for a 164
square foot sign. It was identified that that was an error. The correct size is 100. So it’s
compliant according to size. It’s just a variance for number of signs. I just wanted to clarify
that.
MR. ABBATE-Right. Thank you, Mr. Zoning Administrator. Mr. McNulty, please.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, as I’ve said a number of other times with sign requests, when
you read our Sign Ordinance it’s pretty restrictive about variances, and it basically says, it
doesn’t say anything about additional signs. It does say that if an applicant would be
deprived of use of a sign, then we should consider a variance, but that’s about all it says, but
having said that, I think there’s certainly justification for the freestanding entrance sign and
the particular pieces that the applicant has requested on it. I think that’s necessary for the
general public direction. So I’d be inclined to approve that. The porte cochere signs, they
strike me as being a standard thing that you might expect to see on that kind of an entry
way, and therefore, even though it’s an additional sign, I don’t really have a problem with
that. The southern facing sign, I think that probably falls under the provision of it not being
useable by the applicant if it was conforming because it would be pretty small at that point, if
you were putting up a conforming sign. So I think there’s some justification for a little larger
sign there, and especially since it’s been offered as a trade for the large Coach House sign. So
that kind of reduces the sign pollution coming from the south on Route 9. So I think what’s
been presented now tonight strikes me as being reasonable and probably basically necessary
for the applicant, and I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a question for Staff. That being said about
the canopy signs, the fact that they’re requesting the extra sign, then in the case of the
southerly sign, don’t they also need a request for an additional wall sign?
MR. BROWN-Yes, what they’re request for relief is is for two wall signs. They’re allowed
one. Actually the relief is for one wall sign. They’re allowed one, and they’re requesting relief
for the second wall sign.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. BROWN-And size for the wall sign on the end. Those are the two.
MR. MC NULTY-Not counting one of the canopy signs because it’s not visible from off site.
MR. BROWN-Correct, you don’t count that one.
MR. ABBATE-Right, that’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Now I understand, thank you. My comments, I agree with what Mr.
McNulty had to say regarding the monument sign, and the directional sign, that those are
required, and actually they’re very attractive in your rendition, and I appreciate your going
through the effort, and producing the rendition. The other thing is the removal of the Coach
House sign. I think that that is a major improvement. As far as the canopy signs, the porte
cochere, canopy signs, those are fine. I don’t have any problem with both of them. I do have
some concerns about the southerly sign. Not necessarily in the size issue, and I can’t really
express it, okay, at this stage of the game. I’m not really concerned about the size. I’m really
more concerned about the positioning of the sign, the fact that it is visible from the highway,
the fact that it’s really, when you say that it’s not safe to assume that somebody driving up
the Northway is going to know what that is, there are billboards all over the place already.
So everybody knows what it is. So I disagree with that aspect, but I am concerned about that
sign as being a distraction. It’s a small sign. You’re going to be driving along. You’re going
to try to read that sign if you haven’t seen the billboard. I’m a little concerned with that
sign, and I really wish you would pull that out of the package, because I have no problem
whatsoever with the balance of the signs.
MR. ABBATE-So your position is no at this time?
MR. BRYANT-My position is take that sign out for right now. That’s my position, and then
I’ll vote for it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I didn’t have any problem with the freestanding sign last time. I think
it does reflect the size and scope of your project, and it also consolidates the different
operations that are appropriate, sticking them all on one side since it is the main entrance,
and I think that the directional sign addition there also should be on there. Otherwise people
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
aren’t going to know, I would imagine that in your advertising you’re going to advise most
people to come off of Exit 20 anyway. I would think the bulk of the people, if they’re smart,
will go that way. The porte cochere roof sign, the extra one, I don’t really have a problem
with that either. I think it’s not anything that’s going to offend anyone on the Northway,
and certainly all the years that people have looked at the Coachmen’s sign, and its several
renditions, it’s never caused a problem before, and I think that the tradeoff of trading that for
the wall sign over the new water park is a reasonable request and something that we can go
along with.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please?
MR. URRICO-As my fellow Board members have said, I don’t have a problem with any of
the signs. I appreciate the scaled back versions of it. I think they’re attractive. I think
they’re representative of what you want at the Park, and not to belabor a point and not to be
argumentative, but I do still have some concerns about how the Park will be identified for
travelers going north. I live right near there. I’ve seen cars stop in the middle of Route 9 to
look at the Steamin Demon and some of the other rides. So I don’t think there’s going to be
confusion there, and it’s in our Code, 141, Purpose and Intent, this is about the Sign
Ordinance, and it says it is intended to provide for maximum visibility to prevent
unreasonable distraction of operators of motor vehicles, to prevent confusion with regard to
traffic lights, signs or signals, promote maximum, comfort, safety and well being of the users
of the highways, and that’s where my concern is going to be. I think somewhere along the
line there’s going to have to be some decent identification, especially early on, that parking is
further up, you have to keep going, but that’s not on the table right now, and I’m in favor of
the application with for the Sign Variance.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Apparently it’s my turn next. I think that The Great Escape has
made an effort to improve and to comply and to meet our concerns, and I’m going to support
the application with a proviso. When I ask for a motion, I’m going to include in the motion a
condition, and that condition is that you remove that Coach House sign, which you have
agreed to do, but I’ll get to it more formally in just a few seconds. At the present time, I’m
going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask if there’s a motion for Sign Variance No. 70-2005.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, before you do that, I think this is an Unlisted Action, which
means you need to do at least a Short Form SEQRA.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s that Short Environmental Assessment. There is one in there.
MR. LEMERY-Yes, we submitted one with the application.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s what I thought. I just wanted to make sure, though, before I
make the statement. I’m going to review Part II Environmental Assessment. The question
is, Does Action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4? And the response,
basically is.
MR. MC NULTY-No.
MR. ABBATE-No. Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions
in 6 NYCRR Part 617.6? No.
MR. MC NULTY-No.
MR. ABBATE-Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or
community or neighborhood character? No. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish, wildlife
species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? No.
MR. MC NULTY-No.
MR. ABBATE-A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted or a change in use
or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? No. Growth, subsequent development,
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? No. Long term, short term,
cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5? No. Other impacts including changes of
use of either quantity or type of energy? No. Will the project have an impact on the
environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a CEA? No. Is there or is
there likely to be controversy related to potential environmental impacts? No. Okay. I will
sign this.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, I think normally we need a motion to approve that.
MR. ABBATE-We need a motion for that?
MR. MC NULTY-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, if your findings, based on the review of the Short Form, are
that there’s a negative declaration of adverse impacts, you could do a simple resolution that
states, after review of the Short Form, the Board finds that there are no.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Here we are. All right. Let me do it this way.
MOTION THAT THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FORM PROVIDED BY THE
APPLICANT INDICATING THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS
CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, AND UNLESS THERE’S A CHALLENGE BY MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD, I ACCEPT THAT BASIS IN ANTICIPATION OF NO NEGATIVE RESPONSES.
SO THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL FORM BE APPROVED, Introduced by Charles Abbate
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. ABBATE-In a seven to zero yes vote, the Short Environmental Assessment Form is
approved. At this time, I’m going to ask if there is a motion for Sign Variance No. 70-2005.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2005 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK,
LLC, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
1221 and 1213 State Route 9. They’re proposing installation of a freestanding sign as well as
two wall signs on the Hotel water park. The applicant is requesting relief for oversized signs
and also seeking relief for both size and number of wall signs for the Hotel water park.
Specifically the signage will be as follows. On the freestanding sign it will be at 163.72 square
feet at a 25 foot setback and the relief required on that is 99.72 square feet above the 64
square foot maximum. The directional sign is at 30 square feet, and the relief required is 26
square feet above the allowable four square feet for this type of sign. The wall signage, the
porte cochre sign, the one doesn’t require any relief. They’re just requiring relief for a second
wall sign on that one, and the water park wall sign, which will be on the south façade, will be
at 297 square feet, and the relief required on that is 103 square feet above the 190 square foot
allowance at this setback. Also they have agreed to remove the Coachmen, Coach House sign.
That will come down and this sign will essentially be replacing that.
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Sign Variance No. 70-2005 is seven yes, zero no, but before I
finalize this motion, I wish to advise the appellant of the following. I wish to remind the
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
appellant that this approval is with conditions and your agreement to accept the conditions
as part of this approval, and that final approval plans in compliance with this variance must
be submitted to the Community Development Department to include all conditions
stipulated in the motion to approve before any further review by the Zoning Administrator.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits, are dependent on receipt.
The conditions for approval are removal of the Coach House sign. For the record, does the
appellant comprehend what I’ve just said?
MR. LEMERY-Understood.
MR. ABBATE-The answer is yes. The appellant has acknowledge the conditions for
approval. As such, Sign Variance No. 70-2005 is approved.
MR. LEMERY-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome, guys.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-2005 SEQRA TYPE II PETER KING & DAVID MONSOUR
AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ. & MATT STEVES OWNER(S): PETER KING &
DAVID MONSOUR ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION CORNER OF AVIATION AND
ELDRIDGE ROADS APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE THE EXISTING 0.92 +/-
ACRE LOT INTO 2 LOTS, CREATING LOTS OF 0.46 +/- ACRES AND 0.49 +/- ACRES
RESPECTIVELY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE
REQUIREMENTS IN THE SFR-1A ZONE. CROSS REF. SUB NO. 24-2005 WARREN CO.
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.92 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.14-1-36 SECTION 179-4-
030
BRUCE LIPINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 92-2005, Peter King & David Monsour, Meeting Date:
December 21, 2005 “Project Description: 13 Dineen Road, Glen Lake Description of
The applicant proposes to subdivide a .95-acre parcel into 2 residential
Proposed Project:
lots. The subdivision would result in lots of .49-acre (lot 1), and .46-acre (lot 2).
Relief Required:
.51 acre (22,216 sq. ft.) of relief from the 1-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 1.
.54 acre (23,522 sq. ft.) of relief from the 1-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 2.
Relief requested per §179-4-030 for the SFR-1A zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SB 24-2005: Pending, 12/27/05 PB mtg.
Staff comments:
The zoning in this area requires a minimum lot size of 1-acre. This request is to create lots
of .49, and .46, acres respectively. Lots on Eldridge Road range from .18-acres to .56-
acres, with the average lot size being .37-acres. Few lots in this neighborhood have the
required 1-acre minimum. Thus, the granting of relief would be consistent with the
character of the neighborhood; however, substantial relief is required relative to the
ordinance.
Both lots are proposed to access from Eldridge Road, and be serviced by municipal water
and individual on-site septic systems.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. I see that the petitioners here are at the table. Would you be
kind enough to speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself, please.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. LIPINSKI-Good evening. My name is Bruce Lipinski. I’m with the law firm of
Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes, and to my right is Mr. Peter King, who also happens
to live on Eldridge Road, which is right down the street from this affected area, and then Mr.
David Monsour.
MR. ABBATE-Well, Counselor, proceed with your case.
MR. LIPINSKI-Sure. I think the picture up on the board really sums up our argument. The
lot in question is just to the right of Eldridge Road there, and as you can see, it’s the very
long lot with plenty of road frontage, and if you compare it to just say the lots right behind it,
where two houses easily fit, what we’re requesting is to take this long lot, almost an acre in
size, and basically just cut it in half and place a home on each and by doing so we would be
matching up with the remainder of the neighborhood. If you look at a tax map of this area,
you’ll see every lot would be about the size of half of my client’s lots, and so we’re actually
seeking to be more conforming with the neighborhood than we are right now, because if you
put one house on that lot, say in the middle, it would look extremely out of place. In fact,
when I drove past it, and as I drove by it, I almost thought that there was almost another
building lot there, it just looks so out of place.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’m going to go on to the next portion here, but feel free, any time
during this hearing, if you have information you feel that would help support your case,
please feel free to include it.
MR. LIPINSKI-Sure.
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to ask the Board members if they have any questions concerning
Area Variance No. 92-2005.
MR. URRICO-Are you planning on having access to the road?
MR. LIPINSKI-The access would be directly onto Eldridge Road, a driveway for each
residence.
MRS. HUNT-What are the dimensions of the property, the width and the length?
MR. LIPINSKI-The dimensions after subdivision?
MRS. HUNT-Yes, after.
MR. LIPINSKI-Okay. On the proposed subdivision map, the first lot closest to Aviation
Road, or which actually borders Aviation Road, would be 119, along Aviation Road, and 184
along Eldridge Road. The lot behind it would be 107 along the border of the first lot, and
then along Eldridge Road, again, it would be 184. So basically very close in size.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions from any members of the Board? Okay. Then
what I’m going to do is open up the public hearing. Is there anyone in the public who wishes
to address Area Variance No. 92-2005? Please raise your hand. Yes, sir, would you please
come to the table. Speak into the microphone and please be kind enough to identify yourself.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
WILLIAM OSGOOD
MR. OSGOOD-Good evening. My name is William Osgood. I live at 69 Aviation Road. Just
this side of that lot.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. OSGOOD-And that’s eight-six hundredths of an acre. All the lots are not three tenths of
an acre or whatever. They may be when you go down that road, but look at the lot across
Eldridge Road. That’s almost the size of the lot they’re trying to subdivide here. Look
across Aviation Road. Willie Tucker’s property is four acres over there. The next house right
across from there is about three-quarters. The next house over this way is over an acre. The
house on the other side of mine over there on the corner on Queen Diana is 1.3 acres, and
we’re looking at it from Aviation Road point of view, not what’s down the road from there.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
That’s my contention, and to put it, well, to sum up our beliefs, we’ve lived there for 24 years,
long before any of the houses went in back down behind us, and we were always under the
assumption, when the zoning went in, one acre zoning, that we knew some day there would be
a house on that lot. When Keith Brown owned it, he offered it to us several times, and I told
him, I said, I just can’t swing it, Keith. I’d love to, but I can’t swing it, but all this time we
thought there would be a house. A house. With a family, with maybe A dog, A snow blower,
A lawnmower, and every other device known to mankind to make noise, traffic, everything
else. Now, all of a sudden, we thought we were protected. Now all of a sudden, after 24 years,
someone comes along and just like everywhere else in Queensbury, three months later, run
before the Board, try to get it cut up, make more money, build more houses. I think, you
know, sometimes you’ve got to call the line, and we really object to this. I mean, I think you
can see why. I don’t know. Maybe I’m looking at this from a wrong point of view, but I still
say, I thought we were protected because of this one acre zoning. Now, it isn’t even an acre to
start with, obviously, mine’s not an acre either, but I’m not trying to subdivide mine.
Neither are a lot of other people around there, and I just can’t see the point. The other thing
I want to bring out is the fact that when these gentlemen bought this lot, which was only a
few months ago, they knew it was one acre zoning. Point proven, I think, build one house. I
rest my case.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, sir.
MR. OSGOOD-You’re very welcome.
MR. ABBATE-Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address Area Variance
No. 92-2005? If not, okay, gentlemen, would you please come back to the table.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have two pieces of correspondence.
MR. ABBATE-Please read them into the record, Mr. Secretary.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This one was received on December 16. “To those entrusted to
th
protect the Zoning Ordinances: I read with interest the notice of application to create two
non-conforming lots form a lot already non-conforming. The SFR-1A zone was intended to
give people room to live without neighbors so close, as to interfere with a neighbor’s privacy.
Also there was the concept that streets within this one acre zone would not become too
congested with vehicle traffic. Less than ½ acre is hardly suitable for a single family dwelling
including a conforming sanitary septic system. There have been several deviations from the
earlier zoning plans for this area. I do not believe that this variance should be granted and
become a model for legally developing lots that are so obviously too small. I see no evident
reason to approve this application. I would hope the Members of the Zoning Board of
Appeals will agree. I will not be able to attend this meeting. I hope this statement will carry
similar weight as if I presented it in person. Victor Lefebvre” And the other one, “Stopped
into the office to object to proposal of Peter King & David Monsour. Pat Dever 68 Aviation
Rd. across the street from proposed project. Strongly object to project too congested for 2
houses on one parcel. Pat Dever” And that’s it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
MR. LIPINSKI-Could I respond?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. LIPINSKI-Okay. I’d just like to point out, if you look at the lot across the street, and
you see there’s already buildings on there, if you can just imagine a line going down the
middle of that lot, you can see that the buildings would fit comfortably one on each lot. The
sanitary system will fit well on the lot for each particular lot, and the bottom line is that
we’re not talking about the other side of Aviation. We’re talking about the north side of
Aviation where, as Staff has pointed out, the average size is around a third of an acre. We’re
proposing nearly half an acre for each lot, and I think that’s the point that the Board has to
recognize when you balance the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the
community. One extra house on a lot this size, there’s not going to be any detriment to the
community, health, environment, welfare, etc.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I’m going to ask members to offer their comments on
Area Variance 92-2005. Do any of our members wish to comment? Mr. Bryant, please.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. BRYANT-My commentary is we had an application last month, and I had to really
search my memory, but there was an application down the street from there, and the
argument was well most of the lots are less than an acre and therefore we’re going to divide
this nonconforming lot into three even more nonconforming lots, and I went up with Ms.
Barden and I ran the numbers and lo and behold about half the lots in that area were
conforming, and the other half were nonconforming, and so, in my view, this argument that
to make these nonconforming lots more nonconforming or conforming with the neighborhood
doesn’t wash, okay. I understand what you’re saying about dividing, and there is an obvious
benefit to the applicant. You now have two building lots as opposed to one building lot, but
in my view the zoning was put in for specific reasons, and it is to protect the area. As one of
the neighbors, they thought, they have a similar size lot, and they thought that they were
protected, and now you’re going to subdivide the lot, and I can’t, in conscience, go along with
that type of subdivision to create two even more nonconforming lots from a nonconforming,
already nonconforming lots. I’d be opposed to it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would essentially agree with what Allan said. I think that we’re
under assault in many neighborhoods around the community where people just expect that
they can buy a lot, subdivide it, double their please, double their fun, but that comes at the
expense of the people who already are long term residents in many of those neighborhoods. I
think that, in this instance here, you bought the lot knowing that it was one acre zoning.
There’s no anticipation built into our Code that anyone has the right or may think that they
have the right to subdivide and create more substandard lots. I think that it would be faulty
on our part to approve this application, and I think that, you know, if you have a one acre lot
and you decide not to do anything with it at this point in time, maybe at some time in the
future when the Town is built out, they may change the zoning so they allow more density
and housing, but at this point in time, I don’t see that it’s justifiable.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with Mr. Bryant and Mr. Underwood. To begin
with, you would need, the lot is substandard, nonconforming, and I don’t think that we
should be dividing it up into even smaller parcels. I would be against it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please?
MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree. I can understand the applicant’s argument, and certainly
there’s some benefit to the applicant, but I think, as has been stated, there’s one acre zoning
in that area. There are some lots. There are some lots that are close to the one acre in the
immediate vicinity, and that combined with the fact that this was a reasonably recent
purchase, I just don’t think that the benefit to the applicant is sufficient to outweigh the
detriment to the basic zoning in the area. So I’d be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m sorry, I essentially agree. The test that we’re required to look at
essentially requires you to show that the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to
the applicant. Well, obviously what you’re trying to achieve can’t be achieved in any other
way but to divide the lot as you’re trying to do. That doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. The
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, well, when we talk
about neighborhood character, it doesn’t necessarily mean just the properties that are nearby
connected to it. We’re talking about the Town as a whole and many cases as a community
wide, and from some of the arguments we’ve heard at the focus groups for the Planning and
Ordinance Review Committee, and several of the meetings, that’s exactly what the Town
residents don’t want is to take an area that’s zoned one way and make exceptions and divide
it up into smaller lots. Yes, this is already substandard, and making it even more
substandard would certainly be a detriment to the community in my opinion. The request is
substantial. Whether it has adverse physical or environmental effects, I don’t know that it
will or won’t, but I think the difficulty is definitely self-created. So, on that balancing test,
I’d have to come down against it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I’m going to say this another way. Counselor, the burden
of responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the purchaser to make themselves aware of
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
any restrictions prior to purchasing property. In this particular case, it’s classified as Single
Family Residence-1A , and there can be no other way around it, that this certainly is self-
created. I would agree with my other fellow Board members, and so I will offer this to you,
Counselor, I will offer you a couple of options, and to provide you with an opportunity to be
fair and impartial. You have, I suggest, three options. Number One, you can request this
Board to table your application for the next available date. Number Two, you can withdraw
your appeal, or you certainly can request that we hear your appeal, but I want you to
understand for the record that the choice is yours and only yours to decide. You have every
right to reject any suggestions that any of us have made without prejudice. Now I need a
decision.
MR. LIPINSKI-The applicant would like to table it.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. You are asking for a motion to table this application.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-2005 PETER KING & DAVID MONSOUR,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Until February 15, 2006.
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 92-2005 has fallen dead with a two yes,
and four no. The only option now is the continue on with the motion. Having said that, is
there a motion for Area Variance No. 92-2005, to either approve or disapprove? We can’t
table it, ladies and gentlemen.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 92-2005 PETER KING & DAVID MONSOUR,
Introduced by Allan Bryant who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
Corner of Aviation and Eldridge Roads. The applicant proposed to subdivide a .95 acre
parcel into two residential lots. The benefit to the applicant was obvious that they would be
able to construct two building lots out of one existing lot. What effect would the variance
have on the character of the neighborhood? This may be argued that it is somewhat in
character with most of the lots in the neighborhood. However, the zoning is clear. This area
is one acre residential. The existing lot is nonconforming, and the lot directly opposite that is
about approximately the same size. The majority of the lots in that neighborhood are
approximately the same size. Are there feasible alternatives to this variance? Obviously not,
to achieve what the applicant is looking to achieve. Is the amount of relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance? It is substantial? Creating two nonconforming lots out of one
nonconforming lot would be substantial relief. Will the variance have an adverse effect or
impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood? In fact the benefit
to the neighborhood far outweighs the benefit to the applicant, and so I move that we deny
the variance.
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. URRICO-You gave the applicant the option of either having this approved, tabled or
withdrawn. After we voted on tabling.
MR. ABBATE-It was defeated.
MR. URRICO-Yes, but he could have withdrawn after that.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. LIPINSKI-That is what we would like to withdraw the application at this time, without
prejudice, with the opportunity to submit it at a later date.
MR. ABBATE-So be it. For the record, the petitioner of Area Variance No. 92-2005 has
withdrawn the application.
MR. LIPINSKI-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Thank you, Roy.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-2005 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID & GERTRUDE SPERRY
AGENT(S): W.J. ROURKE ASSOCIATES OWNER(S): DAVID & GERTRUDE SPERRY
ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 13 DINEEN ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES A
3-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT
SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT 3, AND RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT WATER
FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOTS 1 AND 3. CROSS REF. SUB NO. 23-2005
WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.02, 0.47, 0.61, 0.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
289.7-1-58, 59, 60, 61 SECTION 179-4-030; 179-4-080
DAVID & GERTRUDE SPERRY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 89-2005, David & Gertrude Sperry, Meeting Date:
December 21, 2005, “Project Location: 13 Dineen Road Description of Proposed Project:
The applicant has 4 contiguous lots, totaling 2.812-acres, and proposes reconfiguring the lots,
resulting in 3-lots sized; 1.201-acre (parcel 1), .704-acre (parcel 2), and .908-acre (parcel 3).
Relief Required:
.092 acre (4,007 sq. ft.) of relief from the 1-acre minimum lot size requirement for parcel 3, per
§ 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone.
90-feet of relief from the 150-feet minimum lot water frontage for parcel 1, per § 179-4-080 for
the WR-1A zone.
86-feet of relief from the 150-feet minimum lot water frontage for parcel 3, per § 179-4-080 for
the WR-1A zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SB 23-2005: Pending, 12/27/05 PB mtg.
BP 96-724: Issued 11/19/96 for a septic alteration, parcel 3.
Staff comments:
The existing 4-lots are sized, 1.02, .47, .61, and .73, acres respectively. This proposal will
reconfigure the lots resulting in 3-lots of 1.201 (parcel 1), .704 (parcel 2), and .908 (parcel 3),
acres each. Parcel 3 requires relief from the minimum lot size requirement because it is
currently a conforming 1.02-acres, and proposed is .908.
Currently, parcel 3 has the entire 124-feet of shoreline, the proposed splits the shoreline
essentially equally between parcels 1 and 3. The minimum lot water frontage is 150-feet, in
the WR zone, for each one-family residential structure. Thus, relief for both lots permitting
approximately 60-feet each of shoreline length. The applicants should address any intent to
extend contractual access to parcel 2 to the shore. A total of not less than 100 linear feet of
shoreline is required for deeded or contractual access for lots not having separate and distinct
ownership of shore frontage, per § 179-6-060.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I see that the petitioners are already up at
the table. Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and identify yourself.
MR. SPERRY-My name is David Sperry, and this is my wife Gertrude, and we are the
owners of these four lots. What our intent is to cut down on, to take out Lot Number Four
and divide it up into the other two lots, to reduce the density of the area, and we also would
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
like to gain lake frontage for Lot Number, parcel one, which we don’t have right now. Parcel
Three, we want to split the lake frontage, which is 120 feet now, we want to put 60 foot on
each of parcel three and parcel one.
MR. ABBATE-It’s 124.
MR. SPERRY-Yes. We have no intentions of making any developments, taking down any
buildings doing any construction. We own all the houses. Two of them are rented out and
one of them is our residence, and it’s going to stay that way.
MR. ABBATE-Out of curiosity, would you consider that as a condition of approval, that you
do not intend to develop this?
MR. SPERRY-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Is there anything else you’d like to add?
MR. SPERRY-No, just open to the Board if they have any questions.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and anything else that may come up that you feel would support your
case during this hearing, please let me know and we’ll be more than happy to hear it.
MR. SPERRY-Certainly.
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to move to the Board and ask the Board if any of the members have
any questions concerning Area Variance No. 89-2005? I’m looking up and down the line, and
apparently we have no questions at this time. So what I’m going to do is open up the public
hearing for Area Variance No. 89-2005, and ask if there are members of the audience who
would like to comment on this variance, please raise your hand.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-There does not appear to be anyone, so I will move on, and I’m going to ask
members, now, to offer their comments concerning your request for an Area Variance.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have one piece of correspondence.
MR. ABBATE-Please read it into the record, Mr. Secretary.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This is from the Glen Lake Protective Association. It says, RE:
Variance proposal for David and Gertrude Sperry, Area Variance No. 89-2005 “To the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury: The Glen Lake Protective Association
requests that you not grant the applicant, David and Gertrude Sperry, relief from the
minimum lot size and minimum water frontage requirements. The Association’s position is
that development along the lakeshore and within the Glen lake watershed should be
minimized and should not go beyond the scope allowable by law and code. Relevant sections
from our Mission Statement read: ‘The mission of the Glen Lake Protective Association
(GLPA) is to protect, enhance, and restore the ecological health of the natural and human
communities of Glen lake and its Watershed; to insure the long-term health of Glen Lake, its
shoreline properties, and watershed through proper water and soil conservation techniques; to
require compliance with New York State, Warren County, and Town of Queensbury
Navigational, Fishing and Land Use Laws. Similarly, ‘The Glen Lake Watershed
Management Plan’, adopted by the Town of Queensbury (1988), recommends that
development within this Critical Environmental Area should be controlled in order to
minimize negative environmental impacts. Our shoreline is already overdeveloped. The
GLPA does not support adding lots beyond those allowed by Town Zoning laws and codes.
Due to a previous commitment, I was unable to attend this meeting. I ask that you please
read this letter at the meeting and into the minutes. Respectfully, Paul Derby President,
Glen Lake Protective Association”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Let me ask the members to offer their
comments concerning. Would you like to comment on that letter? You certainly may.
MR. SPERRY-Well, he’s concerned with subdivision. He thinks that we’re going to put
more houses or something on there. These houses are existing houses that are there now.
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MRS. SPERRY-We’ve had a 99 year use of this land. It was my mother’s. Years ago that’s
all they said. You can use it for 99 years. That’s why when, you know, my step-father was
going to sell the place, we couldn’t do anything but buy it.
MR. SPERRY-To protect our own property.
MRS. SPERRY-We have a pontoon boat and use the lake and everything, and I have for 65
years. Now why am I going to change anything?
MR. ABBATE-Is there anything else you’d like to offer?
MR. URRICO-I don’t understand. We’re starting with four lots and we’re ending up with
three, and that letter says the opposite.
MR. BRYANT-I know.
MR. ABBATE-We don’t want to preposition ourselves, Ladies and Gentlemen. Let me
continue on and ask if Mrs. Hunt would have any comment concerning Area Variance No. 89-
2005?
MRS. HUNT-Well, I see, since there’ll be no more building, and we’re going from four to
three, I have no problem with this.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. May I go to Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I suspect I’m going to be in the minority, but that’s okay. I think
this is a case where there is zoning in place. The zoning says 150 feet frontage for each home,
and I have to conclude that the intent was to reduce the pressure on the shoreline and on the
lake by restricting the number of homes that had direct access to the lake. Now how valid
that thought plan is or not, I’m not sure, but looking at that, from that viewpoint, even the
one lot that’s there now has less than the required shoreline frontage. So, to split it into half
and make it worse in that case, I think it may be a mistake. So on that basis, I’m going to
stand on the zoning and be opposed to this proposal.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Well, I just see this as a good option. I think we see one acre zoning, and
we’re starting with basically three substandard lots, three considerably substandard, and we
ended up with one above standard and one about where it was, and a second one very close to
being standard, and I think we’ve made an improvement. So I see this as a win for the area,
and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I live on Glen Lake and I paddle down the outlet all the time, and this
project is not located on the lake proper, it’s located on the outlet of the lake, and it really
doesn’t entail any impact on the lake whatsoever, as far as I’m concerned, and I would be in
agreement with Roy. I think that you’re creating three bigger lots that are much bigger than
the average lot size on the lake by a factor of about two or three, in most respects, and I think
that the fact that there’s already houses here, it makes sense to leave it, do as you’re
requesting here. I don’t think it’s unreasonable, and I don’t think there’s any detriment to
the lake or the neighborhood as the result of doing this. Unlike some of these other ones
we’ve heard tonight, where the lots are miniscule, these lots don’t reflect that, and it’s pretty
flat back there, too.
MR. SPERRY-That’s another reason for getting rid of Lot Four, was we didn’t want a house
right in front of our house. So, I mean, that lot was buildable. It’s almost a half an acre. We
decided we wanted to cut it up and put it into the other lot.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-I’m going to agree with Mr. McNulty. He’s going to be in the minority.
Actually, I think the project is refreshing. I understand what he’s saying about the frontage
on the lake. However, the fact that he is, I think they’re mitigating that whole situation by
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
reducing the number of lots down to three from four. So that’s less density and it’s really
good planning. So I’d be totally in favor of it. It’s the first good project I’ve seen tonight.
MRS. SPERRY-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, it’s up to me, now. I would agree with Mr. Urrico that it’s
refreshing, and in fact what you’re attempting to do, knowingly or unknowingly, is really
come into more compliance than it was before, which I think is a pretty darn good thing.
However, my approval is going to be based on the stipulation that there be no further
development of any type on this property, and you indicated earlier that you would accept
that condition.
MR. SPERRY-I would, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, under that circumstance then, I’m going to ask if there is a
motion for Area Variance No. 89-2005.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-2005 DAVID & GERTRUDE SPERRY,
Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
13 Dineen Road, Glen Lake. The applicant is proposing to take four contiguous lots which
now total 2.812 acres, and reconfigure the lots which would result in three new lot sizes, one
1.201 acres for Parcel 1, .704 acre for Parcel Two, and .908 acres for Parcel Three. In doing
so, the applicant is requesting relief from the one acre minimum lot size requirement for
Parcel Three per 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Also 90 feet of relief from the 150 foot
minimum lot water frontage for Parcel One per 179-4-080 for the WR-1A zone, and then 86
feet of relief from the 150 foot minimum lot water frontage for Parcel Three per the same 179-
4-080 Waterfront Residential 1A zone. In doing so, the applicant has demonstrated that they
passed the test, which means the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the
applicant. The only way this could be achieved in a better way would be to divide it smaller,
but it can’t be. There are already three houses on this total acreage, and the same number of
houses are going to remain on this total acreage. Whether there’s an undesirable change to
the neighborhood character or nearby properties. Again, there is essentially no change.
We’ve ended up with the same three houses on the same total acreage. Request may be
considered substantial in some respects, but I think actually this is making these lots more
compliant than what was there before, and the request should not have any adverse physical
or environmental effects, and the alleged difficulty is self-created but in a beneficial way. I
move that we approve this Area Variance.
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 89-2005 is five no versus one no. Before,
however, I finalize this motion, I wish to advise the appellant of the following. Now, I know
you’re not an attorney, so I’m to say this slow so that you really and truly understand what
I’m saying. I want to remind you that this approval is going to be with conditions, and you
have agreed to accept the conditions as part of this approval, and the condition will be that
there be no further development of any type on these properties contained in this motion. Do
you consent to this condition?
MRS. SPERRY-Yes.
MR. SPERRY-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let the record show that the appellant comprehends what I’ve just
said and they consent to this condition. Based upon the consent of this condition, Area
Variance No. 89-2005 is approved.
MRS. SPERRY-Thank you.
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. SPERRY-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-2005 SEQRA TYPE II RPS PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC
AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERINGS, PLLC OWNER(S): RPS PROPERTY
HOLDINGS, LLC ZONING MU (MAIN STREET) LOCATION 17 MAIN STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,075 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE
EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING (ADIRONDACK REHAB MEDICINE)
[JORGENSEN]. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PARKING LOT REQUIREMENTS,
SPECIFICALLY, NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, DRIVE AISLE WIDTH, AND PARKING
SPACE DIMENSIONS. CROSS REF. SPR 68-2005, BP 2005-109 ALTERATIONS, BP 99-216
ALTERATIONS, BP 7368 REMOVE STORAGE SHED WARREN CO. PLANNING
DECEMBER 14, 2005 LOT SIZE 0.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-11 SECTION 179-4-
040
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 91-2005, RPS Property Holdings, LLC, Meeting Date:
December 21, 2005 “Project Location: 17 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: The
applicant proposes a 1,075 sq. ft. addition to the existing medical office building.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 3 additional parking spaces, in excess of the allowed 13 (11 required x
20% overage).
1.3’ of relief from the required 24’ drive aisle width for 65-feet in length.
1.25’ of relief from the required 18’ length for (7) parking spaces.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 60-2005: Pending, 10/25/05.
BP 2005-377: Issued 7/5/05 for septic alteration.
BP 2005-224: Issued 5/3/05 for commercial, interior alterations.
Staff comments:
The proposed addition will eliminate 6 parking spaces, which will be relocated to the rear of
the site. An additional 5 parking spaces in the front of the site will be eliminated
permanently, “remove pavement; seed, mulch, and fertilize to grass”. The latter change, will
be in keeping with the Main St. design guidelines, per § 179-7-030. Thus, the relief sought for
3 spaces in excess of the allowable 13, for a total 16 parking spaces, is less than the existing 21
spaces on site.
The relief requested for deficient drive access width is for the first 60-feet from the front
property line back to the extent of the addition. Correspondingly, the relief sought for the
length of the parking stalls is for the 7 parking spaces in this same area. Attached is a letter
from the Fire Marshal indicating that the proposed dimension of the access drive is
satisfactory (Mike Palmer, 11/23/05).”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
December 14, 2005 Project Name: RPS Property Holdings, LLC Owner: RPS Property
Holdings, LLC ID Number: QBY-AV-91 County Project#: Dec05-23 Current Zoning: MU
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,075
sq. ft. addition to the existing medical office building (Adirondack Rehab Medicine). Relief
requested from parking requirements, number of parking spaces, drive aisle width, and
parking space dimensions. Site Location: 17 Main Street Tax Map Number(s): 309.11-2-11
Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes construction of a 1,075 sq. ft. addition to
the existing medical office building (Adirondack Rehab Medicine). Relief requested from
parking lot requirements, specifically, number of parking spaces, drive aisle width, and
parking space dimensions. The information submitted indicates the number of parking spaces
required is 11 where the applicant proposes 16, the drive aisle required is 24 and 22.7 ft. is
proposed, and the parking space is required to be 18 ft. and 16.75 ft. is proposed. The data
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
also indicates the site is 45% permeable where only 30% is required. Staff does not identify
an impact on County resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no
county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by
Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 12/22/05.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening.
MR. ABBATE-Good evening.
MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin engineers, for the record, not an attorney. To
my right is Sean Jorgenson. To my left is Todd Jorgenson. In light of the hour, I won’t go
into any further description unless there’s questions. I think it should be fairly clear.
MR. ABBATE-All right. In that case, then, let me go on to the Board members and ask the
Board members if indeed they do have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 91-2005?
It appears that none of the Board members have any questions. So I’m going to open up the
public hearing, and I’m going to look at the public and ask if anyone in the public wishes to
speak?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-If not, I’m going to move on and ask the Board members if they would like to
present their positions and their comments concerning your Area Variance, and I’d like to
start with, if I may, Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I think the fact that we’re going from 21 spaces to 16 is an
improvement, and I like the idea of the plantings in the front. There really isn’t much you
would need with that much parking. You’re kind of hemmed in there with the two other
businesses and I think it’ll be an improvement in the aesthetics, and I’m in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to ask, that green space in the front of
the building, is that consistent with the Main Street concept there?
MR. JARRETT-My understanding is yes, and I’ll ask Staff if they concur.
MR. BRYANT-Because I think in the Main Street concept, all the buildings have got to be so
that they’re three feet away from any cars that are traveling in the corridor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, they don’t want parking in the front, like in the old days, you
know, parking behind.
MR. JARRETT-And we’re staying behind the build to line on that Main Street.
MRS. BARDEN-And a lot of those comments about the design guidelines for Main Street are
incorporated in the Staff notes for the Planning Board.
MR. BRYANT-I’m in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-It seems like a reasonable proposal. If this were parking for a shopping
center or something, I’d have problems reducing the parking space size and the drive aisle,
but in this case, where it’s for one specific business if, you will, or practice, I think we have to
rely on the judgment of the people that are running that operation to say that this will be
adequate for their use, and given that, I have no problem with it. So I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with the request.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico, please.
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
MR. URRICO-I’d be in favor of it as well.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and I would as well, and, having said that, I am going to ask if there is
a motion for Area Variance No. 91-2005.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 91-2005 RPS PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
17 Main Street. They’re proposing a 1,075 square foot addition to the existing medical office
building, and the relief they’re requiring is as follows: They’re requesting three additional
parking spaces in excess of the allowed 13. They’re also requesting 1.3 feet of relief from the
required 24 foot drive aisle width for 65 feet in length, and they’re requesting 1.25 feet of
relief from the required 18 feet length for seven parking spaces. The only concern that the
Town had was with the Fire Marshal, and he signed off on this as being fine with him. This
would be in keeping with the Main Street Guidelines with the establishment of green space in
the front and parking in the rear. So we’re all for it.
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 91-2005 is six yes, and zero no. Area Variance
No. 91-2005 is approved. Ladies and gentlemen, we have some administrative stuff we have
to do tonight.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you for staying late for us.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. One of the first things we’re going to have to do.
MOTION THAT IN THE YEAR 2006 THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HAVE THE
FOLLOWING MEETINGS: JANUARY 18 & 25; FEBRUARY 15 & 22; MARCH 15 & 22;
APRIL 18 & 26; MAY 17 & 24, JUNE 21 & 28; JULY 19 & 26; AUGUST 16 & 23;
SEPTEMBER 20 & 27; OCTOBER 18 & 25; NOVEMBER 15 & 22; DECEMBER 20 & 27,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. ABBATE-The vote is six yes, zero no. So the resolution for meetings in 2006 is
approved. Now we have one other thing to do, Ladies and Gentlemen.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
October 19, 2005: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19, 2005, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
st
|
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/21/05)
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. ABBATE-The vote is six to zero to approve the minutes of the meeting.
October 26, 2005: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2005, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
Duly adopted this 21 day of December, 2005, by the following vote:
st
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. ABBATE-The minutes of the meeting of October 26, 2005 has been approved. Thank
you very much, Ladies and Gentlemen.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
59